It’s mid-way through a busy week in the council chamber.
On Thursday we had a meeting of the Full Council (ie, all 65 councillors). These are now quite rare under the Conservatives so there is generally an exciting (and long) agenda. This was also our AGM so we elected a new council chair and made changes to our panels and committees.
I have swapped one quasi-judicial panel for another; leaving Regulatory & Access to take up Development Control. That is, I have handed over the footpaths’ committee in exchange for planning. I have sat on the planning committee to fill in for missing members several times recently, so know how it works by now. I also have experience from the other side; I have an architecture degree and have worked for, and submitted applications with, a couple of Bath architecture practices. This does mean though, that I will have to be very careful giving planning advice to Bathwick residents. I will continue to explain the system to applicants and objectors, so that they can make best use of the opportunities available for them to put their case, but I can no longer speak for or against individual cases before the meeting.
On Thursday night, council had two named votes. Ordinarily, votes are taken by show of hands with only the numbers recorded. However, councillors can request a named vote be taken for the public record.
The first vote was after a debate about licensing a casino in Bath; a similar proposal was passed in principal last year. Now with applicants in mind, the cabinet brought the controversial plans back to council. While the Conservatives proposed the licence, they clearly want the political cover of a council resolution in case it gets unpopular! A free vote was held, in which I voted against. I appreciate the principal that responsible adults should be free to spend their money as they see fit, and that politicians ought not interfere, but in this case, I cannot see the social or economic benefits of a slot machine parlour outweighing the social and economic costs. Regardless, this was an unusually and genuinely interesting debate with a close result. The casino licence was granted.
The second named vote was altogether more odd. Bristol Airport wants to expand and is preparing a planning application to its local authority, North Somerset. The Liberal Democrats of Bristol City council recently passed a motion questioning the justificaion for expansion on both economic and environmental grounds. BathNES council has a similar motion on record from a few years ago, but the Lib Dems wanted to strengthen it. With the airport causing as much global warming as all the traffic in Bristol, the environmental cost of short haul air travel is obvious. However, less clear is the economic cost. Recent surveys by the South West regional assembly reveals that most business does not want or use a regional airport like Bristol. The airport is used mainly for tourists – leaving the UK. With convenience and cheap fares, British people spending weekends away are taking their money out of the UK, hurting tourism jobs. It should be fairly obvious that there are more Bristolians who holiday in rural Spain and Portugal, than Iberian farmers who take their holidays in Bristol. However, this section of the Liberal Democrat motion was deleted and exchanged by one praising the job creation potential of the airport expansion. The Conservative who proposed this not only sits on the Bristol airport consultation panel, but his ward is the most blighted by airport traffic and noise! With the motion thus wrecked, I was forced to vote against.
Finally, now that I am on the planning committee, I am one of those judging the park and ride and BRT proposals on Wednesday. I look forward to an exciting meeting with an open mind.