Great Western Coffee Shop

Lots of people want to get into Bath - as a tourist destination, and as a place of work.  Development plans in BaNES and in Wiltshire add more housing than jobs in Wiltshire, and more jobs that housing an BaNES.  And that means passenger flows into Bath - most obviously down the valley of the river Avon.

How to achieve that extra flow?  Are new faciities or services needed?  BaNES council believes so, with a Park and Ride proposal at Bathampton Meadows proposed.  Others don't agree that such a facility is needed:


And that's a petition description and letter you can sign here (https://www.change.org/p/bath-and-north-east-somerset-council-ben-howlett-mp-jacob-rees-mogg-mp-stop-the-park-and-ride-on-bathampton-meadows?recruiter=387681140&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink)

The letter strikes me as being negative - it's asking the council NOT to do something without suggesting any alternative.  It may be right in that narrow approach to avoid diverting the potential signatories into splinters of petitions which look at other different options, but it's potentially only half a suggested solution.

What do readers think?  What alternatives can / could / should be suggested, or is there no need to provide any extra transport capacity to get into Bath from the east?

I live in Bathampton, the petition seems to be little more than a lot of NIMBY-ish hot air. If a park and ride is built on this site then so be it, the City of Bath really needs this facility, strangled as it is by motor traffic.

Feedback just received from my initial correspondent:


I'm unclear here ... I would have thought that whether it's train or bus (or water bus) taking people in from car parking in that zone of the valley, a car park would be needed. But that text above suggests that a car park for the station would not have been on the same (sensitive) spot.  Didn't I read about land earmarked for station and/or associated car park now sold off for development?   I am just asking questions here - interested to learn more about the various options for parking in the valley, and indeed for pulling traffic into the valley and directly though on trains and / or express buses / coaches, and / or avoiding the valley completely.

Parts of the argument feel rather emotional and weak. So a pop song was once written about a nearby hill? So there was a recent tv programme about canals that for a couple of minutes featured that particular stretch? 

It also labours heavily on the fact that Batheaston overlooks the meadows and therefore the environment there would be affected by the proposal. In reality the only effect is that the view from Batheaston over the Meadows wouldn't be as nice, which is not the same thing at all.

 

And no property is entitled to any particular view. That's part of planning advicw

Like Oberon, I also live in the area. Work-wise, I travel in the opposite direction from the flow being discussed, as I commute Monday-Friday by bus from Batheaston to Chippenham.

I have what is generally recognised as (and certainly feels like) an intensive day job, and my fair share of personal commitments outside of that. As far as spending the limited time I have at my disposal outside of that goes, one of my favourites is to walk my dog from Batheaston to Bathampton alongside the Meadows and Mill Lane to Bathampton where I will either continue walking along the canal or perhaps stop off at the canalboat cafe for tea and cake.

If you haven't been to this part of the world, then I can tell you that it is genuinely beautiful, and I consider it a privilege to have this wonderful vista stretched out before me to enjoy.

I personally feel - and Oberon is entirely within his or her rights to disagree with me - that this privilege comes with a responsibility, the responsibility to safeguard it for future generations to enjoy just as previous generations have safeguarded it for me to enjoy.

If that makes me a NIMBY, then so be it. I will be signing the petition, and will encourage others to do so.

Also, as a fellow resident of the area, I'm sure Oberon would agree with me that we need to avoid becoming a regional laughing stock when a Bathampton Meadows Park & Ride is inevitably closed - sometimes for extended periods - due to what grahame's correspondent rightly describes as the regular flooding that afflicts the area. See links below (bet you've missed me saying that...)

2009 - http://m.bristolpost.co.uk/Flooding-threat-park-ride-site/story-11247533-detail/story.html

2012 - http://bitofthegoodstuff.com/2012/11/rainbow-veggie-chilli/bathampton-meadows-flooded-november-2012/

2013 - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-25495375

As you can see John R, it's not all about the view!

If that makes me a NIMBY, then so be it. I will be signing the petition, and will encourage others to do so.

Finally, let's have a closer look at what most people believe a NIMBY to be. Generally speaking we are a bunch of locals whose opposition to something that affects their own backyard stands in the way of "the greater good". Rather like, in fact, 23 August 2015, when we were not best pleased that First Bus routed the 231 away from Batheaston and sent it down the bypass instead, mainly because of the correspondence they received from residents of Chippenham and Corsham that pootling through our little village was preventing them getting to Bath as quick as they would have liked.

The whole saga reminded me of the debates we used to have in CANBER days, where cutting out station stops would only save a handful of minutes at best, but it was the perception of a speeded up journey that counted.

In reality, of course, less than a handful of minutes are saved on the overall journey time in "benign" traffic conditions by missing out Batheaston on the 231, and on busy Saturdays it's often quicker to go via Batheaston because the bypass - yes folks, that's the very route you'd have to traverse in order to access a Bathampton Meadows Park & Ride - is at a standstill. Meanwhile, us Batheaston residents have paid for those dubious benefits by losing ALL of our early morning, evening and Sunday bus services to destinations east of Bathford.

Indeed, given that I don't have the option of catching Faresaver X31 direct to work because it doesn't arrive early enough in Chippenham, I often reflect on the irony of it now being more difficult for me to travel to Wiltshire by public transport, in order to help make it easier for people in Wiltshire to travel by public transport, when some of those same people have been responsible for...well you get the picture. Mind you, that's nothing compared to the irony I experience when reflecting on the near collapse of reliability of the 231 since First cut Pewsham out of the route in order to...improve reliability! Particularly when my bus home is an hour late as a result...

But I digress.

So let's sum up - Having had my journey to and from work screwed up for "the greater good", I now apparently have to sacrifice the gorgeous, wonderful, irreplaceable beauty of my surroundings when I eventually make it back home for "the greater good" too, do I? The analogy I would choose for that is that if you kick me in the nether regions once, then I might - just might - turn the other cheek and try and understand why you did it. Immediately kick me in those same nether regions again while I'm down though, and I think you can guess the likely response, can't you?

Sorry folks, I'm not having it. If that makes me a NIMBY, then so be it. I will be signing the petition, and will encourage others to do so.

If this were your only reason then that could make you a NIMBY.

In many areas we are going to have to make some hard choices on use of land for housing and transport use. In this case there are choices though. If you do not built a park & ride at Batheaston you have three options:

1) Build it somewhere else?  What are the other options east of Bath? And will there be others arguing not there?

2) Demolish swathes of Bath to widen roads and build more car parks in Bath

3) Invest in high quality public transport with bus routes feeding a series of hub stations with frequent train services into Bath (Metro West?).

Oh there is a fourth option - you say Bath is full!

In an ideal world I would go for option 3, but that would mean regulating bus services like they are in London (terrible couldn't possibly do that! Only possible in London because all the policy makers live there and don't want the transport mess that the rest of the country have to put up with - sorry I mean London is so special!)

Hold that thought ellendune, because you never know what might be round the corner ;)

Lee - if there are alternatives, how about campaigning positively for that/those rather than negatively? That would then mean you weren't a nimby

I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave a short number of posts ago  ;)

But built elsewhere should mean you don't get it. Achieves the same thing

I'm sure it's not, and the flooding point appears valid - I've seen from the main line the flooding on many occasions. However, I think an overall argument is likely to be considered in a better light if it concentrates on factual and relevant issues, rather than padding it out with spurious points that on any analysis don't really support the case.  

As an example:-

Batheaston on the lower slopes of Solsbury Hill, made famous by Peter Gabriel , boasts an equally old historic past with its own entry in the Doomsday Book. It is reputed to have been the home of Prince Bladud, who discovered the curative powers of the hot springs in Bath. Eagle House in Batheaston was during the 1920s the refuge of the suffragettes, who recuperated there and subsequently planted their famous arboretum on Solsbury Hill. It forms part of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) with most of the village falling within the Green Belt zone and a majority of the houses in the conservation area.

Apart from all the irrelevant waffle about Peter Gabriel,Prince Bladed, and a house that happened to have been a refuge to suffragettes, actually Batheaston and Bathford both fall outside the AONB, which very clearly has its boundary defined to exclude the villages. Similarly, the two villages are not within the greenbelt, although the land around is. I will admit that if the P&R were to be built between the two lines east of the junction then it would be inside the AONB, although on the boundary. I'm not sure if it is to be a bus P&R where it would be built - a quick search didn't seem to be particularly fruitful.

An update, from the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-34760126):

Lets demonstrate how unsuitable this land is for a Park & Ride by driving a car onto it.

 ::)

I think it's sufficiently obvious why it was done, so I'll let that comment pass.

In a nutshell - I know not everybody agrees with the protestors, but I believe they are doing us all a favour by pushing this deeply unsatisfactory and fundamentally flawed proposal ever closer to the reject bin where it belongs.

Actually I realise that I was sufficiently thick as to completely miss the significance of this first time round. It is just possible that one or two other members may be as thick as I am, so here for their benefit are a few lines from Big Yellow Taxi by Joni Mitchell:

Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you've got ^til it's gone
They paved paradise and put up a parking lot

I was fully aware of the lyrics. I have the song on a compilation on my phone.

I just thought it incongruous driving a vehicle onto a piece of land those opposed to the scheme want to protect from having vehicles drive on it.

My observation was intended to be light hearted. I commited the forum sin of not flagging said comment with a smiley, but I'll let that pass.  ;D

Another update, from the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-34806938):

From The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jan/25/baths-conservative-cabinet-back-controversial-park-and-ride-project)

From The BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-38754331?SThisFB)