Agenda item

Forward Plan Ref: 2017/043

Contact: Anthony Kirkwood, Assistant Principal Engineer Tel: (07392318871)

Report by Director for Infrastructure Delivery (CMDE5).

This report presents responses received in the course of a statutory consultation on a proposal to introduce a one-way restriction on Lamb’s Crescent between its junctions with Hightown Road and Kilbale Crescent. The restriction is being proposed in conjunction with the planned introduction of traffic signals at the junction of Hightown Road and Bankside, which is intended to increase the capacity of this junction to accommodate additional transport demands in this part of Banbury arising from nearby development.

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

The Leader of the Council considered (CMDE5) responses received in the course of a statutory consultation on a proposal to introduce a one-way restriction on Lamb’s Crescent between its junctions with Hightown Road and Kilbale Crescent. The restriction proposed in conjunction with the planned introduction of traffic signals at the junction of Hightown Road and Bankside, was intended to increase the capacity of the junction in order to accommodate additional transport demands arising from nearby development in that part of Banbury.

Councillor Eddie Reeve, the local member, had been unable to attend the meeting but had asked that the Leader of the Council consider the following comments. Excess and commuter parking had been consistently raised as an issue by residents and clearly a residents’ parking scheme on Lamb’s Crescent on a revenue neutral basis would clearly be a more preferable option.  He was similarly sceptical about the proposed crossing at Hightown Road, notwithstanding the response by Thames Valley Police. It was already a busy road and additional interruptions to the flow of traffic could create further ill will among residents and motorists. However, if this was the officers’ preferred recommendation and a residents’ parking scheme wasn’t feasible, then some change might be better than none. In particular, such a scheme could work well around the Easington Road but there seemed to be little benefit for the area in question, notably owing to its proximity to the station and he asked that on this occasion he be recorded as an ‘object/reject’.

Michael Hewitt felt that the proposed scheme demonstrated a fundamental lack of understanding for the local situation by those proposing it and an apparent disregard for the impact that the proposals would have on local residents. The scheme would introduce additional congestion for northbound traffic on Hightown Road and Bankside regularly blocking the only access to this part of Lambs Crescent. The presence of signal stop lines would make no difference or have any real effect. There were many instances of dangerous parking by non-residents at the Lamb’s Crescent and Hightown Road junction and it seemed to residents that the only reason this proposal was being pursued was because it was being funded by developers. The one-way restriction would make it impossible for current residents and legitimate visitors to use the only two off-road parking areas currently available to them. Residents currently had to live with persistent daily problems and these proposals would only exacerbate the situation when, in the absence of a residents’ parking scheme, a practical solution would have been to install a set of lights controlling traffic exiting Lambs Crescent at its southern end.  He asked that the scheme be rejected.

Daisy Kay-Taylor endorsed the views expressed by Mr Hewitt. The situation with regard to parking had worsened considerably over the last 5 or 6 years and it was important to residents to have these issues resolved but she couldn’t support the scheme as proposed.. Commuter parking had increased and restrictions were needed to control and the manage parking for residents and visitors. There was a further need to disincentivise the route as a rat run for traffic.

Mr Kirkwood accepted commuter parking was a problem but it was not considered that the siting of the new signals south of Lamb’s Crescent would lead to any appreciable increase in rat running traffic. Also a signal at the southern end would be considered detrimental to the efficiency of the junction. He accepted concerns expressed regarding visibility at the Lamb’s Crescent/Hightown Road junction and instances of parking within 10 meters. Removal of overgrown vegetation outside Morrisions and further restrictions could help, although could in turn impact on available parking space. Officers were aware that there were no easy solutions but in their view the scheme represented the best option.

Responding to questions he confirmed that:

·                     Morrisons were responsible for clearing vegetation at the junction. 

·                     He was unable to confirm if provision was a condition attached to a planning permission.

·                     Signalisation could go ahead within the one-way sytem but it could also mean delays.

·                     Traffic modelling indicated significant stress for this junction.

The Leader of the Council accepted that something needed to be done but,  unfortunately, that did not include a residents parking scheme. That would need moves to decriminalise parking which had been resisted despite approaches to Cherwell District Council as far back as 2007. There were also funding issues. Confirmation was also needed as to whether there was a specific planning condition attached to the Longford Park development for this scheme. If that was the case there there was very little that could be done. Therefore, with that in mind together with the arguments and options in the report before him and the representations made to him at the meeting he confirmed his decision as follows:

to defer consideration to a future meeting in order to enable further investigation into the terms of the Longford Park residential development planning permission and the implications for developer funding and discussions with the local member regarding how the scheme might proceed.

Signed……………………………….

Leader of the Council

Date of signing……………………..