1. Actions from previous meeting 

1.1. These were not specifically reviewed but no issues were raised regarding the actions from 4th 
Feb previously circulated. 

 

2. Residents Parking Zone (RPZ) 

2.1. BF reported that Greenway Lane will become an RPZ autumn 2020. Next chance for lower 
Entry Hill is Autumn 2021 – JR highlighted it would be better to have a different number for 
any Entry Hill RPZ so that residents from neighbouring RPZs are not able to use for 2nd or 3rd 
car parking. 

2.2. To avoid commuter parking issues and further congestion of traffic it was suggested that RPZ 
for the entirety of Entry Hill would be the best option, with its own zone number. The 
Committee supported this idea and would like to see it implemented. It was agreed that we 
would ask Councillor Winston Duguid how best to influence that. (KB)

 

{Post meeting note: KB has contacted Winston Duguid. Greenway Lane may be on the next 
RPZ list, but the way RPZ is implemented is being reviewed due to the displacement of parking 
it causes. Areas may become RPZs as a whole but he was uncertain and would not know until 
after further meetings.} 

​

3. Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTN)

 
3.1. It was noted that where people instinctively object to the possibility of personal 
inconvenience resulting from LTNs, this may be due to insufficient exposure to the positives. 
Many individuals have not been “on the journey” that most of the CA members have 
regarding LTNs and the benefits LTNs can have for the whole community. It was agreed the 
committee should attempt to present LTNs more positively. We will also reinforce that LTNs 
were a fundamental part of the local Liberal Democrat manifesto to combat pollution and 
congestion throughout Bath and, having been voted in, there is an expectation they will be 
implemented. Entry Hill LTN could be one of many LTNs throughout Bath where rat-runs and 
congestion have been identified as a major problem and it is likely these will be initiated 
under legislation which makes them “experimental” so any can be withdrawn if unsuccessful. 
This message will be conveyed as part of Communications action below. 

4. Communications: 

4.1. It was agree we would do one more leaflet drop and ask people for email addresses so that 
further communications can be handled electronically. 
4.2. LH agreed to develop a leaflet communication with KW, calling on others who offered 
assistance as required (JR, DW). It was agreed to avoid designing a leaflet “by committee” 
and to circulate a finished article prior to the next CA meeting for sign off provided there are 
no major objections (not to reopen discussions around content). The leaflet could include: 

• What the CA is trying to achieve in terms of RPZ and LTN, highlighting positives including 
safety, pollution, quality of life and a new era for cities etc. 
• A request for other residents ideas on (a) alternative ways to improve safety etc and (b) 
other things they may want the CA to be involved in or champion in the future. 
• A request for anyone with specialist skills who may want to assist the CA to make 
themselves known. This may include, but is by no means limited to, people with expertise 
in planning; traffic control; safety; environmental improvement & protection; 
communications; website design etc. 
• A request for residents to let the CA know how they would like to share ideas eg. informal 
coffee meetings etc. 
• Notice that future correspondence will be primarily via email or the website currently 
under construction and a request that those wishing to be kept informed of developments 
should provide their email address to the CA. [LH/KW] 

 

5. Web site 

5.1. In progress – KB to update at next meeting [KB] 

 

6. Any other business 

6.1. Bank Account: it was agreed we don’t need one for now as we intend to keep expenditure 
fairly limited and Committee Members are likely to be able to manage these costs. DW would 
be able to keep a simple record for now. [DW] 
6.2. FoBRA membership: KB will attend the next meeting. KB will also find out the FoBRA 
membership fee. There is apparently a scaled fee based on the number of paying members 
within and Residents/Community Association so as the Entry Hill CA does not currently 
require a fee for membership, the FoBRA Fee is expected to be quite low. [KB] 
6.3. Depot site next to Entry Hill Golf Course, owned by BaNES Council: KB explained the Council 
may be looking into developing this site but we have not heard any more detail. 
6.4. Planning Developments generally: It was agreed KB would ask SW to look into what planning 
developments may be in the pipeline and report back to the next CA meeting so that the 
Committee may decide if any action is required. [KB/SW] 
6.5. Entry Hill Golf Course, potential change of use: KW agreed to email the organisers of Golf 
course survey to ask when we may hear the results. [KW] 

7            Date andlocation of next  meeting to be confirmed by KB following communication with CA Committee Members. 

 

 

{Post Meeting Note: KB has spoken to SW and her husband, the depot has had offers of 
development in the past and plans have not materialised.} 

​