Issue - meetings

Forward Plan Ref: 2021/038

Contact: Tim Shickle, Group Manager (Asset Renewals) Tel: 07920 591545/Ryan Moore, Senior Engineer (Road Agreements Team S&V Engineering 2) Tel: 07557 082568

Report by Corporate Director Environment & Place (CMDHM8).

The report presents responses received to a statutory consultation on a proposed toucan crossing (a signalled crossing for the use of pedestrians and pedal cyclists) on the A4130 Didcot Northern Perimeter Road east of its roundabout junction with Avon Way required to provide a safe crossing point for pedestrians and cyclists in conjunction with approved residential development on the north side of the A4130.

The Cabinet Member for Highways Management is RECOMMENDED to approve the installation of a toucan crossing (a signalled crossing for the use of pedestrians and pedal cyclists) on the A4130 Didcot Northern Perimeter Road east of its roundabout junction with Avon Way.

Approved

The Cabinet Member for Highway Management considered (CMDHM8) responses received to a statutory consultation on a proposed toucan crossing on the A4130 Didcot Northern Perimeter Road east of its roundabout junction with Avon Way required to provide a safe crossing point for pedestrians and cyclists in conjunction with approved residential development on the north side of the A4130.

Councillor David Rouane although not objecting to the crossing itself highlighted a number of issues with regard to the design for this section of road. As the crossing was intended for use by pedestrians and cyclists travelling between Ladygrove (south of the perimeter road) and the new Willowbrook estate (north of the perimeter road) consideration needed to be given to how they would arrive at this point. The drawings appeared to mis-interpret the existing road markings. The solid white lines along the perimeter road were road edge markings and not cycle lanes with no physical separation between cyclists and fast moving HGVs. The gutter beyond the road edge marking was rarely swept and dangerous to cycle in due to detritus and road gullies. It was also too narrow to be compliant with LTN1-20 or published Oxfordshire cycle standards. If it was intended to introduce cycleways north and south from this junction then none were shown on the plan.  He asked if Dutch style roundabouts similar to the Fendon Road Roundabout in Cambridge had been considered and if the county council was serious about promoting active travel within the town why was infrastructure, such as this crossing, which merely tried to accommodate cyclists within a car-based design being considered? He agreed with one of the respondents that the road speed limit should be addressed as, although referred to as the Northern Perimeter Road the road would, once the new development had been completed, be a road between two housing estates, at least for this section, and so the speed limit should be reduced accordingly. Also the suitability of the cycle lanes along the perimeter road needed to be looked at from a point of view of safety as a result of HGV and other fast moving traffic and the impact that had on cyclists of all abilities.

Acknowledging the comments regarding speed officers advised that although nothing had been secured on that issue as part of the S106 agreement an approach could be made to developers. However, the design of the roundabout and Toucan crossing met the standards for that road. The hard strips on the A4130 matched those of previously built scheme at Mersey way and the road safety audit had not raised any issues with regard to that element of the scheme.

The Cabinet Member for Highway Management thanked everyone for their contributions. Acknowledging the points raised regarding safety levels for cyclists and possible future discussions regarding speed limits and having regard to the information set out in the report before him he confirmed his decision as follows:

to approve installation of a toucan crossing (a signalled crossing for the use  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7