Two Debates

Organised & chaired by Rodney Tye

29 July 2005

1^st Debate: The Role of the Mayor

The two opening speakers were both former Mayors. Councillor Loraine Morgan-Brinkhurst

held office in 2002/3 under the present structure.

Honorary Alderman Denis Lovelace

has been Mayor but was also Chairman of the separate City Council.

Some time was spent looking back, with the speakers for the ‘Back to Bath’ movement putting their case. But although their petition had gained thousands of signatures, and been presented to Parliament, it had seemed difficult for them to make progress. Alderman Lovelace reminded the meeting that Bath had enjoyed County Borough status, comparable with Bristol. The merits of an elected mayor were discussed. Although this form of local government was now available it had not gained much publicity. But the experiment nationally seemed to have had mixed success. There seemed no enthusiasm in the meeting for such a structure in Bath.The matter of a Parish Council style body, although perhaps with a different name, was looked at. Such a body might prove a forum that needed a Chairman and Weston-super-Mare was mentioned as a possible example. The meeting was doubtful about the value of such a move. Before expressing an opinion the members thought the pros and cons would need to be carefully explained. Coming closer to the subject of the debate, the meeting was re-assured that there need be no concerns on overlap of responsibilities with the Chairman of the Bath & North East Somerset Council. The role of each was reasonably clearly defined.Finally the crucial question – was there areas of the work of the Mayor and of the Charter Trustees that might be varied or enhanced?No suggestion came from the meeting. Effectively it was a vote of approval for the way in which duties were currently being carried out.It was appreciated that the mayor, as in the past, did not use the office to support contentious political policies of one party. Today there was the problem of singe issue campaigners outside Party boundaries, but with conflicting views strongly held. Here too it seemed appropriate that the Mayor kept aside.Lastly there was applause for the way Mayors brought groups of volunteers together, examples being the Mayor’s Honorary Guides and the Town Twinning Committees.

Rodney Tye

2^nd Debate: The Queen Square Lawn

Opened by Brian Cassidy, Secretary to the Bath Society.The background to the discussion had been the ice-rink erected on the lawn for several weeks either side of Christmas, from mid- December 2004. Due to the short period planning consent had not been needed. A continental style fair had been held in the summer of 2004 and was being repeated in August 2005.The Council had approved the ice-rink, but the Bath Society and others had objected. It was regarded as tatty. However organisers had avoided some of the damage feared by Council officers. Present reports indicated it was unlikely to be held this year. Another objection had been over the status of the lawn. In 1948 it had been given as a War Memorial for those killed in the Bath Blitz. Originally, ownership was shared by the occupants of the surrounding houses. The premises of BRLSI (16-18 Queen Square) had a 3/32 share.

Mr Cassidy explained that there seemed to be no documentation regarding the transfer of ownership, but the Council maintained the property.

Councillor Andrew Furze spoke second. He was a Ward councillor for Kingsmead, which covered most of Queen Square. He also had Victoria Park in his Ward. It was a continuing problem seeking to reconcile the recreational use of the spaces with the value placed by the local residents on tranquility.

Councillor Dr Sarah Webb representing Abbey Ward, which involved the Gay Street side of the Square, expressed similar views.

Councillor Furze and Major Crombie (Bath Society) reflected on the Georgian style of the Square. Should we have fewer trees?In conclusion it was agreed that the Lawn provided a popular open space right in the City centre.

Rodney Tye, Convenor