Issue - meetings

Forward Plan Ref: 2020/162

Contact: Hugh Potter, Group Manager – Area Operations Hub Tel: 07766 998704/Robin Calver, Principal Officer (Structures) Tel: 07741 607453

Report by Interim Corporate Director Communities (CMDE7).

Mitigation measures are required to protect the damaged narrow three span masonry arch bridge across the River Islip on the B4027 from further damage. A scheme comprising permanent traffic signals and other traffic management measures has been identified as the least-worst option, recognising that while inevitably leading to some traffic delays and queuing in the village it will help address long standing concerns over the safety of pedestrians crossing the bridge, where the only provision is a narrow ‘virtual’ footway using carriageway markings as there is no space for a kerbed footway.

Separately from the above proposal, a request has been received from Islip Parish Council to extend the 20mph speed limit on the B4027 Wheatley Road, which currently terminates just south of the above bridge to the current terminal point of the 30mph speed limit and to then provide a ‘buffer’ 40mph speed limit in place of the current 50mph speed limit south of Islip. Although the speed limit proposals were not identified in the context of the proposed signals, they are complementary in that lower speed limits would help mitigate the risk of shunt type accidents on the northbound approach of the B4027 into the village when vehicles are queuing on the approach to the signals.  

The Cabinet Member for Environment is RECOMMENDED to approve:

a)           the proposed traffic signals on the B4027 river bridge at Islip and the one-way restriction on Mill Street as advertised;

b)           the proposed 20mph and 40mph speed limits on the B4027 Wheatley Road as advertised.

Deferred to undertake further local consultation on the issues of traffic on and safety issues for the B4027 river bridge.

Approved

In order to protect the damaged narrow three span masonry arch bridge across the River Islip on the B4027 from further damage a scheme comprising permanent traffic signals and other traffic management measures has been identified. While inevitably that would lead to some traffic delays and queuing in the village it was seen as the least-worst option to help address long standing concerns over the safety of pedestrians crossing the bridge, where the only provision was a narrow ‘virtual’ footway using carriageway markings. Separately from the above proposal, a request had been received from Islip Parish Council to extend the 20mph speed limit on the B4027 Wheatley Road, which currently terminated just south of the above bridge to the current terminal point of the 30mph speed limit and to then provide a ‘buffer’ 40mph speed limit in place of the current 50mph speed limit south of Islip. Although the speed limit proposals were not identified in the context of the proposed signals, they were complementary in that lower speed limits would help mitigate the risk of shunt type accidents on the northbound approach of the B4027 into the village when vehicles were queuing on the approach to the signals. 

Calum Miller objected to the proposed changes to traffic management on Islip bridge on the grounds that as the County Council had failed to conduct a fair consultation it was, therefore, unlawful and open to challenge. He suggested the proposal be withdrawn and a lawful consultation undertaken giving those affected by the proposed changes sufficient information and adequate time to respond. He considered the Cabinet Member was being misled as the proposed changes to Islip bridge had never been directly consulted on and the fact that a number of consultees had chosen to comment it should not be assumed that there had been a fair process. Consultation needed to occur when proposals were at a formative stage; giving sufficient reasons for any proposal and allowing adequate time to consider and respond. It was not reasonable for the county council to argue that publicising the minor change alerted interested parties to the more major proposal. Furthermore, the information provided in support of the minor change had been insufficient to allow consultees to understand how the different parts of the proposal joined so preventing a meaningful and informed response. There were no mitigating factors to justify this failure to consult fairly and rather than trying to sneak its proposal through behind a more minor change the county council should carry out a proper consultation on the management of traffic through the village.

Jenny Surtees agreed that the bridge needed remedial works but blocking agricultural machinery crossing the River Ray in Islip would cut them off from a significant portion of the land they farmed at Kirtlington affecting the viability of their business. Hard restrictions that prevented wide or tall machinery from crossing the bridge meant that any machinery would have to be moved via the A40 / Oxford ringroad / A34 which  ...  view the full minutes text for item 42