Agenda and minutes

Any county councillor may, by giving notice to the Proper Officer by 9 am on the working day before the meeting, ask a question on any matter in respect of the Cabinet Member’s delegated powers.

The number of questions which may be asked by any councillor at any one meeting is limited to two (or one question with notice and a supplementary question at the meeting) and the time for questions will be limited to 30 minutes in total. As with questions at Council, any questions which remain unanswered at the end of this item will receive a written response.

Questions submitted prior to the agenda being despatched are shown below and will be the subject of a response from the appropriate Cabinet Member or such other councillor or officer as is determined by the Cabinet Member, and shall not be the subject of further debate at this meeting. Questions received after the despatch of the agenda, but before the deadline, will be shown on the Schedule of Addenda circulated at the meeting, together with any written response which is available at that time.

Councillor Jean Fooks

“Last year I and a local resident, Allan Freinkel, presented a petition from residents in Elisabeth Jennings way for the removal of the rumble strips which are causing serious noise disturbance to the people living nearby. At the time the road was unadopted so outside the control of the County Council. The road has now been adopted and an estimate has s been obtained for the replacement of the cobbles with plain tarmac, but no funds are as yet identified The yellow lines that are now painted have removed the parking that used to occur, and it is felt that traffic speeds have increased as a result to way over the 20mph limit. Residents would like to have some measure in place which was designed to reduce the excessive speeds here; to replace the current raised table and cobbles would cost nearer £7,500 . Would the County Council now please consider the speed issue as well as the noise nuisance and identify funds that could be used to address the problems here? “

Reply from Councillor Rodney Rose, Cabinet Member for Transport

“The design meets the Council’s design requirements and was introduced to reduce speeds in the residential area. We feel that it does achieve what it is meant to. The noise seems to be exacerbated by the speeds of the approaching vehicles from the main entrance road.

As pointed out at a recent site meeting with Councillor Fooks, there have been no complaints from residents close to similar features at other locations in the development.

Whilst I appreciate that this is a concern for Councillor Fooks and some residents it cannot be considered a priority for funding, which we all know is extremely restricted.”

Supplementary

“As well as noise, speed is an issue here so would the Cabinet Member consider at least some speed monitoring work?”

Reply

“There were many areas in the County where noise was a problem and as this work had been designed as part of the original development it would not be a priority to incur costs by removing the strips.  He would investigate whether officers could undertake some speed monitoring work.”

Councillor John Tanner

"Will the Cabinet member accept my thanks for rebuilding the Iffley Road which is long overdue for repair?

Will he consider bringing forward the establishment of the pelican crossing at Percy Street to the first phase of the road improvement? The route across Iffley Road at this point between the split school site is much used by children attending Saints Mary & John Primary School and the earlier the installation of the pedestrian crossing the better. I am not arguing against starting the repairs from the Plain but adding the crossing initially as a stand alone feature at an earlier stage.

Will he consider consulting residents about the removal of parking, particularly during peak hours, on the north outward-bound side of Iffley Road? This could allow for a cycle lane east bound (as well as west bound) on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9/11

Forward Plan Ref: 2010/215

Contact: Craig Rossington, Principal Transport Planner Tel: (01865) 815575

10.10  am

Report by Deputy Director of Environment & Economy – Highways & Transport (CMDT4).

The Cabinet Member for Transport considered a report outlining progress on plans to transform Frideswide Square noting further comments submitted on behalf of Rescue Oxford which had been tabled with the addenda at the meeting.

Councillor Armitage referred to the positive local feedback to the consultation.  He supported the principles set out in the paper but stressed the need to address cycle safety and access for delivery vehicles.

Mr Rossington advised that wider public consultation would be undertaken in the autumn which would pick up issues such as cycling safety and access for delivery vehicles.

The Cabinet Member thanked officers for their work so far on this important and innovative project.  The scheme formed an important part of the Transform Oxford plans and had been recognised as such at central government level.

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 Transport confirmed his decision as follows:

(a)                     proceed with design work and public consultation on design approach D (“road split” and “central road” only);

(b)                    develop a business case to support a bid for any appropriate government funding.

Forward Plan Ref: 2010/188

Contact: Aron Wisdom, Transport Planner Tel: (01865) 810454

10.40 am

Report by Deputy Director of Environment & Economy - Highways and Transport (CMDT5).

The Cabinet Member for Transport considered proposals for transport improvements in the Highfield and Old Road area noting further representations made by City Councillor Ruth Wilkinson which had been tabled with the addenda at the meeting.

Mr McKenna referred to the campaign which had been undertaken by residents over many years to address problems experienced from excessive through traffic and speed in the Highfield and Old Road area. That had led to a comprehensive proposal being put forward last June.  However, the removal of key measures such as turning restrictions and speed reduction proposals meant that the scheme had been substantially reduced. This would have a huge detrimental effect and the community were seeking reinstatement of proposals for pinch points and parking revisions in order to reduce traffic speed. He asked why no speed reduction measures were being proposed for the full lengths of Stapleton, Bickerton and Latimer Roads and Lime Walk. The cost of reinstatement would only be £10,000 but the benefits to the community would be considerable.  Community representatives were happy to work with county officers to organise implementation in stages and develop the scheme as funds become available from future developments.

Councillor Darke endorsed Mr McKenna’s comments stressing that residents had felt let down by what was now being put forward and asked that elements of the scheme such as pinch points and parking revisions be reinstated. Local opinion also supported resiting of the proposed crossing point further away from the Stapleton Road junction. He also referred to the dangerous situation on Old Road, particularly the downhill cycle path.  He then advised that the City Council’s Strategic Development Committee would, that evening, be considering the development of Dorset House at the end of Latimer Road which, if approved, could potentially lead to the allocation of some S106 funding towards the county scheme for Highfield.  He enquired that if that was the case could the money be ring fenced in order to progress a more ambitious scheme for this area.

Mr Wisdom confirmed that the current scheme had been a combination of 2 previously separate schemes.  It had not been possible to reach a consensus but it was felt that the revised scheme presented the best available option in the light of the need for the County Council to review spending. It enabled a more strategic approach to be adopted which responded specifically to areas of concern such as accident statistics and displacement of traffic.

Mr Howell, responding to Councillor Darke, confirmed that if S106 funding were made available there could be no guarantee that it would be used specifically on replacing elements in this scheme.

The Cabinet Member for Transport considered it essential to get something in place now and then look to reinforce and develop it at a later date. 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 he agreed as follows:

(a)          to implement the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12/11

Forward Plan Ref: 2010/180

Contact: Joy White, Senior Transport Planner Tel: (01865) 815882

 11.10 am

Report by Deputy Director of Environment & Economy - Highways & Transport (CMDT6).

The Cabinet Member for Transport considered a report (CMDT6) which provided information on a scheme for cycle and pedestrian improvements for The Slade and Horspath Driftway.

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

(a)          implement the Slade and Horspath Driftway Cycle and Pedestrian Improvements as shown on Drawing Nos HQ14876/CON/002 and HQ14876/CON/003 and Annex 2 to the report CMDT6; and

(b)          approve that the lengths of footway indicated in Annex 2 to the report CMDT6 as shared use footway be removed under the powers in Section 66(4) of the Highways Act 1980 and a cycle track constructed under Section 65(1);

(c)           authorise the Deputy Director of Environment & Economy - Highways & Transport, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Transport, to make a final decision on the scheme elements to be removed from the design in the event that costs needed to be reduced in order to match the available funding resource.

Forward Plan Ref: 2011/030

Contact: Mike Horton, Principal Traffic Technician Tel: (01865) 812647

11.30 am

Report by Deputy Director of Environment & Economy – Highways & Transport (CMDT7).

The Cabinet Member for Transport considered (CMDT7) a request by Cherwell District Council for an agency agreement to advertise a traffic regulation order to enhance the existing semi-pedestrianised section of the High Street in Kidlington.

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

approve the request from Cherwell District Council for an Agency Agreement to enable them to revoke the current prohibition of driving traffic regulation order in High Street, Kidlington and promote a new order to enhance the existing semi-pedestrianisation section as necessary.

Forward Plan Ref: 2010/196

Contact: Thomas Cockhill, Traffic Technician Tel: (01235) 466143

11.40 am

Report by Deputy Director of Environment & Economy - Highways & Transport (CMDT8).

The Cabinet Member for Transport considered (CMDT8) objections and comments received to a consultation on a proposed no waiting at any time restriction and restricted loading bay on various roads in Sonning Common.

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

(a)                     approve the various roads, Sonning Common prohibition of waiting and restricted loading proposals as advertised; and

(b)                    authorise the necessary works to implement the proposals.

Forward Plan Ref: 2011/001

Contact: Aron Wisdom, Transport Planner Tel: (01865) 810454

 11.45 am

Report by Deputy Director of Environment & Economy - Highways & Transport ( CMDT9).

The Cabinet Member for Transport considered a report (CMDT9) outlining proposals to convert footways to shared use cycle paths on the short stretch of Old Abingdon Road spanning the railway and Hinksey Stream bridges in conjunction with work currently being undertaken by Network Rail and at their expense.

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

authorise that the lengths of footway highlighted in red in Annex 2(a) to the report CMDT9 be removed under the powers in Section 66(4) of the Highways Act 1980 and a cycle track constructed under Section 65(1).

Forward Plan Ref: 2011/003

Contact: Neil Timberlake, Assistant Public Transport Officer Tel: (01865) 815585

 11.50 am

Report by Deputy Director of Environment & Economy - Highways & Transport ( CMDT10).

The Cabinet Member for Transport considered (CMDT10) future funding for Transport for All the Oxfordshire consultative body which represented people with disabilities and mobility impairments.

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

(a)                     cease funding Transport For All as a separate organisation after 31 March 2011, but to formally thank the officers and members of Transport For All for their work over the past 22 years, and to write to them informing them of this decision;

(b)                    agree to secure through Oxfordshire Unlimited the consultative role of representing disabled and elderly people in Oxfordshire in matters relating to Highways and Transport;

(c)                     award a grant of £2,000 per annum to support the costs of its meetings and other consultative work for a period of three years commencing 1 April 2011, subject to the agreement of Oxfordshire Unlimited to the terms of a Service Level Agreement governing budget-setting and financial reporting and accountability;

(d)                    agree that the Oxfordshire Rural Community Council would no longer be required to provide administrative support for TFA, and that such support as might be required by Oxfordshire Unlimited would be met from within the County Council’s current staffing resources.

It is RECOMMENDED that the public be excluded for the duration of item 12E 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 12E 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 12E 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) and specified below in relation to that item 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: 2010/210

Contact: John Wood, Assistant Public Transport Officer, Tel: (01865) 815802

 11.55 am

Report by Deputy Director of Environment & Economy – Highways & Transport  (CMDT12E).

The Cabinet Member for Transport considered (CMDT12E) a review of:

-                      subsidised bus services in the Wheatley, Thame and Watlington areas which would, if awarded, be effective from 5 June 2011;

-                      other bus subsidy contracts elsewhere in the county.

Councillor Wilmshurst thanked officers for listening positively to comments regarding services in his area particularly the service 40 and Chinnor-Princes Risborough link.  He hoped that some of the S106 funding from the redevelopment of the Chinnor cement works could be used to extend the 40 service to serve that redevelopment.

Councillor Turner expressed great concern regarding radical changes proposed to the 106 service.  Because of the exempt nature of the report there had been no public consultation these changes which would come as a great shock to many people who relied on the current level of service on this route to get to work and access local shopping facilities.  With regard to Service 102 he had equal concerns regarding the proposal not to continue support for the middle timed service.  The amount required to maintain current levels of service was small in comparison to the savings being realised by the Council as a result of proposals by the operator.  The restricted service would have a devastating effect and could be regarded as discriminatory.

Responding to Councillor Wilmshurst  Mr Field confirmed that with regard to the redevelopment of the Chinnor cement works it had been agreed in the short term to run a minibus service from the new estate to the line of the 40 route.  In the longer term it was hoped that the estate would be served by the 40 service itself.

Responding to Councillor Turner Mr Wood confirmed that the proposal by Thames Travel had been a commercial proposition. The 101 service did stop on the Cowley Road in the am and pm.

The Cabinet Member for Transport stressed that the County Council needed to get the best it could from the resource available and as such were looking to support essential services as a first priority. The middle service offered by the 102 had been considered as non essential and he confirmed that the proposal to withdraw that element of support had not been taken in isolation but on merit as would every similar service/operation. It should also be noted that some authorities would be cutting their whole subsidy budget.

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 Transport confirmed his decisions as follows:

(a)       agree subsidy for the services described in the report CMDT12E on the basis of the tender prices (and the periods of time) as set out in Supplementary Exempt Annex 2 to that report;

(b)       record that in his opinion the decisions made in (a) above were urgent in that any delay likely to be caused by the call-in process would result in service discontinuity and in accordance with the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19/11