Agenda and minutes

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 Jean Fooks

“Local residents are very pleased that the promised 50mph speed limits have now been installed on the A40 east of the Cutteslowe roundabout. However, there is concern that the signs are so placed that motorists may not see them; the sign just east of the roundabout is so close to the roundabout that drivers are more likely to be looking ahead at the traffic than at signs on their left; the small repeater signs are some distance away and only just before the entrance to the car park for Cutteslowe Park, which has a short access slip-road anyway. Would it be possible to move the sign some 10-20 metres east – or could 50mph roundels be painted on the road to ensure that drivers are aware of the new limit here, when they have been used to a 70mph one?

I have also been asked if it would be possible to have an ‘advance speed limit’ sign of some kind – of a type that I have seen elsewhere in the country – to warn drivers from the east that they are about to reach a new speed limit area?”

Reply from the Deputy leader of the Council

“The new 50mph speed limit replaces the national speed limit that previously applied on this stretch of the A40 Oxford northern bypass. The 50mph signs by Cutteslowe roundabout are in exactly the same position as the national speed limit signs, and we are not aware of any concerns of drivers understanding of the previous limit.

The cost of relocating the signs would be significant, especially as they are required to be illuminated.

50mph roundels would be a cheaper option but would still be comparatively expensive to provide and maintain given the traffic management required for this very busy road.

In view of the costs and that the limit has been only recently introduced, a more appropriate course of action would be to monitor the speeds here within the next 3 to 6 months and then  to assess the need for any supplementary measures, subject to the availability of funding.

There are no approved temporary signs to advise of new speed limits (other than the specific  case of new 30mph limits in roads that have street lighting and where the speed limit was previously higher) , and this is not therefore an option here.”

 Supplementary question

Can I have an undertaking that monitoring will be carried out and that you consider at that time the provision of advisory signing for speed limit ahead as used elsewhere in the country.

Response from the Deputy Leader

Yes.

No. My priority for spending is elsewhere.

Councillor John Sanders

“To what extent has the impact to users of the substantial cuts in subsidised bus services in Chipping Norton and Charlbury been considered by officers and by the Cabinet Member for Transport and Deputy Leader?”

Response from the Deputy leader of the Council

“I regret that I do not know what “substantial cuts” the Member  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14/12

The Deputy Leader of the Council had agreed the following requests to address Item 4

G. Grace

R. Cantelli

County Councillor Michael Waine

County Councillor Charles Shouler

Forward Plan Ref: 2012/080

Contact: Daniel Round, Strategic Policy Manager Tel: (01865) 815623

Report by Deputy Director for Environment & Economy (Strategy & Infrastructure Planning) (CMDDL4).

The Deputy Leader considered (CMDDL4) proposals to improve access to Bicester town centre for all modes of transport.

Mr Grace who had particular concerns regarding Queens Avenue considered the proposals would only serve to increase speeds and volume of traffic thereby increasing NO2 emissions in that area, which already exceeded annual mean levels set under the Environmental Act 1995.  There were also additional threats to Queens Avenue, particularly to the natural spring in a private garden fronting the Avenue and to several mature trees and green verge, which were at risk with no agreed replacement plan.  He called for a full EIA to be carried out and suggested traffic calming measures could be used to prevent traffic.

Mr Cantelli’s main objection related to North Street. North Street was wide  with parking on either side with mixed use and not just residential and he felt the report did not accurately reflect that.  The proposals would radically change its character and all businesses in North street had been opposed to the change.  He considered the proposals for North Street would not alleviate traffic problems but could, perversely, have the opposite effect to what it was hoped to achieve and therefore the status quo should be preserved. 

Councillor Michael Waine accepted that the scheme would inevitably affect the long standing habits of many people but he was broadly in favour. The scheme had the potential to address real problems, particularly on Buckingham Road and had been introduced to improve traffic flow and create a better environment in Bicester and not just, as some had perceived, to alleviate weekend congestion emanating from visitors to the Bicester Village retail outlet. He did, however, have some concerns regarding the right turn out of Bucknell Road  and suggested that that should be reviewed in 12 months.

Councillor Charles Shouler also broadly supported the scheme which was the first major review in Bicester since 1991. Changes to the 5 arm roundabout would promote significant benefits for Buckingham Road, access to the multi storey car park would be improved and replacement of the lights in St John’s Street was a key element.  Changes to North Street would benefit residents many of whom had praised the scheme and although there might be some detrimental effect to businesses he felt that that would not prove to be as bad as some had feared.  He supported a 12 month review of the right turn out of Bucknell Road.

Mr Round confirmed that it was a District Council responsibility to declare air quality management areas and in this case Cherwell District Council had chosen not to do so.  However, by reducing the stop start nature of traffic and improving traffic flow in the Queens Avenue area it was hoped that air quality levels would improve. Monitoring was currently carried out and county officers would continue to work closely with Cherwell District Council. With regard to concerns regarding retention of the character of Queens Avenue itself he advised that if this stage of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16/12

Forward Plan Ref: 2012/111

Contact: Jim Daughton, Highways & Transport Service Manager Tel: (01865) 815083

Report by Deputy Director for Environment & Economy (Commercial & Delivery) (CMDDL5).

The Deputy Leader considered (CMDDL5) proposals to introduce parking restrictions on Marsh Lane and adjoining streets in Marston, Oxford to address local concerns regarding the impact from the redevelopment of Court Place Farm.

Mr Tole advised that the Parish Council supported the scheme.

Having regard to the arguments and options set out in the documentation before him, the representations made to him at this meeting and the further considerations set out above the Deputy Leader of the Council confirmed his decisions on this matter as follows:

to approve the parking restrictions as set out in this report and as advertised in the Oxfordshire County Council (Various Streets, Oxford) (Waiting and Loading Restrictions) (Variation No. 3) Order 20**.

Signed

Deputy Leader of the Council

Date

Forward Plan Ref: 2012/081

Contact: Jim Daughton, Highways & Transport Service Manager Tel: (01865) 815803

Report by Deputy Director for Environment & Economy (Commercial & Delivery) (CMDDL6E).

The Deputy Leader considered (CMDDL6E) a review of subsidised bus services in the Chipping Norton and Charlbury areas.

With regard to the Oxford-Chipping Norton-Stratford-upon-Avon service (50/S3) officers advised that they were still waiting for an indication from Stagecoach Warwickshire with regard to the amount of subsidy required to continue to operate a Sunday service from Chipping Norton to Stratford.  It was noted that if that quote proved too expensive then withdrawal of the service was a possibility.  If that proved to be the case the Deputy Leader asked officers to discuss a possible alternative with Stagecoach Oxfordshire to fill the resulting gap in Oxfordshire by extending the S3 to Over Norton on Sundays.  

With regard to Service X9 (Witney-Charlbury-Chipping Norton W45) the Deputy Leader agreed to award Contract PT/W45B to Stagecoach Oxfordshire as set out in Option 2 in the Exempt Annex.   Officers advised, however, that Stagecoach might decline the award of that contract in isolation for operational reasons.

Having regard to the arguments and options set out in the documentation before him, the representations made to him at this meeting and the further considerations set out above the Deputy Leader of the Council confirmed his decisions on this matter as follows:

(a)               agree the subsidy for the services described in the report CMDDL6E on the basis of the tender prices (and the periods of time) as set out in Supplementary Exempt Annex 2 to that report but amended as above with regard to Item K;

(b)              agree that 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.

Signed

Deputy Leader of the Council

Date