ETRO Report Response

Before Christmas B&NES published reports on the Lower Lansdown ETROs. Since then the HoLCG has carried out a detailed examination of the reports and the associated data.

This process has revealed many gaps and flaws in the data with regards to Winfred's Lane (WL) and in the analysis of the data. It is clear that the WL trial has failed when measured against B&NES' own stated objectives.

The recommendation going to the decision makers contains very minor mitigations that make no difference to the material flaws revealed during the WL trial.

The HoLCG response to the reports can be found below.

Report response HoLCG.pdf

Download PDF • 233KB

The HoLCG has written a letter (see below) to all B&NES councillors highlighting our many concerns about the reports and urging the decision makers to use objective criteria when making the final decisions.

The additional documents referred to in the letter can be found below.

Lower Lansdown ETRO Fact Sheet (Updated).pdf

Download PDF • 6.80MB

LTN 1_20 Analysis.pdf

Download PDF • 178KB

There is still time to express your concerns by emailing Councillor Joel Hirst (Joel_Hirst@BATHNES.GOV.UK) and emailing Councillor Manda Rigby (Manda_Rigby@BATHNES.GOV.UK).

Dear Councillors,

On 19th December 2025, reports on the three Lower Lansdown ETROs were published. That is welcome, not least with regards to Winifred’s Lane (WL).

Throughout the process there have been grave concerns by residents within the trial area around safety, the environment, and divisiveness of the measures. The council has maintained a stance of being objectively data led, and the reports provide the opportunity to understand the data regarding WL.

Key issues:

• No evidence links the three ETROs. Their combination after initial single-member decisions remains arbitrary with no legal basis - they can be unlinked just as easily.

• The WL scheme is deeply unpopular and empirically unsafe. The council's own report shows 72% opposition within the trial area, 84% overall.

• Traffic past junior schools increased by an average of 1401 daily during the trial period (1522 in the comparable November periods), meaning over half a million additional cars pushed past junior schools annually by these bollards. These are seriously concerning numbers, not least with regard to schoolchildren’s safety and health.

• Critical data is omitted or flawed in the reports: speeds, kilometres driven, carbon emissions, known collisions, and costs are all absent. Active travel figures for cycling around WL are miscalculated; pedestrian activity is down overall. These are the worst results of any Bath ETRO, possibly any UK LTN.

• Proposed mitigations cannot address issues caused by road layout, topography, and school locations.

Most critically, point 4.15 claims the proposal is "appropriate, lawful, justified and proportionate" - yet the attached analysis demonstrates that any recommendation rests on unsound data and is unwelcome by the very people it’s aimed to help. Any decision will require the balancing exercise to be reworked due to the flaws and omissions.

We maintain hope that Councillors Hirst and Rigby will act objectively, reflecting the views and safety concerns of local residents "who know their area best," to quote Councillor Rigby.

Please separate and revert the Winifred's Lane ETRO. The practical results do not match the theory of LTNs, it was never the right place to put one. Here, safety and the lived experience of residents must come first - reality over hope.

We also attach a detailed response to the B&NES reports, an updated fact sheet and a LTN 1/20 analysis.