Agenda item

Report by Deputy Director for Environment & Economy (Growth & Infrastructure) (PN7).

Planning permission for the Cogges Link Road at Witney was granted in April 2009.  Work on the scheme has not yet commenced.  In the meantime further work has been undertaken to assess the potential for improvements to the traffic signal controlled junction at Oxford Hill/Jubilee Way (the north-eastern end of the Cogges Link Road).  As a result of that work, a roundabout is now considered to be the preferred solution for managing traffic movements at this junction.  This report describes the planning application that has now been submitted for the roundabout.  The application is being reported to this committee as objections have been received to the proposal.

Some of the comments received repeat objections to the Cogges Link Road that have already been considered and the principle of the Cogges Link Road is not up for consideration as part of this proposal.

The report describes the proposed development and its background, sets out the comments and representations received, and outlines the views of the Deputy Director (Growth & Infrastructure).

It is RECOMMENDED that planning permission be granted for the development proposed in Application No. R3.0039/11 subject to conditions to be determined by the Deputy Director for Environment & Economy (Growth & Infrastructure) to include the following matters:

1.                  Detailed compliance – development to be carried out strictly in accordance with the particulars contained in the application and plans.

2.                  Detailed duration – development to commence within 3 years.

3.                  Landscaping scheme to be submitted and agreed.

4.                  Landscaping scheme to be implemented.

5.                  Retained trees/hedges to be protected during construction.

6.                  Agreement and implementation of an archaeological mitigation strategy.

7.                  Details of lighting to be submitted and agreed.

8.                  Surface water drainage scheme to be approved.

9.                  Details of ecological mitigation measures (including measures already agreed as part of the CLR approval) to be submitted and agreed.

10.             Final details of cycleway provision to be agreed.

11.             Existing footpaths and cycleways to be made good following completion of works.

12.             Details of proposed working hours during construction to be agreed.

13.             All plant and equipment to be used in pond construction to be designed and maintained to reduce noise levels to a minimum.

14.             Road to be constructed using a low road noise surface material.

15.             A scheme for routeing and control of construction traffic to be approved.

16.             No vehicles used in construction works shall enter the public highway unless its wheels and chassis are cleaned.

17.             Measures to be adopted to prevent dust nuisance.

Informatives

1.                  Requirement for a Site Waste Management Plan.

2.                  Diversion required for any Thames Water Main that crosses the site.

Planning permission had been granted for the Cogges Link Road at Witney in April 2009.  In the meantime further work had been undertaken to assess the potential for improvements as a result of which the Committee were now asked to consider an application for the provision of a roundabout to replace the current signal controlled junction at Oxford Hill/Jubilee Way.

Through his public address Mr Condon advised that the revised proposal did not meet safety requirements as laid down in the Highway Agency’s 2007 Design Manual for Roads and Bridges.  TD/50 of the manual did not give guidance on signal controlled junctions on gradients and TD16/07 advised that steep gradients should be avoided at roundabout approaches or flattened to a maximum 2% before entry.  The minimum achieved by this arrangement was 4.2% which meant there were potentially serious issues of large vehicles overturning.  The design manual further advised that roundabouts should preferably be sited on level ground and not sited at the bottom of or on long descents.  According to County Council figures the gradient here ranged from 4% to 6.5% over a distance of 200 metres with a downward incline starting at 350 metres before the roundabout.  He drew particular attention to the dangers of large vehicles entering the roundabout from the south and exiting east onto Jubilee Way.  There were further issues of safety for cyclists and motorcyclists arising from the rate of change in camber, which could result in a loss of grip.  He urged the Committee to defer the application to allow these and other issues connected with this scheme to be addressed.

Through his public address Mr Wilcock advised that 18 years ago he had opposed the proposed routeing of the Cogges Link through the Cogges estate. The revised scheme had avoided the estate but had retained northern and southern accesses, which were later dropped, meaning all traffic entering or leaving the Cogges estate would be obliged to use the northern access.  In 2008 concern had been expressed that this single junction would be able to cope but assurances had been given that a controlled T-junction between Cogges Hill Road and the Cogges Link Road and a 4 way light controlled junction on Oxford Hill would provide safe access.  However, those proposals were now to be amended by replacing the former with an uncontrolled junction and a roundabout at the latter.  These proposals contravened Local Plan Policy T6 insofar as they would increase the potential for traffic conflict and did not provide adequate safety for pedestrians (including schoolchildren) and cyclists.  Pedestrian refuges were inadequate and traffic conflict would increase with heightened accident potential for right turning traffic. He did not consider that these issues had been given enough weight in Jacobs’ report which also inferred that additional land would be required. He had had no response to his suggestion for provision of a 5 limb roundabout.  The marginal flow improvements for traffic did not justify the hazards this application would generate in contrast to the proposals presented in October 2008, which complied with Local Plan Policy. Safety was far more important than traffic flow and he asked the Committee to reject the application.

On behalf of the developer Mr Day confirmed that the Highway Agency Design Manual contained mandatory elements in the manual but that the points raised by Mr Condon did not cover those elements.  Neither was the B4022 a trunk road which meant therefore that the manual could be used for guidance purposes only.  The County Council were complying fully with design guidance.  There was no history of overturning vehicles and the modelling undertaken showed that any risks could be suitably mitigated by appropriate camber adjustment.

Responding to questions from:

Councillor Hannaby – modelling had shown that the roundabout would be able to accommodate levels of traffic whilst maintaining safety levels.  A better balance of traffic and retention of current crossing positions would offer ample opportunity for all users to cross safely.

Councillor Tanner – he confirmed that the current crossing facilities would be retained with splitter islands.  Existing cycle facilities would also be retained but there were no plans to integrate bus priority measures.

Councillor Armitage – the proposed roundabout was within the 30 mph zone and both cyclists and pedestrians would be able to see over the top of the roundabout.

Councillor Seale – it was intended to retain the existing speed camera on Oxford Hill and the potential remained to signalise the junction in the future if needed.

Councillor Fitzgerald-C’Connor – there would be adequate lighting for pedestrians.

Councillor Sanders – he confirmed that further modelling undertaken some 12-18 months ago had confirmed the need for a preferred roundabout scheme.

The Committee noted two amendments to the report namely in paragraph 22 “overturning” to read “overtaking” and in paragraph 38, Condition 17 “pond” to read “road”.

Councillor Service moved and Councillor Reynolds seconded that the recommendation as set out in the officer report be approved.

Councillor Tanner voiced concerns about the viability of the scheme arising from safety concerns for cyclists and lack of bus priority.

The motion was put to the Committee and –

RESOLVED (by 12 votes to 2): that planning permission be granted for the development proposed in Application No. R3.0039/11 subject to conditions to be determined by the Deputy Director (Growth & Infrastructure) to include the following matters:

1.                  Detailed compliance – development to be carried out strictly in accordance with the particulars contained in the application and plans.

2.                  Detailed duration – development to commence within 3 years.

3.                  Landscaping scheme to be submitted and agreed.

4.                  Landscaping scheme to be implemented.

5.                  Retained trees/hedges to be protected during construction.

6.                  Agreement and implementation of an archaeological mitigation strategy.

7.                  Details of lighting to be submitted and agreed.

8.                  Surface water drainage scheme to be approved.

9.                  Details of ecological mitigation measures (including measures already agreed as part of the CLR approval) to be submitted and agreed.

10.             Final details of cycleway provision to be agreed.

11.             Existing footpaths and cycleways to be made good following completion of works.

12.             Details of proposed working hours during construction to be agreed.

13.             All plant and equipment to be used in road construction to be designed and maintained to reduce noise levels to a minimum.

14.             Road to be constructed using a low road noise surface material.

15.             A scheme for routeing and control of construction traffic to be approved.

16.             No vehicles used in construction works shall enter the public highway unless its wheels and chassis are cleaned.

17.             Measures to be adopted to prevent dust nuisance.

Informatives

1.                  Requirement for a Site Waste Management Plan.

2.                  Diversion required for any Thames Water Main that crosses the site.