Agenda, decisions and minutes

The Cabinet Member for Environment considered (CMDE4) a report setting out objections and other comments in response to a statutory consultation on proposed pelican crossings on the A415 Marcham Road and Ock Street, Abingdon. The proposals had arisen following an Appeal Decision made by the Planning Inspectorate on 11 July 2013 granting planning permission for a the proposed development of 159 dwellings on land adjacent to the B4017 Drayton Road in south Abingdon insofar as that decision had included a condition that no development should take place until the earlier of the following two events had taken place:

a)                 The local planning authority had received written confirmation, issued by Oxfordshire County Council, that highway alterations were to be carried out comprising the introduction of an additional crossing of Ock Street to the east of Drayton Road and the relocation of the existing crossing further west on Marcham Road.

b)                 Highway alterations had been implemented comprising the introduction of an additional crossing of Ock Street to the east of Drayton Road and the relocation of the existing crossing further west on Marcham Road and the associated traffic signals were first in operation.

The reason for this, as outlined by the Inspector and discussed in detail at the appeal, had been to avoid severe transport effects that would otherwise arise from the development.

Anthea Norman-Taylor a resident in this area suggested that this proposal had been formulated purely for traffic reasons associated with the proposed housing development and not to meet any identifiable need or provide any advantage for pedestrians. She considered the Inspector’s decision flawed and that the proposed crossing sites presented a clear and significant danger to pedestrians which she felt would inevitably result in fatalities.

Roberta Nichols (Abingdon Civic Society) pointed out that the original objection by the County Council had been based on the potential for severe traffic congestion.  There had been little success in identifying a suitable scheme to alleviate and mitigate against traffic impact and yet the Inspector had agreed this condition.  These crossings would not help the situation. However, if it was to go ahead then a trial period of say 2 weeks in school term time should be introduced.

Anne Dodd a local resident of 37 years used the crossing daily and addressed specific concerns regarding school children.  The proposed site was not on a desire line and she considered it reasonable to expect that children would not use them therefore increasing the risk of accidents. She was familiar with traffic modelling but residents were all to aware of the problems this would cause.

Roger Bush considered the proposals flawed.  The roads were already subject to an unacceptable level of queuing and the only conclusion to be drawn was that that situation would worsen if these proposals went ahead. Air pollution levels would also increase and he questioned whether there these had been adequately considered.

Councillor Samantha Bowring (Abingdon Town Council) referred to the work previously undertaken to mitigate the effects of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16/14

The Cabinet Member considered (CMDE5) a report seeking approval to progress to detailed design and construction of a cycling improvement scheme at the Plain roundabout and proposed modification to the nearby A420 High street junction with Longwall Street as a complementary improvement.

Simon Hurst  (Cyclox) thanked officers for the discussions undertaken on the scheme and whilst in principle he supported its aims he felt that without additional measures it would not work such as reducing speeds on the roundabout to say10/15 mph . As the scheme would require alteration of the geometry of the roundabout an opportunity to increase segregation had also been missed. His organisation were happy to discuss further proposals for lane marking eastbound of the roundabout but the scheme had not been audited for all aspects of cycle traffic.

Graham Smith (CTC) considered the scheme in its present terms unacceptable. The aim should be to introduce the presence of cyclists and make them visible to motorists. Tabling a handout which highlighted lane line marking off Magdalen Bridge and right off St Clements he felt give way at right angles would have been a better option. In his view this scheme lent itself to a similar type scheme as the Copenhagen hybrid scheme which would not result in a reduction of space for pedestrians and other vehicles. He felt there was a design attitude problem with regard to this scheme.

Noam Bleicher (Bus users UK) opposed the scheme as it would result in additional delays to bus users of almost a minute when travelling from Cowley Road in the morning peak where journeys through the roundabout already took four and a half minutes. Bus journeys in the city were already slow and nothing should be introduced to make that any worse.  There were proposals for future retail development in the city and any reduction in road network capacity could be disastrous.  He felt the money could be better spent elsewhere and urged rejection.

Mr Rossington confirmed a great deal of work had been undertaken with stakeholders and contrary to some views felt the scheme was ambitious and represented a great improvement in promoting cycle use and increased safety bearing in mind the constraints that existed at the roundabout such as the need to retain traffic flow, limited space and the tight timescale for delivery.  The need to find a balance had been met with considerable gains for pedestrians and cyclists.  He accepted some delay for buses would be inevitable but felt that would be offset by some gains as a result of the changes proposed at the Longwall Street lights.  Stage 2 would follow when funding was available.  On-carriageway facilities had been carefully considered and clearly set out with approach work now fixed but he was happy to consider minor changes to signing and lining.  He confirmed that officers had reached agreement with Sainsburys to resolve concerns that they had had regarding loading bay arrangements.

Councillor Sanders supported the modifications to Longwall street and suggested signing  ...  view the full minutes text for item 17/14

The Cabinet Member considered (CMDE6) an objection from Thames Valley police to a proposal to extend the existing 30 mph speed limt on the B4477 Alvescot Road at Filkins in place of the current 40 mph limit.

Having regard to the arguments and options set out in the documentation before him the Cabinet Member for Environment confirmed his decision as follows:

to approveimplementation of the proposed revised speed limit on the B4477 at Filkins as advertised.

………………………………………..

Cabinet Member for Environment

………………………………  2014

The Cabinet Member considered (CMDE7) an objection to a proposal to extend the existing 40 mph speed limit on the Oxford Road at Bagley Wood to include the site of a major maintenance scheme following the collapse of part of the embankment noting support from the local member Councillor Bob Johnston.

Having regard to the arguments and options set out in the documentation before him the Cabinet Member for Environment confirmed his decision as follows:

approveimplementation of a 40 mph speed limit on the Oxford Road, Kennington (through Bagley Wood) as advertised.

………………………………………..

Cabinet Member for Environment

………………………………  2014

The Cabinet Member for Environment considered (CMDE8) objections to a formal consultation on proposals to introduce new parking restrictions on the Shilton Park estate in Carterton.

Yvonne Conway spoke in support of the revised proposals.  The original proposals had been wholly unfair insofar as they had removed the option of parking their second car on the road outside their property particularly as parking in that area did not create safety issues or traffic flow problems.

The Cabinet Member noted the comments from another resident Mrs Caroline Martland which had been set out on the addenda sheet and also the support for the revised proposals expressed by County Councillor Peter Handley (Carterton South & West)

Mr Tole commended the revised proposals which represented a good solution.  Regarding the comments raised by Mrs Martland he felt the costs involved were justified in order to meet problems identified by the consultation and to support bus services into the estate. He confirmed that it was not the County Council’s intention to introduce this sort of restriction on all estates and each case would be considered on its merits.

Councillor Neil Owen (Burford and Carterton North) supported the proposals and thanked officers for setting out the revisions to the original scheme which now had the support of the majority of residents.

Having regard to the arguments and options set out in the documentation before him, the representations made to him and the further considerations set out above the Cabinet Member for Environment confirmed his decision as follows:

approve the proposed parking restrictions for Shilton Park Estate, Carterton as advertised and amended and as described in the report CMDE8 and shown at Annex 3 to the report CMDE8.

………………………………………..

Cabinet Member for Environment

………………………………  2014

The Cabinet Member considered (CMDE8) objections to a consultation on an experimental traffic regulation order introducing parking restrictions in the vicinity of Shiplake station in response to concerns expressed over a number of years by the Parish Council and individual residents that parking by rail commuters was causing congestion, nuisance and preventing large vehicles manoeuvring.

The Cabinet Member confirmed that the local member was comfortable with the scheme although he had forwarded concerns from the Parish Council regarding the need to carry out further formal consultations on minor additions to the proposals in view of the time it had taken to arrive at this point.   He asked officers to respond to the Parish Council and the local member regarding those concerns.

Mr Tole confirmed the proposals had significantly divided the community and further consideration had been required regarding additional measures to deal with the effects of cars displaced by the existing restrictions as set out in Annex 3 to the report.

Having regard to the arguments and options set out in the documentation before him, the representations made to him by the local member and the further considerations set out above the Cabinet Member confirmed his decision as follows:

a)     approve the making of a permanent traffic regulation order for the parking restrictions in Shiplake that were the subject of the Experimental Order;

 b)     instruct officers to carry out formal consultation on the proposed minor additions as set out in the report CMDE9 and to report the results of that consultation to a future meeting.

………………………………………..

Cabinet Member for Environment

………………………………  2014

The Cabinet Member for Environment considered (CMDE10) objections received to a statutory consultation on a proposal to introduce waiting restrictions on Moor avenue and Burford Road in the vicinity of Tower Hill Community School.

Mr Tole confirmed the support of the local member Councillor Laura Price. Objections had been received from some local residents but the problems being experienced were those usually experienced at school drop off times.

Having regard to the arguments and options set out in the documentation before him the Cabinet Member for Environment confirmed his decision as follows:

to approveimplementation of parking restrictions on Burford Road/Moor Avenue, Witney as advertised and set out in the report CMDE10.

………………………………………..

Cabinet Member for Environment

………………………………  2014

The Cabinet Member considered (CMDE11) objections received as a result of a formal consultation on proposals to introduce one new disabled persons’ parking place in Orchard Way, Wantage and the removal of 3 spaces in Henley.

Councillor Jenny Hannaby (Grove & Wantage) spoke in support of the proposal for Orchard way, Wantage.

The Cabinet Member confirmed that a recommendation was being made to the Henley Town Council not to object to the removal of the spaces in Henley.

Having regard to the arguments and options set out in the documentation before him, the representations made to him and the further considerations set out above the Cabinet Member for Environment confirmed his decision as follows:

to approve the proposed Disabled Persons’ Parking Place changes as set out in the report CMDE10. 

………………………………………..

Cabinet Member for Environment

………………………………  2014

It is RECOMMENDED that the public be excluded for the duration of item 13E since it is likely that if they were present during that item there would be disclosure of exempt information as defined in Part I of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended) and specified below in relation to that item and since it is considered that, in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information on the grounds set out in that item.

NOTE: The main report relating to item 13E does not itself contain exempt information and is thus available to the public. The exempt information is contained either in an Annex which has been circulated only to members and officers entitled to receive it, or will be reported orally at the meeting.

MEMBERS AND OFFICERS ARE REMINDED THAT THE EXEMPT FINANCIAL INFORMATION RELATING TO SUBSIDY AGREEMENTS REPORTED AT THE MEETING (WHETHER IN WRITING OR ORALLY) MUST NOT BE DIVULGED TO ANY THIRD PARTY.

RESOLVED: that the public be excluded for the duration of item 13E since it was likely that if they were present during that item there would be disclosure of exempt information as defined in Part I of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended) relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information) and since it was considered that, in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information on the grounds set out in that item.

Forward Plan Ref: 2014/025

Contact: Andrew Pau, Strategic Manager, Waste & Transport Tel: (01865) 815867

Report by Deputy Director of Environment & Economy – Commercial & Delivery (CMDE13E).

The information in this report is exempt in that it falls within the following prescribed category:

Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information)

The Cabinet Member for Environment considered proposals for subsidised bus services in the Witney, Woodstock and Chipping Norton area and two other services elsewhere in the county.

Item F – Mr Darch undertook to discuss with the operator the possibility of additional evening services.

Councillor Sanders welcomed the savings under Services F G and H as a result of these services being operated commercially but asked for confirmation regarding the viability of the operator and the long term ability to continue the services.

Mr Field confirmed that under deregulation rules operators were able to run a service if they so wished.  Officers monitored operators to ensure services were maintained.  If an operator was unable to continue then each service would need to be reviewed on a case by case basis. In this case the operator was a community interest company operating smaller buses and therefore its operating costs were lower.  They were a reputable operation with a solid structure and the recommendation before the cabinet Member had been based on good data.

Officers were thanked for their work on the review.

Having regard to the arguments and options set out in the documentation before him, the representations made to him and the further considerations set out above the Cabinet Member for Environment confirmed his decision as follows:

a)                 make decisions on subsidy for the services described in this report on the basis of the tender prices (and the periods of time) as set out in Supplementary Exempt Annex 2;

b)                 record that in the opinion of the Cabinet Member the decisions made in (a) above are urgent in that any delay likely to be caused by the call in process would result in service discontinuity and in accordance with the requirements of Scrutiny Procedure Rule 17(b) those decisions should not be subject to the call in process;          

c)                  authorise the production of timetable booklets to publicise subsidised and commercial bus services in the Witney, Chipping Norton and Woodstock area to coincide with the introduction of revised services in June 2014.

………………………………………..

Cabinet Member for Environment

………………………………  2014