HoLCG Press Release
- iandlwilson
- 8 hours ago
- 5 min read
Heart of Lansdown Conservation Group
Media announcement 2 February 2026
A DANGEROUSLY WRONG DECISION WHICH WILL PUT PEDESTRIANS AND SCHOOLCHILDREN AT RISK AND IGNORES LOCAL RESIDENTS
At the close of business on Friday evening, Bath & North East Somerset Council announced via a two person councillor decision that the closure of Winifred’s Lane in Bath would remain permanent after the implementation of the Lower Lansdown ETRO in November 2024.
This highly concerning decision was taken despite B&NES’ own data showing the trial objectively failed the goals set out in the Full Business Case provided to the West of England Combined Authority (WECA) in September 2024. Notably, the Winifred’s Lane closure has resulted in:
- a significantly increased risk to pedestrians and school children
- a reduction in the number of pedestrians walking in the trial streets
- over 600,000 more cars sent past junior schools over 430 days
- an increase in traffic on more roads in the trial area than fewer (taking into account two routes are now blocked to northbound traffic)
- significant displacement of traffic from one residential area to others
- increased KMs driven and additional carbon being emitted
- a schism in the local community.
Reflecting these issues, B&NES’s own review showed that 72% of consultation responses from within the Winifred’s Lane trial area objected to its closure. Traffic increased on multiple residential roads, notably +880% north on Sion Road outside a junior school. The Heart of Lansdown Conservation Group (HoLCG) believes that relevant safety data was not included in the council’s reports, including collisions that were reported to the council, speed data, and video material that was sent to councillors that clearly showed danger to pedestrians and schoolchildren.
The council’s assessment report misrepresents the implications of LTN 1/20 – designed to protect cyclists - suggesting the council has sought to circumvent applicable safety guidance, and fails to note that a key CRSTS funding dependency has not been met before recommending the decision to make the ETRO permanent, namely approval by WECA Benefits and Outcomes Panel (BOP). This appears as deliberate contravention of applicable checks and balances to ensure good governance in the disbursement of public money.
The decision to include the Winfred’s Lane cycleway on the Movement Strategy for Bath, sent to Bath residents in November 2025, well before the communication of the Reports and the final decision announced today, is evidence that the decision to close Winifred’s Lane permanently had already been taken, and that B&NES has fettered its discretion with a pre-determined outcome.
Perhaps above all what really sticks in the craw of local residents is that the decision to permanently close Winifred’s Lane runs contrary to prior public statements made by councillors regarding what would constitute success of the ETRO (see below).
Commenting on the decision by councillors Rigby and Hirst to close Winifred’s Lane permanently a spokesman for the Heart of Lansdown Conservation Group said:
“This decision is against the wishes of the vast majority of hundreds of local residents living close to the Lane – so much for democracy and what councillors have said to us in the past. It clearly contradicts the Liberal Democrat manifesto in so many ways. The element of trust has gone and no doubt will be remembered come the next local elections for B&NES next year.
“Above all this decision will put at risk pedestrians, schoolchildren and cyclists. Again and again over the last 18 months we have made this point to B&NES and yet not been listened to.
“As to damage to the environment – how is increasing car journey mileage improving the quality of the air local residents and school children breathe?
“This is such a shameful decision that we’ll now look at further options to reverse it.”
ENDS
Press enquiries on behalf of HoLCG:
Tim Spratt
Notes to Editors:
Quotes from B&NES councillors – see below
Manda Rigby, August 2024, YouTube, “A guiding principle is that the experiences of those who live in an area 24/7, about what's best for that area, always will carry more weight than those who wish to travel through it sometimes to avoid main roads.” This is relevant as 72% of those in the trial area oppose the measures.
Kevin Guy (Leader of council), June 2025, Bath Echo “There are political parties out there willing to stir up division and hate, but by having a Liberal Democrat authority who care deeply about their communities at the heart of this council, we ensure no community is divided and that misinformation and hate do not win.” This is relevant as the decision is an opportunity to avoid community division, and ensure the data shared is whole and accurate.
Lucy Hodge (Winifred’s Lane ward councillor), December 2025, Bath Voice, “We all know there is often traffic congestion on the roads around schools at the beginning and end of the school day sometimes leading to dangerous incidents.” This is relevant as the data shows that the trials actively send traffic past junior schools, and have led to collisions on Sion Road.
Mark Elliott (Winifred’s Lane ward councillor), January 2024, public meeting in St Stephen’s Church, when it was suggested the modal filters would result in a significant increase in traffic on Sion Hill and Sion Road he said that was not the intention and would be a clear fail. This is relevant as the traffic has dramatically increased on the roads in question.
Mark Elliott, March 2025, Sydney Road ETRO decision, “Crucially, the panel heard that 72% of those living inside the Liveable Neighbourhood support it.” This is relevant as in the case of Winifred’s Lane, 72% of residents inside the Liveable Neighbourhood oppose it.
Mark Elliott, January 2024, “If, following the trial, it is indeed the case that the traffic is simply diverted onto other unsuitable routes, then it will not be made permanent, and adjustment or removal will be the only viable options for consideration.” This is relevant because it is the case that traffic has been diverted to other unsuitable routes and not significantly diminished.
Lucy Hodge, January 2024, “This trial must however also determine whether there are negative consequences arising from the proposal including any increase in traffic on other unsuitable routes…Regarding concerns expressed about the current volumes of northbound traffic on Cavendish Road simply choosing to use Sion Hill West and Sion Hill Place to join back onto Sion Road, this would clearly not be an acceptable outcome.” This is relevant because the situation she describes has transpired, so the outcome is not acceptable.
BANES Low Traffic Neighbourhood Strategy, May 2020, “Low traffic neighbourhoods are not about rewarding one group of people while punishing another.” This is relevant as a majority of residents of certain roads are clearly stating they have been impacted negatively.
Comments