The mystery of the lift size remains. I am still waiting for a response from FGW after an amicable meeting with the MD, Mark Hopwood, and a colleague of his, but they did say it might take up to three weeks, which runs out next Thursday(29th July). In fairness, therefore, I will not make comments until they have had time to respond. But some fascinating points emerged. Firstly, they seemed unaware that, right at the start, a CPO (Compulsory Purchase Order) had been placed on the section of the station which actually has the ramp on it. Who, I asked them, owns that bit? They thought they did. They lease the station from Network Rail, and they thought they had what they described as the whole of the historic station area. I think, however, that chunk belongs to the developer. Although I had made scribbled notes on the plan of the CPO area, which I had taken along with me, they asked if they could take it with them. It was clearly a shock to them. Secondly, they had been told that no changes could be made to the overall plan, because of the Bath Masterplan. This was of great interest to me, because I happen to know that there is no masterplan. Fortunately, I extracted confirmation of this out of Councillor Malcolm Hanney, when he was defending the indefensible pay rise of John Betty, self-employed head of Major Developments. I did warn him that he should check with Major Developments first, but that seems to have been sufficient to needle him into failing to do so. His reply was clear:
The Vision [for Bath] work sets out what the Council thinks we should be emphasising in terms of the future. I think it is a really good document. [He would say that, wouldn’t he?]
The Council, in its property ownership role (and for which I have lead responsibility) has a clear view as to how the long term value of the estate can be maximised for the benefit of residents as well as being a source of capital receipts to improve public realm and infrastructure.
The Vision is probably the closest to being the supposed Masterplan and it was underpinned by business planning and analysis. However, it was always recognised that any implementation would have to reflect changing circumstances. [My italics.]
As for the Council's property assets including the Council's ownership interest of key development sites, they will exert an influence on the nature of development in Bath over next twenty years.
What was more interesting is that the MD of FGW thought that this masterplan affected great swathes of Bath, including - and he said it, not me - Bath South Quays. No wonder B&NES has made no effort to do anything with it, if they have another developer under wraps. Or is it still Dyson? I am not alone in thinking that he has not gone away, even though the Learning and Skills Council finally woke up to the fact that his so-called school had no workable syllabus.
But back to the lift. Just to make sure that they could be under no illusion as to what had been granted planning permission, I took along an extract from the plans. I have uploaded a picture of these, so you can all see that the size is quite clearly 1100 x 1500 mm. Yet the company looking at safety issues at Bath Spa has been assured it will be 1100 x 1800. Meanwhile I had contacted English Heritage, and the planning department to make sure there was no mistake. Isla MacNeal at EH thought that someone had just mistyped 1800 when they meant 1500. Yeah, right. Eventually, I sent out an e-mail, with all the facts, including the relevant comments to all parties I thought were concerned. These are the conclusions I drew at the end of the e-mail.
1. There has, as Isla MacNeal says, been an error, in which 1500 has been wrongly typed as 1800. If that is the case, then this error needs to be rectified a soon as possible, and the new figures given back to the ICP.
2. Someone has mistakenly thought that the size could be changed without a further planning application or reference to the LPA. Again, if that is so, the error needs to be rectified and the situation clarified without delay.
3. There has been a deliberate attempt to mislead the ORR, LPA and EH as to the size of the lift, either to insert a larger lift without the need for a further application, which might, this time, bring objections from EH and the Listed Building Officer, or by inserting the smaller lift and hoping that the political decision to withdraw the safety certificate at Bath Spa Station would be too great for the ORR to make.
If this is the case, then an investigation needs to made as to whom it was who said that the lift size could be changed without further reference to EH or the LPA.
I would be grateful if Varian Tye and Isla MacNeal could reiterate the comments they have made to me to the other parties in this e-mail.
So far, only Simon Smith of the ORR - who deserves a medal for patience and diplomacy, has responded. He tells me that he had been told the size could be changed. Oh yes, and Tony Ambrose, who is leading the charge for the cyclists, has sent me congratulations.
So what is going on? I believe that Major Developments is telling FGW not to worry about little things like planning. They can swing it. The project manager of the scheme, Simon Martin works for Major Developments. My carefully considered opinion is that this department is out of control and should be closed down forthwith. Meanwhile, I will continue to dig away at this mystery of the expanding lift and will not rest till I get to the bottom of it.
But please, please PLEASE - if you feel that what is proposed for the station is a bad thing, start letter-writing and e-mailing now - I really can't go on with this much more.
No comments:
Post a Comment