Agenda and minutes

Any county councillor may, by giving notice to the Proper Officer by 9 am two working days 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

 

As many of the requests for funding through the Area Stewardship Fund require traffic orders, it appears necessary to increase the capacity of the County Council to process these. Can you update me on your progress with this?

 

Reply from the Cabinet Member for Transport

 

The contractual arrangement we have with Atkins allows us to bring in additional resources to meet the demands of peak workload. This includes work associated with traffic regulation orders. The manager of this team is well aware of the issue and is taking appropriate action to make sure that Area Stewardship Fund schemes can be delivered quickly and effectively.

 

Supplementary question

 

This is good news. When will the teams be augmented?

 

Reply

 

Should be with immediate effect and there will be feedback to local members

Petition

 

Presented by Councillor Jean Fooks and Bob Robson in the following terms:

 

Many Cutteslowe residents have told us that the CPZ implemented some years ago is causing more problems than solutions in the area.

 

Some people would prefer more unrestricted spaces, so they do not have to pay for a resident’s permit or pave over their front gardens to make space for their cars.

 

Others would like to have longer times for the restrictions, so that, having paid for a resident’s permit, they can rely on finding a space in the evening when they come home.

 

We want to press the County Council to carry out the review they promised originally – to give residents the opportunity to say what they would like in their roads.

 

Councillor Fooks confirmed that the perception locally was that there had never been a problem with commuter parking but the current situation now was that there was limited parking for residents with no restrictions in the evenings when commercial vehicles were often parked in resident only bays.  The zone needed urgent review.

 

Mr Robson a resident of Hawksmoor Road endorsed the comments that there had never been a problem with parking and the area had never been overparked.  People should use the park and ride.  He was also against paying £50 for permits when he already paid Council tax and road tax.  All that was needed was a parking sign at the end of the road which would enable much of the signing to be removed.

 

The petition was referred to the Deputy Director for Environment & Economy (Highways & Transport) to respond.

 

Public Address

 

Speaker	Item
Councillor Jean Fooks	4. Speed Limit Amendments arising from the County Speed Limit Review
Councillor David Turner	) 6. Oxford City Centre Low Emission Zone ) 7. Highfield Road and Old Road Improvements ) 9. Funding for ORCC Transport Team
Norman Chesterman Tony Henderson David Roulston Derek Hambridge Wanda Gough Councillor Ian Hudspeth	) ) ) 8. West Oxfordshire District: Proposed Waiting ) Restrictions ) )

 

Forward Plan Ref: 2011/198

Contact: Anthony Kirkwood, Assistant Principal Engineer Tel: (01865) 815704

 

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

 

 

 

 

The Cabinet Member for Transport considered three speed limit amendments at Adderbury – Berry Hill Road (extension of 30 mph limit), Hailey – B4022 between Hailey and Witney (introduction of 40 mph limt) and Oxford – A40 Oxford northern bypass east of Cutteslowe roundabout (introduction of a 50 mph limit for a distance of 750m) all of which had been identified following implementation of new speed limits arising from the speed limit review on the County’s A and B roads carried out in 2011.

 

Councillor Fooks supported the proposals for the northern bypass and the need to reduce speeds near the Cutteslowe roundabout but expressed some regret that the restriction could not be extended further east.

 

The Cabinet Member for Transport noted that the local member for Bloxham had expressed opposition to the proposals for the Adderbury – Berry Hill Road.

 

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 to approve the speed limit changes as advertised and shown in plans A, B and C annexed to the report CMDT4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Cabinet Member for Transport is RECOMMENDED to approve the speed limit changes as advertised and shown in Plans A, B and C annexed to this report.

 

Forward Plan Ref: 2011/199

Contact: Anthony Kirkwood, Assistant Principal Engineer Tel: (01865) 815704

 

Report by Deputy Director for Environment & Economy – Highways & Transport (CMDT5).

 

The Cabinet Member for Transport considered a proposal to revise speed limits on the A4095 Chesterton Road and B4030 Middleton Stoney Road in accordance with planning consents for development of land adjacent to those roads which had required revised speed limits due to the construction of new junctions and other alterations to the road layout.  He also noted an officer amendment to recommendation (a) as set out in the addenda sheet.

 

The Cabinet Member expressed his concern that requirements for speed limits could be decided by the terms of a planning consent when it should be for highway officers to determine when and where speed limits were appropriate.  This particular one on the A44 had required considerable improvements to be made to the junction and had placed an additional financial burden on the highways 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 decision as follows:

 

(a)          to delegate authority to the Deputy Director for Environment & Economy – Highways & Transport in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Transport to carry out the necessary improvements to the junction (at a cost of £15,000) to maintain the current speed limit of 50 mph;

 

(b)                     to approve the implementation of speed limits on the A4095 and B4030 as advertised but with an interim arrangement as shown in Annex Bii to the report CMDT5.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Cabinet Member for Transport is RECOMMENDED to:

 

(a)         delegate authority to the Deputy Director for Environment & Economy (Highways & Transport) in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Transport to carry out the necessary improvements to the junction (at a cost of £15,000) and to maintain the current speed limit of 50 mph;

 

(b)        approve the implementation of speed limits on the A4095 and B4030 as advertised but with an interim arrangement as shown in Annex Bii to this report.

 

Forward Plan Ref: 2011/177

Contact: Martin Kraftl, Senior Transport Planner Tel: (01865) 815786

 

Report by Deputy Director for Environment & Economy – Highways & Transport (CMDT6).

 

 

 

The Cabinet Member for Transport considered the terms of an application to the Traffic Commissioner for a traffic regulation condition to limit emissions from buses in Oxford and seeking to bring taxis and licensed private hire vehicles up to the same standard as buses.

 

Councillor Turner supported the general aims of the proposal.  However, he expressed some concern regarding the potential impact from the cost of these proposals to smaller operators who operated an hourly or less frequent service into the city centre and possibly placing some of those services, many of them rural, under threat.

 

Mr Kraftl advised that the impact on smaller operators would be lessened because there was an alternative and cheaper option to retrofit existing engines with an exhaust treatment device. Also where additional costs were incurred they were likely to be passed on to the county council as they were subsidised services.

 

Mr Helling added there was some risk that some service could be withdrawn but if that was to be the case it would be minor as the majority of subsidised services were already compliant.  Every effort had been made to protect very low frequency buses and hourly services  would be exempt.  However, it would not be acceptable to expect larger operators to comply whilst exempting smaller operators.

 

The Cabinet Member for Transport noted a late additional submission from Oxford Sightseeing , which officers had tabled along with their comments. 

 

With regard to these comments Mr Kraftl advised that the county council was doing as much as it could to be fair to all parties and officers were recommending no further amendment was required.

 

He further advised that the Traffic Commissioner had suggested a meeting to discuss the draft condition and it had been anticipated that that could lead to some changes to the finally submitted application.  Therefore officers had suggested an amendment to recommendation (a) to authorise the Deputy Director for Environment & Economy (Highways & Transport in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Transport ) to make any minor changes to the draft.

 

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)               agree to making a formal application to the Traffic Commissioner for a traffic regulation condition based on the draft at Annex 1 to this report, subject to authorising the Deputy Director for Environment & Economy (Highways & Transport) to make any minor changes to the draft in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Transport and to formal agreement by Oxford City Council that it would operate a certification scheme for vehicles and retrofitted equipment for as long as the traffic regulation condition remained in force;

 

(b)               agree to the approach being taken for maintaining a database of very low frequency services and the monitoring and investigation of suspected non-compliance for as long as the traffic regulation condition remained in force; (paragraph 18) of the report CMDT6;  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6/12

Forward Plan Ref: 2012/001

Contact: Victoria Butterworth, Assistant Transport Planner Tel: (01865) 810414/Martin Kraftl, Senior Transport Planner Tel: (01865) 815786

 

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

 

It had been necessary to relocate a previously approved cycle by pass running from Gypsy Lane to Old Road via Grays Road and the Cabinet Member for Transport needed to consider approving an amendment to allow the legal use of part of the footway by cyclists on the new route.

 

Councillor Turner speaking on behalf of Councillor Roz Smith (local member) who had been unable to attend outlined her general support but also some concern that this expenditure had been correctly prioritised when compared to more dangerous and more accident prone spots elsewhere on Old Road.

 

Ms Butterworth confirmed that this was a minor change to the scheme on site which had been developer funded  and would improve cycle  provision along the whole route. 

 

The Cabinet Member suggested that the local member talk to the Oxford Transport Strategy team to see if anymore could be done possibly using the localities 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 decision as follows:

 

(a)       authorise that the status of lengths of footway highlighted in orange in Annex 1 to the report CMDT7 be changed under the powers in Section 66(4) of the Highways Act 1980 and a cycle track constructed under Section 65(1) in place of the lengths of footway authorised for conversion to cycle track on 31 March 2011 and shown in blue in Annex 1 to the report CMDT7;

 

(b)       authorise the Deputy Director for Environment & Economy – Highways & Transport, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Transport, to make a final decision on the precise location of the footway to be converted to cycle track, should further construction difficulties arise with the proposed location.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Cabinet Member for Transport is RECOMMENDED to:

 

(a)       authorise that the status of lengths of footway highlighted in orange in Annex 1 to this report be changed under the powers in Section 66(4) of the Highways Act 1980 and a cycle track constructed under Section 65(1) in place of the lengths of footway authorised for conversion to cycle track on 31 March 2011 shown in blue in Annex 1 to this report.

 

(b)       authorise the Deputy Director for Environment & Economy –

Highways & Transport, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Transport, to make a final decision on the precise location of the footway to be converted to cycle track, should further construction difficulties arise with the proposed location.

 

Forward Plan Ref: 2011/200

Contact: Mike Horton, Principal Traffic Technician (Regulations) Tel: (01865) 810504

 

Report by Deputy Director for Environment & Economy – Highways & Transport (CMDT8).

 

The Cabinet Member for Transport considered a set of waiting restrictions in 14 locations across West Oxfordshire District in the light of public consultation on each.

 

The Cabinet Member received a number of representations with regard to proposals for Heath Lane, Bladon.

 

Mr Chesterman referred to the limited availability of pavement in Heath Lane. There was no pavement on the right hand side, the pavement on the left hand side often had cars parked on it and there were particular problems outside numbers 8 and 10, where there was a high pavement. Parked vehicles obstructed emergency vehicles and posed a threat to the viability of bus services, which were already limited, placing greater pressure on the elderly and requiring more people to walk in an area, which was already quite dangerous.

 

Mr Henderson referred to the 81 objections received to the proposal.  He could not understand why it was considered that a restriction was required in Heath Lane when the grounds for such a restriction were no longer valid. The proposals went too far and the expenditure could not be justified if such restrictions were not needed. He was not aware of any problems of access for buses, refuse or other vehicles and expressed concern that evidence presented during the formal consultation did not appear to have been considered.

 

Mr Roulston endorsed the views put forward by Mr Henderson and reiterated that evidence presented in the second round of consultation had not been considered.  He felt that the original parish council plan had had some substance to it but advised that problems that were being experienced then were no longer a problem now as many residents had built their own parking spaces.  That had eliminated problems of parking on the lane and there was therefore no justification for this expenditure. He was not aware of problems experienced by large vehicles and no study had been undertaken regarding displacement of vehicles if a restriction was implemented.

 

Mr Hambridge advised that proposals for some form of parking in Heath Lane were not new.  However, neither had they been driven by the parish council who had merely been responding to representations received and concerns of residents in Heath Lane. The parish council had never wanted the larger scheme, which they knew would be resisted but felt they should go along with it in order to get the scheme into the public domain.  The parish council would like to see the expanded scheme withdrawn and consultation undertaken on the smaller scheme which they considered a reasonable compromise.

 

Wanda Gough advised that there had been some evidence of delays to emergency service vehicles and documented evidence of parking problems on the corner at the Manor Road end and the police had recommended yellow lines in that area.

 

Councillor Hudspeth felt the advertised proposal went way beyond what was required and a restriction at the pinch point on Heath Lane would be more than sufficient and he supported the proposal being tabled by the parish  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8/12

Forward Plan Ref: 2011/205

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

 

Report by Deputy Director for Environment & Economy – Highways & Transport (CMDT9).

 

 

The Cabinet Member for Transport considered future funding for the employment of externally-based posts at Oxfordshire Rural Community Council in the light of current county funding arrangements ending on 31 March 2012.

 

Councillor Turner sought confirmation regarding arrangements for delivering MiDAS and PATS training.

 

Mr Timberlake confirmed that there had been a hiatus in provision between October 2011 and April 2012.  However, it was now proposed that this service would be transferred to the integrated transport unit in order to resume free provision of MiDAS and PATS training to the voluntary sector.   He understood numbers varied between 100 – 150 pa but the service could be reviewed if it was felt that it was not meeting needs.

 

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)                     to pay Oxfordshire Rural Community Council £26,290.00 for 2012/13, to provide for the outputs listed in Annex 1 to the report CMDT9;

 

(b)                    that the Deputy Director for Environment & Economy (Highways & Transport) draw up a service level agreement with Oxfordshire Rural Community Council covering the job summary, key responsibilities, work programme and output targets expected for the Community Transport Advisor;

 

(c)                     to ask officers to continue to liaise regularly with the Community Transport Advisor, through joint liaison and one-to-one meetings, and to monitor the outputs of the post in line with the service level agreement.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Cabinet Member for Transport is RECOMMENDED:

 

(a)         to pay Oxfordshire Rural Community Council £26,290.00 for 2012/13, to provide for the outputs listed in Annex 1 to this report;

 

(b)        that the Deputy Director for Environment & Economy (Highways & Transport) draw up a service level agreement with Oxfordshire Rural Community Council covering the job summary, key responsibilities, work programme and output targets expected for the Community Transport Advisor;

 

(c)         to ask officers to continue to liaise regularly with the Community Transport Advisor, through joint liaison and one-to-one meetings, and to monitor the outputs of the post in line with the service level agreement.