Our video has gone viral—and we’re pressing for proper answers 🌳
Our video has gone viral—and we’re pressing for proper answers 🌳
Last night I posted a video explaining our concerns about the works in Royal Victoria Park. It has since gone viral, bringing the campaign to a much wider audience.
Thank you to everyone who has watched, commented, shared and signed. You are helping put our historic park—and the decisions affecting it—firmly in the spotlight.
Watch and share the video here
We are now taking these concerns further.
Alongside the questions about planning permission, heritage consultation and the powers used for speed tables, we are asking the council’s Monitoring Officer and relevant directors for substantive answers about the scheme’s legal basis and decision-making.
We want each question answered separately, identifying the statutory powers, council decisions and supporting evidence relied upon. Simply sending a bundle of documents will not answer the concerns.
The questions cover:
Protection of the park: What restrictions arise from the County of Avon Act 1982, earlier Bath legislation and any surviving statutory trusts or covenants? How has the council assessed whether a transport through-route is compatible with any requirement to preserve the land for public recreation?
Authority to undertake the works: Is the council acting as landowner, park custodian, traffic authority or highway authority—and what powers and approvals apply in each capacity?
The TRO and construction: What is the precise status of TRO 26-052A and its approval decision? Has either been withdrawn, revoked, suspended or reopened for reconsideration? What separate powers authorise physical construction?
Overlooked objections: Were any objections left out of the original decision? If so, how will they receive genuine reconsideration, with scope to change or withdraw the proposals?
Safety, accessibility and alternatives: How were personal security after dark, the needs of women and girls, disabled access and pedestrian–cyclist interactions assessed? How did the park route compare with alternatives on existing streets?
Scrutiny and the whole scheme: Why was the decision taken by officers, what scrutiny remains available, and where were the combined effects of lighting, excavation, footpaths, landscaping and cycling infrastructure assessed?
We are also asking the Monitoring Officer to provide written conclusions, explain how the review will be independent of the delivery team, and consider whether any formal statutory report is required.
Our request is straightforward: pause further intrusive works while these questions are properly examined. If shortcomings are identified, the council should undertake a fresh, joined-up decision with meaningful consultation and scrutiny.
We have received advice from a planning consultant indicating that planning permission is required. We are asking the council to explain its position. We are also seeking clarity about consultation with Historic England.
We are not claiming that the County of Avon Act automatically prohibits every alteration to the park. We are asking the council to identify the applicable restrictions and demonstrate how this scheme complies with them.
A viral video gets attention. Clear answers and proper scrutiny are what we need next.
Please keep sharing the petition alongside the video. Every share helps more people understand what is happening and why these questions matter.
Thank you for your continued support.
Dave and Andy