Kirsten Elliott looks at Bath

Commenting should now be easier

2011-06-11T11:58:00.000+01:00

Apologies to anyone who tried to comment and found it didn’t appear because it went off to be moderated – that happened because when I first set up the blog, I set that up also. As the nature of the blog has changed, I’ve now made it easier to post, and comments should go up straightaway.

Should I call this site the Bath Figaro?

2011-06-10T16:30:00.002+01:00

When I set this up, I thought I would take an occasional look at what was happening in Bath, and give my views. If people wanted to shoot me down – well, I can take it. But the latest corporate website inflicted on its local papers by the giant company Northcliffe Papers, leaves one wondering if they simply want to kill off local journalism – it’s so appalling! So should I try to challenge it? Should I set up a web-based journal for Bath? I did ponder calling it the Bath Figaro, a scurrilous newspaper of the 19^th century which got round libel laws by saying that various people had NOT done things, when it was fairly clear that the paper knew they had, but couldn’t prove it. So imagine, if you will, that the editor thought a council official had taken bribes, he would say that Mr XYZ was NOT seen sliding a large brown envelope into his pocket, after a meeting with Mr ABC. (This is a purely hypothetical example, you understand.)

However, the answer is that it would be quite impractical. I’m far too busy doing other things, and, however much we may deplore Northcliffe Papers, our local journalists on the Chron are doing their very best to run a decent paper. So keep buying the paper, folks, but if you want to comment on anything that takes your fancy – especially if I have raised the issue here – then feel free to put up your views. Unlike Northcliffe Papers, I won’t ban anyone for going off subject. But I will remove any abuse – especially if I think it breaches the law. I hope anil takes note.

Hen and Stag Parties

One upon a time, we used to run a jolly little tour (as we thought) called the Great Bath Pub Crawl. It had a bit of everything – comedy, history, ghosts and of course, about three or even four pubs with real ale. Then the stage and hen party market found out about it. After I had taken round several hen parties, including one in which half the participants were dressed as leprechauns, complete with ginger beards, and the other half as Vikings, and Andrew had taken round a few stag parties, during which one groom had run round the garden of a pub dressed in a mankini (Sacha Cohen has a lot to answer for) we decided to jack the whole venture in, before we got banned from the pubs we went in. And these parties were quite well-behaved compared with some we have seen around Bath. Yet here is Robin Bischert, Head of Bath Tourism Plus, informing us that they” tended to be a good thing for the city” adding “groups that come to Bath are here to enjoy the facilities the city has to offer and clearly add a valuable contribution to the visitor economy by spending in Bath's spas, restaurants, shops, accommodation and other attractions.” Of course – silly me - that’s why Dublin clamped down on them – they were bringing too much trade. Actually – no – they were a pain in the .. er .. elbow, the same as they are becoming here. But hey (says Henry Brown, so it must be true) all that we need to do is to persuade the restaurants to give them a good meal. Words fail me. Are these two men for real – or do they live on some alternative planet? What do you think?

Don’t blame me – I didn’t vote for them.

During the election, the Lib Dems were all set to reverse all sorts of unpopular plans put in place by the Tories. Now they’re in, however, we’re already seeing a certain amount of back-tracking. The Wellsway Bus Lane is going to stay and – all you people at Newbridge, who thought you were going to retain your open spaces – the fight for them is going to have to go on. It’s not the LIb Dems fault, of course – it’s the wicked Tories who have spent so much money on them already they will just have to go ahead. Besides, the LIb Dems want to put something else on those village greens – bikes not buses. So that’s all right then. If I were a parent at Culverhay, I don’t think I’d start counting my chickens yet. Will the LDs will decide that too much money has been spent on that to make changes? The good news about this is that, if this volte-face continues, come the next council elections, maybe we will see even more independents getting elected. And that can only be good for democracy. Mr Crossley, you have been warned – and every time you look across the council chamber at June Player, I hope you remember my warning.

And Finally …

One of my criticisms of the new Chron website is the plethora of fonts. However, you’ll see that I’ve used a number of differing font from post to post. That’s because what goes up on the blog preview doesn’t always turn out quite how I had expected. Readability is important, so please let me know which font you find easiest to read. Just give the date of the blog.

I'm Back

2011-06-04T16:39:00.003+01:00

If any of you have followed this blog, then you'll know that I haven't posted anything for weeks. There were two reasons for this - firstly I was working hard on a book and secondly, I felt that I had done as much as I could on the ramp and it was up to others to go with it. This they have done, but I still think that the tripartite agreement (as the ORR calls it) between Network Rail, FGW and Multi not to take down the ramp before they have proved that their lovely new scheme works will be ignored. However, before that, I will be pressing the ORR to threaten to close the station if that happens - and warning the new administration in B&NES what's happening. I expect you think they ought to know - it was clear, however, that facts were being withheld from Terry Gazzard, the Tory councillor who was supposed to be in charge of Major Developments.

However, this blog is called Kirsten Elliott looks at Bath - and I don't intend it to be a one subject blog, namely the idiocy that is being perpetrated at the station. I have decided (looking at the comments on the Chron website) that contributing to them is fairly depressing, so vituperative have the comments become. So, I'll be making my views clear on here. it would be a very strange world if people all agreed with me - my aim is just to provoke people into thinking.

We live in such interesting times at the moment, council-wise, that I think there will be plenty to talk about. But here's one of the subjects I'll be looking at during the coming days - just why this council and the last thinks they should be consulting F0BRA, a group which represents at most 4,000 residents, not all of whom agree with Henry Brown, the chairman, and referring to them as key players, when this is a city of over 85,000 residents.

Anyway, before I sign off, here's an amusing story. I was at a concert during last year's Sweetland festival, as was our esteemed former leader, Francine Haeberling. For reasons known only to himself, Thomas Trotter decided to end his concert with "Land of Hope and Glory." After a few seconds, die Fuhrerin started fidgeting in her seat and looking round. After a while she started gesticulating that we should all stand, and most did (though my husband and I didn't, just grinned wolfishly every time she glared at us.) Now, I know there's a poem about the man who couldn't tell God save the weasel from Pop goes the Queen, but how humiliating to have a leader who couldn't tell Pomp and Circumstance March No 1 from the Allelluia Chorus. Let's hope Paul Crossley is a bit more musical than that.

The expanding lift - the mystery deepens.

2010-07-23T12:53:00.006+01:00

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.

So just how big is this new lift?

2010-07-03T13:51:00.002+01:00

A mystery has surfaced with respect to the size of the lift on the up platform. A spokesperson from Network Rail informed Don Foster MP that the new one is 1100 x 1800 mm. Well, that's not what they have got planning permission for. The plans - even those slipped through at the last moment to invalidate any objections that might have been considered pertinent - not only show the drawings marked clearly 1100 x 1500, it's even there in writing. So I thought I'd better let my contact in the ORR know that Network Rail has got it wrong. Oh no, says he, the new lift is definitely 1100 x 1800. So I've sent him the plans. As this all happened last night, which was a Friday, I haven't heard back, but this is all very odd.

So what is happening? Well, it could just be an error. The lift shaft is 1880 x 2000, which as you can see is significantly larger than the lift itself, to allow for all the bits and bobs that lifts have on the outside. So perhaps someone has just misread it.

But it does leave the more suspicious of us wondering if something else is going on here. To accommodate the larger lift, the shaft size would also need to be increased by at least 30 cms - that's about 1 foot in £sd. Now Varian Tye, the Heritage team officer, made it clear in his report that he was unhappy at the amount of demolition, but had been persuaded to allow it through. Reading the English Heritage letter carefully, it is clear they had a similar view. They stated that if there were any more significant changes, they wanted to know, and might demand that the plan went to the Secretary of State - all of which would introduce delays and uncertainties.

The larger lift would have meant a doorway within the listed historic material being changed, so both Varian and EH were very likely to dig their toes in. What's more, the proprietors of the cafe have already lost some space, and the larger lift would have meant a further loss of storage space. I suspect they would have objected too.

So was the idea to build the smaller lift and then say "Oops we made it too small but that's all we had permission for"? Or was it the reverse? Were they going to build a larger lift and then say "Oops we made it too large - but then you all wanted a larger lift so what's the problem?"

Well, my meeting with the MD of FGW isn't far away, so I hope to get to the bottom of it all. I also hope to find out just who owns what around the station and who is calling the shots. One really has to wonder if anyone is in overall charge of this project. I have found out, for example, that Network Rail was unaware of some of the changes proposed by FGW and Multi at the front of the station and is minded to object. I also found out from B&NES some other facts of which the ORR were unaware. Weird as it sounds, I now seem to be acting as a sorting office for information between the various partners, since, one way and another, most of what's going on seems to end up on my desk. And it doesn't seem to be ending up with such regularity on theirs.

As I remarked to my contacts at the DfT and the ORR, this whole project is looking more and more like an out-of-control octopus, in which none of the arms knows what the other arms are doing. Let's hope I can untangle some of the knots that the octopus seems to be tying itself up into.

Stop Press - the MD of FGW responds

2010-06-22T10:26:00.003+01:00

Late yesterday afternoon, I received a response from Mark Hopwood, MD of FGW, saying he had instructed his PA to contact me with a view to setting up a meeting. So fair play to him for that. I hope that it will be a positive and friendly meeting, and that the result will be a station which really will be an improvement for all travellers. If anyone feels that there are issues that I have not covered in previous blogs or letters to the Chronicle, then please contact me, through this blog.

Bath Spa Station - the fight continues!

2010-06-21T13:41:00.004+01:00

It came as no surprise to anyone that the plans submitted for the lift on the up platform at Bath Spa Station were nodded through. It was clear from the start that they would be, though what went on does not cover B&NES in glory. Indeed, I sometimes wonder if the Major Developments Team actually wants the people of Bath to mutter the c-word - that's a 10-letter word, not 4 letters. Perhaps it gives them some kind of macho glow. First of all, despite being a listed building, the listed building officer of considerable seniority who is allegedly in charge of the plans for the station was not given the job - instead it was given to a planning officer - not from the heritage team, though the station is regarded as being of national importance - who has a history of ignoring heritage. It was thanks to her that the seventeenth century Burnt House Inn was consigned to history, and buildings of mind-numbing blandness erected in its place. She also ignored the vast number of objections to the lift plans, and the unhappy report from the snubbed listed building officer, who was clearly under pressure to agree to it. So congratulations, Varian Tye, for coming as close as you dare to saying you thought it was a bad idea. And no congratulations at all to English Heritage for being such a broken reed.

However, it didn't end there. New drawings were submitted shortly before the decision was taken, thus invalidating the objections. Clever stuff, especially as they didn't go up on the website until about a day or two before the decision was taken, so that no one would notice. Even so, the decision was taken twenty four hours before the statutory consultation time on these new drawings had elapsed, so planning permission has been granted improperly. The drawings are dated 11th May so no decision should have been taken until 25th May, but in fact it was taken the day before, on 24th May. Strangely enough, this was within a couple of hours of my spotting the new drawings and making a comment on the Chron website that everyone needed to slam in new objections. It appears that no one was going to be given the evening to make further cogent objections. To cover this up, the Decision Notice on the website is dated 25th May, but open it up, and you'll find the date of the decsion is 24th.

Despite the delay in getting documents up - some letters dated 11th May did not go up until after the decision was taken - the objections were removed faster than you would have believed possible.

What of my meeting with the council? Well, Cllr Gazzard and his project manager were both very friendly and understanding, and promised me a proper reply to my points in a week. About a month later, I am still waiting. So I have now started lobbying Mark Hopwood - he's the MD of FGW. I've sent off an e-mail today, in response to his somewhat terse reply to a previous mail I sent him, and I have invited him to talk to me. Yes, I said a bit more than that - such as pointing out to him that his plans are hopelessly flawed, and he must know it, and also that the DfT and the ORR think I'm worth listening too ( a fact of which he must be all too well aware) so why doesn't he actually set up a meeting and talk to me face to face? I've pointed out that I've had strangers come up to me on the platform and congratulate me on what I'm doing and I wondered if the same happened to him. I told him straight I doubted it.

Let's see if he really does want to listen to what people are saying. In the meantime, if you think that what went on over planning application 10/01383/LBA was a disgrace which brings B&NES into disrepute - and I believe that it does - then please write to John Everett, the Chief Executive of B&NES. For the moment, I am choosing not to make a formal complaint - I want to add it to a general list of what has happened in the wider scheme at SouthGate, and I am collecting evidence about the way in which local people are treated differently from developers - an offence under the Human Rights Act. But please start pestering. Above all, if you think that the plans will make the station less safe, keep bombarding the ORR - they really are listening. One again, here are the contact details.

Office of Rail Regulation
One Kemble Street
London
WC2B 4AN

Tel: 020 7282 2000

Email: contact.cct@orr.gsi.gov.uk

GET WRITING, PHONING or E-MAILING!

Meeting at the Guildhall

2010-05-14T09:28:00.002+01:00

I had a very amicable meeting with Cllr Terry Gazzard and Simon Martin - not the Man from Multi, as I thought, but the project manager. I've promised Simon I would let him respond to the points that I raised with them, so my report on that will be next week. However, it does appear that many of the changes are being driven by First Great Western, who are happily keeping their heads down and letting everyone else take the flack.

The other point is that I know many people have contacted me over this, and asked me to keep up the good work,but as far as some authorities are concerned, I am just one person - why should they take any notice of me? So if you feel strongly about this, I think you need to start pushing, and the only people now who will be able to put pressure on FGW is the Office of Rail Regulation. So they are the ones to contact. I think we should be campaigning for FGW to lose its franchise. None of the train companies is faultless, but FGW really doesn't seem to care about its passengers.

It's not just the cramped conditions - we were on a train the day before yesterday, and some of the seats were so close together that I don't see how larger size people could have sat in them. But it's the way they treat people who don't fit into their vision of the ideal traveller. I am becoming increasingly convinced that a lot of these changes at Bath Spa are to deter cyclists, whom FGW seems to dislike heartily. I am told that some guards will only let two bikes on to some trains, and some guards refuse to take them at all. I suspect, too, that wheelchair passengers and those with mobility problems, who require special assistance from station staff are also regarded as a pain, and the changes at Bath Spa may will deter them. FGW's policy is to run stations on as few staff as possible, so you can see that if, like my late Mum, you needed help to get on the train, that means you are messing up this corporate plan. What really annoys me is that they are using the very act that was designed to protect people like my Mum to put them off using the station!

So, I think it's now time for you, the reader, to contact the ORR, expressing your views. Here are the contact details.

Office of Rail Regulation
One Kemble Street
London
WC2B 4AN

Tel: 020 7282 2000

Email: contact.cct@orr.gsi.gov.uk

GET WRITING, PHONING or E-MAILING!

HOT NEWS - What a difference an election makes!

2010-04-27T15:17:00.003+01:00

I e-mailed Fabian Richter - would-be MP for Bath - about all this. First of all I got a brush-off, but then I sent him an irate letter from a fellow protester which told a few home truths about the council's role in this planning fiasco. I pointed out that at the speed things were moving, partly thanks to Mr Webber's ill-judged remarks, the whole thing could blow up in the council's face BEFORE the election - and as it's a Tory Council and he's a Tory, this could be very bad news for him. I had an immediate response - the councillor in charge has been told to meet me.

Watch this space.

How to upset a senior planning official.

2010-04-26T15:24:00.002+01:00

When I sent in my objections to the station, I fired them off to lots of people as well as planning. This included Mr Geoff Webber, Senior Planning Officer. He was less than happy with my comments, as I realised when I got a reply which included this extraordinary statement:

Please note that as this is an application for Listed Building Consent, the relevant Regulations dictate that we will in due course determine this application with regard only to its impact upon the special character of this Listed Building. The issues that you have raised are without exception in respect of matters that cannot be given weight in considering this application, and which are the responsibility of the rail operators who as joint Applicants have designed their proposals so as to meet their operational requirements.

Since there is no full application - which would normally match a listed building application for mere mortals and not Multi development - this means that no one can comment to say we think your proposals stink.

Lets hope the Chronicle is brave enough to print my letter on this subject. If not, you can read it below.

In a recent edition of the Guardian, Jonathan Glancey wrote that, under New Labour, acclaimed public sector projects have been hoovered up by big, commercially driven architectural firms. It is certainly what we have seen in Bath – to which I would add the big, commercially driven developers.

What is happening at Bath Spa Station is a case in point. Once the plans were released, I saw immediately that there were serious drawbacks, especially for the disabled, and said so. First of all Multi contacted me, said it was up to Network Rail (NR) to sort it out and as NR wasn’t talking to them, could I try? I know this sounds surreal: “We’re a big multi-national company and NR won’t listen to us, can Ms Unknown Voice from Bath try?” but that’s what I was asked.

Other voices raised the same issues. We were ignored or told we were mad or alarmist. So in the end I went to the Department for Transport (DfT) and lobbied in all sorts of places so that eventually the safety experts looked at it and decided I was right. Changes are being made – but they are minimal and in my opinion do not tackle the problem.

It isn’t just the issue of disabled access – I think that many people in Bath do not realise how badly they will be affected if the plans go ahead – but what is frustrating to myself and those in the disabled lobby is the way in which these changes are being done in their name, ignoring their pleas to keep the ramp because it actually assists disabled access. The DDA is being misquoted and misused to get the plans through. The ramp does not need to be DDA compliant – it is a roadway, as the new Design and Access statement admits, which offers level access to the platform. However, there is no doubt that the up platform needs a lift – yet persistently the lift offered is the bare minimum. If the parties to this development – Multi, First Great Western (FGW) and B&NES - were genuinely interested in what the disabled want they would firstly listen to their voices and secondly, they would go back to the old lift shaft, which would give a much larger lift. Yet they won’t. Why? Because they would have to close down Dashi – the site of the old lift shaft has been lost to commercial interest.

And that’s what all this is about. The reason the ramp must come down is nothing to do with disabled access – it’s because the developers have realised they can make more money by removing it. They can build another café – not accessible from the station – where the car park once was and let it out. They have played the heritage card: “Look, we’re going to open up Brunel’s wonderful vaults.” Except that these vaults were never meant to be seen and in doing so they are sweeping away the oldest part of the station. So much for heritage! But they will be able to let the vaults out to even more paying tenants.

Yes, the ramp is at present an eyesore – but it need not be if it were properly landscaped and cleaned up. There are many things that could improve the station, its access and exits and above all its safety, for all users but we’re not going to be offered them because no one would make money out of them.

If Multi and FGW would put their hands up to this and say, yes, our shareholders are more important to us than the people of Bath, I would actually have respect for them. They do, in fact, have obligations to their shareholders which I can see they need to fulfil. But B&NES Council has no such excuse. It is there to represent us and it isn’t. I have even received an e-mail from the Senior Planning Officer telling me that my objections to these latest plans are: “without exception in respect of matters that cannot be given weight in considering this application, and which are the responsibility of the rail operators who as joint Applicants have designed their proposals so as to meet their operational requirements.” This is because it is a listed building application. So where is the matching full application that you or I, Dear Reader, would have to submit in similar circumstances? There isn’t one. Which apparently invalidates any chance we have to say “Whoa, hang on a minute, here!” however unsuitable, inconvenient or disadvantageous the plans are.

Many people believe –and I am one of them - that B&NES is cosying up to the developers instead of listening to us. As Jonathan Glancey said, politicians should start thinking of public good rather than private gain. I couldn’t agree more.

Why do I have the strange feeling this isn't going to make Mr Webber feel any better?

The Station Saga continues

2010-04-23T14:12:00.005+01:00

At last the developers acknowledged that the plans for the station are inherently unsafe - after the Office of the Rail Regulator demanded a safety investigation. So now B&NES amd Multi are trying to rush through other plans, still stubbornly refusing to acknowledge that the ramp is the safest solution. However, to do so, they have actually had to put in a proper planning application to which people can respond. Here are my objections - if you wish to use them, feel free to do so. This is a slightly fuller objection - to squeeze it down to the 6000 characters requested by B&NES I had to cut it a little.

By the way, the entrance to the lift lobby - for those in wheelchairs, with luggage, or cycles, will be through the doorway now marked Pumpkin - loadsa room, huh! Should be quite a scrum.

Before commencing my objection to this application, I should, perhaps, state my credentials for making it. My late mother was, for many years, crippled with arthritis, and when osteoporosis was added to this, she had to use a wheelchair. Sadly, in recent years, my own mobility has worsened due to arthritis in one knee. I have also spoken with many other people with a variety of incapacities, including Parkinson’s Disease. I am, therefore, acutely conscious of the difficulties faced by those with limited mobility, and their preferred options for access to the up platform, most of which are being ignored by those involved with these plans, even though the changes are being made in their name.

I also trained as a systems analyst, and I have given careful consideration to all the proposed plans for the station, and I find them riddled with flaws. This opinion is shared by a respected local architect, Anthony Pearson, whom I consulted over this. He has identified even more flaws than I had, and has made B&NES and Multi aware of them. I wish it to be made clear that in making these objections, firstly, I do know and have researched what I am talking about and secondly, Heritage, which appears to have become a dirty word to the Major Developments Team, plays no part in my objections. Indeed, one radical solution my husband, Dr Andrew Swift – who has written extensively about Brunel’s station - has proposed is to completely demolish the existing station and build a better one. I feel sure that this is the option Brunel would favour. However, I suspect that English Heritage and other conservation groups would resist this.
Finally, I am a regular user of the station.

My objections to these proposals are as follows:
THE LIFT. The lift is no larger than the previous proposed lift. This means that not only are the needs of cyclists still being ignored, but, much more seriously, in the event of someone being on a stretcher, the only way to remove them from the up platform, once the ramp is removed, would be to carry them across the line. This must be unacceptable.
Although these changes are made in the name of the disabled, it seems strange that those involved in the work are only supplying the bare minimum required under the DDA. This does not send the message that there is a genuine interest in the needs of the disabled. On top of that, it means that although it says it is a 10-person lift, it takes no account of wheelchairs, push-chairs, cyclists and those with a large amount of luggage. Given the large numbers of people who use this station, this lift is clearly inadequate.

THE NEW STAIRS. While a new exit is essential if the ramp is to be removed, this design of stair could hardly be worse. I can only assume that whoever designed this has not stood, as I have, on the up platform at about 5 o’clock. It is almost impossible to get off incoming trains, due to the press of people. The exit via the ramp is a safety valve in the best sense of the word, being entirely safe, with a wide gateway, and a level walk to a gentle slope. These stairs are winding and as steep, if not steeper, than the existing stairs. If, in the typical press of people, someone trips and falls, the results would clearly be disastrous.

ACCESS to the lift/stair lobby. This is less than a metre across. Thus, fighting their way through this doorway will be: those in wheelchairs, parents with children in pushchairs, cyclists, and those with luggage, in addition to those choosing to use the stairs. The size of this doorway seems designed to deter people from using these facilities rather than encouraging them.
In addition to this, it should be noted that the original stairs, the new exit and the emergency exit beyond it into the proposed Unit 5 are all at the western end of the station. If there is a fire at this end of the station – and with a café included in this section, that has to be considered a possibility – then there will be no escape from the other end of the platform other than passing the seat of the fire or crossing the line to the other platform.

CONCLUSION. The Design and Access statement says: The alternative locations presented within this report are the only viable alternative positions which the design team feel could either accommodate an operational lift, whilst minimising impact on the existing listed building fabric.

This is manifest nonsense. First of all, it is clear that retaining the ramp is the simplest and easiest solution. I am aware that the architects keep reiterating that it is not DDA compliant. This is at best misleading and at worst wrong. Firstly, as the D&A statement admits, it is a roadway rather than a pedestrian ramp, therefore the DDA does not apply. Thus, access from this roadway is level, and a ramp is not needed – the building thus fulfils the access rules under the DDA. Moreover, there is disabled parking at this level, access for emergency vehicles and easy access for cycles and those with large amounts of luggage arriving at this level by taxi, all of which benefits will be lost if the ramp is removed.

However, it could contain a pedestrian right of way – many people, including myself, use it as one already – when the DDA would become relevant. But it is not too steep – the architects’ own drawings show that – it merely lacks the required resting places. If parking were removed from the ramp, it would be possible to build them. I will not go into my complete plans for this, which would offer a far better station than that now proposed, including a larger and more readily accessible lift, as this is not the place – suffice it to say that retaining the ramp offers a far better and very much safer experience for users of the station than that proposed plans, though I accept that it will not fulfil the aspirations of the commercial interests involved in this development. I respectfully submit, however, as a user of the station, that passengers’ needs should come before commercial gain.

However, if, despite these obvious benefits, the various developers are set on destroying the ramp, then the obvious thing to do is to go to the old lift shaft. This would mean the loss of Dashi restaurant, but the proposals contain the reduction of the more widely used Pumpkin Café – a further cutting back of the facilities for users under these plans. Therefore, it would make more sense to reduce Dashi. Added to which, a stairway could be added at this end. This would then overcome the problems with emergency exit, and as the old lift was larger, would probably solve a number of other difficulties as well.

Unless those involved with these mad plans do not back down, then it will begin to appear that public need is being sacrificed to commercial greed. I would like to think that that is not true, and that common sense will finally prevail.

Bath Spa Station - what are my objections and why?

2010-02-10T19:02:00.011Z

There seems to be a belief that my objections to the station are all to do with the history of the ramp. That isn't the case. It has to do with efficiency. I was trained as a systems analyst, and I am just horrified at the mess that is going to be created if these plans go ahead. I know many people are saying that the ramp looks horrible - that's true, because it's been allowed to look horrible - but it could look splendid if it were landscaped and planted. The pictures that you see of this lovely square assume that behind the ramp there is ashlar stone. Given that Brunel was working to a very tight budget, that is unlikely. In fact, the very latest drawings seems to acknowledge that - they now talk about Bath Stone facing.

While talking about the square, I'm fascinated by all those people who say: And now Brunel's vaults will be revealed! There's only one thing wrong with that - they were never meant to be revealed. It's a bit like saying - we think Auntie looks a bit old-fashioned and shabby so we'll rip off her clothes and her underwear will be revealed! Put like that, I hope you can see that what is proposed is pretty silly on the aesthetics front.

Others have said that I'm exaggerating the problems. Well, I took a presentation to the Department for Transport to see if they thought I was exaggerating. They did not - in fact, they confirmed that they had raised many of the points that I had raised and not received any satisfactory answers. There have been no flow measurements until very recently - and that was as a result of one of my Powerpoint slides which simulated what I thought the flow would be like. Under the plans which I believe will to be thrown out, there would be people milling about at the top of the stairs as people using the lift - including wheelchair users, those with luggage and those with cycles - tried to get to or from that door just at the top of the stairs. It's the door on the left in my picture. I hope you can see now why the DfT and the ORR are not very impressed.

I'll try to keep this blog up to date, but for this first entry, I'll copy the report I made to the Office of the Rail Regulator - at their request - and I think that lays out very clearly all my objections and my suggestion for an alternative. It doesn't mean that there aren't other satisfactory alternatives,and it doesn't mean the ramp has to stay. All I'm saying is - what is proposed is wrong.

Meanwhile, the site where you can see the plans is http://idox.bathnes.gov.uk/WAM/showCaseFile.do?appNumber=08/04795/COND Incidentally, some new drawings have just gone up and these appear to show that there will be railings between the platform and the terrace of the unit through which you will have to leave in the event of an emergency. That's fine, assuming that the fire alarm goes, because a gate will swing open, but if the alarm does not go off in Unit 5 - say, for example, there's a disturbance, which has happened before now - everyone will be penned on the platform, with the stairs or a small lift the only way off. Anyway, here's my report. More later.

Submission to the Office of the Rail Regulator.

Bath Spa Station - a report.

Issues raised by the present plans.

Introduction

I have laid out the problems created at Bath Spa Station by the new proposals under three headings – Safety, Passenger Comfort and the Disability Discrimination Act. However, Section 1 gives the background to the complete picture, and Section 5 gives a possible solution, so that no one can accuse me of being purely negative.

1. The background picture.

1.1 History.

In fairness to FGW, Multi and B&NES, the roots of the problem lie with the original design by IK Brunel. The station lies on a cramped site, the lines are on the first floor rather than at ground level, and to make matters worse, at each end the lines cross over the river, so in the event of a major disaster or accident, there is no easy egress from the station platforms except by the ramps which now exist on both sides.

Almost immediately, the station was identified as being inconvenient. The ramps were used for goods traffic and for loading carriages on to the rail – a kind of early Motorail. There were two large lifts, one on each side, and one of these, on the down side, is to be restored. This is also the side which is to keep the ramp. However, on the up platform, it is no longer possible to do this, as the space where the lift came out on to the platform is now given over to a sushi restaurant called Dashi.

1.2 The present situation

Over the years, the ramps have become convenient exits for people arriving by train, especially with the long 125 trains. Many cyclists take their cycles up there, some to go on the train, some to leave them there as they go up to London, to be collected in the evening. This is a secure place for cycles to be, under cover of the canopies.

Many people arrive at the platform when the taxi brings them up the ramps to the platform. This is particularly useful for the disabled, but also convenient for the elderly, those with heavy luggage, and people with small children in pushchairs. There is disabled parking under cover beside the platform and dedicated spaces for emergency vehicles. If anyone needs to be stretchered off the platform, that can be achieved easily. If a head injury is involved, the “scoop and run” technique can be applied.

Above all, the ramps are obvious and uncluttered emergency exits. Bath Spa Station is a very busy station by any standards, given that it has only two platforms, and at rush hour it is almost overloaded. Nearly five million people use the station every year, compared with about seven million at Bristol Temple Meads, and these are spread over fifteen platforms. At rush hours, those trying to get off the train can hardly get on to the platform.

The other access to the platforms is by flights of stairs. Those to the down platform go straight up, but those to the up platform have a bend in them about halfway. Accidents have occurred on these from time to time, due to the press of people.

1.3 The Plans

The plans are to remove the ramp to the up platform, and to build a commercial building at the top level where the present car park is. A lift is to be provided on each side. On the down platform, as previously noted, the old lift shaft is to be used, although the promised restoration of the old lift has been watered down. On the up platform, the plans at time of writing are to have a lift with an exit from a lobby right at the top of the stairs.

1.4 Additional Points.

It should be noted that the building is listed Grade 2*, so major changes are unlikely to be permitted, especially as Unesco has considered the possibility of putting the whole of the old GWR line on the World Heritage List. At present this plan is in abeyance, but may well be revived. Within the station, this limits what the developers can do. However, English Heritage were persuaded to agree to some significant alterations in the name of safety and customer satisfaction, and this included the removal of the ramp to the up platform. This part of the station was taken from Network Rail under a CPO. It should also be noted that, at the time, Network Rail had concerns about passenger safety, but the council’s lawyers stated:

Recent discussions with Network Rail have made substantial progress and I am confident that the outstanding issues between my clients and Network Rail will be resolved. None of these issues relates to the need for the CPO in order to ensure that those elements of the Scheme that are to be carried out on Network Rail’s land can be achieved. Nor do the outstanding issues relate to the detailed design of the Scheme, rather they concern commercial matters and the need for Network Rail to be satisfied that the Scheme will not adversely affect the safe and satisfactory operation of the Station.

It is my contention that the scheme does indeed adversely affect the safe and satisfactory running of the station.

2. Safety

Under the projected plans, the ramp to the down platform is to stay. The ramp to the up platform is to be removed, and additional access will be provided by a lift. This is the smallest lift allowed under the DDA – 1500mm by 1100mm. At present, the exit from this will be via a lobby with the exit door at the almost directly at the top of the stairs. At most this is a metre from the top of the stairs.

With the ramp gone, there will be people trying to get up the stairs, some running to catch a train that is arriving, others trying to leave the platform, with the following users cutting across the flow in both directions – cyclists, wheelchair users, people with heavy luggage, people with children in pushchairs and elderly people who have used the lift to save their legs. All this will be happening just at the top of the stairs.

Even if a new position were to be found for the lift, there will still be cross flow, as people with wheelchairs, luggage and cycles push across the platform. For such a busy station, the platforms are relatively narrow, and any disturbance puts people in danger. Network Rail say they are going to widen the platforms, but the only way that this could be done would be to move the rails into the centre of the track, where at present there are no lines. There were once two through lines, which were removed many years ago. It would be acceptable to widen the down platform, using the space then created. Indeed, this would be an improvement, as the curve on the line through the station means there is quite a gap, and a high step up at the far end. However, on the up platform the opposite would apply, with the curve being made tighter and increasing the gap, in contravention of present safety guidelines.

There is the issue of emergency exits. Under the present plans, the emergency exit for the up platform is through the commercial Unit 5. It is unclear what will happen if Unit 5 is closed. It is not even clear whether or not there are railings between the platform and the terrace of Unit 5 – plans suggest that there are. The lift in Unit 5 is smaller than that allowed under the DDA – that is an issue I also raise in Section 4 – the Disability Discrimination Act. To make matters worse, the emergency exit from Unit 5 is through the station. Thus, under the present plans, if there were an emergency which affected both the station and Unit 5, the only emergency exit would be for passengers to get on to the line. With a viaduct high above the river at each end of the station, this must be unacceptable.

The ramp is particularly important for emergency vehicles. The lifts as designed, whether in Unit 5 or the station, will not allow use of a stretcher in them. If anyone were to have suffered a head injury, for example, which meant they had to be strapped to a stretcher and taken off with the minimum of movement, they would, again, have to be taken across the line. Is this legal?

There is no doubt that the presence of the ramp provides a much-needed escape from pressure on this platform. On safety grounds alone, its removal is a badly flawed decision. No one is suggesting that there should not be a lift, provided it is put in a sensible position which does not interfere with passenger safety, but in the interests of safety alone, given the position of the station, the ramp MUST be retained.

There are further issues with safety in the plans, caused by removal of the one way system around the back of the station. There is a well-used footpath which runs form Widcombe, on the other side of the river, across a footbridge, under the line and leads into the city centre. Previously, apart from cars coming down from the ramp on the down platform, pedestrians only had to watch out for cars coming from the west end of the station. With the ramp removed and a so-called plaza created, this system will cease, and all traffic, including taxis will now have to come down through one tunnel, do a U-turn, and go back either up a taxi tunnel or back the way they came. This means that pedestrians will now be faced with cars doing U-turns in their path. It may be that the intention is to direct pedestrians to go round the station to avoid this, but they will not do that as it will make their journey longer. What’s more, the scheme only allows for eight taxis before a traffic jam will be created, causing further confusion on the route of the footpath.

3. Passenger Comfort and Satisfaction

Removal of the ramp is going to cause loss of amenity for many users. Although this is being done in the name of the disabled, many disabled do not want the ramp removed, but their voices are being ignored. (See also Section 4.) I have spoken to many users of the station, and no one can see the point of removing the ramp. Most feel that the station be less passenger-friendly if it is removed.

The ramp means that, as already stated, disabled of many types, not necessarily in a wheelchair, can be driven up to the platform. This is an advantage also enjoyed by the elderly and those with a large amount of luggage. Even if a larger, better-sited lift were to be provided, this would still be less convenient for these people. A well-sited lift would enhance the station, but removal of the ramp, even with such a lift, would make passengers’ experience less convenient.

This particularly applies when we look at cyclists. In an age when cycling should be encouraged, the proposals discourage its use. At present, many cyclists ride to the station, lock up their bikes under cover at cycle racks on the platform, which are therefore very secure. It is true that on their return, they have to cross to the other platform, but they do this in the knowledge that their bike will be there. Under the new plans, less racks are to be provided, they will not be on the platform but on the station concourse, they will not be under cover, and, above all, they will not be secure. The only security that the operators are prepared to offer is that of CCTV – and B&NES is cutting down on its CCTV operators. Women cyclists in particular feel disadvantaged by this move, as they feel it is opening them to risks of having to find their way home by public transport at night if the bicycle is stolen, or even being attacked as they unlock the bike from a rack from one of the exposed positions in which the racks will be placed. While the use of racks on the platform may not be idea, an intelligent use of the ramp would be to provide disabled parking under cover at the top, and secure cycle sheds also at the top under cover.

Then there are cyclists who use the train. At present they ride up the ramp, out of the way of most pedestrians, and can put their bike straight on the train. Under the future plans, they will either have to use the lift, to the inconvenience of themselves and other lift users or take the bicycles up the stairs. To get in the lift, the bike will have to be tipped on end. Neither of these options is good news for cyclists or other users of the station.

Outside the station, the taxi rank will be confined to the tunnel. At present, passengers come out of the station and queue for taxis under the cover of the station canopy – particularly important in bad weather. In future, they will have to walk out of the station to the tunnel. It is not clear where they are expected to queue but even walking to the taxis is going to take them from being under cover. There will be a drop-off point outside, but at present there is short term parking in case the train is late. This will go and anyone waiting will be expected to use the car park in SouthGate – on the other side of the road and at considerable expense.

Finally, it is far from clear that investigations have been made to see if the ramp is structural. If it is holding up the area at the top – and given Brunel’s use of tamped down earth for urgent structural repairs, and given that the archaeologists found this at the top, this may well be the case – then the ramp’s removal could start a landslide which will at the very least close Dorchester Street, and could result in the closure of the station. This is a worst case scenario, but I have spoken to people who are aware of Brunel’s building methods, and they feel that this is a possibility which should not be ignored. The chances of finding an ashlar facing, which the developers keep insisting will be revealed, are negligible. The very best one can hope for is a rubble stone facing, but if there is no facing at all, then a collapse is possible.

4. Disability Discrimination Act

Much of what is being carried out is being done in the name of the disabled. However, even Network Rail seems to be unaware of the DDA. Starting with the plaza, first of all there are steps – unsuitable for the visually handicapped and those in wheelchairs. The chairman of Network Rail told the local MP Don Foster that there would be a wheelchair route across the plaza – he is apparently unaware of the guidelines for station concourse which state that a wheelchair route has to interconnect (my italics) all the facilities – this does not. A person in a wheelchair has to take a convoluted route to access all of the facilities. What is more, both the visually handicapped and the wheelchair-bound coming from the bus station have to take a very long route round to access the plaza – much further than the able-bodied.

Network Rail also says that the ramp is too steep to be acceptable for wheelchair access. This is untrue. Assuming the architects’ drawings are correct, the gradient is less than the 1 in 20 limit. What the ramp lacks are resting places. However, there are three points to be made here. First of all, the ramp is in the curtilage of a Grade 2* listed building, so normal rules can be more relaxed. Secondly, people in powered wheelchairs have told me they have no difficulty going up it, and one person has told me she has been pushed up it. Thirdly, if the parking were removed from it, which would be an asset as it makes it dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists, then it must be possible to build resting places. Another option is to use it in conjunction with a lift for those who do not feel able to tackle the ramp. Simply taking it away is short-sighted, and definitely not what disabled people want to happen.

Disabled parking is at present at the top of the ramp and is under cover. The proposed parking will be at the back of the station and, as some disabled have pointed out, creates an inconvenient hike to the proposed lift for the up platform. The Parkinson’s Disease Group in Bath is very unhappy at the thought of its members having to use a lift rather than being driven up to the platform. The proposed spaces are at best only partially under cover, and of the four places, one is not covered at all. As it is not clear what parking will be at the top of the ramp to the down platform, it is not possible to say whether or not the overall number of disabled parking spaces will be reduced.

As the railway station is being linked with the bus station as a combined “transport hub”, the facilities at the bus station should also be considered. The parking at Bath Spa Station is also presumably for the bus station. This is at present without any disabled parking or even a pull-in and therefore the whole bus station is presumably in breach of the DDA.

The emergency exit for the up platform is said to be through Unit 5. As already noted, it is far from clear how easy the access from the platform to Unit 5 is going to be. But the lift in Unit 5 is smaller than the minimum required by the DDA.

5. My Solution

1. The whole ramp area should be returned to Network Rail – it should never have been taken from them as it is manifestly an essential part of the station. Given that the safety concerns raised by Network Rail when the CPOs were issued have never been resolved, despite promises that they would, it may be possible to show that the handover of property was improperly obtained, as NR only decided to remove its objection to the CPO because these promises were made but subsequently have not been kept.

2. Keep the ramp, but clear it of general parking.

At the top, have covered parking for the disabled, mothers with pushchairs and secure cycle sheds. There could also be a ticket machine of the type installed at unmanned stations.

4. Have designated parking for emergency vehicles.

Put in a pedestrian route down the ramp, which would be covered. This could also be used by those in powered wheelchairs.
For those who need a lift, put a lift at the end of what was the goods line. This would then open out directly at street level. This would be convenient for the disabled coming from the bus station. I appreciate that this might mean loss of historical material, but far less than is at present proposed. This would be supplied with power from the bus station. It could be a big lift and would provide a safe exit for the disabled in the event of an emergency at the station.
Put in a one-way system so that even those parked on the ramp have to turn right to go round the back of the station, so that pedestrians can cross safely from the station to the bus station.
Allow the taxi rank to remain where it is, but again, the taxis must go round the back of the station. Short term parking could also then remain at the front, but would still use the one-way system.
Finally, landscape the ramp.