Agenda, decisions and minutes

Forward Plan Ref: 2017/021

Contact: Hugh Potter, Team Leader – Area Operations Hub Tel: (01865) 810028

Report by Director for Infrastructure Delivery (CMDE4).

Representations from Burford Town Council to the County Council over the impact on the local environment of HGV movements through this town, and in particular in the historic town centre prompted a number of meetings to discuss options for addressing those concerns. This report presents objections and comments received in the course of a statutory consultation on proposals to prohibit use of the A361 Burford High Street as a through route for north to south heavy goods vehicle traffic.  If approved the Town Council has offered to fund the consultation on a weight restriction and its implementation.

The specific option taken to formal consultation was for a prohibition of vehicles exceeding 7.5 tonnes maximum gross weight travelling between Burford and Fulbrook roundabouts (A40 to A424).

The Cabinet Member for the Environment is RECOMMENDED to defer the implementation of proposals as advertised, pending further investigation to determine the wider effect the scheme would have on neighbouring areas as a result of displaced vehicles.

The Cabinet Member for Environment considered (CMDE4) objections and comments received in the course of a statutory consultation on proposals to prohibit use of the A361 Burford High Street as a through route for north to south heavy goods vehicle traffic.  The specific option taken to formal consultation was for a prohibition of vehicles exceeding 7.5 tonnes maximum gross weight travelling between Burford and Fulbrook roundabouts (A40 to A424).

John White the Mayor of Burford spoke in support of a prohibition. Referring to hazards to people and damage to buildings he considered the case more than made itself.  Air pollution, although below EU limits, was very high particularly at the bridge area.  There were 162 listed buildings on High Street including many commercial businesses some of which had been badly affected and with tourism accounting for an income to the town of some £15m per annum it was an important consideration in any decision.  There were 19 children from Fulbrook attending the local school many of whom used the bridge which had no footpath with lorries encroaching onto a very narrow walking area. If the matter was deferred then he asked for a strict time limit for the matter to be reconsidered and that Burford Town Council be involved in any further consultations.

Ken Gray for Burford Town Council also spoke in support of a prohibition. He confirmed that speed data for all traffic was in fact available for High Street near the top of hill which showed that 25% of vehicles were travelling over 30mph and 4% below 20mph. Burford Town Council should be included in any further research carried out on displaced HGV traffic which he considered  needed to be the sole responsibility of OCC. An 18 tonne limit was supported by all councils north of Burford. Finally he referred to 2 existing origin/destination surveys, one for Burford and one for Chipping Norton which he considered would be key to a rerouting study.

Daren Godfrey (Cotswold Recovery Vehicles) spoke against a prohibition citing some 40 lorries a day from their operation which used this route in connection with vehicle recovery work which they undertook for, amongst others, Thames Valley Police and Gloucestershire police. They needed to attend incidents within 30 minutes in order to remove dangerous material from the highway and as they operated vehicles between 7.5 tonnes and 22 tonnes any prohibition on their vehicles would seriously affect their ability to comply with the terms of their contracts, particularly as some alternative routes would double the length of journeys while others were totally unsuitable. That in turn could jeopardise contracts and therefore jobs while increasing their carbon footprint. He understood concerns regarding speed of traffic and supported a 20 mph limit for High Street.

Tom Hickman (Tom Hickman Landscapes) spoke against a prohibition. He owned a garden landscaping and skip hire business operating 6 HGVs over 7.5 tonnes on a 7 acre site at Fulbrook only ½ mile away from the Fulbrook roundabout and. The A361 represented  ...  view the full minutes text for item 25/17

Forward Plan Ref: 2017/078

Contact: Hugh Potter, Team Leader – Area Operations Hub Tel: (01865) 810028

Report by Director for Infrastructure Delivery (CMDE5).

The report considers objections received as a result of formal consultation on proposals to introduce new Disabled Persons’ Parking Places (DPPP) at various locations in Cherwell District and Oxford City. The report also considers proposed restoration of residents and visitors parking permits to Wingfield House, 2A Gathorne Road, Headington, Oxford, following a successful planning appeal.  

The Cabinet Member for Environment is RECOMMENDED to approve the proposed changes, as set out in the report CMDE5.

The Cabinet Member for Environment considered (CMDE5) objections received as a result of formal consultation on proposals to introduce new Disabled Persons’ Parking Places (DPPP) at various locations in Cherwell District and Oxford City and the proposed restoration of residents and visitors parking permits to Wingfield House, 2A Gathorne Road, Headington, Oxford, following a successful planning appeal.  

Julian Philcox referred to the independent Planning Inspector’s appeal in February 2017. Based on sound and robust evidence provided by JP Planning Ltd and, importantly, Oxfordshire County Council as Local Highway Authority as part of the ‘Access to Headington’ background work that evidence had assessed both the status quo (the position on the ground at the time of evidence collection) and the position should the Access to Headington proposals come forward. Both scenarios had shown more than adequate capacity on-street to cater for the provision of permits to residents of Wingfield House. Furthermore S288 of the Town & Country Planning Act allowed for a legal challenge via the High Court within 6 weeks of the Inspector’s decision. No such challenge had been made.  He added that the results of the Parking Stress survey evidence of the County Council showed significant underutilisation of on-street parking spaces in the vicinity as evidenced in a report by the then Deputy Director of Environment & Economy (Strategy) to the Cabinet Member for Environment meeting of 9 June 2016. He urged the Cabinet Member to have regard to the above and endorse the recommendation of county officers.

James Larminnie on behalf of Cyclox opposed restoration of permits. To do so would have severe environmental consequences, which he felt had not been fully considered and that any moves to increase traffic went against the Council’s own environmental policies. Increased traffic meant increased parking in cycle lanes. That made cycling less enjoyable and less safe. Approving restoration of permits set a dangerous precedent and needed to be resisted.

Frank Murray a local resident opposed restoration or permits. Regretting the need to make representations at all at this stage he felt the CPZ should have prevented this situation occurring and agreeing proposals to restore permits would have ramifications for other CPZs. He was appalled that this decision had been based on a 1 day investigation and poor photographic evidence.  Parking had become a very sensitive issue and to introduce additional vehicles into an already saturated area such as Gathorne Road and St Anne’s Road was difficult to contemplate. There was a lot of opposition to this which needed to be taken into account.

Valerie Seagrott a resident of Gathorne Road drew attention to the parking pressures locally which led to illegal parking on corners. Double yellow lines had been placed outside her house for safety reasons yet were ignored. That implied to her that there was not enough space now let alone if more traffic were introduced. Gathorne Road had a lot of families with children living there. They needed to park close to their homes and it was wrong to inconvenience  ...  view the full minutes text for item 26/17

Forward Plan Ref: 2017/026

Contact: Hugh Potter, Team Leader – Area Operations Hub Tel: (01865) 810028

Report by Director for Infrastructure Delivery (CMDE6).

The report presents responses received in the course of a statutory consultation to reduce the number of pay and display parking places and extend the 20mph speed limit on the A4144 Woodstock Road, Oxford adjacent to the Radcliffe Observatory Quarter. The measures are proposed in conjunction with the redevelopment of the Radcliffe Observatory Quarter.

The Cabinet Member for the Environment is RECOMMENDED to approve the proposals as advertised

The Cabinet Member for Environment considered responses received to a statutory consultation to reduce the number of pay and display parking places and extend the 20mph speed limit on the A4144 Woodstock Road, Oxford adjacent to the Radcliffe Observatory Quarter. The measures had been proposed in conjunction with the redevelopment of the Radcliffe Observatory Quarter.

The Cabinet Member noted comments received from County Councillor Susannah Pressel who welcomed a 20 mph limit but felt that compliance would be much more likely if all roads in the City were subject to a similar limit. She also found it difficult to see how the proposed cycle provision could be said to meet the standards of the “cycle super route” which had been proposed for Woodstock Road.

Officers confirmed that the scheme would be monitored and that the extended length of speed limit was 250 meters.

Having regard to the information in the report before her and the representations made to her at the meeting the Cabinet Member for Environment confirmed her decision as follows:

to approve proposalsto reduce the number of pay and display parking places and extend the 20mph speed limit on the A4144 Woodstock Road, Oxford adjacent to the Radcliffe Observatory Quarteras advertised.

Signed…………………………………..

Cabinet Member for Environment

Date of signing…………………………

Forward Plan Ref: 2017/140

Contact: Martin Kraftl, Oxford Locality Manager Tel: 07920 084336

Report by Director for Planning & Place (CMDE7).

In accordance with Regulation 16 of the Local Authorities (Executive

Arrangements) (Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2000 (as amended), the Chairman of the Performance Scrutiny Committee has agreed that the need to take the decision is urgent and cannot reasonably be deferred. Councillor Constance as chairman of the meeting will be asked to confirm her opinion that the matter is urgent.

Cabinet previously approved an experimental TRO to close Queen Street to buses, taxis and private hire, subject to Secretary of State approval (please see link to Cabinet report above). Recent advice from the Department for Transport has indicated further monitoring will be required prior to closing the street to buses on an experimental basis.

As there is still a requirement to close the street to taxis and private hire vehicles, this report seeks approval to defer the decision on exclusion of buses, and implement the exclusion of taxis and private hire vehicles in line with the proposals reported to Cabinet in July 2017.

Note: As set out under Rule 19(a) of the Scrutiny Procedure Rules, this decision is exempt from Call-In as it is deemed urgent and any delay would seriously prejudice the Council’s interests, in that it would cause delay in the implementation of the TRO, prior to the new Westgate centre opening on Tuesday 24^th October.

The Cabinet Member is RECOMMENDED to:

(a)          pending the decision of the SoS, defer a decision on the part of the experimental TRO reported to Cabinet in July 2017 excluding buses from Queen Street until further monitoring has been undertaken with the Westgate centre open; and

(b)         approve the implementation of the part of the experimental TRO to exclude taxis and private hire vehicles from Queen Street.

Cabinet had previously approved an experimental TRO to close Queen Street to buses, taxis and private hire, subject to Secretary of State approval. However, recent advice from the Department for Transport had indicated further monitoring would be required prior to closing the street to buses on an experimental basis.  However, there was still a requirement to close the street to taxis and private hire vehicles and the Cabinet Member for Environment had agreed to consider an urgent report which sought approval to defer a decision on exclusion of buses, but implement the exclusion of taxis and private hire vehicles in line with the proposals reported to Cabinet in July 2017.

The Cabinet Member confirmed that in accordance with Regulation 16 of the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2000 (as amended), the Chairman of the Performance Scrutiny Committee had agreed that in her opinion the matter was urgent and could not reasonably be deferred insofar as it would cause delay in the implementation of the TRO, prior to the new Westgate centre opening on Tuesday 24 October.

.

Also as set out under Rule 19(a) of the Scrutiny Procedure Rules, this decision was declared exempt from Call-In as it was deemed urgent and any delay would seriously prejudice the Council’s interests.

Officers confirmed that there would be an opportunity for further comment from taxi groups as part of the experimental traffic order process.

Councillor Sanders raised the issue of opening Turl street and Market Street to taxis.

Having regard to the information before her in the printed report and the representations made to her at the meeting the Cabinet Member for Environment confirmed her decision as follows:

(a)          pending the decision of the Secretary of State, to defer a decision on the part of the experimental TRO reported to Cabinet in July 2017 excluding buses from Queen Street until further monitoring had been undertaken with the Westgate centre open; and

(b)          approve implementation of the part of the experimental TRO to exclude taxis and private hire vehicles from Queen Street.

Signed……………………………………..

Cabinet Member for Environment

Date of signing……………………………