These are my personal views and recollections so please feel free to set me straight, comment etc.
I attended the Liveable Neighbourhood Plan meeting yesterday evening, as a member of the public, and challenged BaNES staff over their Liveable Neighbourhoods plan. The meeting was well attended and the local community well represented. It was difficult to get a straight answer from the BaNES representatives but I think we got there in the end. To their credit, the team did face significant challenge from myself and others and did a stirling job at handling it. However, Cllr Simon McCombe had nothing to say about the Liveable Neighbourhood plan at all.
I must confess that my personal view remains that we should not be tinkering with footpaths and speed limit changes whilst we have significant unmet social care and education needs, and a road surface that is poor at best. We must spend tax payer money (our money) more wisely and cut wastage. I have no doubt that having spent this money BaNES will be coming for Council tax increases.
The BaNES team started off by explaining that they had “WECA money” and we’d “like to spend it”; and clarified that if it is not spent by 2027 “the funding goes”. They added that they “really do value the comments” and wanted to “spend the money in the right way”. Not spending the money at all did not appear to be an option.
The BaNES team acknowledged that residents were, “intimidated and scared to walk up the A37”. But when asked about addressing the real problem in the village, being the bottleneck, or lack of available width on the main A37 carriageway close to Cameley Road for LGVs and pedestrians, they eventually conceded that it would “require a significant pot of money to address the core issues” and that it was “not achievable within the budget”. Therefore it is clear that BaNES have no intention of addressing the actual problem with the A37 and we proceeded on that basis.
BaNES explained that this was the final point of the consultation. That once the online consultation closes, they will publish a report including some of the responses from residents, but not all, and that there would then be consultations with Council Cabinet and WECA before the final decision was made as to what works would be completed.
It was explained that the Liveable Neighbourhood plan had arisen from an application submitted by Cllr David Wood, as one of 48 applications across the area. The BaNES team were not able to clarify what was actually requested by Cllr David Wood or indeed how the current plan reflected what was requested.
It was also explained that the Liveable Neighbourhood plan had taken on board the comments of earlier consultation work including comments from school children (approximately) 3 years ago. However, again they were not able to clarify what these comments were and how they were reflected in the current plan.
BaNES team did confirm that the comments were “FOI-able anyway” so maybe that’s something to look at as this progresses.
We discussed the addition of a crossing closer to the Drs Surgery. Eventually the BaNES team conceded that this had been looked at before and they understood that it was not an option saying that BaNES “did consider it, but there was not enough carriageway space and the bus stop would have to be relocated”.
When pressed the BaNES team confirmed that any ideas not included in the current plan could be considered, but “not on this tranche of funding”.
BaNES made clear that this was the final plan and that the only items for consultation were the 5 listed within the plan, and that this meeting was “the final point of the consultation”.
There was no discussion around the extending of the 30mph limit along Temple Inn lane to Marsh Lane.
There was some discussion around the placement of the zebra crossing within Temple Inn lane close to the junction with the A37. residents felt that this was too close to the junction and would introduce danger to pedestrians and vehicles. Others felt that in order to use the crossing pedestrians would still have to use the A37 footpaths that were not being addressed by this plan.
There was some discussion around the street lighting on the footpath between St Barnabus and Brandown Close. This was generally felt to be a good idea. It was felt that ongoing costs would be negligible from LED lighting and that deflectors would be used to avoid light shining directly into homes.
It was not discussed, but it also occurs to me that the crossing’s position would allow cyclists, most likely children, to cycle along the well lit path and not stop for the crossing, placing themselves at danger, but having crossed the carriageway could then continue at speed onto the footpath at the rear of the pub, creating more risk. This additional factor may need to be considered.
There was some discussion that the Brandown Developers had agreed to Install lighting here as part of the original planning permission and that they should be made to install the lighting rather than this occurring from taxpayer funding. It was suggested that future planning be withheld until they had completed their obligations in Brandown.
There was a lot of discussion about the footpath between the Village Hall and Gillets Hill Lane. It was felt that this didn’t address the problem of crossing the A37. Residents felt that the initial part of the footpath in Gillets Hill Lane would not be suitable for the elderly or infirm or indeed cyclists as it was very steep, and that “climbing Gillets Hill Lane was impractical”. BaNES were not able to confirm how that section would be constructed. It was also not clear who would be responsible for maintaining the greenery and overgrowth to keep the path clear. BaNES were only able to offer that the “Highway Authority was expected to maintain the structure of a right of way”. There was also discussion in relation to the ownership of the land and that this section of the footpath would pass through private land and that to deviate from the current right of way would require the land owners consent. It was not clear if consent had been obtained.
There was a great deal of discussion around the proposed extension of the 30mph limit to Temple Bridge. There were mixture of views with some feeling that extending the limit would reduce the ‘feel’ of entering a village and encourage speeding. However others felt that entering the village slower was a benefit. One resident explained that there had been a speed survey some years ago and that average speeds were lower than expected and so it was in part a ‘perception of speed’ issue. BaNES did not answer questions relating to the anticipated effect of the changes on the existing plans for the Major Road Network and Strategic Road Network, but did recognise the roads status as part of the MRN and the development occurring south of the village.
The Temple Bridge bus stop was not within the scope of this meeting.
The discussion moved on before I could raise concerns that reducing speed limits often opens up adjoining land for housing development as safety concerns are reduced and this is also compatible with the aims of the Major Road Network. It was not discussed at this meeting but it is public knowledge that BaNES is required to build 29,320 (1466 p.a.) new dwellings over the next 20 years and so Temple Cloud will almost definitely be seeing further housing development. I would suggest land between Temple Cloud and Temple Bridge will become ideal.
BaNES concluded the meeting by trying to explain that they understood residents perspectives as when there was a ‘consultation, and the residents said no, we go ahead anyway”. BaNES explained that this was because residents comments from the consultation were only one part of the process and that the decision maker would need to also consider “Manifesto commitments” and BaNES “Policy Framework”. I was left feeling that manifesto commitments and policy framework would be valued more than residents wishes.
BaNES confirmed the ultimate decision maker in this matter to be Cllr Joel Hirst and that we could direct any comments to him also.
Cllr Joel Hirst
Cabinet Minister for Sustainable Transport Strategy
Councillor for Odd Down Ward
Email: Joel_Hirst@bathnes.gov.uk
Everyone thanked the BaNES Team for coming and for answering questions in the face of stiff challenge, and the meeting concluded.
Again, these are my personal views and comments based on my recollection of the meeting. If anyone who attended wished to comment or have something corrected, please get in touch!
Whilst many will agree with my views, undoubted many won’t. We need everyone views. Apathy isn’t and shouldn’t be a mandate, but BaNES consider anyone who doesn’t comment to be a supporter. Please log on and have your say about this issue and the ones coming up, even if it’s just to say you don’t know enough to take a view. Your perspective is really important!
Comments for BaNES:
- (Plan pt 1) Extending the speed limit along Temple Inn Lane to Marsh Lane will be welcomed by some residents. However, I feel this will have little effect unless it is accompanied by enforcement or traffic calming such as speed bumps. It will also make the land either side of the road more attractive for development due to the reduced speed limit. This is likely to require a TRO costing £000’s of tax payers money that could be better spent on road resurfacing, social care, or education needs.
- (Plan pt 2) A new zebra crossing on Temple Inn Lane adjacent to the Brandown footpath will increase the risk to cyclists, pedestrians and vehicle drivers. It will create a scenario whereby cyclists could emerge at speed, pass over the crossing without stopping and ride over the pavement behind the pub or around the corner at the front of the pub. It will in effect encourage dangerous cycling, most likely to affect our teenage residents.
- (Plan pt 2) The zebra crossing on Temple Inn Lane will not address the problem of poor footpath provision on the A37. For pedestrians and cyclists to use the crossing they will still have needed to traverse the A37 in some way.
- (Plan pt 2) The zebra crossing could cost between £18000-£28000 that could be spent on road resurfacing, social care, or education needs.
- (Plan pt 3) Lighting on the Brandown footpath is largely a good idea, with care taken not to shine light into residents homes. However, this will increase the potential speed of cyclists in poor lighting and place them at risk as they leave the path and approach the crossing (see above).
- (Plan pt 3) The Brandown Developers should be held to their previous agreement to fund this project, and the tax payer savings used for road resurfacing, social care, or education needs.
- (Plan pt 4) The footpath from Gillets Hill Lane is a great idea in principle that will struggle to meet its objectives if it seeks to increase active travel. It will provide some with a more direct route to reach the Drs, school and church. However, the design and construction will be crucial in its success. The steep initial section needs to be navigable in all weathers, by the elderly and cyclists with bicycles. The plan does not make clear how this will be achieved.
- (Plan pt 4) Ongoing inflation linked funding will be required to maintain the greenery around the initial footpath section. At peak times this may require fortnightly attention. The greenery will need to be kept at bay so that a clear view can be maintained in order to prevent crime as well as prevent trips and falls.
- (Plan pt 4) The initial footpath section may require lighting to encourage use and maintain visibility in all weathers. This will be more of a concern, than the Brandown path section which is being lit.
- (Plan pt 4) The route of the upper section of path is not defined within the plan. If it is to deviate from the current ROW, and thus become longer, what will encourage the new route to be used? As an all weather surface, how will that be maintained through agricultural land? My fear is that the old ROW route will continue to be used in most weathers, as it is the most direct, rendering the new path a waste of taxpayer funds.
- (Plan pt 5) Extending the 30mph along the A37 to temple Bridge. Speed limit signs at village entries present a psychological barrier. If accompanied by the appearance of dwellings, drivers know why they are being instructed to slow, and for the most part comply. Where signage is too remote from the dwellings it builds frustration and non-compliance. Moving the signage further out will I fear have this effect in this location. There could actually be a benefit to moving it closer to the village and into its original position.
- (Plan pt 5) The average speed through TC is not as high as perceived. Unfortunately, reducing limits does not affect those willing to excessively speed and there will always be the outliers.
- (Plan pt 5) Reducing the speed limit here will make the land either side of the road more attractive for development due to the reduced speed limit. This is likely to require a TRO costing £000’s of tax payers money that could be better spent on road resurfacing, social care, or education needs.
- (Plan pt 5) The effect of moving this speed limit on the aims of the MRN and SRN appear to have not been researched.
- The overall effect of this Liveable Neighbourhood plan appears to be to open up land for development along Temple Inn Lane and between Temple Cloud and Temple Bridge, in an attempt to help BaNES meet new house building targets of 1350 houses per year for 20 years (27000 dwellings). A target which is likely to rise not fall. The footpath changes relating to Gillets Hill lane would appear to make the agricultural land along its length more attractive to developers.
Link:
Mendip Ward BaNES - in need of Reform… 