|
ITEM EX9 - SupplementEXECUTIVE – 4 SEPTEMBER 2002PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS AND INTERCHANGE AT LEWKNORSummary of Informal ConsultationAugust 2002 Prepared by Mike
Wescombe
[Minutes of meetings have been circulated]
Overall scheme Generally
In favour: Watlington PC Environmental impact – concerns, particularly lighting Watlington
PC Footpath – in favour of white line Watlington
PC Footpath –lighting For
- Watlington PC Footpath – in favour of foliage reduction (on on-going basis) Watlington
PC Traffic speed – in favour of slowing traffic Watlington PC Secure bike racks – in support Watlington
PC Pedestrian crossing facilities Watlington
PC (for extra refuges) Avoidance of U-turns – keen to see measures which avoid need to U-turn Watlington
PC Reduction of car parking Against
– Watlington PC Roundabout design Need to allow for indivisible loads – UK Highway Services Warning signs of pedestrians Watlington PC
Joint meetings have been held with Lewknor, Aston Rowant, Chinnor and Watlington Parish Councils on the 14th.January 2002, and 26 June 2002. A thorough discussion was held on both occasions with some conflicting views. Overall there was strong support in principle to the scheme, but with detail issues still to resolve. 14 January 2002 meeting – Issues Raised Car parking – some preferred marked bays, others preferred a less structured approach in the rural area. Concerns re reduced parking. Pedestrian crossing requested – by the lay-bys to the SW of the site to enable users to cross over to reach the footpath without having to cross the motorway slip road, speed of traffic being the perceived problem, to reach the bus stop to Oxford. Cycle storage should be individual lockable cages, possibly on an annual rentable basis. Concern about working on Lewknor scheme ahead of possible development of Park & Ride facility at Stokenchurch. Concluded that Stokenchurch was a longer term aspiration and that there is a need to address Lewknor in the short term. Concern over U-turns for kiss and ride users – split carriageway preferred with alternative no overtaking signs. Bollard style lighting preferred for footpath – others had opposite view – live in country should have torch. Suggestion for white line on path to aid visibility, also solar powered cats eyes Concern over maintenance of the grass cutting, fencing repairs and overgrowth. Suggestion about parish council having an agency agreement to maintain on behalf of County Council, and use of the correct type of grass which has limited growth. Concern for safety of young girls (Headington Girls School) Taxibus service – 60 minute frequency too poor – preferred 20 mins or less. Benson and Little Milton too far Less credible service if too infrequent. Footpath requested to Aston Rowant (continuation from London bus stop) Mini roundabouts should be installed at bottom of Oxford slip roads – outer roundabouts could be smaller. Lewknor PC requested an input into an environmental impact assessment. Preference for 10 foot high lighting as used between Amersham and Beaconsfield (Red Lion, Coleshill) When asked whether, irrespective of the Tube bus service being in place or not, they are supportive of the scheme for the other benefits it offered such as improved safety. All four Councils keenly supported the scheme in principle but with a lot of issues to sort. Finally there was some talk of temporary bus shelters but with concerns over responsibility, especially safety. It was left for each Parish Council to conclude how they wished to see the scheme proceed and forward their comments as soon as possible. There was clearly no consensus on a number of key issues. The following observations were received over the following months: Lewknor Parish Council Expressed general support with residual concerns. Lighting - if lighting required, not a foregone conclusion in their view, the style and extent will have to be agreed. Pedestrian safety - concerns over safety at bottom of 'from London' slip road - suggest pedestrian controlled lights. Footpath maintenance - need for maintenance required. Car parking - deferring decision until J5 park and ride facility has been resolved. Landscaping - respect needed for Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). Stokenchurch - suggested that some of the land has been sold, suggesting that the park and ride site might not proceed. Aston Rowant Parish Council A joint meeting has been held with Lewknor and Watlington Parish Councils. Please see under Lewknor Parish Council. In addition in a separate letter they have indicated a preference for a Park & Ride facility at Stokenchurch, and asked why that option was not being pursued. They also asked about the frequency of the service, which villages it will serve and the cost, as they saw these as important factors in encouraging drivers to use it instead of their cars. They also raised the level of parking which was dealt with at the meeting on the 14th. January. The Parish Council believed that further works will be required in the longer term, again this issue being discussed at the above meeting. In a positive vein they have indicated that they find the proposals better than the existing situation. Watlington Parish Council A joint meeting has been held with Lewknor and Aston Rowant Parish Councils. Please see under Lewknor Parish Council. Warmly welcomes the scheme - improved facilities/ safer road layout, but environmental impact must be kept to minimum Footpaths -surface and visibility improvements - white line - foliage to be kept down. Low level/ low intensity lighting required. Lighting - Accept lighting for keep left bollards, footpath lighting, and bus shelters but as little as possible beyond that. Any road lighting necessary to be low key and low in height. - reference to Area of Outstanding Natural beauty. Traffic speed-would like some traffic calming between roundabouts eg carriageway narrowing, two mini roundabouts at the Oxford slips. Bus shelters - Minimal visual intrusion and to be in place ASAP. To be of transparent materials and lighting. Bike racks - A priority but must be secure. Kiss and ride - something physical needed to prevent U-turns in carriageway Pedestrian refuges - Additional refuges at location of car parking lay-bys and at bottom of 'from London' slip road. Parking - Minimal loss of parking required - recognise need. Road markings - minimise but with regard to safety. Pedestrian warning signs required on each approach. They are keen to progress and wish to be consulted further Chinnor PC Approval of scheme expressed. South Oxfordshire DC Supportive, with concerns over some issues, including parking, U-turns, facilities for cyclists and footpath lighting. Highways Agency The letter to the UK Highway Services Ltd. was commented on and passed on to:
Highways Agency The response from the Highways Agency indicated that they support the proposal in principle. There will be a need for discussions within the detailed design stages, particularly in respect of land ownership and transfer (if any) and certain technical issues where there are laid down standards and codes. UK Highways M40 A response had been received in relation to the availability of electricity in the area. Contrary to previous information received their response would suggest that there is electricity available in the area. [Subsequent work suggests that it is insufficient.] Signs were illuminated in the 70’s but are no longer so. The internally lit signs have been swapped for metal signs that are not illuminated. The reason for this is not known but may have been due to previous complaints about light intrusion. A response was awaited on the effects on the asset and boundaries, and on long term maintenance. UK Highway Services UK Highway Services Ltd. have shown on a plan the boundaries of the DBFO contract area. The proposed work would cross the boundary at a number of points. They are generally in support of the scheme on the grounds of regularising a situation which already exists (presumably in relation to kiss and ride, car turning and parking), reduction of congestion and improved safety. They draw attention to the need to obtain approval from the Highways Agency and UK Highways M40 Ltd.. They refer to the reduced all day parking and indicate that it is already full. They believe that there may be problems enforcing parking regulations in the bus bay and kiss and ride facility. Apparently lorries with exceptionally heavy axleweights leave the motorway to avoid a weak bridge so turning facilities have to be available for large oversize vehicles (abnormal indivisible loads). These vehicles with high axleloads, such as 150 tonne cranes, are prohibited from the M40 between junctions 6 and 8. They therefore leave the motorway at junction 6 in the northbound direction and generally, but not universally, turn in a north easterly direction. They return via the same route. The roundabouts have been redrawn to assess whether this can be allowed for within the plans. There are no firm plans for rebuilding the weak bridge although it is being considered. Finally they refer to the need for design, detailed design, land, boundary and legal issues remain to be discussed. In terms of implementation costs these could be substantial. Oxfordshire Fire Service Mr.Owen-Smith responded to indicate that he had no comment. Thames Valley Police Philip Gormley (Superintendent - Area Commander – Southern Oxfordshire Police Area) was glad to hear of progress with the implementation of the taxibus service which they felt would ultimately result in fewer cars being broken onto. The letter was passed to PC Tony Currell of the Traffic Management Department at Witney for his comments on road safety. He considers need for lighting on safety grounds, and the security of parking due to car crime. He identifies the need for adequate and good car parking. There is a concern over cycle security. It was felt that proper lighting was needed, not solar. Parking restrictions should be self enforcing by physical means Speed monitoring required Ambulance No comments have been received. Environment Agency No significant impact is expected although issue of land drainage identified. Council for the Protection of Rural England The Council has indicated its preference for removing the Oxford Tube stop and the resulting car parking in the area. However they appreciate the commercial reality of bus operation and realise that they cannot prevent the bus company using the stop. Therefore generally do accept the proposals provided the footpath is extended to join the footpath to Aston Rowant, and parking is prevented in lay-bys, on verges and on footpaths. In their response they were keen to raise their objection to any park and ride facility at Lewknor. The Chilterns Conservation Board Generally supportive of proposals, with some concerns: Lighting – to be minimal Roadside furniture – to be minimal Bus shelter – to be of timber construction, with no external advertising Railings – to be replaced with something more suitable. Cycle racks – welcomed Solar panels at bus stops – welcomed Conservation of the natural beauty and the quality of life for Lewknor residents are the two key priorities. Stagecoach No recent comments have been forthcoming. A telephone call indicated that there were in the process of responding although they had no major problems with the proposals. There main involvement relates to the operation of the interchange arrangements. They have not indicated any changes to the service which would impact upon the scheme, although they have indicated that they would not wish to serve both Lewknor and Stokenchurch. Other comments In addition a further comment (unsolicited) has been received from District Councillor Rodney Mann (a copy of which has been passed to the Oxfordshire Road Safety Section FAO Anthony Kirkwood). This involved an accident at approx. 1800 hours in late November. The complaint is related to the speed of cars, but in particular to a car which clipped a crossing pedestrian. The substance of the complaint is that there is no warning for car drivers that there are likely to be passengers crossing or an official recognised bus stop. For passengers there is no lighting, safe surface or signage. 26 June 2002 meeting This meeting was designed to bring local councils up to date with progress since the earlier consultation. The latest lighting proposals were outlined. Strong feelings still existed that such lighting was inappropriate in such a rural environment. [Alternative lighting schemes are to be considered, which could reduce such fears.] A BT Maintenance chamber which was potentially a problem to the scheme was not now so. There was still a feeling that four roundabouts were required so that speed through the area was reduced. Cycle racks for casual cyclists required in addition to secure cycle cages for regular users. There was concern over delay in progressing the scheme, particularly in view of the forthcoming winter. Some desire to see facilities improved as quickly as possible. Debate over whether the taxibus service should be introduced prior to the highway changes. Most in favour of early start, with Lewknor keen to see safety and highway improvements first. Re-iterated view that taxibus service should operate at least every ten minutes to be useful. Alternative of serving only Chinnor and Watlington identified, although this may impact on parking for shoppers in Watlington. Future of Stokenchurch park and ride site, and Stagecoach Tube service, not yet certain.
|