Issue - meetings
Proposed Pelican Crossings - A415 Marcham Road and Ock Street, Abingdon
Meeting: 16/12/2014 - Cabinet (Item 124)
At their meeting on 3 November 2014 the Performance Scrutiny Committee considered the decision of the Cabinet Member of Environment made on 9 October 2014 following proper notice of call in. The Committee agreed to refer the decision back to Cabinet for it to consider in the light of the following aspects of the decision:
(a) That neither the Officers report nor the Cabinet Members decision appeared to be based on the Department for Transport Guidance into the assessment of pedestrian crossing sites and;
(b) The Cabinet Member did not take due account of the impact of the changes on the wider local traffic network.
The report before cabinet asks Members to consider the proposal in the round and specifically responds to the challenges from Scrutiny Committee.
Cabinet is RECOMMENDED to:
(a)
approve implementation of proposals for two
proposed Pelican crossings on A415 Marcham Road and Ock
Street, Abingdon as advertised and
(b)
(if approved) ask officers to monitor
closely the safety performance and traffic delays following the completion of
the works.
Additional documents:
- CA_DEC1614R05 Marcham Rd Call-In - Annex 1 - 9 Oct Delegated Decisions paper, item 124
PDF 21 MB
- CA_DEC1614R06 Annex 2 Extract of Minutes 9 October,, item 124
PDF 109 KB
- CA_DEC1614R07 Marcham Rd Call-In - Annex 3 - Local Transport Note - Assessment of Pedestrian Crossings, item 124
PDF 3 MB
- CA_DEC1614R08 Marcham Rd Call-In - Annex 4 - Appeal Decision, item 124
PDF 10 MB
- CA_DEC1614R27 Marcham Rd Call-In -Additional Information, item 124
PDF 4 MB
- CA_DEC1614R29 Addenda PSC Note to Cabinet, item 124
PDF 67 KB
Decision:
Recommendations agreed.
Minutes:
At their meeting
on 3 November 2014 the Performance Scrutiny Committee considered the decision
of the Cabinet Member of Environment made on 9 October 2014 following proper
notice of call in. The Committee agreed to refer the decision back to Cabinet
for it to consider in the light of the following aspects of the decision:
(a) That neither the Officers report nor the
Cabinet Members decision appeared to be based on the Department for Transport
Guidance into the assessment of pedestrian crossing sites and;
(b) The Cabinet Member did not take due
account of the impact of the changes on the wider local traffic network.
Cabinet had before them a report
that asked Members to consider all previous papers for the proposal as well as the
current report and specifically to respond to the challenges from Scrutiny
Committee. Cabinet also had before them the petition submitted by Councillor. Samantha Bowring,
Town Councillor for Ock Meadow Ward.
Roger Bush, speaking against the decision of the Cabinet
Member for Environment made on 9 October 2014 explained the context of the
decision within the planning framework and the current position with regard to
planning applications. He commented that with the National Planning Policy
Framework local control had been lost. He stated that he saw no sense in the
decision on road safety or traffic grounds. He refuted that there would be no
impact and believed that there would be adverse traffic consequences with
lengthened queues. Mr Bush questioned the competence and integrity of officers,
which statements were strongly refuted by Cabinet who noted that they were hard
working, professional and experienced individuals.
Anthea Turner,
queried the purpose of the changes when the Town Council and residents did not
want them and in her view they were not designed to improve traffic. The County
Council was afraid of being sued but it was clear that if the measures proved
impossible to proceed then the development cannot continue. She expressed doubt
over the modelling that had taken place and asserted that the changes would
cause massive hold ups on Drayton Road.
Dr Jim Halliday, spoke against the
proposals highlighting congestion and queues leading to air quality issues.
Andy Cattermole, Taylor Wimpey, spoke in support of the
report from officers and asked that Cabinet follow its recommendations.
Councillor Constance, speaking as a a
signatory to the call in expressed concern over increased congestion and argued
that the Highways Authority had not exercised its powers to examine the wider
congestion that she felt would be the result of the changes.
Councillor Neil Fawcett, speaking as a local councillor and as the originator of the call in stated that the views expressed reflected that the process followed was not trusted and was seen to be led by the planning decision rather than being arrived at objectively. He supported comments from Councillor Constance around congestion in the wider area. Referring to an assessment of safety he considered that the County Council had not done a proper assessment of ... view the full minutes text for item 124
Meeting: 25/11/2014 - Cabinet (Item 117)
At their meeting on 3 November 2014, the Performance Scrutiny Committee considered the decision of the Cabinet Member for Environment made on 9 October 2014 following proper notice of a call in. The Committee agreed to refer the decision back to Cabinet for it to consider in the light of the following material concerns that the Committee had about the following aspects of the decision:
(a) that neither the officer’s report nor the Cabinet Member’s decision appeared to be based on the Department of Transport Guidance into the assessment of pedestrian crossing sites; and
(b) the Cabinet Member did not take due account of the impact of the changes on the wider local traffic network.
Cabinet
is RECOMMENDED to note the complexity of the information they will be asked to
consider and agree to defer consideration of the Scrutiny Committee Call to the
December meeting.
Decision:
Recommendation agreed.
Minutes:
At
their meeting on 3 November 2014, the Performance Scrutiny Committee considered
the decision of the Cabinet Member for Environment made on 9 October 2014
following proper notice of a call in. The Committee agreed to refer the
decision back to Cabinet for it to consider in the light of the material
concerns that the Committee had about some aspects of the decision.
Mr
Cattermole, Taylor Wimpey, commented that in the absence of a substantive
report they agreed to see a deferral.
Cabinet is RECOMMENDED to note the complexity of the information they
will be asked to consider and agree to defer consideration of the Scrutiny
Committee Call to the December meeting.
Meeting: 03/11/2014 - Performance Scrutiny Committee (Item 3)
Written notice has been given in
accordance with the Council’s Scrutiny procedure Rules requiring the decision
of the Cabinet Member for Environment on 9 October 2014 to be called in for
review by this Committee.
The following documents are
attached:
(a) A report (PSC5(a)) setting out the names of the
Councillors who have required the call in and the reasons given for the Call
in.
(b) The report considered by the
Cabinet Member for Environment (CMDE4)
together with an extract of the minutes of the delegated decision session. (PSC5(b)).
(c) Additional information provided in response to the call in (PSC5(c)).
Additional documents:
- CMDE_OCT0914R07, item 3
PDF 5 MB
- PSC_NOV0314R02 Extract of Minutes 9 October, item 3
PDF 108 KB
- PSC_NOV0314R03 Callinrequest Directorate response, item 3
PDF 156 KB
Minutes:
Written notice has been given in accordance with the
Council’s Scrutiny procedure Rules requiring the decision of the Cabinet Member
for Environment on 9 October 2014 to be called in for review by this Committee.
The Performance Scrutiny Committee had before them:
(1) A report setting out the names of the Councillors who have
required the call in and the reasons given for the Call in.
(2) The report considered by the Cabinet Member for Environment
together with an extract of the minutes of the delegated decision session.
(3) Additional information
provided in response to the call in
Councillor
Fawcett, speaking as the originator of the call in outlined the history leading
to the decision on 9 October, referring to the decision by the Planning
Inspector and the earlier decision taken by the Cabinet Member. Speaking on the
3 reasons given for the call in Councillor Fawcett made the following points:
1)
In relation to reason 1
Councillor Fawcett pointed out that the Cabinet Member at his meeting had made
a point of the visit he had made to the location. However many of the concerns
were around safety of children and therefore a visit on a Saturday was not
appropriate. It was not the main concern but it raised questions about how the
decision was made.
2)
In relation to reason
2 there was clear guidance about the location and design of pedestrian
crossings. There is a clear process to follow which includes consideration
about siting. The impression given at the meeting on 9 October was that the
planning inspector had said it should be so and therefore proper process was
not followed with regard to siting. In particular it was not clear whether
pedestrian desire lines had been considered.
3)
On reason number 3 he
stated that congestion had not been properly addressed.
Councillor
Webber, speaking as a signatory to the call in felt that the problem was the
public perception of the way it was carried out. A great deal of advice,
including legal advice, was not available at the meeting. He was not a planning
expert and there were many planning aspects to the decision. He queried the
role of the Transport Advisory Panel feeling that they had not been listened
to.
Councillor
Constance, speaking as a signatory to the call in spoke in support of reason 3
which related to the wider traffic issues. She stated that congestion had not
been properly considered. The largest number of responses was about congestion.
The comments of the Inspector would have been based as a planning decision on
the application site and immediate environment. This did not override the need
for the Council as a Highway Authority to consider the impact on the wider
Abingdon area. The decision would result in obstructing traffic having a severe
impact on Abingdon Town.
Mr
Cattermole, Planning Manager, Taylor Wimpey, spoke against the call in making
the following points:
1) The site visit by the Cabinet Member had been to familiarise himself ... view the full minutes text for item 3
Meeting: 09/10/2014 - Delegated Decisions by Cabinet Member for Environment (including Transport) (Item 53)
53 Proposed Pelican Crossings - A415 Marcham Road and Ock Street, Abingdon PDF 5 MB
Forward Plan Ref: 2014/136
Contact: Jim Daughton, Service Manager, Delivery
Tel: 01865 812083
Report by Deputy Director for Environment and Economy – Commercial & Delivery (CMDE4).
Decision:
Agreed
Agreed
RESOLVED: to:
a) Approve the implementation of proposals as advertised.
b) (if approved) monitor closely the safety
performance and traffic
delays following the completion of the works.
Minutes:
The Cabinet Member for Environment considered (CMDE4) a report setting
out objections and other comments received in response to re-consultation on a
proposed new pelican crossing on Ock street and a
re-located pelican crossing on the A415 Marcham Road,
Abingdon arising from a proposed development of 159 dwellings on land adjacent
to the B4017 Drayton road following an appeal decision granting planning
permission by the Planning Inspectorate in 2013 which had included a condition
that ‘no development should take place until the crossing proposals had been
implemented or the highway authority had confirmed they would be implemented.
The Cabinet Member explained that following a legal challenge to the
decision he had taken on this matter in March the County Council had reviewed
the process and considered that as the reasons for that decision had not been
made clear it had been decided to bring the proposals back to him for further
and full consideration at this meeting.
Prior to hearing from the public speakers he then invited officers to set
out the latest position since publication of the current report to include any
additional papers which had been received. He also acknowledged additional
emails which he and officers had received including a letter from the Abingdon
Town Council.
Abingdon Town Councillor Alice Badcock stated that the already notorious
traffic problems on Drayton Road would be exacerbated by these new
crossings. Safety issues would also be
created as moving the crossings did not come with a guarantee that children
would use them and it was wrong to put lives at risk for the sake of 159
houses. Utility vehicles entering the MG gardens also presented an additional
risk by needing to manoeuvre on the highway to gain entry. The Town Council had
realised there could be a major accident if these changes went ahead and the
County Council needed to be prepared to take full responsibility if that
happened.
Abingdon Town Councillor Angela Lawrence stated that nothing material had
changed since the decision in March and she disagreed completely with the
officer recommendation as set out in the current report. She considered the
current layout at the Ock Street/Spring Road junction
was perfectly adequate but adding another crossing would worsen an already bad
situation and would not reflect natural desire lines. The AbITS
programme had gone a long way to improving air quality but these proposals
would inevitably negate any improvements by increasing queues and congestion as
well as endangering school children and creating safety issues.
Martin Bowes read out a statement on behalf of Anthea Norman-Taylor who had been unable to attend. Had the developers attended the meeting in March they would have heard first-hand the concerns expressed by local people and their elected representatives. Furthermore it was quite clear from the appeal decision documents that the Inspector had wanted a full public consultation to decide this matter and not him. The Inspector and developers had accepted there was already a serious traffic issue on the Drayton Road so it ... view the full minutes text for item 53