Agenda item

At their meeting on 5 June the Performance Scrutiny Committee considered the decision of the Cabinet Member for Environment made on 15 May 2014 following proper notice of a call in.

The Committee AGREED to refer the decision back to Cabinet for it to consider in the light of the following material concerns this committee has about the following aspects of the decision: lack of proper consultation with local Bicester County Councillors.

The following documents are attached:

(a)          A report (CA11) setting out the names of the Councillors who have required the call in and the reasons given for the Call in.

(b)          The report considered by the Cabinet Member for Environment together with an extract of the minutes of the delegated decision session. (CA11).

(c)          Additional information provided to the Performance Scrutiny Committee in response to the call in (CA11):

(i)            a copy of the SW Bicester Planning Statement

(ii)        a summary of the consultation requirements for highways works

(d)          a note of the material concerns of the Performance Scrutiny Committee

At their meeting on 5 June 2014, the Performance Scrutiny Committee had considered the decision of the Cabinet Member for Environment made on 15 May 2014 following proper notice of a call in.

The Committee AGREED to refer the decision back to Cabinet for it to consider in the light of the following material concerns that the committee had about the following aspects of the decision: lack of proper consultation with local Bicester County Councillors.

The Cabinet had before them the report considered by the Cabinet Member for Environment together with an extract of the minutes of the delegated decision session; a copy of the SW Bicester Planning Statement; a summary of the consultation requirements for highways works and a note of the material concerns of the Performance Scrutiny Committee

Councillor Liz Brighouse, speaking as Chairman of the Performance Scrutiny Committee confirmed that the main concerns of the Scrutiny Committee had been around the lack of proper consultation with local Bicester County Councillors and in particular, that the Scrutiny Committee remained concerned that if due process had been carried out whether the outcome would have been different.  This was the question the Cabinet need to address today.

Councillor Waine, speaking as local member indicated that since joining the Council in 2005 he had felt that Cabinet members and officers had ensured that local members had been kept in the loophole and in fact that this had often happened earlier than the required amount of time.  This had not been the case with this scheme.  Although emails had come through saying that local members had been consulted, the reality was that members had received emails informing them of what was going to be done.  Furthermore, the matter had not been raised with local members at Locality Meetings.  He believed if local members had been consulted correctly they would have come forward with a united view.  He stressed the importance of the road for the viability of Bicester Town Centre and of getting the correct traffic calming along that stretch of road.  He urged the Cabinet to refer the Decision back to the Cabinet Member to allow for adequate consultation and to ensure that the correct decision was made, even if this incurred additional cost.

Councillor Hibbert-Biles noted that the local Member for this area was in fact Councillor Les Sibley.  She referred to a copy of an email to Councillor Sibley in February and questioned if Councillor Waine thought that this was not early enough and if it was not the responsibility of Councillor Sibley to disseminate this information to the other local members.

Councillor Mrs Fulljames, speaking as local member for Ploughley questioned why she had not been consulted on the proposals when she represented to the right of Middleton Stoney Road.  She further questioned why a proposal for 16 Road Humps along the Middleton Stoney Road had been put before the Cabinet Member when there had been no discussion or consultation on that specific proposal.  She reiterated that the road was a key gateway into Bicester and that the current proposals would cause Bicester members considerable grief.  She urged the Cabinet to refer the decision back to a locality meeting for a proper discussion.

Councillor Chapman stressed that the Cabinet understood the importance of listening to local members views on the areas that they represented and asked what the local members would wish to see in place.

In response to this and a question by Councillor Carter, Councillor Mrs Fulljames confirmed that it was the road humps that she objected to (and indeed the high volume of road humps) and not the general principle of traffic calming and reiterated that she wished other forms of calming to be considered.

Councillor Stratford, speaking as local councillor for Bicester North reiterated that correct and adequate consultation had not occurred. Had there been proper consultation with Bicester Town Council it would have been taken the issue to their Traffic Advisory Committee.  He questioned why the report made reference to similar schemes working well, but then gave no examples and why the report was against build-outs or chicanes on the basis that vehicles may strike build outs, and again no evidence of loss of control accidents was provided.  In fact, only 1 accident, resulting in a minor injury had been reported on similar chicanes road schemes in Bicester in the past five years.  Furthermore, he believed that the scheme had not taken account of the major changes occurring in Bicester since the original scheme was proposed.  He urged the Cabinet to put the scheme back out to consultation.

Councillor Hudspeth asked the local members whether fewer roads humps along the stretch of road might be a solution.  In response the local members confirmed that they believed the number of humps on a 1 mile stretch of road to be excessive; that they had concerns over the noise of vehicles slowing for local residents and that they believed the police had not been specific on the type of calming on that stretch of road.

Responding to further questions from the Cabinet the three Councillors made the following points:

(1)          The first mention of traffic calming proposals had been back in 2006 but there had been no details of what type of calming was to be put in place.

(2)          This road was arterial road into a major growth town and the scheme had not been looked at in light of the development around it.

(3)          A similar road hump scheme had been implemented in Councillor Mrs Fulljames area and then later removed due to noise.

Responding to questions from the Cabinet, the following points were made by Sue Scane, Director for Environment & Economy, Michael Deadman and Anthony Kirkwood, Design and Safety Improvements – TRO Team:

(1)          The process started with the District Council in 2008 with the requirement for traffic calming when an initial drawing was produced showing speed humps.

(2)          The consultation sat with the District Council as the planning Authority.  They consulted in January and officers of OCC let members know via email in February. It then came to OCC for decision as the Highways Authority.

(3)          The issue did not go to a locality meeting.

(4)          This was a developer led scheme and to refer this scheme back there would be a cost to the Council of £200,000 or more.

(5)          Officers believed that there would have to be another planning application if it was referred back.

(6)          Anthony Kirkwood clarified the information on accidents and build outs commenting that the report reflected the Teams general experience.

(7)          There were clear advantages to humps – build outs could cause delay.

Councillor Nimmo Smith indicated that there was not enough staff to take every planning application to every locality meeting.  The Cabinet were here today to discuss process and not the actual decision.  Councillor Les Sibley had not been critical of process but of the scheme itself.  In his professional opinion as a civil engineer speed humps remained the best solution.

During discussion, Councillors Chapman and Carter, having listened to the debate indicated that they thought that the issue should be referred back for further consultation. Other members of the Cabinet indicated that they felt due process had occurred and that the Cabinet should confirm the decision of the Cabinet Member.

After hearing all the debate, the leader of the Council proposed not to go back out to consultation with local Bicester County Councillors and to confirm the Decision of the Cabinet Member for Environment made on 15 May 2014

RESOLVED:

The Cabinet Agreed by 6 votes to 3, with 1 abstention not to go back out to consultation with local Bicester County Councillors and to confirm the Decision of the Cabinet Member for Environment made on 15 May 2014:

to approve the implementation of proposals as advertised.

(Councillor Chapman asked that her vote against be recorded).