Parish

Date

Respondent

Objection/Observation

Director's Comments and Recommendations

General

15/4/02

Thames Valley Police

The police have submitted detailed comments on each proposal. They support the 30 mph project in principle but their objection to 3 proposals in 2 parishes as they stand is outlined below. A further potential objection is covered in the Kidlington section.

Noted

33/4/02

Cherwell District Council

Welcomes the proposals in general. Specific comments on 4 proposals covered within the parish headings below.

Noted

19/4/02

(telephone)

Cllr Mrs C. Fulljames

Shares concerns of Middleton Stoney Parish Council and local residents as outlined below.

Noted

4/4/02

Stagecoach South Midlands

Have reviewed proposals, particularly those for Banbury and Gosford and have no comments to make

Noted

15/4/02

(email)

Cllr Chris Robins

Comments on the Bicester Road in Kidlington.

Speed limits on this route are now being progressed independently from the project as part of the traffic calming scheme. It is understood that Cllr Robins and other parties involved in this work have agreed on the form of the draft Order for public consultation.

Ardley

with

Fewcott

20/4/02

Parish Council

The Parish Council "puts the following points for ward for consideration":

1) That the proposed B430 x 40 limit extend all the way from the landfill site entrance to the M40 junction.

2) That the Somerton Road limit be extended to Quarry Cottage Road to help walkers visiting the nearby nature reserve.

3) That a limit be placed on Bucknell Road before the crossroads to slow fast moving motorway traffic.

All 3 points would reduce the effectiveness of the existing and proposed limits in the built-up area by extending them into rural environments. To start the B430 limit at the M40 junction would remove the buffer limit and prevent a terminal 40 sign where it was most effective – where the community of Ardley actually starts. The 40 message at the M40 junction would be incongruous and therefore lost on drivers – with no chance to remind them effectively at Ardley itself.

The existing proposals would in any case place a 40 terminal sign on Bucknell Road just before the crossroads and the road alignment will manage speeds in this area.

The comments are not requests but points for consideration – and were all considered at the site meeting. If there is strong local support for any issue this can be gauged at the public consultation stage.

Recommend that the draft Order be published as proposed.

Begbroke

3/4/02

Cherwell

District Council

Asks for consideration of continuous 50 mph limit between Begbroke and Yarnton

This was considered but in conjunction with both relevant parish councils a derestricted buffer limit was preferred.

The chief advantage of a buffer limit is to enable terminal signs to be placed at the most effective locations where they can best emphasise the speed limit protecting the communities at either end. In doing so it also differentiates both settlements from the rural interim section and minimises devaluation of the limit.

Recommend that the draft Order proposed.

Chesterton

23/4/02

(telephone)

Parish Council

Parish Council is almost unanimous in seeking an extension of the 30 limit on the A4095 Bignell View beyond that proposed in the consultation. The PC wants the limit to start where it considers the settlement to commence and the environment to change, i.e. at the Gatehouse on the north-west side. There is also a large stone wall from this point.

The consultation proposals reflect concerns over the devaluing of limits if they start in a mainly rural area; these issues are outlined in the Middleton Stoney section below. To take the limit further out can dilute its effect, however given the local strength of feeling and that some indication of the built-up area is evident at this point the request does not give rise to strong safety concerns.

Recommend that the draft Order incorporate the Parish Council’s request

Kidlington

8/4/02

Parish Council

Seek a continuous 30 mph speed limit along the whole length of the A4260 within the built-up area and 20 mph limits on the slip roads if this ever becomes an option.

The request for a 30 mph limit on the A4260 meets the County Council’s speed limit criteria. It does however raise safety concerns as it would devalue the current 30 limit on more constrained section of the A4260 and on the slip roads.

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

9/4/02

(telephone)

Thames Valley Police

Although not in the initial consultation proposals the police are aware of the parish council’s request for a continuous 30 mph limit on the A4260. They would object to this proposal if it became part of the draft Order.

Middleton Stoney

19/4/02

Parish Council

The Parish Council is aware of reasons for not extending the speed limit northwards on the B430 but nevertheless feels the bend should be included within the 30 limit. Alternatively they would accept a buffer 40 mph limit to cover this section.

Undue extension of the speed limit into a rural environment will not reduce speeds and most critically would devalue the limit 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 problem is real, a rural bend already well signed but still suffering from excess speeds, but an extended speed limit is not the answer. Enhanced bend warning and advanced warning of the speed limit would be a better option.

Given the level of concern among local residents a site meeting should be held to discuss the best solution.

Recommend that the Director should decide on the final format of the draft Order following a site meeting with the Executive Member for Transport, Local Member, police, parish council and local residents.

18/4/02

(telephone)

Cllr Mrs C. Fulljames

Supports the parish council and local residents in their concerns over the rural bend just outside the proposed speed limit and their wish to extend the limit to encompass it. Agrees that a site meeting would be a good way forward but anxious not to delay the implementation of new speed limits.

Mixbury

3/4/02

Cherwell

District Council

Suggest a continuous 30 limit avoiding a short length of derestriction then an equally short satellite 30 limit.

This was discussed at length with the parish council but the current proposals were considered the best solution in the circumstances.

The buffer limit would enable terminal signs to be placed at the most effective locations where they can best emphasise speed limits to protect the communities at either end. The buffer derestriction also differentiates both settlements from the rural interim section and helps to avoid devaluing the limit.

Recommend that the draft Order be published as proposed.

Newton Purcell with Shelswell

15/4/02

Thames Valley Police

Believe the proposed 40 limit should be shortened to cover only the most built-up section of the hamlet – or that it be substituted for a 50 mph limit.

This is a difficult section as a fast road passes through a sparsely built-up hamlet. The police view is understandable as the environment struggles to justify a 40 limit throughout but shortening it would make it impractical. Additional gateway and interim calming would accompany the proposal. Future route action work is likely to result at either side of the hamlet, if this happens the limit in Newton Purcell would need to be 40 mph to differentiate it.

Recommend that the draft Order be published as proposed.

Shipton-on-Cherwell

And Thrupp

15/4/02

Thames Valley Police

Bunkers Hill – Properties are set back and just on one side. Vehicular access to most houses is by a single access point. This environment suits a 40 limit but would not support a lower one.

Upper Campsfield Road – only 10 properties set well back on one side only offering minimal visual impact to drivers. Houses have good access visibility. The proposed 50 limit will be an enforcement burden and jeopardise the consistent message given by other local 50 mph limits whose accident history and environment makes them more suitable. The limit may create a higher speed differential and the straight alignment lead to hazardous overtaking manoeuvres.

The residents and parish council are keen to have a 30 mph limit. The environment meets the spirit of the County Council’s speed limit criteria and although a 30 mph limit cannot be expected to reduce speeds significantly it does not give rise to safety concerns.

The proposed limit is not unduly different to that on the A4260 at Bunkers Hill with no adjacent housing and consequently the proposed 50 mph speed limit is justified.

This was discussed at length with the parish council. I have concerns about a 30 limit where the aspect is largely rural, especially where the terminal sign would be lost to drivers negotiating the turn off the A4260. The proposal is not ideal but crucially keeps the 30 terminal sign where it is likely to be most effective and an interim 50 limit instead of the current derestriction removes the need for signs at the A4260 junction.

Both requests would transfer the start of the 30 limits to rural environments and be likely to dilute their effect in the built-up areas where they are most needed.

The Shipton request meets County criteria and would not cause undue safety concerns, however the police already object to the proposed Bunkers Hill limit which is less robust due to the small settlement it covers and any extension would seriously undermine its effect.

Recommend that the draft Order incorporate the Parish Council’s request in Shipton but not in Bunkers Hill

3/4/02

Cherwell

District Council

Not in favour of extending the A4260 x 50 limit along the minor road into Shipton itself. Would advocate extending the village 30 limit to the A4260 instead given the pedestrian use of this section of road.

23/4/02

Parish Council

Seeks an extension of the proposed 30 limits in Shipton and Bunkers Hill to the A4260 junctions.

Weston-on-the -Green

3/4/02

Cherwell

District Council

40 mph is inappropriate for side roads off the B430 that should be 30 mph.

The district council comment is understandable but in reality the speed limit on the roads in question is irrelevant as speed is restrained by the physical envirionment. The parish council support the proposals as a means of removing the need for terminal signs at the junctions. Admittedly the proposals do not provide a reminder of the major road limit to drivers leaving the side roads.

Recommend that the draft Order be published as proposed.

18/4/02

Parish Council

All parish councillors are in general agreement