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.
No comments:
Post a Comment