Cllr Joanna Wright is ward member for Lambridge and is the Green Group Leader at Bath and North East Somerset Council. Published on behalf of Joanna Wright and Bath and NE somereset Green Party by Michael Coffey, c/o Ravenscroft, Sydney Road, Bath BA2 6NT
Green Group Leader, Councillor Joanna Wright, has joined other B&NES Leaders in signing a statement on behalf of the Council expressing sympathies for those affected by the Palestine-Israel conflict across the Bath and North East Somerset area. The Green Group however have sought a “Peace Motion” twice, in November 2023 and again at today’s full Council meeting (March 2024), which were ruled “out of order” and “not relevant” by the Chair of B&NES Council.
Today’s statement calls for an immediate ceasefire and peaceful resolution. It urges the release of hostages, aid delivery, and condemns antisemitic and Islamophobic violence. However, because it is a statement and not a motion to council, the statement cannot be sent from all councillors because it has not been debated and voted for at full Council.
The Green group notes that several UK authorities, including Burnley, Sheffield, Liverpool, have passed ceasefire motions. B&NES neighbours, Somerset Council and North Somerset Council, have also. While the Green group recognises the council’s limitations, it urges B&NES to do as much as it can.
Councillor Joanna Wright highlights,
“Residents are urging us to communicate with the Prime Minister and Secretary of State, emphasising the urgent need for a ceasefire in the Middle East. This request stems not only from the economic impact of the conflict on our community but, more importantly, from our shared humanity. As humans we are seeing great suffering, the suffering mostly of women and children on both sides of the conflict that is causing death, destruction, and starvation.
“The Green Group motion was clearer in its actions which included writing to government. This statement has no teeth because it does not call for the Council to write to the government and demand action be taken.”
The Green Group acknowledges the inconsistency in the Council dealings with international issues, for instance on the 25th March 2022, the Council passed the following motion regarding Ukrainian Refugee, that agreed:
“A further letter be sent to both the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary repeating this Council’s willingness to welcome Ukrainian people fleeing war and persecution in their own country and urging the UK government to act to ensure that the UK does all it can to help alleviate this humanitarian crisis.”
And today, when asked about the friendship agreement with the City of Oleksandriya in Ukraine, the Leader of the council stated that there has been regularly communicating with Mayor Kuzmenko to find ways to collaborate. Broadlands School in Keynsham has connected with a school in Oleksandriya to exchange cultures. Additionally, the friends of Oleksandriya have been linked to Bath University’s Director of Sport to establish sports connections. To commemorate the second anniversary of the conflict, B&NES held a music event at the Abbey and a party at the Guildhall. The council also flew the flags of Oleksandriya and Ukraine over the Guildhall and illuminated Pulteney Bridge with Ukrainian colours to show our support.
The Green group questions why B&NES Council hasn’t taken tangible steps towards a Peace Motion. Councillor Joanna Wright stated that:
“We live in serious times, and this requires that we step up our Leadership at a local level. I urge you Chair and Deputy Chair to reconsider your position on the Peace Motion sent to you by the Green Group and ensure that it is tabled at the next Full Council, showing clearly that the statement that you and all political group leaders have made tonight is more than gesture politics.”
To read in Full cllr Joanna Wright’s Statement made at Full council on 14th March 2024 see below
The Green Group tabled a motion for Peace to be debated at this Full Council.
This motion was rejected and we were told it was “Out of Order”.
The Greens were told that “Motions must be about matters for which Bath & North East Somerset Council has a responsibility or which affect the Council, its functions, its area or part of it or the inhabitants of that area or part of it.”
In 1.5 of the B&NES constitution, it states “Political Groups represent their communities and bring their views into the Council’s decision-making process i.e. become the spokesperson of and for their communities”
Tonight, we have heard from many local residents about why the Motion for Peace matters to them. In my opinion, this Council has failed in its function of responsibility to its inhabitants.
Last week I visited the newly opened Keynsham Recycling Depot and asked questions to Officers about the cost of buying and selling the waste generated by our residents. It was clearly stated that the prices B&NES has to calculate are affected by the volatile market which presently is being affected by the conflict in the Middle East.
Again, it’s clear that the ‘Out of Order’ Motion relates directly to a matter for which the B&NES council holds direct responsibility – rubbish and the cost of it. Or am I missing the point of spending £34 million on a new recycling centre and the work that it undertakes?
We all know that local democracy is the grassroots of all that we do in society, that’s why we are councillors. It would appear that all political groups support the government to deliver devolved power to give citizens more powers to ensure that decisions are made closer to the local people, communities and businesses they affect.
And our role is to ensure that the voices of local people are heard.
Residents are urging us to communicate with the Prime Minister and Secretary of State, emphasising the urgent need for a ceasefire in the Middle East. This request stems not only from the economic impact of the conflict on our community but, more importantly, from our shared humanity. As humans we are seeing great suffering, the suffering mostly of women and children on both sides of the conflict that is causing death, destruction and starvation.
Our humanity as councillors is not an economic equation alone, our humanity as councillors is to ensure that a message of solidarity is sent out loud and clear that it is unacceptable to as the UN Resolution 3318 states:
“Attacking and bombing the civilian population, inflicting incalculable suffering, especially on women and children, who are the most vulnerable members of the population, shall be prohibited, and such acts shall be condemned.”
Other councils in the UK, like Burnley, Sheffield, Liverpool, Bradford, Oxford, Midlothian, Preston, Aberdeen, and Kirklees, haven’t just talked about the conflict in Gaza, they have acted by passing motions.
We live in serious times and this requires that we step up our Leadership at a local level. I urge you Chair and Deputy Chair to reconsider your position on the Peace Motion sent to you by the Green Group and ensure that it is tabled at the next Full Counci clearly showing that the statement that you and all political group leaders have made tonight is more than gesture politics.
Question from Cllr Joanna Wright: An amendment has been put forward for a school street in this and last year’s budget. We were given an assurance that a school street was being developed for 2023/24. This did not happen. Again, an amendment was put forward this month for a school street as there were none in the 2024/25 budget. At the council meeting on the 20th February, Cllr Elliott declared that B&NES was going to implement a school street and that meetings were in place deciding this an the funds for it. I repeat there are no school streets listed in the budget papers. The importance of the right measures for children to get to school safely are necessary, because B&NES needs to ensure the correct business case to get CRSTS funding, but more than that because all our children deserve safe routes to school. Presently, there are no school streets in B&NES, and none programmed into the 2024/25 budge. A “soft school street” is not a “school street”. Where is the documentation evidencing what Cllr Elliott has stated at the council meeting on 20th Feb, is this information publicly available? Accordingly, what school is to have a school street in B&NES as stated by Cllr Elliott at Full Council?
Answer from Cllr Sarah Warren
Cleaner, greener, school travel is a key element of the Journey to Net Zero and we are committed to delivering a range of schemes which will support children to travel to school by active modes of transport. As mentioned by Cllr Elliott in the Budget and Council Tax meeting on the 20th February, £250,000 of funding from the Clean Air Zone (CAZ) reserve has been allocated to develop a School Streets programme. The spending allocations from the CAZ reserve are reported on an annual basis with the next report due to be published this summer. We are currently undertaking a prioritisation exercise to inform which school will be selected for an initial trial scheme in financial year 2024/25. We then anticipate expanding the programme further if future funding becomes available. We will provide further updates on the School Streets programme as they become available.
2. Question from cllr Joanna Wright: B&NES council has spent considerable officer time designing a Zebra crossing in Mount Road, with the full knowledge that this infrastructure design is not supported by the City Region Sustainable Transport Settlement (CRSTS) funding guidelines. Southlands and Church Street could get funding for crossings through the CRSTS because of the modal filters delivered at these locations. Would officer time have been better spent by designing appropriate infrastructure that would be supported by CRSTS funding?
Answer from Cllr Manda Rigby
The Zebra crossing in Mount Road will be funded from the council’s internal highways funding, not CRSTS.
3. Question from Cllr Joanna Wright:
Lambridge Ward members have put forward a proforma for a Liveable Neighbourhood and have regularly asked to be supported on changes to the highway due to through traffic and children attending schools and play groups in the ward. B&NES has decided not to progress this proforma, so now this means that no CRSTS funding can be delivered in Lambridge. How are Cabinet Members making decisions to ensure that all wards are supported and have the public purse spent on much needed transport infrastructure that will reduce the demand by council to all residents to cut vehicle miles by 25% per person by 2030?
Answer from Cllr Manda Rigby
As outlined in Single Member Decision E3285 (Liveable Neighbourhoods), the application for a Liveable Neighbourhood (LN) in the Lambridge Ward was not included in the initial 15 LN areas as it was considered that the issues in this area are complex and a potential scheme would benefit from experience gained from implementing other LNs beforehand. While the Lambridge application was not successful in this initial allocation of funding for the Liveable Neighbourhood programme, subject to future funding, we anticipate being able to open up further rounds of applications. We would welcome interest from any wards that were not selected for this initial phase of the programme at the appropriate time and will use lessons learnt during ‘phase 1’ of the LN programme to inform this. The Council is delivering significant programme of interventions, committing unprecedented levels of funding, over the course of the next three years to enable more travel choices across our community, in support of our ambitious target to be net zero by 2030. The liveable neighbourhoods programme is one strand of the overall programme of interventions planned. Robust processes are in place to ensure that the schemes proposed contribute to the overall aims of the Council and meet the needs of our communities. To ensure transparency and visibility to our communities of the proposed programme of interventions, the Council is currently developing a Transport Action Plan, due to be published later in the summer.
4. Question from Cllr Saskia Heijltjes: Please can you explain the duties and penalties on the Council regarding the legal duty to make the road safe as per Section 39 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, how does this duty impact the provision on safe routes to school, pedestrian and cycle safety?
Answer from Cllr Manda Rigby
Section 39 of the Road Traffic Act places a duty upon local highway authorities to carry out measures to promote road safety, to carry out studies into traffic collisions and to take appropriate action as a result of such studies to prevent future collisions. It also requires local highway authorities to take measures to reduce the possibility of collisions when building new roads. The legislation makes no reference to penalties with respect to this duty.
The council fulfils this duty in a number of ways. Primarily, it regularly receives collision data from the police which officers analyse to identify causes of collisions and identify what measures could be taken to help prevent further collisions. This may take the form of engineering measures on roads, road safety education to school children, working with partner agencies such as the police to share intelligence about speeding issues or other matters, and road safety campaigns. When highway improvement schemes are being designed, road safety audits are undertaken at the design stage and after construction. These casualty reduction measures are evidence-led. This means if there is evidence of collisions on routes to school, or of collisions involving pedestrians and cyclists, then we will investigate and take action where we can to reduce such collisions. The council also uses its internal highways funding to take forward highway improvement schemes to make our roads safer for pedestrians and cyclists even where there is no history of collisions. We aim to be proactive in making our roads safer, not just being reactive to where collisions have occurred in the past. The CRSTS schemes under development also bring additional funding that will help to make it safer for people walking and cycling.
What groups of councillors are making sure everyone knows this advice? How does the council define “safety”? And how do council officers decide if a road is safe?
Answer from Cllr Manda Rigby
The Cabinet Member is not responsible for issuing guidance produced by other organisations. An information pack was produced and sent to new councillors last year which covered many council services including Highways together with contact details for queries about traffic management and road safety issues. We do not have a definition for ‘safety’ and we do not define or categorise roads as ‘safe’ or ‘unsafe’. Our Road Safety team looks at collision data to identify where there are issues and determines what action is appropriate. In many cases the road environment is not a factor as to why a collision has occurred. People’s behaviour, vehicle condition and driver or rider experience can be factors too. Making our roads safer involves a variety of initiatives and measures, many of which are outside of the council’s control.
“Help and guidance on how to plan and conduct evaluations of road safety programmes is available at http://www.roadsafetyevaluation.com, which contains an interactive road safety evaluation toolkit called E-valu-it to help road safety practitioners plan, carry out and report theresults of road safety evaluations.”
What evaluations have taken place on the modal filters placed in B&NES through the Liveable Neighbourhood Programme?
Answer from Cllr Manda Rigby
The designs for the Liveable Neighbours schemes go through an internal technical approval process. This enables officers from various highways and transportation teams in the council to comment, including road safety considerations. Formal road safety audits are also carried out by qualified road safety auditors who are independent of the designers. These audits are undertaken at design stage and post- construction. In addition to this, the West of England Combined Authority has its own procedures, as part-funder of the initiative.
7. Question from Cllr Sam Ross: Many councillors are repeatedly getting post from residents complaining about the regular missed collections of household rubbish. The answer given by the Cabinet Member for Council Priorities and Delivery consistently states this is due to driver shortages. What Leadership role are you taking to ensure that this core function is delivered? Residents are starting to get very angry and see this as a basic service not being fulfilled by this administration.
Answer from Cllr Tim Ball
It would be useful to have specific detail so that individual issues can be identified.
1. There were a total of 200 missed collections of refuse reported in January across some 2 collection cycles (i.e. 200 missed out of 170,000 total individual collections) which was most likely to be the result of the increase in volumes over the post xmas catchup period.
2. There were no driver issues reported during this period
Other non refuse collections:
Since Xmas 2023, the daily missed collection reports have either highlighted missed collections due to capacity issues, vehicle breakdownor operational issues.
There have been a number of issues with missed/ late garden waste collections which are the result of 2 factors:
· The removal of one garden Waste round from January – March as agreed with councillors due to the requirement for in year cost savings
· The mild weather resulting in an unexpected volume of garden waste when which compounded with the suspension of one collection round have put additional pressure on the garden service.
There have been a number of narrow access recycling truck breakdowns since xmas which has been due to the age of the fleet (these vehicles are due to be replaced by Sept this year 2024).
We are not experiencing driver shortages at the present time.
8. Question from Cllr Sam Ross: On 19 January 2024 B&NES Council sent out a press statement which said: “A property owner who undertook unauthorised works to a Grade II* Listed building has been fined following a prosecution by Bath & North East Somerset Council’s planning enforcement team.”
If the Council commits similar criminal offences that is, to carry out work to a listed building owned by the Council without consent, will these offences be reported to the Police, and will a prosecution follow?
Answer from Cllr Paul Roper
The question put forward is a complex jurisdiction matter. It is an offence to carry out unauthorised works to a listed building under Section 9 of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. Those powers are delegated to Officers within the Council to prosecute. The Council would seek to work and cooperate with the appropriate agencies should the Council breach the legislation. The Council cannot comment as to whether any prosecution would follow. The Council endeavours to ensure that all due diligence is carried out with any work undertaken by Council Officers or by external contractors and places great importance on the preservation of its unique historic environment.
9. Question from Cllr Sam Ross: The Children and Adults Health and Wellbeing Scrutiny panel on 15 January unanimously voted to delay proposed council budget cuts to not-for-profit sector services of some £802K until the consequences are better understood, was requested. The Council budget on the 20 February 2024 voted in favour of these cuts to services.
Julian House in Bath has stated, “The human cost of these cuts is undeniable, and the ripple effects will impact every person living in B&NES – eroding community cohesion and economic stability, as well as putting the social services we all share under even greaterpressure than they already are.” What actions will the Council be taking to ensure that the most vulnerable in our community are supported by the budget decisions?
Answer from Cllr Alison Born and Matt McCabe
The budget savings will be phased over a two-year period so that the savings are made carefully, in a targeted way and in collaboration with third sector partners. Third sector partners will see no reduction in funding until we have engaged with them.
10. Question from Grace Wiltshire: Please can you explain why Mount Road is getting a raised zebra crossing instead of a school street?
Answer from Cllr Manda Rigby
The development of the Mount Road Liveable Neighbourhood was a result of extensive co-design and engagement with the local community. We have taken the decision to prioritise the installation of a new zebra crossing as this was one of the measures identified during the co-design that would improve walking and wheeling in this area. This improved crossing forms one part of the wider Liveable Neighbourhood that has been developed.
11. Question from Grace Wiltshire:
Due to Council rules this question had to be changed from:
Under an FOI it has been ascertained that 16 councillors hold paper parking permits: They are Alison Born, Deborah Collins, Paul Crossley, Mark Eilliot, Kevin Guy, Alan Hale, Liz Hardman, Steve Hedges, Joel Hirst, Ruth Malloy, Paul May, Matthew McCabe, Dine Romero, Paul Roper, Shaun Stevenson-McGall and David Wood.
As the council has declared a Climate Emergency and is demanding that all residents cut vehicle miles by 25% per person by 2030, how is the Council thorough elected memberships showing leadership on this issue?
To:
Under a Freedom of Information request it has been ascertained that 16 councillors hold paper parking permits. As the council has declared a Climate Emergency and is demanding that all residents cut vehicle miles by 25% per person by 2030, how is the Council thorough elected memberships showing leadership on this issue?
Do you to Council rules this question had to be changed
Answer from Cllr Kevin Guy
Councillors may use a permit to park in B&NES-owned car parks and RPZ areas whilst using their car for official duties. This is of particular importance for evening meetings for example. However, Councillors will choose the most appropriate means of transport for each journey they make on Council business and will prioritise sustainable modes of transport and car-sharing. In addition, B&NES Council has embraced the use of virtual and hybrid meetings which reduce the need for business travel.
12. Question from Grace Wiltshire:
Due to Council rules this question had to be changed from
Regarding the paper parking permits, it’s observed that Cllr Paul Roper and Cllr Deborah Collins received paper permits in 2023. Were all newly elected councillors given this option? If not, what determined which councillors were offered paper permits and which were not?
TO:
Regarding the paper parking permits, it’s observed that two councillors received paper permits in 2023. Were all newly elected councillors given this option? If not, what determined which councillors were offered paper permits and which were not?
Answer from Cllr Kevin Guy
All councillors were able to request a parking permit as part of the induction process after the May 2023 election. Councillors are strongly encouraged to use the MiPermit electronic system but if requested, councillors can be given a paper permit.
13. Question from Liam Kirby and Dom Tristram: Radstock Town Centre finds itself under several inches of water due to rainfall with increasing frequency. Meanwhile, the arrangement of the centre as a circulatory road system prioritises the experience of drivers passing through over the safety and convenience of Radstock residents using the town centre on foot. While the suggestions in the Regeneration Plan are welcome, could consideration be given to more radical efforts to significantly reimagine the town centre to address these problems? For example, a bus gate, removing through-traffic on the street from Fortescue Road to the Frome Road roundabout, would do a lot to reclaim public space for the people of Radstock, and also create room for more ambitious blue-green flood mitigation infrastructure, “greening up” and tree planting.
Answer from Cllrs Paul Roper and Sarah Warren
B&NES recognises and acknowledges the need to do more to improve conditions for active and sustainable transport within Radstock town centre. Currently, given its location at the confluence of two major A roads, the town centre is dominated by traffic. This can create a barrier to those wishing to walk, wheel or cycle as well as contributing to increased noise and poor air quality levels in the town. As part of the new Local plan, we will build on the transport improvements set out in the Radstock regeneration plan. This will include a detailed investigation into how the highway network currently operates in Radstock as well as the options available and the improvements that can be made in order to make a step change in the conditions for those travelling via active and sustainable modes around the town.
14. Question from Liam Kirby and Dom Tristram: With the projects at the Old Paint Works and Trinity Church now both looking to significantly improve the cultural offer in Radstock, there is a great opportunity to seize the opportunity of growing a real creative scene in the area. House prices in the area are (relatively) low, so potentially attractive to creative professionals. Could the ideas in Project 4 (Brownfield sites) be shifted more to use of spaces for creative pursuits (workshops, studio space, rehearsal space) over generic office/retail? This could significantly reduce the necessary investment required to get spaces “up and running” compared to requiring full fit-outs for more commercially-minded use.
Answer from Cllr Paul Roper
It is great to see the Old Print Works Arts now open in Radstock, with the Trinity Church purchase by Radstock Town Council also progressing. This administration has supported both projects through our work on the Radstock Town Centre Regeneration Action Plan and associated grant funding. The brownfield sites identified in project 4 of the Action Plan are predominantly in third party ownership, so ongoing discussions with landowners will be essential. They can come forward for a range of uses in line with town centre planning policies in place both nationally and locally including those mentioned, subject to viability and securing planning consent if/where needed. We have sought to test various options to see what might be viable through the Action Plan to actively encourage their reuse.
15. Question from Liam Kirby: Radstock is generously served with cycle paths toward Frome, Bath, and Midsomer Norton, and is on National Cycle Route 24. It has the potential to be a real “hub” for cyclists – if you’ll excuse the pun. However, when cyclists arrive in town, they are presented with unclear, dangerous, and inadequate links between the routes. While the wayfinding ideas in the Regeneration Plan will certainly improve matters, without safe segregated cycle routes through the centre to connect the paths, the town will remain a danger to cyclists and an impediment to improving cycling uptake. At the November 2023 Full Cabinet meeting, the Council unanimously passed the Vision Zero Motion which advocates for safe speeds, street design improvements, behaviour modifications, and enhanced post-collision response to eliminate traffic fatalities and severe injuries. How will the council ensure that Vision Zero is implemented to ensure that those wheeling and walking through the centre of Radstock will be protected?
Answer from Cllr Sarah Warren
Improvements to walking, wheeling and cycling in Radstock have been identified through our Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan (LCWIP) which can be viewed here. We are also currently developing our Active Travel Masterplan which will provide a framework for plans to improve active travel links across the district. We will continue to investigate future funding opportunities to implement the routes in the LCWIP and Active Travel Masterplan.
16. Question from Anne Coghlan: In Cabinet Paper E3502, it states that:
“The Service will use the carbon baseline work undertaken during 2023 to inform its ongoing response to the climate and ecological emergency. The actions required to achieve net zero by 2030 will be set out and costed during 2024.” What baseline world has been undertaken and how will the 2030 deadline be achieved?
Answer from Cllr Paul Roper
We commissioned the Bath based firm 3ADAPT to work with us to deliver an assessment of the Service’s Carbon Baseline. This assessment is attached. We are now working with 3Adapt to develop an action plan to understand the measures we need to take to achieve net zero by 2030. As noted in the business plan this will be explored over the remainder of 2024 and the implications of this considered in the 25/26 Business Planning cycle. We are about to advertise for a staff member to lead on our environmental action plan work which will help move this forward with more vigour over 24/25.
17. Question from Anne Coghlan: Mount Rd and Lyme Rd Liveable Neighbourhoods are highly unlikely to receive funding through CRSTS, because they do not follow funding criteria. How are Liveable Neighbourhoods going to be funded if CRSTS money doesn’t come through?
Answer from Cllr Manda Rigby
All of the Liveable Neighbourhoods submitted in the Full Business Case (FBC) will meet the funding requirements of the Combined Authority. We have secured the early release of CRSTS funding to implement an initial element of the Lyme Road/Charmouth Road LN. Any Liveable Neighbourhoods not included in this FBC will be considered for introduction using future funding as this becomes available.
18. Question from Anne Coghlan: In the Budget it states that WECA funding for LoveYourHighStreet is being welcomed in many quarters in B&NES. Lambridge Ward has the thriving local shops of Larkhall Square where many traders are concerned by the threat of developments in the local area. What action will the council take to support “Larkhall Square” traders to ensure that this vibrant shopping quarter remains in place?
Answer from Cllr Paul Roper
Larkhall local centre is identified and protected in the B&NES Local Plan. While it is not currently one of the four local high street improvement pilot areas which form part of the current WECA funded Love our High Streets, it is possible that this scheme could be extended by the grant funders in which case we will look to prioritise funding to areas of need. If there are specific improvements being sought by the community, we encourage dialogue with us to see what funding opportunities can be identified to help deliver these. There are additionally opportunities for traders and businesses in Larkhall to benefit from the Council’s business support programmes more information can be found on our Business and Skills webpages
19. Question from Barbara Gordon: Could the Council confirm that any new EV charging infrastructure will not be placed on pavements?
Answer from Cllr Sarah Warren
New public EV charging infrastructure (EVI) has so far been built by B&NES off-street in council car parks. As we move to building new public EVI on-street a minority may need to be located in the footway. However, we are setting specifications to ensure best possible pedestrian access in these circumstances. More specifically, B&NES will be utilising the Local Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (LEVI) fund from HMG to roll out on-street residential EVI across the district at scale. In developing a technical specification for this EVI we have defined the primary location for the charging device to be in the kerbside carriageway. However, in recognition of the range of sites across the district and their varying localised context, we have identified a secondary option of locating EVI charging devices at the kerbside of the footway. In that case we have stipulated a minimum footway width needs to remain to allow footway user accessibility, in line with DfT best practice guide “Inclusive Mobility” (2021). Each EVI location will be reviewed by B&NES officers to ensure it is appropriate, meets specifications and provides accessibility for both drivers and pedestrians.
20. Question from Barbara Gordon:
I understand that Councils can refuse planning permission if a development is likely to clash with provisions in ‘emerging’ Local Plans, even in locations where the plan has not yet been adopted. BANES states that in the currently developing Local Plan that: ‘The Council has not undertaken the detailed further assessment that is required to ascertain the degree of harm of smaller non-strategic sites, such as some of the component land parcels of this previously proposed allocation. There will be other non-strategic sites in different parts of the city too. The suitability of these sites and any other sites put forward as part of this consultation will need to be assessed as part of the preparation of the Draft Local Plan.’
Planning applications for development are determined in accordance with the adopted Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The Local Planning Authority can apply some weight to policies in emerging Local Plans dependent on the stage of plan preparation reached, the extent of any unresolved objections and degree of conformity with national policy. The Local Plan options document is at a very early stage in its preparation and does not include policies. Therefore, only very limited weight would be applied to it in decision-making. There are a range of policies in the adopted Development Plan (principally the Core Strategy, Placemaking Plan and Local Plan Partial Update) that will be used in decision making which relate to the scale, form and design of development in the city. These policies enable the Council, as a Local planning Authority, to refuse applications for inappropriate development in environmentally sensitive areas of Bath. Each application is determined on its own merits against these policies. For information the section of the Options document that is quoted relates to the consideration of whether any smaller non-strategic sites on the edge of the city, including the lower slopes of land adjoining Weston, could be suitable for development particularly in the context of environmental sensitivity e.g. relating to impact on the World Heritage Site and its setting and the Cotswolds National Landscape. These sites will be considered very carefully in progressing the emerging Local Plan towards the next stage in its preparation. We are transparent in terms of the sites/locations we have considered and why we have rejected some and not proposed them as options. The process is summarised in a Topic Paper (see link below). The Topic Paper refers to two main assessment documents that set out why we have rejected some sites i.e. the HELAA (Hosing and Economic Land Availability Assessment) and an Areas of Search Assessment https://beta.bathnes.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Topic%20Paper%20Strategic%20Development%20Locations.pdfhttps://beta.bathnes.gov.uk/document-and-policy-library/local-plan-options-evidence-base-draft-housing-and-economic-landhttps://beta.bathnes.gov.uk/document-and-policy-library/local-plan-options-evidence-base-strategic-place-assessments
On Tuesday, the Green Group had the opportunity to speak at the full council meeting for the first time about the Budget decisions made by the Liberal Democrats. Councillor Joanna Wright, the leader of the Green Group, used her statement to point out that despite the council’s claims of supporting the community, many people in B&NES are still facing issues like unemployment, inadequate housing, and poverty. Councillor Wright criticised the Budget for cutting spending instead of allocating more resources to tackle these urgent problems, which only makes things harder for those already struggling. The Green Group believes there should be a clearer and fairer process for deciding the Budget.
Councillor Wright stressed that simply attributing budget cuts to central government isn’t sufficient. She pointed out a lack of transparency and cooperation within the Liberal Democrat’s decision-making, evidenced through the proposed £802k cut to important third-party organisations. The delays in making these cuts demonstrate that concerns regarding Budget transparency are broad.
Concerns were also raised about subsidies for buses, with Councillor Wright saying, “This Budget overlooks the annual Transport Levy paid by B&NES to WECA for subsidised buses, which remains unchanged at £5.195 million from last year’s £5.195 million.
“There’s a lack of awareness by the council that inflation has increased travel and staffing expenses.
“As a result, this Budget falls short of ensuring subsidised buses on crucial routes, which is essential for those with limited transport access. It’s clearly another budget cut.”
The inconsistency between the council’s promises and actions underscores the need for a review of the Budget. Councillor Wright highlighted this concern again over the consideration on Liveable Neighbourhoods without a Circulation Plan, she noted, “While roadblocks have been put in place, there’s still no Circulation Plan for Bath or North East Somerset, which could quickly make neighbourhoods better places to live for many.”
Transparency issues were further emphasised regarding the allocation of resources, with questions raised about the use of public funds, particularly regarding a council-owned company’s expenditures on property acquisition. Councillor Wright highlights, “The Greens wonder why Aequus, a company owned by the Council, spent £3.02 million to buy 22 family homes, but building 5 two-bedroom and 3 one-bedroom council flats on Lower Bristol Road will cost £3.2 million.
“There’s uncertainty about public money usage, especially with the council spending over a million a year on temporary housing. Additionally, concerns arise because the Leader of this council is the sole shareholder at B&NES for Aequus.”
Green Councillor Saskia Heijltjes also stressed the need to reevaluate Budget priorities to ensure inclusivity for all residents of B&NES. She notes that the Budget disproportionately focuses on Bath City Centre, widely neglecting Bath and Northeast Somerset.
Green Councillor Sam Ross shares concerns about the Council’s neglect of rural communities. She highlights the implementation of parking charges in rural areas like Midsomer Norton and Radstock has unintended consequences including detrimental effects on businesses and residents. The Green Group contends that the Budget inadequately addresses or accurately assesses the full impact of their proposals.
To address these concerns, the Green Group proposes two amendments to the Budget Council, focusing on implementing school streets and reforming councillor parking permits.
School streets, which restrict traffic during school pick-up and drop-off, are vital for enhancing road safety, air quality, and promoting active travel among children. With a significant percentage of morning trips related to education and many parents concerned about traffic speeds near schools, implementing school streets in B&NES is imperative for ensuring safer and healthier transportation options for children.
The Green Group Leader, Councillor Joanna Wright, notes: “Last year in the 2023/24 Council budget meeting 32 Liberal Democrats voted against the Green Party Amendment for a School Street in B&NES, promising that school streets were going to be delivered in some form in the next budget.
“To date we see no delivery of a school street in B&NES and only the suggestion of ‘soft school street’ options and £40K for school improvements to the smallest school in B&NES, which does not suffer from through traffic.”
Additionally, the Green Group underscores the importance of equity in transportation policies, proposing an end to paper parking permits for councillors and discontinuing free parking in Bath for councillors representing wards within the city of Bath while performing official duties. These changes are necessary to demonstrate that councillors should not receive privileges above residents regarding transportation and to align with the council’s commitments to address the climate emergency and promote sustainable travel options.
Councillor Saskia Heijltjes, adds: “I understand councillors have busy schedules and need to get around efficiently, but as leaders, we should also be willing to change our transportation habits to set a better example.”
During the Budget Council, Councillor Mark Elliot called the Green Group’s amendment “a stunt” without responding to our proposal to cease an outdated practice that is lacking in transparency.
The amendment received 40 votes against, 3 for (the Green Councillors) and 7 abstentions, and therefore was unsuccessful.
The Green Group would like to thank the Section 151 Officer and his team for the work put into this report.
B&NES has core policies centred on prevention, delivering for local residents, preparing for the future, tackling the climate and ecological emergency, and giving people a bigger say. These strategies should guide all our actions.
The Liberal Democrat group has been making political decisions about where money should be spent or cut.
Meanwhile, residents of B&NES are dealing with more unemployment, more households waiting for social housing, and around 4,000 people fell into absolute poverty last year. Recent data shows a 40% rise in households in temporary accommodation.
This is a budget of cuts, referred to as ‘savings’. The Tory govt has let down all councils financially and created budgets slashed to the bone. B&NES has had few options but to take measures that will push more individuals into dire situations, possibly causing more long term financial problems. A fair and equitable solution for all residents through progressive taxation is not offered by the right wing, who see taxes and state involvement as interfering. I am still waiting to see fairness and opportunity created by the free market.
Blaming the Tories for this B&NES budget alone distracts from the choices made. The lack of collaboration by this administration has been evident in various Scrutiny meetings.
The third sector, which carries out many essential duties through Council contracts, is facing funding cuts due to this budget. Additionally, these charities and community groups were not adequately warned by B&NES about significant cuts to core services.
Despite claims by Cabinet Members that they discussed the cuts with the third sector, the response from the third sector was clear: this did not happen. They were given only 8 days’ notice, with the “consultation” occurring over the Christmas period. This approach doesn’t give communities a greater say, prioritize prevention, or improve people’s lives.
The unanimous vote by scrutiny on January 15th to delay proposed budget cuts to not-for-profit sector services until the consequences are better understood highlights the growing concerns regarding the lack of transparency in the budget-setting process.
Cuts of £802K are now set to take place over 2 years instead of 1. The Green Group urges better dialogue between B&NES and external agencies by this Lib Dem-run Council to prevent catastrophe for many residents, whose lives are already on the brink.
The Budget gives great emphasis to the £1.7 billion handed to WECA since 2017 and its positive impact for B&NES. This is somewhat surprising given the very public spats between the B&NES Leadership team and the Metro Mayor.
This budget overlooks the annual Transport Levy paid by B&NES to WECA for subsidised buses, which remains unchanged at £5.195 million from last year’s £5.195 million. . There’s a lack of awareness by the council that inflation has increased travel and staffing expenses.
In the past, the Liberal Democrats didn’t accurately predict inflation. With inflation currently at 2%, shouldn’t this budget plan for changes accordingly?
As a result, this budget falls short of ensuring subsidised buses on crucial routes, which is essential for those with limited transport access. It’s clearly another budget cut. Despite the Liberal Democrats’ advocacy for buses, there are none at any NES bus stops. The Lib Dems have prioritised pursuing government funding based on the criteria outlined by the City Regional Sustainable Transport Settlement. While we’ve seen roadblocks implemented, there’s still no Circulation Plan for Bath or North East Somerset, which could quickly transform neighbourhoods into more liveable spaces for many. It’s crucial to ensure that people feel safe walking, cycling, or using wheeling to get to school, shops, or visit friends. These habits are essential at a time when reducing car travel is crucial for addressing the Climate Emergency and public health. This is about lives, not just votes.
The Leader is the sole shareholder at B&NES for Aequus, a company wholly owned by the Council, yet it is still not clear why it has cost Aequus £3.02 million to buy 22 family homes but will cost £3.2 million to build 5 two bedroom and 3 one bedroom council flats on a level site on Lower Bristol Road? This is public money and many are unsure how well it is being spent, especially when temporary housing is now costing the council over a million a year.
This budget states that B&NEs will build 4359 affordable homes, but these are not affordable to most, what is needed is a budget to deliver social housing to ensure fairness across our communities. And remember it was under the LibDem/Tory coalition that “affordable rents” became the new normal.
This budget claims that B&NEs will construct 4359 affordable homes, but they aren’t affordable for most people. What’s really needed is a budget to provide social housing, ensuring fairness across our communities. It’s important to remember that it was under the LibDem/Tory coalition that “affordable rents” were introduced removing the emphasis on social housing.
Further 5.8.2 in this report lists the proposed disposal of 7 council owned properties including Lewis House, and 12 James Street. This asset sale appears unplanned and done to pay for capital spending approved previously, that can’t be paid for now with the budget shortfall. If so, should the capital programme (full and provisionally approved) items not be reviewed and the less urgent and effective ones delayed. For example £5m on Commercial Estate Refurbishment? The Lib Dem’s have decided to sell off the family silver, with little or no explanation to residents who own these public properties.
Money raised from the Clean Air Zone is barely documented with only a blank row showing no revenue expenditure on page 2 of Annex 1. This is not transparent politics.
The Green Party is unsure that the political strategy to focus on prevention, deliver for local residents, prepare for the future, tackle the climate and ecological emergency and give people a bigger say has been properly calculated in this budget.
Councillor Joanna Wright, the leader of the Green Group, has issued a compelling statement at the West of England Combined Authority (WECA) meeting, addressing the concerning issue of unfair train fares for 18-year-olds in education. Cllr Wright emphasised the importance of ensuring fair access to transportation for all residents, particularly young adults pursuing education in the region.
The West of England Authority has long asserted its commitment to making the region a better place to work and live through increased mobility and accessibility. However, Cllr Wright has highlighted a significant oversight in the existing transportation system that disproportionately affects a key demographic – 18-year-olds in full-time education.
Currently, students over the age of 18 traveling to school or educational establishments by train are required to pay full adult fares, even during peak times. The limited availability of discounted fares through Student Railcards and the complex authorisation process for the Scholars Scheme have placed an undue burden on students and their families.
Cllr Wright drew attention to the struggles faced by parents, such as Frances, who have encountered delays and unsatisfactory responses from Great Western Railway when seeking support for reduced fare options. Questions were raised about why Great Western Railway failed to prioritise the concerns of its customers and why there has been consistent delay in responding to such inquiries.
Addressing West of England Metro Mayor Dan Norris directly, Cllr Wright urged him to take decisive action as the leader responsible for transportation, jobs, and skills in the region. She stated:
“Dan Norris, I urge you to ensure that the West of England Authority provides comprehensive support to all educational establishments and schools. This support should empower them with the complete details of the Scholar Scheme, ensuring that no young adult, just embarking on their journey beyond school, is burdened with the responsibility of paying full train fares. These young people are often in the throes of exams, a time charged with high emotions and expectations and caught up in the expensive travel costs when they do not have full-time jobs.”
The Green Group leader also highlighted the intersectionality of the issue, linking it to the broader goals of the West of England Authority in tackling climate change and facilitating affordable housing and job opportunities. She emphasised that supporting young people in accessing affordable train travel aligns with the Authority’s core objectives.
Cllr Wright concluded by urging Metro Mayor Dan Norris to take immediate action, calling for a proper plan to ensure collaboration between Great Western Railway, local educational establishments, and schools to streamline access to the Scholars Scheme.
TO SEE THE FULL STATEMENT
Fair Fares – Cllr Joanna Wright
The West of England Authority claims its objective is to make the region a better place to work and live for all our residents.
Over many years I have repeatedly spoken to Officers at the Authority about supporting a key group of residents who have very little voice to ensure that they too have Fair Access to all that this region offers.
If you are 18 and over and are in full-time education and you travel to school or any other educational establishment by train you will have to pay full fares on your train ticket.
Student Railcards only offer discounts outside of peak times, which means if you have to travel before 10.30am to be in time for lessons only a full adult fare will suffice.
There is an alternative option called the Scholars Scheme that allows students to have a cheaper ticket and travel at peak times. However this Scholars scheme can only be authorized by the educational establishment or school. Having raised two adult children, I’ve encountered numerous parents facing challenges with their children using trains for education. Many times, these parents have struggled to receive adequate support from both the school and Great Western Railway in ensuring easy availability of these tickets.
Indeed, a concerned parent named Frances shared with me the correspondence received from Great Western Railway regarding this matter. They wrote the following to Frances:
“Sorry for further delay in coming back to you. I’ve spoken with our fares experts who have confirmed that the monthly season ticket is the best value for 18-year-olds, and there are no other products available that would reduce the cost down from this.
“Along with other operators we did lobby for the 16-17 Saver to cover 18-year-olds in full-time education but were not successful in securing this concession.
“I appreciate this won’t be the answer you were looking for, and for your patience while we investigated.”
Why did Great Western Railway not accord priority to Frances’ concern? Why do the inquiries of Great Western Railway’s customers consistently encounter a response of ‘further delay’?
What factors contributed to Great Western Railway’s inability to secure this concession successfully?
If Great Western Railway acknowledges that the response Frances received is not satisfactory, why have they not taken proactive measures to address the issue?
Metro Mayor, as Leader, you are the Transport Authority. As Leader you are also responsible for jobs and skills in the region. 18 year olds are in education to make sure that they get good jobs and help the region prosper. They are also 18 when still at school and the system in place for train journeys that forces them to make a full adult fare is not fair.
Dan Norris, I urge you to ensure that the West of England Authority provides comprehensive support to all educational establishments and schools. This support should empower them with the complete details of the Scholar Scheme, ensuring that no young adult, just embarking on their journey beyond school, is burdened with the responsibility of paying full train fares. These young people are often in the throes of exams, a time charged with high emotions and expectations and caught up in the expensive travel costs when they do not have full-time jobs.
The West of England Authority claims to be tackling climate change and helping residents secure good jobs and homes they can afford, which you state, is the heart of everything you do.
If the heart of what you do is to help residents, then I am informing you that there is a group who actively need the support to get to education using a train at a reduced fare, which not only tackles the climate emergency but also in the long run brings a better future for all in the region.
Metro Mayor, please act now and bring forward a proper plan for the West of England Authority to ensure that Great Western and local educational establishments and schools have in place a better system for accessing the Scholars scheme. Travelling by train is one of the best travel options for the environment and we need more young people to know that travelling by train is affordable and a great way to get to education. We need Leadership from you to ensure that this takes place for 18-year-olds.
In a compelling address to the Climate Emergency and Sustainability Policy Development Panel this morning, Green Group Councillor Saskia Heijltjes underscored concerns regarding the Liveable Neighbourhoods programme, emphasising the imperative for heightened proactivity, transparency, and accountability in decision-making processes.
Councillor Heijltjes articulated valid concerns about individual Experimental Traffic Regulation Orders being designated as single-member decisions, whereby decisions are already finalised without comprehensive details being shared. The Green Group asserts that such decisions compromise the purpose of scrutiny panels, intended for thorough examinations of policy proposals, ensuring a fair and democratic process. Single-member decisions not only inefficiently utilise members’ time but also circumvent the scrutiny process.
“The decisions are already set as single-member decisions. Why discuss Liveable Neighbourhoods in this scrutiny panel if the decisions are predetermined and will be made by a single member?” questioned Councillor Heijltjes.
The Green Group calls on the scrutiny panel to insist that decisions related to Liveable Neighbourhoods undergo proper examination before reaching the Cabinet, stressing the critical nature of preparing a Full Business Case to access nearly £5 million of funding from WECA. Indeed, the group notes the Full Business Case’s vitality for upholding the integrity of the council’s decision-making process and ensuring accountability. The current absence of this Full Business Plan is unacceptable within a democratic system – we highlight the significance of presenting scrutiny panels with the Full Business Case for the Liveable Neighbourhoods programme.
This becomes particularly pertinent considering the Council’s failure in June 2023 to secure funding for the Active Travel scheme, led by the Leader of the Liberal Democrats, Councillor Kevin Guy. Despite suggestions for active travel routes and public consultations offered through scrutiny panels, the Liberal Democrats dismissed members’ proposals and pursued single-member decisions. The later rejection of their Active Travel proposal and loss of funding by Active Travel and the Levelling-Up Fund raised questions regarding the legitimacy of the Liberal Democrats’ commitment to active travel in Bath and Northeast Somerset.
“BANES has missed out on active travel funding, urgently needed for more travel choices. Discussing a report with an update while decisions are already slated as single-member decisions is a waste of panel members’ time,” stated Councillor Heijltjes.
Additionally, the group expresses concerns about proposed Liveable Neighbourhoods, specifically pointing out potential counterproductivity in the Lyme Rd/Charmouth Rd scheme. Here, the Liveable Neighbourhood plan, Councillor Heijltjes argues that proposal do not align with the funding criteria for the Government’s City Region Sustainable Transport Settlements – again – putting BANES at risk of not securing the £5 million funding needed to achieve sustainable travel choices and meet Journey to Net Zero targets.
Councillor Heijltjes also notes the absence of an updated circulation plan, crucial for managing traffic in Liveable Neighbourhoods. The Green Group urgently calls for an update on the promised circulation plan, highlighting the potential risks associated with implementing Liveable Neighbourhoods without a comprehensive traffic management strategy.
“The circulation plan has been promised for some time now. Chair, please insist that this is brought in some form to the next panel meeting,” urged Councillor Heijltjes.
Manda Rigby states that The Liveable Neighbourhoods programme has engaged with resident and been ‘codesigned’ to enhance their communities and environment. Given the importance of collaboration with residents, why is that the Climate Emergency and Sustainability Policy Development Panel not being provided with such information?
Cllr Joanna Wright is ward member for Lambridge and is the Green Group Leader at Bath and North East Somerset Council. Published on behalf of Joanna Wright and Bath and NE Somerset Green Party by Michael Coffey, c/o Ravenscroft, Sydney Road, Bath BA2 6NT 