Agenda, decisions and minutes

There were no declarations of interest.

Any county councillor may, by giving notice to the Proper Officer by 9 am two working days before the meeting, ask a question on any matter in respect of the Cabinet Member’s delegated powers.

The number of questions which may be asked by any councillor at any one meeting is limited to two (or one question with notice and a supplementary question at the meeting) and the time for questions will be limited to 30 minutes in total. As with questions at Council, any questions which remain unanswered at the end of this item will receive a written response.

Questions submitted prior to the agenda being despatched are shown below and will be the subject of a response from the appropriate Cabinet Member or such other councillor or officer as is determined by the Cabinet Member, and shall not be the subject of further debate at this meeting. Questions received after the despatch of the agenda, but before the deadline, will be shown on the Schedule of Addenda circulated at the meeting, together with any written response which is available at that time

Councillor Glynis Phillips

“'Traffic problems at the Barton Park junction with the northern bypass continue to give cause for concern.

I quote from the residents WhatsApp:

'”an 18 wheeler truck heading for the crossing .... probably did not see the light change to red soon enough. So he pulled a full on emergency stop right in front of me. All his wheels locked up and was just skidding like on ice  making a huge loud of tyre smoke. You can still see the brake marks in the road.”

Another resident reported a lorry stopping so far into the intersection that it was blocking the bus lane and the right turn into Barton Park.

The Cabinet Member met with residents on 2nd June and so my question is  what progress has been made with installing barriers at the traffic lights and putting speed cameras in the northern bypass and would he consider reducing the speed to 40mph on this stretch of road and installing elevated traffic lights so that oncoming traffic has ample warning that they need to slow down?”

Response from Cabinet Member for Highways Management

“Thank you for taking this up with me I know you have been working closely with the community there and that the residents value your contribution. It is a shame that some people have chosen to be confrontational and insulting towards me on social media as this makes dealing with everyone's legitimate concerns more challenging.

Officers are still considering what type of barrier may be suitable, if any, for installation at the crossing. The issue here is that pedestrian barriers would provide very little protection should a vehicle lose control at the crossing and could indeed lead to a more severe injury for someone waiting at the crossing. Any barriers installed would only give those using the crossing a feeling of being safer and are likely to provide little protection in the event of a collision. As you know the council's budget is extremely limited and the small pot that is allocated to road safety must be used where it results in meaningful enhancements rather than just perceptions of increased safety. I have been working closely with the Police who have looked at the speed data and collision stats at the junction. The collision data shows that between 1/1/2015 and 30/4/2021 (76 months), there have been 4 collisions reported. Obviously, we don't want to see any accidents on our roads, but there are significantly more accidents on other routes.

I have asked officers to raise the issue of average speed cameras with the Police as it seems this could be the best system to have a meaningful effect on reducing speeds on the ring road. I am not able to provide any further information on that point at the moment.

There are already high-level signals at the junction, as shown below.

 Ultimately it is regrettable that these deficiencies weren't identified at the planning stage because the council taxpayers are now being asked to foot  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2/21

Currently council meetings are taking place in-person (not virtually) with social distancing operating in the venues.  However, members of the public who wish to speak at this meeting can attend the meeting ‘virtually’ through an online connection.  Places at the meeting are very limited due to the requirements of social distancing.  While you can ask to attend the meeting in person, you are strongly encouraged to attend ‘virtually’ to minimise the risk of Covid-19 infection.

Please also note that in line with current government guidance all attendees are strongly encouraged to take a lateral flow test in advance of the meeting.

Normally requests to speak at this public meeting are required by 9 am on the day preceding the published date of the meeting. However, during the current situation and to facilitate these new arrangements we are asking that requests to speak are submitted by no later than 9am four working days before the meeting i.e. 9 am on 23rd July 2021. Requests to speak should be sent to graham.warrington@oxfordshire.gov.uk.  You will be contacted by the officer regarding the arrangements for speaking.

If you ask to attend in person, the officer will also advise you regarding Covid-19 safety at the meeting.  If you are speaking ‘virtually’, you may submit a written statement of your presentation to ensure that if the technology fails, then your views can still be taken into account. A written copy of your statement can be provided no later than 9 am 2 working days before the meeting i.e. Tuesday 27 July 2021. Written submissions should be no longer than 1 A4 sheet.

Forward Plan Ref: 2021/098

Contact: Naomi Barnes, Project Manager Tel: 07824 528681

Report by Corporate Director Environment & Place (CMHM4).

The report sets out the results of a pre-statutory consultation for a proposal to introduce a Low Traffic Neighbourhood scheme in East Oxford.  This would cover the areas of Divinity Road, St Mary’s and St Clement’s.  This includes key findings on which areas and filters are more widely supported or objected and by which user group.

The Cabinet Member for Highways management is RECOMMENDED to:

a.         Note the responses to the non-statutory consultation on the east Oxford low traffic neighbourhood including quietways (LTN).

b.        Agree that officers review the options based on the consultation output, update the proposals and reconsult

c.         Agree that the outcome of consultation on revised proposals be reported to a future Cabinet Member for Highways management meeting

d.        Instruct officers to fully assess the impact of the delay on resources and budget on the wider Active Travel programme.

The Cabinet Member for Highways Management considered (CMDHM4) the results of a pre-statutory consultation for a proposal to introduce a Low Traffic Neighbourhood scheme in East Oxford covering the areas of Divinity Road, St Mary’s and St Clement’s and including key findings on which areas and filters were more widely supported or objected to and by which user group.

Prior to the public presentations the Cabinet Member read out the following statement:

“Doubts have been raised as to whether decisions with regard to LTNs are able to be made by an individual Cabinet Member at a delegated decision meeting or by the full Cabinet on the grounds that as the LTN crosses multiple cabinet competencies. Those doubts have been raised under Part 4.4 of the Oxfordshire County Council Constitution (Cabinet Delegated Decisions).

That section read: “In the event of a difference of view arising on what constitutes a “material departure” or “major implication”, the Leader of the Council will, if the question cannot be resolved by other means, determine whether or not reference should be made to the full Cabinet…”

He then confirmed that there had been no difference of view as the context here was the difference of view between Cabinet members, not between any other parties.  As such there was and had been no discussion about whether the matter should be referred to the Full Cabinet and it would be the Head of Paid Service (i.e. Chief Executive) who would liaise with the Leader of the Council over such an issue. There was no suggestion in paragraph 4.4 that it would be a routine matter for there to be such disagreement as it simply provided a mechanism for resolving any such intra-Cabinet disagreement.

This matter had featured in the first Forward Plan after the formation of the new Cabinet, quite clearly marked as a single delegated decision and the Cabinet Member confirmed that no discussions had taken place between the Leader of the Council and the Chief Executive for any requirement for this process to change and to be considered by full Cabinet and that this issue had always been intended as a delegated decision as evidenced by the Forward Plan history. It was not considered that this was a decision that had major implications for more than one portfolio, although it had been recognised that like many decisions it would have effects on other portfolio areas.

Mazhar Dogar spoke both as a lifelong resident of Oxford and on behalf of the Cowley Traders Association. LTNs had proved to be the most divisive and contentious issue he had experienced and a recent consultation of over 200 businesses many of whom were independent traders showed an overwhelming number opposing the LTN proposals. Those businesses had over the last 18 months faced huge problems and continued to do so. They needed support and assurances from the County Council but instead had been ignored from day one of this process with little or no consultation or involvement in its design  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4/21

Forward Plan Ref: 2021/063

Contact: Tim Shickle, Group Manager – Traffic & Road Safety Tel: 07920 591545/James Whiting, Principal Officer – Parking Tel: 07584 581187

Report by Corporate Director Environment & Place (CMDHM5).

The report presents responses received to a statutory consultation to amend the recently introduced Cowley Central East and West CPZs in respect of  current exemptions for permit holders at time limited parking places and in respect of waiting restrictions on Crowell Road in the vicinity of its junction with Lewin Close.

The Cabinet Member for Highways Management is RECOMMENDED to approve the following amendments to the Cowley Central East and West Controlled Parking Zones (CPZ):

a)     Cowley Central East CPZ: to amend the legal order by removing the exemption for permit holders not having to comply with parking restrictions at the following time restricted parking places:

          i.    30 minute parking in parts of Barns Road and Cleveland Drive;

        ii.    1 hour parking in parts of St Lukes Road

       iii.    2 hour parking in parts of Barns Road.

b)     Cowley Central West CPZ:  to introduce a section of ‘No Waiting at Any Time’ (Double Yellow Lines) on Crowell Road west side for 15 metres either side of the junction with Lewin Close. This in place of the current `No Waiting 8am to 6.30pm Monday to Saturday`

c)     Cowley Central East CPZ: to allow residents of Nos.147-169 & 156-166 Oxford Road to apply for both residents & visitor permits subject to a check of any properties granted planning permission on the basis of being car-free developments.

The Cabinet Member for Highways Management considered (CMDHM5) responses received to a statutory consultation to amend the recently introduced Cowley Central East and West CPZs in respect of current exemptions for permit holders at time limited parking places and in respect of waiting restrictions on Crowell Road in the vicinity of its junction with Lewin Close.

Marko Jung spoke on behalf of the Lewin Close Owners' Association and in support of the introduction of a double yellow no parking at any time outside their road. Neither of the two objections brought any evidence backed argument against ensuring emergency vehicle access to a road with 16 households with both appearing to be objections against any further traffic and parking management on Crowell Road. The Owners’ Association did believe the additional restriction to 30m of road would impede parking opportunities on Crowell Road, which was rarely fully occupied and the proposed double yellow line covered the close entrance, a short area to the north, which was not adjacent to any property on Crowell Road and a short area to the south, which just overlapped with the front of 36 Crowell Road. It was also worth noting that the properties opposite the proposed double yellow line had large driveways with parking and for those reasons the Association did not believe that the proposal would impact on parking availability for residents of Crowell Road.

The Cabinet Member thanked Mr Jung for his comments and having regard to the information set out in the report and to the representations made to him at the meeting confirmed his decision as follows:

to approve the following amendments to the Cowley Central East and West Controlled Parking Zones (CPZ):

a)            Cowley Central East CPZ: to amend the legal order by removing the exemption for permit holders not having to comply with parking restrictions at the following time restricted parking places:

                                i.             30 minute parking in parts of Barns Road and Cleveland Drive;

                               ii.              1 hour parking in parts of St Lukes Road

                              iii.              2 hour parking in parts of Barns Road.

b)        Cowley Central West CPZ:  to introduce a section of ‘No Waiting at Any Time’ (Double Yellow Lines) on Crowell Road west side for 15 metres either side of the junction with Lewin Close. This in place of the current `No Waiting 8am to 6.30pm Monday to Saturday`

c)         Cowley Central East CPZ: to allow residents of Nos.147-169 & 156-166 Oxford Road to apply for both residents & visitor permits subject to a check of any properties granted planning permission on the basis of being car-free developments.

Signed………………………………………….

Cabinet Member for Highways Management

Date of signing…………………………………

Forward Plan Ref: 2021/090

Contact: Tim Shickle, Group Manager – Traffic & Road Safety Tel: 07920 591545/Julian Richardson, Senior Engineer (Road Agreements Team C&W Engineering 2) Tel: 07825 052736

Report by Corporate Director Environment & Place (CMHM6).

The report presents responses received to a statutory consultation to introduce a proposed no right turn restriction from an access on the south west side of the Bicester Road at Launton (currently serving allotments) approximately 45 metres south east of its roundabout junction with the A4421.  The proposal has been put forward as a result of the additional use of this access by vehicles as part of the East West Rail project and due to restricted visibility to the right. Funding for the consultation on the proposals has been provided by the East West Rail Alliance and, if approved, they will also fund implementation.

The Cabinet Member for Highways Management is RECOMMENDED to approve the proposed no right turn restriction from a new access on the south west side of the Bicester Road, Launton as advertised.

The Cabinet Member for Highways Management considered (CMDHM6)  responses received to a statutory consultation to introduce a proposed no right turn restriction from an access on the south west side of the Bicester Road at Launton (currently serving allotments) approximately 45 metres south east of its roundabout junction with the A4421.  The proposal had been put forward as a result of the additional use of this access by vehicles as part of the East West Rail project and due to restricted visibility to the right. Funding for the consultation on the proposals had been provided by the East West Rail Alliance and, if approved, would also be funded by them.

Speaking on behalf of the Launton Plotters Committee Wendy Foster outlined the allotment holders support for the proposal for the following reasons:

1. It was a safe entrance and exit for all the plotters to drive cars, bikes or walk.

2. The added speed bumps on the road meant that traffic would be cautious and slow.

3. They felt that turning left out of the allotments and going around the roundabout to go back to Launton was much safer than turning right straight onto the main road back to Launton Village.

4. Vehicles travelling from Launton to the allotments would be able to turn safely left into the allotments without worrying about traffic trying to turn right.

5. Some drivers would feel very nervous if there was a right turn out of the allotments into Launton village and would probably go around the roundabout anyway.  

6.The traffic lights over the bridge would be able to slow traffic down so that Launton allotment holders could go in and out of their road safely.

7. They felt that as the road to the allotment came under Oxfordshire County Council highways it would mean that safety would be maintained and if there were any problems the police could easily be called.

8.  Vehicles would be naturally travelling at a slow speed along the main highway from the roundabout and out of the village so this would add to the safety of the turning.

9. They recognised the concerns expressed by Thames Valley Police but acknowledged the response of the Corporate Director that the roundabout should appreciably improve compliance as compared to the many other similar restrictions currently in place.

The Cabinet Member for Highways management having regard to the information set out in the report before him along with the representations made to him at the meeting, which he acknowledged highlighted the need to introduce the measures confirmed his decision as follows:

to approve the proposed no right turn restriction from a new access on the south west side of the Bicester Road, Launton as advertised.

Signed………………………………………….

Cabinet Member for Highway Management

Date of signing………………………………..

Forward Plan Ref: 2021/088

Contact: Tim Shickle, Group Manager – Traffic & Road Safety Tel: 07920 591545/Mike Wasley, Principal Officer – Traffic Schemes Tel: 07393 001045

Report by Corporate Director Environment & Place (CMHM7).

This report presents responses received to a statutory consultation to introduce no waiting Monday to Friday between 9am and 5pm on both sides of Water Eaton Lane south of the existing no waiting at any time restrictions in the vicinity of its junction with Bicester Road. Funding for consultation on the proposals was provided by Gosford and Water Eaton Parish Council and from the County Council’s Parish Support Budget. If approved the Parish Council will fund implementation. 

The Cabinet Member for Highways Management is RECOMMENDED to approve the proposed waiting restrictions on Water Eaton Lane as advertised.

The Cabinet Member for Highway Management considered (CMDHM7)  responses received to a statutory consultation to introduce no waiting Monday to Friday between 9am and 5pm on both sides of Water Eaton Lane south of the existing no waiting at any time restrictions in the vicinity of its junction with Bicester Road. Funding for consultation on the proposals had been provided by Gosford and Water Eaton Parish Council and from the County Council’s Parish Support Budget and if approved implementation would be funded by the Parish Council. 

Ruth French advised that there was overwhelming opposition from residents living on Water Eaton Lane to this proposal in its current form for reasons of safety, inconvenience and enjoyment of their property and also others in nearby roads, especially Beagles Close, who were extremely concerned at the prospect of increased parking in those roads. Commuter parking was not recognised as a problem and not one local agricultural or business had commented in support of the proposal.  The parish council had not sought the views of local residents before putting this proposal forward to the county council, either this year or in 2017 and on neither occasion did local agricultural businesses contribute to the consultation or voice any concerns with existing arrangements. The proposal had not been supported by evidence and recent, time-randomised, daily spot checks had shown very few incidents of problematic parking. The previous proposal in 2017/18 had been similarly rejected due to lack of evidence and the report currently before the Cabinet Member confirmed the lack of any perceived problem with regard to commuter parking There had been an increase in leisure visitors to the lane last year due to pandemic lockdowns, but those numbers had now substantially reduced. She had not seen a single vehicle obstructing the passage of traffic or reducing the visibility at the junction with Beagles Close and making decisions based on occasional individual complaints without putting them into the context of the ‘normal’ situation created an extremely biased picture that should not be used as a basis for such a drastic change. This proposal would not improve safety and if there was a genuine, evidence supported, problem with parking in this street, then a more balanced, proportionate solution needed to be found. She asked that the proposal be rejected as it currently stood as there was no evidence base for it and residents did not want it considering that it would worsen, not improve, safety and nuisance parking while adversely affecting the normal use and enjoyment of their properties. The parish council needed to look again at this issue, gather and analyse relevant data, and consult with their constituents, the local residents, before submitting another proposal to the County Council.

A written representation had been received from County Councillor Ian Middleton noting the predominantly negative response to the proposal which seemed to be based on the belief that the road was fairly wide and parked cars did not create a significant obstruction. There were also concerns about  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7/21

Forward Plan Ref: 2020/180

Contact: Tim Shickle, Group Manager – Traffic & Road Safety Tel: 07920 591545 / Ryan Moore, Senior Engineer (Road Agreements Team – S&V) Tel: 07557 082568

Report by Corporate Director Environment & Place (CMDHM8).

At the former Cabinet Member  for Environment delegated decisions meeting on 19 November 2020, the Cabinet Member  approved proposals for a 20mph speed limit as shown at Annex 1 to the report CMDHM8 but  - taking note of representations made by residents objecting to or raising concerns  about  the traffic calming measures as shown at Annex 2 to the report CMDHM8 -  asked officers to investigate alternative provision of raised tables at junctions on the route (in addition to the 2 proposed at the Churchill Road junctions), namely at Morrells Close with Brasenose Road and possibly Icknield way and Oxford Crescent.. The above proposals as shown at Annex 1 & 2 were put forward as part of the approved residential development at Great Western Park and, if approved, would be funded by developers.

Following the Cabinet Member’s decision on 19 November, officers requested the developers to explore this alternative design and this report now sets out the original design details along with the results of the further discussions with the developer on the alternative scheme.

The Cabinet Member for Highways Management is RECOMMENDED to approve the traffic calming measures in Brasenose Road and Slade Road as originally advertised between 30 September and 30 October 2020 and as shown at Annex 2 to the report CMDHM8.

The former Cabinet Member  for Environment on 19 November 2020  had approved proposals for a 20mph speed limit but, having taken note of representations made by residents objecting to or raising concerns  about  the traffic calming measures, had asked officers to investigate alternative provision of raised tables at junctions on the route (in addition to the 2 proposed at the Churchill Road junctions), namely at Morrells Close with Brasenose Road and possibly Icknield way and Oxford Crescent.. The proposals had been put forward as part of the approved residential development at Great Western Park and, if approved, would be funded by developers.

Following the Cabinet Member’s decision on 19 November, officers requested the developers to explore this alternative design and the report now before the Cabinet Member for Highways Management set out the original design details along with the results of further discussions with the developer on the alternative scheme.

Speaking against the proposals Dawn Elsley highlighted that no previous accidentshad occurred in Slade Road/Brasenose Road and no traffic surveys had taken place in Slade Rd/Brasenose Rd either before the Great Western Park estate was built or since to measure whether the volume of traffic had increased or indeed decreased.  She considered that to be a fundamental and necessary measurement which should have been undertaken to assess whether a calming system needed to be installed. However, she considered that these proposed road calming measures were being installed without the benefit of sound data on road traffic history when it might actually be the case that the road had less traffic than before the GWP development. As the prohibitive cost of installing an improved road calming scheme (raised junctions only) had been mentioned she suggested that current road traffic levels should be measured, simple 20pmh signs installed and then measured again to establish their effect. That would allow for an informed decision to be made regarding next steps for road calming measures and potentially be cost saving?  Bedroom & lounge windows in their property were situated at the front of the house and noise from braking and accelerating vehicles between cushions would significantly increase noise and air pollution. A speed cushion would present another obstacle to negotiate when reversing on to or reversing out from their driveway over their dropped kerb causing a potential safety issue. On investigation, there appeared to be no specific criteria to the positioning of cushions in a road and that that this was solely an engineer’s decision. Therefore, they were requesting that the speed cushion proposed outside their property be moved to along the road where driveway access would not be affected or where residents had expressed support for the calming scheme. They had suggested additional raised junctions along the length of Brasenose /Slade Road (sited at Oxford Crescent/Icknield Close/Churchill Road) but had been advised that the cost of doing that was too high.   The proposal had caused major conflict between their immediate neighbour and neighbours opposite as they were all opposed to having speed cushions  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8/21

Forward Plan Ref: 2021/089

Contact: Tim Shickle, Group Manager – Traffic & Road Safety Tel: 07920 591545/Mark Francis, Traffic and Traffic Schemes Technical Officer Tel: 07730 926962

Report by Corporate Director Environment & Place (CMDHM9).

The report presents responses received to a statutory consultation to introduce no waiting at any time restrictions at the south end of the Larkhill Road. Funding for consultation on the proposals was provided by Abingdon School who will also fund implementation if approved.

The Cabinet Member for Highways Management is RECOMMENDED to approve the proposed no waiting at any time restrictions on Larkhill Road as advertised.

The Cabinet Member for Highways Management considered (CMDHM9) responses received to a statutory consultation to introduce no waiting at any time restrictions at the south end of the Larkhill Road. Funding for the consultation on the proposals had been provided by Abingdon School who would also fund implementation if approved.

County Councillor Nathan Ley had expressed his support for the proposed waiting restrictions on Larkhill Road adding that the community was broadly supportive of the measures with the main priority being safety. Despite that, he was cognizant of concerns raised by some local residents and he hoped that Abingdon School would continue to be proactive in its engagement with staff and students to promote active travel options to school, or transport solutions which did not have detrimental knock-on effects to the wider town.

Having regard to the information set out in the report before him and the comments from the local member the Cabinet Member for Highway Management confirmed his decision as follows:

to approve the proposed no waiting at any time restrictions on Larkhill Road as advertised.

Signed…………………………………………

Cabinet Member for Highway Management

Date of signing……………………………….