The Bath Rapid Transit public enquiry is geering up now when in fact it should be abandoned. The Conservative administration have repeatedlly refused to consider the more sustainable options proposed by the Liberal Democrats and are steamrollering ahead with this absurd plan to create a 1 mile bus superhighway along the back gardens of Newbridge. This will do very little to relieve congestion, create big environmental problems and is a waste of public money.

email from Response 2 Route

As you are probably aware, there will be a pre-inquiry meeting to arrange the time schedules for the CPO public inquiry.  We have been advised that it would be in our interest for members of the public to turn up at the pre-inquiry meeting to show the inspector the level of objection to the proposal.  If you are able to attend this meeting please make every effort to do so. The meeting will be held on Monday 14^th June at 10am at the Guildhall, High Street, Bath.
The Public Inquiry itself is scheduled for 10am on Wednesday 1^st September, also at the Guildhall, and is expected to last for approximately 3 weeks.  

See our web site at  http://www.response2Route.co.uk

The Chronicle’s BRT web site http://www.thisisbath.co.uk/brt/

Bathampton Meadows web site http://www.savebathamptonmeadows.org.uk/

Newbridge Park & Ride web site http://www.newbridgematters.blogspot.com/

Bath Heritage Watchdog web site http://www.bathheritagewatchdog.org/

VeraCity Bath web site http://vcbath.blogspot.com/

On Friday I went to see the University of Bath Architecture Deptartment year end sho of student work. There was some stunning ideas on show giving clues to solutions to problems in what was called Goldern Cities – Bath Bristol and London.

As mentioned before the idea for a stadium on the rec was amongst these. A fabulous concepot by Jonathan Crossley (no relation) which includes as part of the idea a roof top walk that takes the walker from Johnston STreet all the way round to the Sports centre.

More information at REAL FRIENDS OF THE REC link

Chronicle story and comments HERE  and HERE

My view is that this is an exciting opportunity that is worth real investigation to see if it can work. If it meets capacity needs then I think it is a real winner because it is certainly architecturally inspiring and would provide a great addition to the city centre architecture.

Should the Civil List be increased? In my view the answer to that is no. Today the Government has just published details of civil servants earning more than the Prime Minister. It seems to me that the civil list needs a thorough review and analysis of its expenditure and costs and also on the value that it brings to the country. If the monarchy is to maintain its public support then in an an age of open government and accountability the public need a full understanding of its costs.  Why, for instance does the monarchy have so many estates and homes around the country and how are these used when not being used as residences? I am sure a lot of extra revenue could be generated without asking for tax revenue first.

Below is the email I have just written to George Osborne and Danny Alexandar at:-  ministers@hm-treasury.gov.uk

Attention George Osborne MP and Danny Alexander MP

Dear Mr Osborne and  Mr Alexander

According to the papers the Queen is asking for a big rise in the Civil List and stating that the civil list has not increased in several years.

I would like to make the following points for your consideration:-

1. There should be no increase in the Civil List while public services are being cut

At a time of austerity it is completely innapropriate to be considering a rise in this area of spending

2. The royal household’s finances must be open to scrutiny like every other government department

For several years Local Government has been subjected to rigourous scrutinty and accountability over its use of money. The Civil List must now be subjected to much greater scrutiny and accountability.

3. The royal household needs to be able to justify its large property protfolio and justify the cost and use of a number of properties.

In a time when the environmental issue is at the top of the agenda why does the state keep so many large properties for what seems like so little use. If the royal family needs houses in all parts of the country, what work is being done to increase useage when they are not in them.

4. And finally there must be a full inquiry into the cost of the monarchy.

If the civil list is to be increased it can only come after a full debate on the cost and benefit analysis of the role. This should include full disclosure of where the current money goes and also where the stated shortfall comes from and how this is financed.

Many thanks
Paul

As a Councillor who has worked a lot with groups of people with a learning disability or supporting them I am fully awar of the need for complex ideas to be oput in a way that everyone can understand.

This link is an EasyRead explanation to coalition

Friends of the Earth submitted manifesto proposals to all three parties, our key demands were
* Sufficient investment in switching to a low carbon economy to: achieve a reduction in UK greenhouse gas emission of 42 per cent by 2020; create jobs and boost the recovery; and eliminate fuel poverty.
* A local carbon budget for every local authority: that caps CO2 in the local area in line with the scientific demands for emissions cuts and local circumstances; and enough money and technical support to enable councils to do their bit to tackle climate change.
* A new law which will tackle the major greenhouse gas emissions and deforestation caused by the UK’s dependence on imported feeds for livestock – and which will support better UK farming and domestic feed production.
* An international agreement on cutting emissions where those responsible make the deepest cuts first, and developing countries are supported to grow in a low carbon way.

FoE commentry on Labour manifesto

“This manifesto falls far short of the urgent action required to tackle climate change and help Britain reap the enormous benefits of developing a low-carbon economy. It fails to commit the UK to cutting its emissions by at least 42 per cent by 2020, which is needed to ensure this country plays its fair part in tackling global warming. Even welcome policies such as promoting electric vehicles are undermined by gas-guzzling plans such as motorway-widening and airport expansion. Labour should have set the bar far higher on environmental issues – the other parties must show voters they have far greater ambition.”

FoE commentry on Conservative manifesto:

“The Conservative party may have a vision for a greener future, but its manifesto lacks the clarity and ambition urgently needed to ensure the UK meets the enormous challenge of tackling climate change. Promises to introduce a Green Investment Bank and scrap Labour’s airport expansion plans are extremely welcome, but there are serious gaps in many proposals – Conservative plans to slash energy waste from homes must benefit those in rented accommodation and the fuel poor, and not just homeowners. The Conservatives’ failure to increase the target for UK emissions cuts to at least 42 per cent  by 2020 is extremely disappointing – this should have been a cornerstone of the party’s environmental policy and would have signalled a real intention for Britain to play its fair share in combatting global warming. Bolder policies are needed to ensure UK voters and businesses reap the enormous economic benefits of developing a safer, cleaner future for us all.”

Commenting on the Liberal Democrat manifesto FoE said:

“The Liberal Democrats have shown that the environment can be at the heart of policy-making by including it in every section of their manifesto. Their environmental policies have been woven into their economic recovery plans, recognising that building a low-carbon future will create thousands of new green jobs and business opportunities for Britain. There are still significant gaps – the manifesto says nothing on how local councils will play their part in meeting UK climate targets and domestic energy efficiency proposals remain too centred on loans for home-owners. But with a range of green policies, from tackling emissions in our food sector to rail fare cuts to encourage people onto public transport, there is a lot for people to welcome.”

Since Valentines day Bath have been playing great rugby (In stark contrast to the season from September up to Valentines day) . The latest game against Quins was electric with scintilating movement and play. New returnee Ollie Barklay was my Man of the Match.

And now the club is certainly moving with ideas and vision for the future. They have announced that they are seriously considering an option on Bath Wester Riverside. Most fans would dearly love to see a solution based at the Rec but if that is not possible then we certainly do not want to loose them from the city.

Over the last year Cllr Sharon Ball has asked twice at Cabinet whether the Cabinet had a fall back position if the Rec proved impossible and asked them to startlooking at BWR. Both times the cabinet refused. Now it looks as though they will have no option. Lets hope they dont meddle and mess it up as they did with the Lidl application or show little interest as they did with the Dyson Academy.

Bath Rugby must stay in the City therefore a solution to the needs of the club, the fans, the economy and residents must be found.

 Cllr Cherry Beath and myself recently went to visit Paintworks in Bristol to see how with imagination an old factory setting can be turned into a great living and working environment.

We loved the zebra crossings in the site. Great fun. And paintworks is really thriving and creating jobs and community space that is widely used.

At last Gordon Brown has called the General Election – a date that was always obvious as soon as he decided against calling it in his first Autumn as PM. Here in Bath we have got of to a flying start with literature going out, posters going up and large numbers of doors being knocked. Its great to be canvassing with a real polling day in mind.

So far I have canvassed in Walcot in Bath and Bathford in the NE Somerset constituency. There are still a large number of people who are angry about the MP expenses issue – but these seem to be mainly Conservative households. They obviosuly feel embarrased that the worst excess on expenses came from Conservative MPs – duck islands, moats, manure etc – and get round the embarresment by blaming everyone. Perversly several of these have decided to vote UKIP – the party with the worst track record of all on claims – but then as these were in Europe they dont register on the radar. Its a strange life.

Also in both Walcot and Bathford the crazy traffic plans of our local Conservative administration were raised in anger. They won’t solve congestion as claimed and will ruin beautiful green space. But then I suppose that is par for the course with them. On the radio this evening it was describing the very large number of prospective Conservative MPs who simply deny that climate change is happening. A sentiment that we hear regularly in our Council from several Conservative Councillors.

My claim for costs in March:

Number of miles walked, cycled and drove around Bath and NES in my role as a community Councillor and group leader = 196 . Number of miles claimed for (Car or bike) = 10 = £3.35.

Number of bus journeys made = 6 – number of journeys claimed as expenses = 0

Number of train journeys made and claimed 1 return journey Bath to Worle for a West of England Partnership board meeting £9.70

As this journey involved over 90 minutes each way as well on train and foot at either end I also claimed for a susage sandwich and a coffee at a total of £2.50

Incidental costs over the month not claimed £73.05 – mainly coffee at meetings with diverse range of people at places such as Hilliers in Southdown or St Michaels cafe in the centre of Bath.

Darling’s budget was woeful and the Conservative response was quiet on tough choices and noisy on hot air.

They should both follow the Liberal Democrat Line and scrap the Trident replacement. Not only would they save £100M for other goods and services but they would also get rid of the nonsense of this immoral weapon that would not be used in any case.

Vince’s view HERE