Liberal Democrats who fought Conservative parking charge increases have been backed by the Bath Chronicle
The Tories had planned to make millions from higher residents’ parking fees, extra fees for disabled badge holders and longer hours at the city centre car parks. The Bath Chronicle have joined the campaign to get this policy, car park fees until 8pm not 7pm, put back.

“The decision to extend the hours of charging was completely crazy.” says Don Foster, Bath MP “It shows how out of touch our Conservative Council leaders are. The decision has hit hundreds of people, from charity volunteers to restaurant owners. Everyone who travels into the city centre for an evening event or to enjoy the nightlife has been adversely affected. Even our Special Constables whose shift begins at 7 pm now have to pay to park their cars in the car park next to the Police Station. Even those who help keep our city safe are now out-of-pocket.

“I’ve been amazed by the lack of consultation by the Conservative-run Council. Until the protests began, the people of Bath have had no say about a decision made by Council leaders most of whom don’t live in the city.”

The Council Liberal Democrats ‘called in’ the price rises, citing insufficient consultation and a failure to consider the wider implications. The Conservative dominated panel threw out the call in, allowing the decision to stand. However, the public outcry has now prompted the Tories to review their policy, which they were so keen to defend last month. “If they’d have listened in the first place, the council needn’t have wasted so much time and energy” said Cllr Edwards.

Expenses and allowances for the last financial year have been published by BathNES council (although the web page appears to be intermittent). In the interests of transparency I thought I’d put them up here too just so that you know.

From my election last May until the end of March, I have been paid £6,702.01 in allowances. This is not technically a salary, although it is nearly all taxed (thank you Gordon Brown, you doubled my tax from 10% to 20%). It compensates for the hundreds of hours I spend on council business when I could be earning money with a real job. I pay for my printing, postage and phone from this.

I do not have any ’special responsibility allowances’. The committee I sit upon is not important enough to pay any extra.

I have claimed £118.80 in travel expenses. This is for three reurn rail journeys to Coventry for a training course I was sent upon (it was very worthwhile); I booked in advance and used my own ‘young persons’ railcard’ to reduce the cost. I also claimed for a return bus and train journeys to Keynsham. I have not claimed bicycle allowance for cycling to meetings in Bath, that seems a bit greedy.

In the period assessed I attended 4 out of 4 Full Council meetings and 2 of 3 Regulatory & Access Committee meetings. I did not attend the first of these as I had a percieved conflict of interest with the main agenda item. I have also substituted once onto the Corporate Audit Committee, which was very exciting and held in a genuine church crypt. [In the last month I have attended another Full Council, a Regs & Access and a Planning Committee but these are outside of the timeframe]

I hope that satisfied your curiosity. Some councillors do even less work for their money http://www.libdemvoice.org/david-murphy-2-2705.html

The loading bay for Tesco has been put to public consultation. You are welcome to write to the Highways team with your views (click on the picture to read the notice and address).

This needs to have public consultation because it changes the legal parking status of that patch of road on Bathwick Hill. The pedestrian refuge and other pavement works did not need public consultation as they were modifications to council/public property.

A loading bay is needed here (just below the canal bridge) to allow delivery lorries to unload safely to the Tesco Express which was given planning permission by an appeal inspector last year. Effectively the government inspector instructed the BathNES highway department to install the loading bay and upgrade the pedestrian crossing, regardless of their own professional views. I have spoken to a member of the highways team about this apparent contradiction and he told me about another authority he has worked for. Following a similar appeal the highway department was ordered to make safe a junction which they claimed couldn’t be done. The legal battle went to the House of Lords and cost the council millions in fees when Tesco finally won.

I am of the opinion that our highway safety department have done a good job in difficult circumstances with the pedestrian refuge, road markings and loading bay. Their solution isn’t perfect, but this is hardly surprising given their professional judgement against Tesco’s planning permission.

Representations must be made in writing to the council by 5th June. If there are objections, which we expect there will be, a report must be written for the cabinet member to decide. Cllr Gerrish (Con, Keynsham North) shall make the final decision mid-June, for the loading bay to be rejected or painted on soon after. There is no truth in the rumour that Tesco have successfully sued for damages against the council. The process has indeed taken a long time but no legal action has yet been taken by Tesco.

Unfortunately the zebra crossing we all want may take even longer. As Tesco did not provide enough money for providing a zebra crossing, the central refuge has been widened and given tactile paving, while the pavement has also been widened. As well as giving more room to wheelchair users and those pushing bikes or buggies, this pavement widening improves the view down Bathwick Hill from those waiting to cross. This is a vital requirement for a zebra crossing, that visibility is good. With these improvements, it will be possible to paint on the zebra stripes later, from council tax money. However, I was angry to discover that this scheme has not been listed for funding in the next financial year and have chased this up with the Conservative cabinet member responsible.

This week was the Council AGM, marking my first year in office. However, with a full agenda no one was being sentimental; especially with the recent attitude of the Conservative administration.

This was exemplified on the night by the presentation of a new Code of Governance. The Conservative presenting the paper said that it was unnecessary and only included to tick inspection boxes. Had he read the code he would have seen what a good paper it was, and how few of the values of involvement, consultation and scrutiny this administration pay attention to. This is in the wake of the parking charge protests and the increased elderly care charges, both performed with minumal consultation against public will.

In this spirit I seconded a motion for a public position on the Rec Trustees panel to give greater public involvement in decision making so that peole don’t feel shut out of the process. With a subject as contentious as the Rec, not everyone can get their way, but at least they can feel that their opinion is valued. The Conservatives defeated this ammendment.

The Liberal Democrats also tried to reform the scrutiny arrangements within the council, proposing that opposition members chair the scrutiny panels. This is in the best practise of auditing -  the auditor is independant of the auditee. As it is, Conservatives scrutinise their own performance in most areas. Again, our ammendment was defeated.

 For those of you interested in working hours, I started writing my speeches at 4pm and left the Guildhall after the council at 11pm

Finally, Friday 9th was Europe Day, marking the conception of the European Union as body to unite European Nations preventing war between them. The previous time Europe was at peace for 60 years was at the height of the Roman Empire.

What else has Europe done for us? Well, there’s unrestricted travel and access to health care throughout the continent and the freedom to live, work, study and retire in any of the member states. Human rights and equality laws have also sprang from EU legislation, the 2006 anti-age-discrimination law for example. Economic cooperation and competition laws have allowed cheaper travel, broken utility monopolies and will soon reduce the cost of international mobile calls. The environment has also benefitted from the EU’s lead on clean air and water, refuse and recycling and nature protection.

Good reason I though, to join the Chair of the Council for the toast “To Europe and its people”.

The second call in against Conservative cabinet decisions in recent weeks has been upheld. Cllr Pritchard (Con, Chew Valley S) had sought to increase care charges for elderly and vulnerable people by 74%.

However, Cllr Pritchard has already said that he will ignore the panel’s recommendations, just as he ignored the concerns raised previously by the Overview and Scrutiny panel and the Full Council. Unfortunately the nature of our governmental system means that the minority Conservative cabinet is able to act exeactly as it wants without listening to the justified concerns of residents and opposition councillors. The upheld call in requires Cllr Pritchard to reconsider and justify his position, though it does not lead to a different decision.

I signed this ‘call in’ petition as I believe that it is unfair to raise so much revenue from the most vulnerable people. While the state pension has risen by 50p per day this year, meals on wheels in BathNES are now set to rise by over £1/day. However, I was disgusted to read Pritchards statement in the Chronicle, that he intended to ignore the call in process. The Conservative cabinet have lately taken to complaining about the cost of the ‘call in’ system.  However, I argue that it is not used frivolously, this is the last chance that councillors have to oppose decisions which they feel will harm the community. Further, councillors are irresponsible if they DO NOT fight bad decisions at every chance. Pritchard states that he has already heard the opposition from two Overview & Scrutiny reports and Full Council, so the call in was unnecessary. The call in would have been unnecessary if he hadn’t simply ignored the previous recommendations. Faced with an arrogant and uncaring executive though, councillors must do all that they can to protect the people they represent.

Since the first Conservative budget last month, there have been a flurry of cabinet decisions implementing the increased charges for Residents’ Parking and Home Care. Opposed to these increases, the Liberal Democrats have lead ‘Call-ins’ against these, asking the cabinet member to reconsider. First was the proposal to raise Residents’ Parkign charges by 60%:

The panel voted, by four votes to three, to dismiss the call-in, with Conservative Councillors from outside of Bath backing the original decision taken by their Conservative Cabinet colleague. The Cabinet member will now be free to go ahead and implement the decision to apply increases of up to 60% to residents’ permit costs across the city, as well as a number of other changes to parking costs and arrangements.

The call-in panel raised a number of issues around poor consultation and excessive increases to permit costs. Although all Councillors agreed that consultation on this decision had been inadequate, Conservative Councillors appeared more concerned with the state of the Council’s finances than the issue of engaging with those who will be affected.

Councillor Ian Gilchrist (Widcombe), who led the call-in signatories commented: “I am disappointed that the Conservative and Independent members of the panel did not recognise the merits of the case made to uphold the call-in.

“I thought that the arguments outlining the damaging effects of extending charged times in the city centre to 8pm were pretty compelling, and if they don’t listen to Nod Knowles (Director of Bath Festivals) who will they listen to?

“I am slightly mollified by the apparent concession that Cllr Gerrish has made in the direction of Sunday evening parking, but this still has to be confirmed. If we have achieved even this small bit of good then that is a good thing. Residents will not be pleased at a 60% increase in their annual charges, but I do draw comfort from the thought that we at least did our best to oppose this.”

Meanwhile I have signed the Call In against the increased charges for personal care and the meals on wheels service, which will hurt the most vulnerable. This has lead to some comment on the Chron website… http://www.thisisbath.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=180730&command=displayContent&sourceNode=232315&home=yes&more_nodeId1=163047&contentPK=20354849

As an opposition councillor I tend to spend most of my ‘working’ time in/on Bathwick, chasing potholes and zebra crossings. Today though a diary fluke gave me two council meetings in one day. The first, Regulatory (Access) Committee is a rather specialist quasi-judicial panal focussing on Public Rights of Way. The Charter Trustees’ Meeting merits further explanation however.

 The City of Bath retains its Mayor and civic functions under an odd arrangement following the creation of BathNES unitary authority. While BathNES council meetings have a designated Chair, who also undertakes official duties, Bath itself has a largely symbolic Mayor. She or he is elected by and from the Trustees of the city’s Charter, BathNES councillors representing city of Bath wards.

 I am, therefore, a Charter Trustee of the city of Bath and an elector of the Mayor. We will next elect a Mayor on 17th May to serve for a year term. Councillors and dignitaries shall process from the Guildhall to the Abbey for the ceremony in our robes and hats of office. This evening’s meeting only related to internal business, but was still carried out with gold maces and the Mayor’s red robes.

In many ways the Mayor exists similarly to the monarchy in Britain, with no logical justification and yet a great public warmth and popularity. There is, of course, one crucial difference; anyone can aspire to become Mayor of Bath - another reason to become active in politics!

Bathwick is the most dissatisfied ward in the whole of Bath & North East Somerset according to council internal research.
While average satisfaction with council services is now above 50%, only 46% of Bathwick residents were content. Does this mean that our area is subject to substandard service, or do we just hold the council to higher standards? There is also a strong likelihood that it is statistically meaningless to analyse the figures to this depth given the level of participation. The happiest BathNES residents were in North Keynsham and Saltford, whereas Bathavon West and Peasedown shared our concerns.
Let me know what you think, as ever please get in touch if there is a specific problem which we can tackle.

Bath and North East Somerset Council met last night to discuss issues relating to the forthcoming review of secondary school provision. The Cabinet will have to make a decision on schools in May, and last night’s meeting was a chance for issues to be aired and discussed in public by parents/school governors and Councillors. However, as was made clear at the start of the meeting, no decision was taken at this Council meeting.

The motion which was voted upon was not the one published in the Council papers on 17 March, and the unanimous adoption of the motion did not represent a specific endorsement of any particular strategy or plan for secondary school provision in Bath and North East Somerset. The vote served to officially thank the O&S panel for the preparatory work which had already been done and to formally request that Cabinet take account of the points of view raised at Council when making its decision.

A number of Liberal Democrat Councillors spoke to raise issues which should be considered by the Cabinet. Several spoke of the importance of ensuring the consultation on changes was honest, open and thorough.

Councillor Marian McNeir called for the consultations to be done “in a sensitive way”. Councillor Nigel Roberts called on the Cabinet to make an effort to contact groups “we don’t traditionally get in touch with” and to consider co-location of community facilities, such as libraries, in new schools.

Councillor David Dixon has been involved in a campaign run by parents for better travel to school provision in the area. He spoke of the need to consider transport and that schools provision should be “underpinned by a sound, effective school transport system”.

Councillor Andy Furse focussed on the issue of co-educational schools in Bath, and welcomed an expression of willingness on the part of Oldfield school to go co-ed given that co-ed schools are preferred by 60% of families. He called on the Cabinet to “reconsider its view on Oldfield school in light of the commitment on co-ed given tonight [by the Chair of Governors]”.

Councillor Caroline Roberts also spoke about Oldfield school and the dozens of communications she, and Councillor Loraine Brinkhurst, had received from parents who were worried and confused about the decision making process. She said “many parents feel the decision has already been made and they have missed their chance to speak out”; she also called on the Cabinet to reach out to parents during the consultations and “don’t just expect them to come to you”.

Co-ed is also an important issue for Culverhay school and this was brought to the Cabinet’s attention by Councillor Gerry Curran, who spoke of the length of time for which this had been an aspiration for the school. He asked the Cabinet to “bring forward a package of support for the school to enable a smooth transition to co-ed status”.

Speaking after the Council meeting, Councillor Paul Crossley said: “I was very pleased that the Cabinet member for children gave a commitment to go over the recording of the meeting and ensure that all the points which had been raised will be dealt with. We will be looking closely at the forthcoming consultation and decision process to ensure this is the case”.

Bathwick councillors Nicholas Coombes and Armand Edwards have launched a petition for the speedy installation of a zebra crossing on Bathwick Hill.

Planners recently backed local residents and councillors to prevent Tesco from opening before minimal work has been undertaken to make the surrounding roads safer. However, this will not include a zebra crossing which is what most locals want. 

Tesco were ordered to pay BathNES council £20,000 towards the work, but this will only cover the first phase which is due to start within weeks. Throughout the design process Cllr Coombes has been working with the Highways department to ensure that a zebra crossing can be installed later.

This next phase must be funded by the council, but already the Conservatives have scrapped or delayed road projects across the city. The Liberal Democrat petition will show the strong level of demand locally, increasing the chances of a swift resolution.

Already one pedestrian has been killed at this location and Armand and Nicholas know that it is the main concern of most nearby residents. However, in a time of budget cuts they need this petition to put a strong argument when they lobby for funding.

For a zebra crossing on Bathwick Hill please visit www.ourcampaign.org.uk/bathwickcrossing to register your support.