Parish

Date

Respondent

Objection/Observation

Director's Comments and Recommendations

General

9/1/02

Thames Valley Police

The police have submitted detailed comments about each proposal. They support the 30 mph project in principle but their objection to 4 of the proposals as they stand are outlined in the parish headings below. A further potential objection in the BarfordS, detailed in Annex 1, is not currently relevant.

Noted

11/12/01

Cherwell District Council

Very supportive of the project. Wherever possible would wish limits supported by traffic calming including physical measures where appropriate. Fully understand the police enforcement role and that limits need to be reasonable in the context of their location to be respected by motorists.

Noted

20/12/01

Freight Transport Association

No objections

Noted

10/12/01

(email)

Cllr Mitchell

No Objections

Noted

1/12/01

Cllr Reynolds

Has general concerns about 30 mph signs near to bends at village entrances. Could signs have reflected backing, if not all then at least for Drayton and Wroxton.

Makes a general observation about proposals for Sibford Gower and corrects a point in Broughton. Concerns regarding Drayton and Wroxton are covered within the parish headings below.

The speed limit terminal signs have most effect where they reinforce the change of environment seen by drivers; one reinforces the other to give a stronger speed reduction message than could be achieved by either individually.

If signs are placed too far out a double problem occurs; they are ignored as irrelevant where sited and the opportunity to remind drivers to slow down where the signs would be most effective is lost. Provided the bend is clearly visible, either naturally or with signs, drivers will choose their speed relative to the physical environment rather than the speed limit.

It can thus be seen that although bends are not a primary consideration in siting speed limits as other factors are more pressing, the presence of a bend is obviously a consideration.

Reflective backing is usually reserved for accident remedial sites to help emphasise their particular hazard to drivers. All accident remedial work requests as a result of this project are being investigated.

Adderbury

3/1/02

Parish Council

No Council meeting and only 1 adverse comment from a Councillor who seeks a 30 limit for Twyford Road in lieu of proposed 40 mph limit.

The views of most Parish Councillors were canvassed for this consultation and the lone comment suggests other Councillors were satisfied with the Twyford Road proposals. This reflects the site meeting where the best limit for Twyford Road was discussed at length and a 40mph level agreed in principle.

The Parish Council seek to maintain a 40 limit on the A4260 and although Twyford Road meets the criteria for a 30 limit, if one were applied it would be an isolated short section. The open aspect on the north side makes a 40 limit appropriate and it would also remove the need for 2 additional terminal signs at the junction thus reducing clutter.

Recommend that the draft Order be published as proposed.

Bodicote

8/1/02

Parish Council

Wish to see the proposed 30 mph limit on the A4260 continue north of the flyover making a continuous 30 limit into Banbury to replace the existing 40 limit. Believe the change of limit will confuse drivers. Did not realise that their proposal could not be emphasised by 30 repeater signs – but still think this is best option.

Wish to extend 30 limit on A4260 south to encompass rugby club entrance. Understand reasons for not doing so but still believe a lower limit would make exiting the rugby club less hazardous.

There is no ideal speed limit for the A4260 through Bodicote. It is a major road with some development – but insufficient to ensure drivers will adhere to a 30 limit without impossible constant enforcement. The current proposals reflect discussions at the site meeting and are a reasonable compromise given the nature of the environment.

The section of road north of the Flyover is within Banbury and speed limits here will be discussed with the Town Council.

Slower speeds on the A4260 would certainly help those exiting the rugby club. However with the prevailing road environment a 30 limit is not the answer as it will have no more than a marginal effect on actual speeds.

Unduly low limits in relation to the environment will not achieve compliance and fail to protect those they seek to help. They also provide a false sense of security and critically devalue lower limits in more built –up areas where excess speeds have a worse effect on both safety and the environment. The large speed limit terminal signs have most effect where they reinforce the change of environment seen by drivers; one reinforces the other to give a stronger speed reduction message than could be achieved by either individually. The signs tell drivers to reduce speed and their sight of the different environment helps convince them they should do so. If signs are placed in open environments a double problem occurs; they are ignored as irrelevant where sited and the opportunity to remind drivers to slow down where the signs would be most effective is lost.

The request meets the Sub-Committee criteria but raises safety concerns.

Recommend that the Director should decide on the final format of the draft Order following a site meeting and discussion with the Executive Members for Transport and Local Member.

11/12/01

Thames Valley Police

Object to proposals for a 30 mph limit on the A4260. The environment is similar to other 40 limits but dissimilar to other 30 limits on this route. Speed reduction is unlikely to be more than marginal. In absence of accident problem enforcement will be very limited either manually or by use of the speed camera. Current repeater signs would not be permitted removing an important reminder of the limit.

Drayton

7/1/02

(conversation - PC Chairman and GB)

Parish Council

Support the idea of a buffer limit between the village and Banbury but want it to be a 40 limit instead of the proposed derestriction.

It is gratifying to receive support for even a short buffer limit whose purpose is purely to enable terminal signs to be placed in the most effective locations where they can best emphasise the speed limit.

The Parish Council’s concern is understandable but in reality the level of the buffer limit will be irrelevant to actual speeds over such a short distance. Derestrictions should be regarded as telling drivers they are leaving a limit rather than an invitation to travel at 60 mph, in fact a 40 limit might be seen as more of an encouragement to reach that speed. The main advantage of a derestriction is that it removes the potential confusion of drivers seeing 2 numerical speed limit signs – possibly almost simultaneously.

The issue is not covered by the County speed limit criteria and although it does not give rise to safety concerns the advice of

the relevant Executive Members at a site visit would be welcomed.

Recommend that the Director should decide on the final format of the draft Order following a site meeting and discussion with the Executive Members for Transport and Local Member.

1/12/01

Cllr Reynolds

Reflecting the Parish Council meeting comments:

Deresricted buffer considered dangerous as would permit motorists to speed up to 60 mph and have permission to overtake just in time to enter known traffic blackspots inside the proposed limits.

Lower Heyford

11/1/02

(phone call)

Parish Council

Especially supportive of proposals for buffer 40 limit on the B4030.

The area where the police advocate a 40 limit meets the County’s 30mph limit criteria and the Parish Council seeks the lower limit. A 30 limit would not be unrealistic and would therefore not compromise safety by giving a false sense of security – or by devaluing more suitable 30 limits.

The buffer limit would technically be better as a derestriction (see Drayton above), however some residents are believed to be seeking a 30 limit throughout and therefore a 40 limit is thought to be a reasonable compromise. The issue is not directly covered by the County speed limit criteria.

Recommend that the draft Order be published as proposed.

12/12/01

Thames Valley Police

Object to proposals for the main road around the village. The eastern end near the Freehold Street crossroads would be better served by a 40 mph and the currently proposed 40 buffer should be derestricted. The current proposals do not link limits to their appropriate environment. There is no current accident problem. Existing driver habits suggest the lower limits will not bring lower speeds.

Middle Aston

10/12/01

Mrs S Rum

Barn Cottage

Middle Aston

Strongly supports proposals for a speed limit and hopes it will be enforced.

Undue extension of the speed limit into rural areas will not reduce speeds or to protect those it seeks to help. It also provides a false sense of security and critically devalues lower limits in the built-up area itself where excess speeds will have a worse effect on both safety and the environment. The large speed limit terminal signs have most effect where they reinforce the change of environment seen by drivers; one reinforces the other to give a stronger speed reduction message than could be achieved by either individually. The signs tell drivers to reduce speed and their sight of the different environment helps convince them they should do so. If signs are placed too far out a double problem occurs; they are ignored as irrelevant where sited and the opportunity to remind drivers to slow down where the signs would be most effective is lost.

The current proposals would place terminal signs at the start of the built-up area and therefore can be expected to give the best results in practice.

Recommend that the draft Order be published as proposed.

3/1/02

Mr Hadland

Warren Lodge

Middle Aston

Seeks the proposed limit extended to the village boundaries, specifically along Middle Aston Lane 300m beyond his house. Vehicles including lorries currently speed along this lane

8/1/02

Mr & Mrs Spencer

Support proposals but would like them extended especially on the western and eastern approaches.

Milton

10/1/02

(phone call)

Mr Cordingley

Parish Meeting Chairman

Support proposals but ask for slight extension on western approach to cater for development that has just got planning permission.

The extension sought by the Parish Meeting is very short and can be accommodated without jeopardising the effectiveness of the proposals.

The proposed limit is rather optimistic but there were believed to be some calls for an even lower limit and it is thought that a 40 mph limit would be a workable compromise.

It is unclear whether guidance is given by the County speed limit criteria - the community has over 20 dwellings but the village is set back off the major road.

Recommend that the draft Order be published as proposed.

12/12/01

Thames Valley Police

Subject to proposed 40 limit as being unsuitable where there is minimal development. It does not meet national guidelines which is basis for enforcement criteria. Limit likely to be widely ignored with the low priority enforcement in the absence of accidents. Occasional drivers adhering to limit could lead to frustration and hazardous overtaking manoeuvres.

North Newington

12/12/01

Thames Valley Police

Object to the length of the proposed southern extension as far as Park Farm. It does not meet national guidelines which is basis for police criteria as it goes beyond the built up area. The link between the village and the 30 limit would be diluted and this could reduce the limit’s effect in the village itself.

The proposed terminal site is technically not in the best location as it is not where the built-up area starts. However, it results from a compromise reached with the Parish Council who initially sought an extension of the 30 limit all the way out to North Newington Mill and beyond.

Recommend that the draft Order be published as proposed.

Shenington with Alkerton

9/1/02

Parish Council

The Parish Council and (they claim) the public in general feel strongly that the proposed extension on the eastern approach to Shenington should go out to the village name sign which is about 50 metres west of the crossroads.

This is a reasonable request and should not unduly jeopardise the effectiveness of the overall limit.

Recommend that the draft Order be amended to incorporate the Parish Council’s request.

Swalcliffe

10/1/02

Parish Council

Seek a buffer 40 limit beyond the proposed 30 limit on the western approach to slow traffic as it comes down the hill.

See comments in Middle Aston above.

The issue is not directly covered by the County speed limit criteria.

Recommend that the draft Order be published as proposed.

Wroxton

6/1/02

Sharon Matyear

24 main St

Wroxton

Wishes to maintain the 40 limit on the western approach to reduce speeds and improve safety where vehicles turning right to North Newington slow down or stop.

Maintaining the 40 limit in this rural environment will not reduce speeds and thus not protect those it seeks to help. It will also provide a false sense of security and devalue 40 limits where they are appropriate. Eastbound drivers have good vision of the junction and despite perceptions accidents have not occurred due to fast eastbound vehicles colliding with those waiting to turn right off the major road.

The issue is not directly covered by the County speed limit criteria.

Recommend that the draft Order be published as proposed.

11/1/02

Parish Council

Support Sharon Matyear’s comments above and hope her views are taken into consideration.

1/12/01

Cllr Reynolds

Similar concern to Sharon Matyear above. Warns of possible danger if 30 terminal is too close to the claimed accident site at the North Newington junction.