Issue - meetings

Forward Plan Ref: 2017/120

Contact: Hugh Potter, Team Leader, Area Stewardship Hub Tel: (01865) 810228

Report by Director for Infrastructure Delivery (CMDE5).

As a result of development of land for residential use at Springfield Oval (off the northern side of the Burford Road), which is anticipated to lead to additional pedestrian crossing movements to local amenities, including Tower Hill Primary School consultation has been carried out on a proposal to install a kerb build-out in the layby on the north side of the A4095 Burford Road at Witney approximately 20 metres west of its junction with Moor Avenue in order to improve the safety and amenity for pedestrians using the existing uncontrolled pedestrian crossing point at this location. The report condisers the responses received.

The Cabinet Member for Environment is RECOMMENDED to approve proposals to install a kerb build-out in the layby on the north side of the A4095 Burford Road at Witney approximately 20 metres west of its junction with Moor Avenue to improve the safety and amenity for pedestrians using the existing uncontrolled pedestrian crossing point at this location as advertised.

Defer pending further discussions with the local member and Tower Hill primary school with regard to the potential to recruit a school crossing patrol officer and ascertaining the viability for that person, if appointed, working in tandem with the proposed kerb build out.

The Cabinet Member for Environment considered responses received to a consultation to install a kerb build-out in the layby on the north side of the A4095 Burford Road at Witney approximately 20 metres west of its junction with Moor Avenue.   The build out, proposed to improve the safety and amenity for pedestrians using the existing uncontrolled pedestrian crossing point at this location had resulted from development of land for residential use at Springfield Oval (off the northern side of the Burford Road), which it had been anticipated would lead to additional pedestrian crossing movements to local amenities, including Tower Hill Primary School.

County Councillor Laura Price reiterated her objection to the scheme on the grounds that it would not provide a safe and convenient crossing point favouring a fully controlled crossing which she said had been supported by the police in 2014. This scheme was not what anyone wanted least of all the school and she suggested that perversely it might be better to have nothing at all.  She confirmed that there was money to recruit a school crossing patrol but efforts to fill that post had failed. There had obviously been a breakdown in communication between the district and county councils and in her opinion this proposed scheme was not the way to proceed.

Mr Kirkwood confirmed that the developers had queried an earlier request by the County Council for provision of a signalled crossing on the grounds that such a facility was not justified because of an existing crossing nearby and projected levels of use.  On that basis and the absence of any recorded accidents in the vicinity it had not been considered that a request for a signalled crossing would pass the legal tests for S106 funding. However, it had been agreed that the developer would contribute towards the construction of the build out and although he accepted there were concerns regarding the adequacy of a build out in providing a safe crossing point there would be several benefits including a reduction in the crossing distance and improved visibility in the layby.  Provision of a crossing would need to be subject to further consultation and whilst the build out meant the loss of some parking in the layby provision of a crossing would, however, lead to a more significant loss of possibly 5,6 or 7 spaces where vehicles would not be allowed to park due to a need for zig zag lines.  Also a disabled bay would need to be resited.  

The Cabinet Member for Environment expressed some reservations regarding a build out but wondered whether recruitment concurrently of a school crossing patrol could offset some of those concerns.  She also accepted that provision of a crossing might not be problem free but that provision of a build out also seemed to be counter intuitive bearing in mind the concerns raised locally and a decision needed to be made as to whether a build out would offer any help at all.  Therefore having regard to the information  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32