Decision details

As part of the planning approval for the development, Condition 44 states The development shall not be occupied until double yellow lines have been painted on both sides of Blackbird Leys Road for the entirety of the section between the northern most extent of Blackbird Leys Road, as shown on approved plan DC_00_DR_A_1210 P2, to the junction between Blackbird Leys Road and Pegasus Road. These should also continue for 10m along any side road which adjoins this land. In the interests of Highway Safety.

The Chair invited speakers to address the meeting and responded to their points in turn.

The Chair made a general point about cyclists and pedestrians in 3 of the reports that came to today’s meeting, referencing when they come into proximity with each other and stating that it would lead to accidents, without quoting incidents where it had happened. The Chair made it clear that his point did not mean that accidents have not happen, do not happen or will not happen.

The Chair emphasised that the scheme had planning permission, which meant that the design had been approved. The Chair made the point that three of the recommendations in the report are there to action Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs) to enable designs that are part of the planning consent. Thus, the Chair made clear that he didn’t have any discretion to change these at this stage. This was confirmed by the Director of Highways and Operations, who agreed that the Chair’s remit was quite narrow.

The Chair stated that the formal opportunity to consult on the design of the scheme was during the planning process. The Chair noted the considerable number of objections in this report about the loss of parking and the introduction of double-yellow lines. The Chair noted that the double-yellow lines were a condition of the planning approval.

The Chair referenced that Thames Valley Police had no objection to this proposal, providing that traffic monitoring had taken place. Officers stated that they would find out about that specific point.

The Chair noted that the report stated that concerns throughout the process had been raised by Oxfordshire County Council officers to the developers and Oxford City Council planning team, but that the suggestions were not taken forward when finalising the design.

The Chair stated that the report suggested that wider connectivity was outside of the project’s scope.

The Chair noted the difficulties in this scheme around communication, timeliness and design, and that considering the nature of issues were made publicly, feedback on issues in a future meeting would be appropriate. Senior officers agreed with the Chair and stated that a report would be brought back to a future meeting.

The Chair reiterated that the only grounds that he would have to reject this report would be if it did not fulfil Oxfordshire County Council’s statutory obligation, under Section 122 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act, 1984.

Section 122 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act, 1984, states that:

‘(1) It shall be the duty of every local authority upon whom functions are conferred by or under this Act, so to exercise the functions conferred on them by this Act as (so far as practicable having regard to the matters specified in sub-section (2) below) to secure the expeditious convenient and safe movement of vehicular and other traffic (including pedestrians) and the provision of suitable and adequate parking facilities on and off the highway.

(2) The matters referred to in sub-section (1) above, as being specified in this sub-section are:

(a) The desirability of securing and maintaining reasonable access to premises;

(b) The effect on the amenities of any locality affected and (without prejudice to the generality of this paragraph) the importance of regulating and restricting the use of roads by heavy commercial vehicles, so as to preserve or improve the amenities of the areas through which the roads run;

(bb) The strategy prepared under Section 80 of the Environment Act 1995 (national air quality strategy);

(c) The importance of facilitating the passage of public service vehicles and of securing the safety and convenience of persons using or desiring to use such vehicles; and

(d) Any other matters appearing to …the local authority…. to be relevant’

The Chair, having confirmed with officers, did not think there were any grounds to reject this proposal based on Section 122 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act, 1984.

The Chair asked officers to confirm whether one-way cycling was advisory. The Vision Zero Team Leader confirmed that off-road one-way cycle tracks were advisory.

The Chair asked if it was feasible to introduce two-way cycle tracks in the sections where it was currently one-way, as shown in the report. The Senior Engineer (Central) stated that he didn’t think it was feasible but was happy to look at the suggestion.

The Chair asked about junction treatments and access into cycle lanes from side roads, following some of the responses in the report and whether it could be looked at in the final design and implementation process. Officers responded that they had asked the contractors to take a look at this suggestion. The Chair asked officers to continue these discussions with the contractors. Officers highlighted the issue of the scheme not being led by Oxfordshire County Council, but by developers.

The Chair raised the issue of a lack of co-production in this scheme and questioned why it was the case. The Director of Highways and Operations highlighted the lack of framework surrounding co-production, noting that work was underway to create a co-production handbook to provide advice.

The Chair noted a response from the Royal National Institute of Blind People, who strongly opposed the proposal for shared-use cycle paths. Officers noted the space constraints that were apparent in the design of the proposal. The Chair and officers agreed that it was about the actual risk, such as accidents, as well as the perceived risk that people feel.

The Chair reiterated that objections to the double-yellow lines were outside of the scope of this meeting, as it was part of the planning consent.

The Chair asked if the provision of disabled persons parking was changing due to this report. The Team Leader – TRO and Schemes – noted that blue badge holders can park on double-yellow lines for up to 3 hours. The Chair stated that this could be kept under review, as is the case with other schemes.

The Chair noted comments from respondents on the loss of parking and that Blackbird Leys was not covered by a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ). Officers responded that this would be looked at in a potential Blackbird Leys CPZ.

The Chair agreed the recommendations in the report.

RESOLVED to:

a)    New ‘No Waiting at Any Time’ (double yellow lines) parking prohibition on both sides of Blackbird Leys Road,

b)    Two new ‘Tiger’ crossings for use by pedestrians & pedal cycles on Blackbird Leys Road,

c)    New ‘Zebra’ crossing (for use by pedestrians) on Cuddeson Way, and

d)    Sections of new shared & segregated cycle paths along both sides of Blackbird Leys Road.