Agenda and draft minutes

There were no apologies for absence.

None declared.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 3 September 2009 (TDC3) and to receive for information any matters arising therefrom.

The minutes of the meeting held on 3 September 2009 were approved and signed.

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

This could include significant issues affecting the councillor’s division, which otherwise might be the subject of an address, petition or motion at council.

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

Questions submitted after agenda despatch and by 9 am on the working day before the meeting will be placed on a schedule of Addenda and tabled at the meeting.

Question Councillor Jean Fooks

Parking restrictions on the Waterways estate off the Woodstock Road in my division are badly needed. There is a safety issue around vehicles parking on the bridge over the canal which block visibility and the police have supported the request for some restrictions here. Proposals have been agreed - they should have been on the agenda for today's meeting - but I now hear that the item has been withdrawn because no formal advertising could be done until the issue over the adoption of the bridge and the roads have been settled. This has been awaiting a decision for many months. When will the safety of residents be given the priority it deserves?

Councillor Hudspeth

Delays had been experienced because the roads concerned were not public roads and delays in signing S38 agreements to enable the roads to be adopted.  One possible way forward would be to hold discussions with Barclay Homes to explore the possibility of putting in some informal yellow lines in the interim.

Supplementary question from Councillor Fooks

Could Barclay Homes be pushed to progress this.

Councillor Hudspeth

Moves were being made to secure adoption but there was likely to be difficulties in securing funds from developers in current times in order to bring the bridge up to standard.

 Question - Councillor John Tanner

Would Councillor Hudspeth and Councillor Rose accept my congratulations and heart-felt thanks for excluding Iffley Fields from the proposed Magdalen Road Controlled Parking Zone? Will they explain why they believe that the rest of the CPZ, where residents will have to pay an extra £55 a year without no guarantee of a parking place for them or their visitors, will be an improvement?  Do they agree that the absence of on-street parking for bicycles, the threat to local businesses and the sanctioning of pavement parking, will actually make matters worse for pedestrians, cyclists and for car owners?”

Councillor Hudspeth

Accepted.

Controlled Parking Zones were a means of controlling parking.  Nobody was entitled to park on the highway.  Furthermore CPZs would provide an opportunity to formalise a lot of informal pavement parking and enforcement where that occurred.  In my view cycle on street cycle parking would increase the pressure on the parking situation.

Councillor John Sanders

It is little comfort to residents that the Residents' Parking Charge will provide enforcement.   The responsibility of enforcement is that of the County Council and the cost of enforcement should properly be borne by the Council and paid for out of the general exchequer.   Wouldn't the committee agree with me that this charge is an extra council tax on the hard working people of Oxford and is a negation of the Council's responsibility?

Councillor Hudspeth

I would not agree.

Councillor Sanders

We are told that the Council's Bus Subsidy budget represents "a stand-still budget".   Can the Committee advise whether there has been any incease or decrease in bus subsidy in actual or in real terms over the period since 2005 and how does  ...  view the full minutes text for item 18/09

The following requests to address the meeting had been approved:

Report by Head of Transport (TDC6)

The Department for Transport’s (DfT) advice (Circular 01/06) on the setting of local speed limits has requested that highway authorities review current speed limits on their A and B road network in the light of the advice and implement any changes judged necessary by 2011.  The scope of the project in Oxfordshire has been extended to include some of the more significant unnumbered roads, although it should also be noted that following the major village speed limit project (between 1999 and 2003) and ongoing work in rural speed management – both of which anticipated DfT advice – a large proportion of the network already complies with the DfT guidance.

The County’s road safety team has carried out a comprehensive assessment applying the DfT criteria, and has – with the input of the Speed Reference Group (an advisory cross-party group of county councillors supported by police traffic management officers) – identified draft recommendations for changes to speed limits, both up and down, on the network. Informal consultation with the Police, parish councils and neighbouring authorities (where the limit meets the county boundary) has been undertaken to seek their views on the draft proposals and to give them the opportunity to suggest other roads for a speed limit change.

The report details the results of the consultation, recommends the roads within Oxfordshire that should be progressed to formal consultation and seeks authority to proceed with the statutory process to draft, consult on and make the speed limit orders, subject to any objections received on the changes being referred back to this Committee for a decision on how to proceed.

The Committee is RECOMMENDED

(a)                     to authorise officers to prepare, consult on and implement speed limit orders necessary to effect the changes identified by the speed limit review on the roads listed in Annex 3, subject to any formal objections being referred to this committee at a later date for a decision on how to proceed; and

(b)                     to authorise the Cabinet Member for Transport Implementation and Head of Transport to approve additions to the list of A & B roads for formal consultation identified from Annex 2 table B following the outcome of the Speed Reference Groups review.

The Department for Transport’s (DfT) advice (Circular 01/06) on the setting of local speed limits requested highway authorities to review current speed limits on their A and B road network in the light of the advice and implement any changes judged necessary by 2011.  The scope of the project in Oxfordshire had been extended to include some of the more significant unnumbered roads, although it should also be noted that following the major village speed limit project (between 1999 and 2003) and ongoing work in rural speed management – both of which anticipated DfT advice – a large proportion of the network already complied with the DfT guidance.

The County’s road safety team carried out a comprehensive assessment applying the DfT criteria, which – with the input of the Speed Reference Group (an advisory cross-party group of county councillors supported by police traffic management officers) – identified draft recommendations for changes to speed limits, both up and down, on the network. The report (TDC6) detailed the results of consultation, recommended roads within Oxfordshire to be progressed to formal consultation and sought authority to proceed with the statutory process to draft and consult on speed limit orders, subject to any objections received on the changes being referred back to this Committee.

Councillor Belson and Nick Townsend supported the recommendation regarding proposals for Pishill.

David Rushton advised that Benson Parish Council supported a reduction for the A4074 in Benson but would like to see a further reduction based on safety grounds and accident record.

Endorsing Mr Rushton’s comments Councillor Crabbe also asked that the current limit on Crowmarsh Roundabout be retained because the roundabout was dangerous. He also called for a 50 limit on A4074 at Ipsden.

Councillor Patrick presented a petition containing 1938 signatures supporting a reduction from 40 to 30 on Mably Way, Wantage near the health centre.  Also Radley Way, Grove boasted a serious accident record which, coupled with a high levels of development, justified a reduction to 30 from the current limit of 40.

Councillor Purse called for consideration of a lower limit on Bayswater and Shepherds Pitt Roads, Stanton St John.

Councillor Turner felt that consideration should be given to the consultation process in order to allow more time for comment.  He then referred specifically to Old Road, Milton Common where roundels had had a dramatic effect on reducing speed; the need to retain a 30 limit on the A329 over the M40; requests from Little Milton Parish Council for a 20 limit past the school and Marsh Baldon Parish Council for a 40 limit by the Marylands Estate; support for proposals for A418 (Thame to Wheatley and Stadhampton) and an extra 40 buffer zone on A329 south from Stadhampton.

Councillor Rose advised that the County Council would want to look at results from the introduction of 20 limits in the City before extending to rural areas.

RESOLVED:

(a)              to authorise officers to prepare, consult on and implement speed limit  ...  view the full minutes text for item 20/09

Report by Head of Transport (TDC7)

This report outlines the statutory consultation process on the Draft Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs) for the proposed Divinity Road Area Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ). It provides information on the policy context, development of the process to date, an outline of the consultations carried out, specific issues that have been raised by the consultees and recommendations in light of responses received. Its content and recommendations are closely related to agenda item?? which contains a report on the consultation process for the proposed Magdalen Road Area Controlled Parking Zone.  Consultation on the zones was carried out simultaneously.

The Committee is RECOMMENDED to:

(a)               approve the principle of a CPZ in the Magdalen Road Area on the basis of the current proposals, with the exception of removing the Iffley Fields area from the zone; and

(b)              authorise officers to advertise a new Traffic Regulation Order for the zone, excluding the Iffley Fields area and incorporating minor changes arising from responses to the formal consultation.

The Committee considered (TDC7) proposals to introduce a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) in the Magdalen Road Area.

Nicholas Lawrence urged the Committee not to exclude Iffley Fields from the Magdalen Road CPZ feeling that the CPZ would be of benefit to the area by improving enforcement of footway parking and ensuring free and safe passage for emergency vehicles.

Clive Cowen stressed the importance of evening and weekend parking for the Samaritan organisation and asked the Committee to reconsider early evening restrictions or if that was not possible to consider the Samaritans as an exceptional case.

Louise Locock supported removal of Iffley Fields from the CPZ.

Rachel Humphreys supported removal of Iffley Fields from the proposed CPZ.  30% of parking space had been lost and residents could not afford to lose any more.

Sarah Wild opposed the proposals and echoed comments regarding the loss of 30% of parking space.  There was a need to retain the community and resist visitor parking permit limits which would seriously affect families with young children, the elderly and people working from home.  There was a need for more daytime parking.

Pete Crampton congratulated the Committee on the revised proposals for Iffley Fields.  There was a huge amount of opposition in Iffley Fields to the proposals which on a personal note would seriously affect his ability to work from home. He endorsed all the points raised by the previous 3 speakers.

Gaby Hook referred to the direct threat to businesses in Iffley Fields due to clients being unable to park.  She could not afford to use the allocation of 50 permits for that purpose and supported the recommendation to exclude Iffley Fields.

Mark Mason asked for more flexibility in the proposals suggesting shared spaces as a way forward.  Currently cars cruised the area looking for spaces and drivers left their cars for a long time.  Students made a huge difference to the situation during term time.  He asked the Committee to amend the proposals or reject them.

Dennis Pratley suggested that anyone with local knowledge of the area would never have recommended this as a solution.  Significant over development in the area had brought its own problems but the proposals before the Committee represented a real threat to local businesses and he urged the Committee to reject the scheme.

Barry Allday also referred to the threat to local businesses whose needs he felt had not been adequately considered. No parking meant no customers and an uncertain future.  He asked why Magdalen Road could not be excluded in the same way as Iffley Fields and suggested that it was the presence of  students not commuters that created problems.

Corrine Grimley-Evans objected to certain aspects of the scheme and asked that the Committee defer the proposals.  It was unjust that pedestrians had to forfeit pavement space to cars and this represented a huge concern to the elderly and infirm.  Legitimising pavement parking here would result in the spread of similar practices throughout the City.  There should be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21/09

Report by Head of Transport (TDC8)

This report outlines the statutory consultation process on the Draft Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs) for the proposed Divinity Road Area Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ). It provides information on the policy context, development of the process to date, an outline of the consultations carried out, specific issues that have been raised by the consultees and recommendations in light of responses received. Its content and recommendations are closely related to agenda item?? which contains a report on the consultation process for the proposed Magdalen Road Area Controlled Parking Zone.  Consultation on the zones was carried out simultaneously.

The Committee is RECOMMENDED:

(a)               subject to final approval of a Controlled Parking Zone in the Magdalen Road area to authorise the making of the Oxfordshire County Council (Oxford – Divinity Road area) (Controlled Parking Zone and Waiting Restrictions) Order 20**;

(b)              authorise officers to reconsult locally on amendments to the scheme, as set out in Annex D to this report; and

(c)               authorise the Head of Transport in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Transport Implementation and Cabinet Member for Growth & Infrastructure to carry out further minor amendments to the scheme and the Traffic Regulation Order that might be required when implementing the proposed parking zone.

The Committee considered a report (TDC8) which outlined the statutory consultation process on the Draft Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs) for the proposed Divinity Road Area Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ).

James Styring referred to abuse of pavement parking and lack of enforcement. Regarding access issues there had only been one incident which had caused problems in Divinity Road in 13 years. The County Council needed to consider allocation of permits and highlighted that other countries took action to limit the use of cars by students.

Councillor Rose and Councillor Hudspeth stressed that the views of the emergency services had to be taken into account and could not be ignored.  Pavement parking was a useful tool if regularised and any lack of enforcement would be taken seriously.  They sympathised with the views expressed on this item and others regarding the impact of students’ vehicles but there was little that could be done to limit that.

RESOLVED:

(a)          subject to final approval of a Controlled Parking Zone in the Magdalen Road area to authorise the making of the Oxfordshire County Council (Oxford – Divinity Road area) (Controlled Parking Zone and Waiting Restrictions) Order 20**;

(b)          authorise officers to reconsult locally on amendments to the scheme, as set out in Annex D to the report TDC9; and

(a)                   authorise the Head of Transport in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Transport Implementation and Cabinet Member for Growth & Infrastructure to carry out further minor amendments to the scheme and the Traffic Regulation Order that might be required when implementing the proposed parking zone.

Report by Head of Transport (TDC9)

This report discusses the outcome of a review of the East Oxford Controlled Parking Zone and its associated Permit Parking Scheme, which was carried out during 2008/09.  It also makes recommendations concerning changes to the layout of parking places and the restrictions that operate within them.

The Committee is RECOMMENDED to authorise the making of:

(a)                     the Oxfordshire County Council (East Oxford) (Controlled Parking Zone and Waiting Restrictions) Consolidation Order 20** subject to the following amendments:

(i)                 Boulter Street – Change the controls in the existing 1 hour parking place, 8am – 6.30pm Monday – Saturday into 2 hour parking where permit holders are exempt from the time limit;

(ii)               Cherwell Street – Remove the proposed Permit Holders Only Parking outside 25 Cherwell Street and replace with No Waiting at Any Time;

(iii)             Cowley Place – Replace the proposed Parking Places without time limit with No Waiting, 8am – 6.30pm, Monday – Friday;

(iv)             Jeune Street – Change Proposed TRO to reflect the existing layout of permit holders’ only parking;

(v)               Princes Street – Remove the existing parking places outside numbers 66 and 74 Princes Street and replace with No Waiting at Any Time;

(vi)             Temple Street – Reduce the extent of proposed additional permit holder parking place near Kingdom Hall by approximately one third and extend the No Waiting at any time protecting the adjacent access to meet it;

(b)                    the Oxfordshire County Council (Disabled Persons Parking Places - Oxford) (Amendment No.[8]) Order 20** as advertised.

The Committee considered a report (TD9) which discussed the outcome of a review of the East Oxford Controlled Parking Zone and its associated Permit Parking Scheme.

Jacqueline Sunderland welcomed the proposals to remove parking places outside 66 and 74 Princes Street which would address the difficulties of cars exiting Grants Mews.

Mark Davies referred to the loss of seven spaces in Union Street over the last 5 years.  He felt there was no coherent reason why this should happen and called for those spaces to be returned.  Residents needed more than 2 spaces.

Elizabeth Bell asked the Committee to reconsider the requirements for cars to be registered at a zone address when cars were registered in another EU member state.

RESOLVED:            to authorise the making of:

(a)               the Oxfordshire County Council (East Oxford) (Controlled Parking Zone and Waiting Restrictions) Consolidation Order 20** subject to the following amendments:

(i)            Boulter Street – Change the controls in the existing 1 hour parking place, 8am – 6.30pm Monday – Saturday into 2 hour parking where permit holders are exempt from the time limit;

(ii)          Cherwell Street – Remove the proposed Permit Holders Only Parking outside 25 Cherwell Street and replace with No Waiting at Any Time;

(iii)        Cowley Place – That the existing No Waiting At Any Time be retained between StHilda’s College Gate and the cul-de-sac end of Cowley Place and that the proposed 3 hour shared parking places terminate at the present limit of the 24 hour parking on the western side of Cowley Place, adjacent to the St Hilda’s Gate Keepers Lodge;

(iv)         JeuneStreet – Change Proposed TRO to reflect the existing layout of permit holders’ only parking;

(v)     Princes Street – Because of the shortage of parking opportunities and the comments received that the parking place outside no 66 should be retained and its removal reviewed at a later date but that the space outside 74 Princes street be removed and replaced with No Waiting At Any Time;

(vi)         Remove the existing parking places outside numbers 66 and 74 Princes Street and replace with No Waiting at Any Time;

(vii)       Temple Street – Reduce the extent of proposed additional permit holder parking place near Kingdom Hall by approximately one third and extend the No Waiting at any time protecting the adjacent access to meet it;

(viii) Morrell Avenue – to include into the East oxford Order the eastern part which had been proposed for inclusion in the Divinity Road Controlled Parking Zone

(b)       the Oxfordshire County Council (Disabled Persons Parking Places - Oxford) (Amendment No.[8]) Order 20** as advertised.

Report by Head of Transport (TDC10)

The report describes the proposed humped zebra crossing scheme close to the main pedestrian entrance to Blessed George Napier Roman Catholic Secondary School and presents both the objections and the support received in response to public consultation.

The Committee is RECOMMENDED to authorise implementation of the proposed humped zebra crossing on Springfield Avenue, Banbury close to the main pedestrian entrance to Blessed George Napier Roman Catholic School.

The Committee considered a report (TDC10) which described the proposed humped zebra crossing scheme close to the main pedestrian entrance to Blessed George Napier Roman Catholic Secondary School.

The Committee noted the support of Councillor Kieron Mallon the local member.

RESOLVED:      to authorise implementation of the proposed humped zebra crossing on Springfield Avenue, Banbury close to the main pedestrian entrance to Blessed George Napier Roman Catholic School.

RESOLVED:                        that the public be excluded for the duration of item 11E since it was likely that if they were present during that item there would be disclosure of exempt information as defined in Part I of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended) and specified below in relation to that item and since it is considered that, in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information on the grounds set out in that item.

Report by Head of Transport (TDC11E)

The report describes bus services for which subsidy agreements are due to terminate in December 2009, mainly covering services in the Bicester and Kidlington area. Four further contracts outside the review area have also been reviewed, as follows:

Service 4B (Contract PT/V4): Cumnor-Wootton-Abingdon (evenings and Sundays)

Service 31 (Contract PT/V43): Wantage-Abingdon-Oxford (Mon-Thurs evenings)

Service 36 (Contract PT/V36): Grove-Wantage-Milton Park peak service (Mon-Fri)

Services 105/106/136 (Contract PT/S81): Wallingford-Oxford, Oxford-Oxford Science Park and Wallingford to Cholsey (Mon-Fri a.m peak)

The financial position of the bus subsidy budget is also described in the report.  Recent commercial withdrawals combined with continued tender price rises and only a small increase in the bus subsidy budget mean that some reductions in service are likely as a result of this review.?????

The Committee is RECOMMENDED to:

(a)               make its decisions on subsidy for the services described in this report on the basis of the tender prices (and the periods of time) as set out in Supplementary Exempt Annex 2 to be reported subsequently;

(b)              record that in the opinion of the Committee the decisions made in (a) above are urgent in that any delay likely to be caused by the call in process would result in service discontinuity and in accordance with the requirements of Scrutiny Procedure Rule 17(b) those decisions should not be subject to the call in process; and

(c)               agree that a publicity leaflet is published and distributed containing bus timetables for all the new bus services in the Bicester, Kidlington and Woodstock area dealt with in this review.

The information in this report is exempt in that it falls within the following prescribed category:

Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information)

The Committee considered a report (TDC11E) which described bus services in the Bicester and Kidlington area for which subsidy agreements were due to terminate in December 2009 together with four further contracts outside the review area. The report also set out the financial position of the bus subsidy budget. ??

Councillor Patrick supported continuation of the current level of service 31 and referred to the potential impact on levels of reliability and effectiveness if that service were reduced to a 2 hour service. She welcomed the continuation of the current 32 service and called for more publicity for services generally.

Councillor Turner expressed general support for the recommendations although Contract S81 (services 105/106/136) did not include Nuneham Courtenay or the Baldons.

Mr Darch confirmed that the Baldon Parish Councils had been consulted.

RESOLVED:      to:

(a)        approve subsidy for the services described in the report TDC11E on the basis of the tender prices (and the periods of time) as set out in Supplementary Exempt Annex 2 to that report;

(b)                record that in the opinion of the Committee the decisions made in (a) above were urgent in that any delay likely to be caused by the call in process would result in service discontinuity and in accordance with the requirements of Scrutiny Procedure Rule 17(b) those decisions should not be subject to the call in process; and

(c)                agree that a publicity leaflet be published and distributed containing bus timetables for all the new bus services in the Bicester, Kidlington and Woodstock area dealt with in this review.