Agenda item

Forward Plan Ref: 2021/114

Contact: Tim Shickle, Group Manager – Traffic & Road Safety Tel: 07920 591545/Lee Turner, Principal Officer – Traffic Schemes Tel: 07917 072678

Report by Corporate Director Environment & Place (CMDHM6).

The report presents responses received to a statutory consultation to introduce a 20mph speed limit (phase 1) and trial traffic calming measures (phase 2) at Cuxham village.

The Cabinet Member for Highway Management is RECOMMENDED to approve the proposed introduction of a 20mph speed limit and trial traffic calming measures as advertised.

The Cabinet Member for Highway Management considered (CMDHM6)  responses received to a statutory consultation to introduce a 20mph speed limit (phase 1) and trial traffic calming measures (phase 2) in Cuxham village.

Debbie Davies a resident made the following points. The trial scheme would be monitored as all roads were dangerous and in order to meet its statutory duty to make Oxfordshire's roads safer, Oxfordshire County Council needed to know if this trial would increase use of roads that were more dangerous and it would be too late to wait until increased risk showed s in the county council's personal injury accident annual report. Officers have said they would consider traffic migrating to less suitable roads, that could have a worse personal accident history so similarly would traffic volumes be recorded? A road safety trial should not result in a reduction, or withdrawal, of the safest way to travel so was there a guarantee this would not happen to the no 11 bus service for Cuxham and Watlington? Would assessment of sustainability implications take account of cycle infrastructure design (LTN 1/20)? The Department for Transport (DfT) have stated that: “Cycle networks should be planned and designed to allow people to reach their day to day destinations easily, along routes that connect, are simple to navigate and are of a consistently high quality”. In Cuxham, day to day destinations within easy cycling distance such as schools, playgrounds, shops, social clubs, sports clubs, are located in Watlington and Chalgrove. This required using 50mph rural roads with worse personal accident histories for cycling. The quickest, sustainable day to day commuting from Cuxham to Oxford meant cycling on the B4009, which had a much worse personal accident record, to connect with coach services at Junction 6, M40.. Is it accepted it is impossible for this trial to make day to day destinations safe for cyclists, as set out in LTN 1/20? If Phase 2 proceeded, would the request by Cycling UK Oxford not to narrow the road in parts to 4m be accepted? DfT Circular 1/2013 para 57 stated that Vehicle Activated Signs (VAS) were effective in reminding drivers of the speed limit with paragraph 26 then stating that enforcement should be considered only after other measures. Would account of the Cuxham road environment include that it has two VAS signs? Paragraph 40 stated that in rural areas, provision of adequate footways could be a more effective means of improving pedestrian safety than lowering a speed limit over a short distance. My county councillor agreed that “Pedestrian access should be similar to what the road permits currently” so would the trial prioritise footway for pedestrians so they could avoid having to walk in the road?

Ian Goldsmith on behalf of the Parish of Cuxham with Easington thanked the County Council for its assistance with this programme. Highlighting the very strong local support he then addressed the three objections that had been received.

The Thames Valley Police statement that ‘experience has shown these measures are often highly unpopular and likely to be rejected by the Parish’ was certainly not accurate in the case of Cuxham Parish as having discussed them individually with residents there was almost unanimous support overall for the proposals, subject to a road safety audit and an acceptance that if there were adverse impacts in practice then changes might be necessary based on the actual experiences with the temporary measures. VAS signing had proved to be very effective at reducing average speeds - that could be added to in order to further reduce speeds and they were confident that a combination of the 20mph restriction, VAS signing and some or all of the interventions would see   speeds reduced below 24mph. The case that the average speed must be 24mph or lower before a 20mph could be agreed seemed perverse as if average speeds were 23.9mph then there would be no need for a 20mph. The argument that TVP make more broadly that there were insufficient resources to enforce a 20mph was also curious given there had been no useful TVP intervention in the past 5 years relating to the 30mph and a reduction of average speeds as a result of these proposals meant that there would be less call for TVP enforcement than currently.

The comment from Thames Travel that the move to a 20mph and the interventions would make a significant difference to bus operating times was in their opinion a major exaggeration as the total distance the bus had to travel inside the new limit was just 1000ft and even if speeds were reduced from 30 to 20 across all of that distance the increase in time was 35 seconds, which was not significant in an overall 60-minute service. In addition, the narrowness of the road meant that the bus often had to come to a standstill at several locations in the village already so the actual increase in travel time was likely to be less than that figure. Locations 5,6 and 10, whilst close to the bus stops would not interfere with the movement of the bus as the bus should not be using the parts of the verge/footpath etc where they would be located and further discussions were planned with Thames Travel to ensure that their concerns were allayed.

With regard to a concern raised regarding cycle safety it should be noted that there were a number of other cyclists in the village who had not raised similar concerns and a Road Safety Audit on Phase 2 would be carried out and if any issues were raised with the interventions then those elements could be moved or left out.

The Parish Council urged the Cabinet Member to approve implementation of the proposals as a significant safety improvement.

County Councillor Freddie van Mierlo confirmed the overwhelming local support for this initiative. He noted the comments of the Police and Thames Travel but as had been pointed out he was confident that their reservations could be addressed and resolved and was, therefore, delighted to add his support.

Thanking everyone for their comments and having regard to the information set out in the report before him along with the comments made to him at the meeting including those of the Parish Council with regard to resolving issues of concern from both the Police and Thames Travel the Cabinet Member for Highway Management then confirmed his decision as follows:

to introduce a 20mph speed limit (phase 1) and trial traffic calming measures (phase 2) in Cuxham village as advertised.

Signed………………………………………..

Cabinet Member for Highway Management

Date of Signing………………………………