Agenda item

Forward Plan Ref: 2020/183

Contact: Hugh Potter, Group Manager – Area Operations Hub Tel: 07766 998704/Julian Richardson, Senior Engineer (Road Agreements Team C&W) Tel: 07825 052736

Report by Interim Corporate Director Communities (CMDE4).

The report presents responses received to a statutory consultation on proposed pedestrian and cycle improvement measures on Osney Mead and Ferry Hinksey Road (Oxford) put forward as part of a wider highway improvement scheme, which is being delivered by the University of Oxford (via a Section 278 agreement) to improve access by sustainable travel modes to/from and through the Osney Mead Industrial area.  Osney Mead is an identified development site in the adopted Oxford Local Plan.  Proposals will therefore help facilitate and support potential future re-development and growth of the Osney Mead area whilst also improving a key sustainable travel link to Oxford City Centre from the West.  

The Cabinet Member for Environment is RECOMMENDED to approve proposals for a shared use footway/cycle track, parallel crossing and amendments to parking places as advertised.

The Cabinet Member for Environment considered (CMDE4) responses received to a statutory consultation on proposed pedestrian and cycle improvement measures on Osney Mead and Ferry Hinksey Road (Oxford) put forward as part of a wider highway improvement scheme, being delivered by the University of Oxford (via a Section 278 agreement) to improve access by sustainable travel modes to/from and through the Osney Mead Industrial area.  As Osney Mead was an identified development site in the adopted Oxford Local Plan the proposals would therefore help facilitate and support potential future re-development and growth of the Osney Mead area whilst also improving a key sustainable travel link to Oxford City Centre from the West.  

County Councillor Susanna Pressel was less than happy with the report. The summary of the public consultation responses (in paragraph 7 of the report) stated that 8 people objected to the proposals for shared use, 1 supported with 5 having concerns. This was incorrect as all 5 who allegedly had concerns were, in fact, adamantly opposed to the idea of shared use with one of them (number 15) even saying “please record this as an objection”! Others who were also listed as having concerns said things along the lines of shared use was “dangerous and unpleasant to use” and “I’m not going to use shared cycle tracks no matter what. They are always a bad idea and in fact all the cyclists who had replied had objected strongly to the shared use proposals. The one person who supported them was clearly a driver and those who made no comment clearly not cyclists. OXTRAG who represented people with visual and mobility impairments were also strongly opposed, of course and she stressed that this was not an organised campaign by cyclists with everyone making very different points.  The proposal set out in paragraph 10 to paint a line down the pavement was not good enough to address the concerns made. She accepted that it wasn’t desirable to spend a lot of money on this scheme, since the whole area was soon to be completely redeveloped and in view of that she suggested as had many other respondents that pavements should not be widened and money spent on dropped kerbs that no cyclist would use but for the time being advisory cycle tracks should be painted on the carriageway, which was where cyclists wanted to be and where they were safest (since there is a 20 mph limit here) with improvements to the road surface by getting rid of potholes and one dropped kerb at the end of the path from the lock with a segregated cycle track when the roads were redesigned in a year or two from now. The footway was not safe, because of conflict with vehicles at each entry/exit and often with pedestrians.  This was a scheme which nobody liked and one which she considered would be a waste of money.

In response to questions regarding options to delay the scheme officers confirmed that funding would be lost if not spent within a set timescale, which were very tight and as this was third party funding and not growth deal funding it would not be possible to renegotiate how that was used.

The Cabinet Member acknowledged the concerns regarding shared use and the lack of support for the scheme and while accepting the comment from officers that shared use paths worked in other areas wondered whether it was the right scheme in this case. However, having regard to officer advice that extending the width of the footway to 4 metres would allow for it too be incorporated into future development as a segregated footway and the constraints on funding timescales she confirmed her decision as follows:

to approve proposals for a shared use footway/cycle track, parallel crossing and amendments to parking places as advertised but with careful monitoring of the shared use footway.

Signed……………………………………….

Cabinet Member for Environment

Date of signing……………………………..