Bath Residents Unite Against Low Traffic Neighbourhood: A Legal Challenge
In the picturesque city of Bath, a group of determined locals has initiated a crowd-funding campaign to challenge their Liberal Democrat council over a contentious Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTN) scheme. The residents of Sydney Road are taking a stand against what they describe as a "deeply unpopular" initiative that was implemented without sufficient justification. This legal battle highlights the growing tensions between local authorities and communities regarding urban traffic management and safety.
The Controversial Implementation of the LTN
In April, Bath and North East Somerset (Banes) Council closed Sydney Road to through traffic as part of its "liveable neighbourhoods" programme. This initiative aimed to create safer, more pedestrian-friendly environments by reducing vehicular traffic in residential areas. However, before the LTN can be made permanent, residents are raising concerns about its implications for road safety and traffic patterns.
The primary argument against the LTN is that it may inadvertently push traffic onto less safe boundary roads, increasing the risk of accidents and congestion in those areas. Local residents fear that the closure of Sydney Road will lead to a significant rise in traffic on alternative routes, compromising the safety of pedestrians and cyclists.
Fundraising for Legal Action
To support their legal challenge, residents have turned to the crowd-funding platform GoFundMe. Their initial target of £5,000 for legal fees has already been surpassed, demonstrating the strong community backing for this cause. Any surplus funds raised will be donated to Dorothy House, a local charity that provides end-of-life care, further emphasizing the community spirit behind this initiative.
Neil McCabe, the organizer of the appeal, has articulated the residents’ frustrations, stating that the council appears "determined to convert the experimental traffic regulation order that has been running since April into a permanent arrangement." He argues that the council’s lack of engagement with residents and failure to provide a comprehensive Statement of Reasons for the LTN could undermine their legal standing.
Legal Grounds for the Challenge
The residents believe that Banes Council may have made a critical error by not publishing an adequate Statement of Reasons outlining the objectives of the experimental traffic regulation order (ETRO). This oversight, they argue, could provide a legal basis for challenging the council’s decision to make the LTN permanent. The appeal references a previous legal objection to another LTN in Lower Lansdown, which was successfully blocked due to similar inadequacies in the council’s documentation.
McCabe emphasized the broader implications of the LTN, stating, "On a personal basis, the impact is small but annoying. I’m more focused on the fact that it results in reduced safety and increased pollution and congestion by pushing traffic onto less safe roads."
Community Reactions: Divided Opinions
The response from Bath residents has been mixed. Many have expressed their anger over the increased traffic on nearby roads, with one local, Daniel Selwood, lamenting that "their liveable neighbourhood has become our unliveable neighbourhood." Concerns about "near misses" and safety have been voiced at council meetings, reflecting a growing unease among residents.
Conversely, some Bath residents have praised the LTN, arguing that it has successfully reduced the dominance of motor vehicles in the area. Mary Allan, a supporter of the scheme, stated, "Restricting through traffic has proved the only way to achieve this." This division highlights the complexities of urban planning and the challenges of balancing the needs of different community members.
Political Implications and Future Plans
At the recent Liberal Democrat conference, a senior councillor from Bath called for "more powers to be able to shut roads without quite so much ability for legal challenge." This statement underscores the political tensions surrounding the implementation of LTNs and the push for greater control over urban traffic management.
Initially, Banes Council had planned to introduce 15 liveable neighbourhoods across the city, but this number has since been reduced to 11 due to funding constraints and rising construction costs. This scaling back reflects the challenges faced by local authorities in implementing ambitious urban planning initiatives.
Conclusion
The legal challenge against the Low Traffic Neighbourhood in Bath represents a significant moment in the ongoing debate over urban traffic management and community safety. As residents rally together to voice their concerns, the outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications for similar initiatives across the country. The situation in Bath serves as a reminder of the importance of community engagement and transparent decision-making in local governance. As the legal proceedings unfold, the eyes of other communities grappling with similar issues will undoubtedly be watching closely.