I woke up this morning to find Dave Dixon’s statement in my inbox, following a meeting yesterday with the Leader of B&NES, Cllr Kevin Guy and others to discuss the controversial cycle path through Royal Victoria Park.
He’s written:
“Following today’s meeting with Councillor Kevin Guy, Chris Major, Meg Carter and Bath’s Bicycle Mayor, Pete Dyson, our position is clear: stop the current works, listen to the community and reconsider the plans together.
Our concerns about safety, heritage impact and the process followed remain unresolved.
Offering two hours’ free parking on Sundays does not make the wider scheme acceptable. We are not opposed to two hours’ free parking, provided it does not come at the expense of existing spaces. In particular, parking along the bottom of the pond must remain.
Parking arrangements should support park visitors and discourage commuter and other long-stay parking. They cannot substitute for answers to our objections.
We welcomed the suggestion of a park user group, but community involvement must begin now, while people can still influence what happens. A future partnership cannot replace meaningful consultation before installation.
We do not accept a 12-month cycle lane trial. Why wait a year to listen when the council could pause now, involve the community properly and reconsider the proposals before spending more money? That discussion must include whether a cycle lane is wanted at all and, if it proceeds, whether it should operate against the traffic as a contraflow lane or follow the direction of traffic. These must be genuine choices.
Chris Major’s reference to “our park” also caused concern. Royal Victoria Park is the community’s park, and the people who use and cherish it deserve a meaningful say in its future. We raised safety questions and continued to press for the cumulative impact of the separate traffic orders and associated works to be assessed together.
The combined effects on park users and the park’s historic character must be properly examined and explained. We provided our Heritage Impact Report and requested a substantive written response within five working days, by Thursday 12 November 2026.
The accompanying campaign timeline remains an incomplete working record of the correspondence, questions and concerns raised. The council would earn far more respect by listening and acting now.
People have already expressed substantial objections; a promise to review the scheme after installation does not answer them. We encourage everyone concerned to keep making their views known to the council and their elected representatives, and to support the campaign through peaceful, constructive action.
Meanwhile, the group continues to explore its options for pursuing a judicial review. We remain ready to work towards a better outcome for Royal Victoria Park. That starts with a pause in the works and a genuine willingness to reconsider.”
NB. You can see the council’s point of view on the subject elsewhere on this blog.
Members of the general public would be safe to assume that the offer of a review after 1 year beyond implementation will of course only result in the council telling the public that they the council were right all along and of course after 1 year they the council will not and cannot change anything that they have implemented in Royal Victoria Park.