Cross-party call-in submitted over latest Bath traffic trials decision

A cross-party group of councillors is challenging the decision to make permanent three experimental linked through-traffic restriction trials in Bath.

The changes made to Gay Street | Photo © John Wimperis

On Friday 30th January, Bath & North East Somerset Council published its decision on the trials in Winifred’s Lane, Gay Street and Catharine Place.

It was signed off by Liberal Democrat cabinet members Manda Rigby (communications and community) and Joel Hirst (sustainable transport strategy).

While the three trials are independent of each other, the council says they have been designed to work together to improve the Lower Lansdown and The Circus area in line with its Liveable Neighbourhood objectives.

The decision covers:

• The through-traffic restriction on Winifred’s Lane
• The closure to through-traffic at Catharine Place
• The ‘no entry’ and turning changes on Gay Street and around The Circus.

The call-in was submitted on Friday 6th February and has the required nine signatories.

Led by Independent Colin Blackburn (Westmoreland, Independent), the councillors have outlined detailed reasons for demanding a rethink on the decision of the cabinet members in a letter to council chief executive Sophie Broadfield.

They say the first is the “failure to meet stated objectives and reliance on unsound data”.

“The Heart of Lansdown Conservation Group has identified significant gaps and flaws in the analysis of the Winifred’s Lane trial, asserting that it has failed when measured against the council’s own stated objectives.

“Critics argue the recommendation to make the trial permanent rests on unsound data that does not accurately reflect the trial’s outcomes.

Winifred’s Lane before the changes were introduced

“While the council claims the scheme supports active travel, the report did not include data for roads where active travel had decreased e.g. Sion Hill and Sion Road. Displacement of traffic has increased traffic on residential roads in particular Sion Hill and Sion Road where the increase in traffic (up to +880% northbound) is not just down to the school traffic.

“According to the data in the reports, traffic increased over the baseline both in and out of term time whilst the baseline data itself was taken during term time.”

The second reason given is “safety risks and extreme community opposition”, with the councillors saying the council’s own report acknowledges 72% opposition to the Winifred’s Lane trial within the trial area, with 84% opposition overall.

“Traffic past junior schools has increased by an average of 1,401 vehicles daily (1,522 in comparable November periods). This equates to over half a million additional cars pushed past schools annually, creating severe safety and health risks for children.”

Local residents, especially elderly residents, are said to no longer walk around the “dangerous” Sion Road bends past Sion Hill Place due to the increase in traffic.

The letter notes that the council has committed in many internal policies to apply the Department for Transport guidance LTN 1/20 to its cycling infrastructure as best practice – but won’t apply it to the Winifred’s Lane cycle lane.

The letter notes that the West of England Combined Authority’s Benefits and Outcomes Panel has not endorsed the cycle lane for City Region Sustainable Transport Settlements funding, “a deliberate circumvention of checks and balances”, but it was added to the Movement Strategy for Bath well before the decision was taken to make it permanent.

The third reason for the call-in focuses on “medical and environmental concerns” as traffic and pollution is deliberately displaced onto alternative residential routes.

The letter says that closing certain roads has increased traffic on busy junctions such as Julian Road and Morford Street, which are flanked by buildings that concentrate pollutants.

“Increased pollution levels affect high-density housing and St Andrew’s Church School, which has 222 pupils. There are concerns that the council has not conducted complete baseline monitoring for ultra-fine particulates, PM2.5 (particulate matter), or VOCs (volatile organic compounds) on these affected routes.”

The letter adds: “Opponents argue that transferring pollution to more vulnerable areas, including those with lower socio-economic circumstances, violates the council’s duty of care.”

The fourth reason highlights gaps in critical monitoring data, saying that reports used to justify the decision seem to omit several critical performance metrics, including vehicle speeds and kilometres driven, carbon emissions and known collisions, and implementation and operational costs.

“Cycling figures around Winifred’s Lane are claimed to be miscalculated and the reports contain no active travel data for Sion Road, meaning the net effect cannot be determined.

“This calls into question the reported ‘uplift’ in active travel.”

The fifth reason is “inadequate mitigations and arbitrary linking”. Proposed mitigations are described as “very minor” and unable to address “fundamental material flaws caused by the area’s topography and road layout”.

It goes on: “There is no clear evidence linking the three separate Experimental Traffic Regulation Orders; their combination in a single decision is viewed as arbitrary and lacking a legal basis.”

The nine councillors supporting the request for the call-in include five Independents, two Labour and two Conservatives.

A council scrutiny panel is now expected to review the decision on a date to be fixed. The panel can ask the cabinet members to reconsider, ask for the decision to go to full council, or reject the call-in.

Previous call-ins for experimental traffic trials in Bath have been rejected – the through-traffic restriction at Southlands in Weston and, more recently, the through-traffic restriction at New Sydney Place and Sydney Road in Bathwick.