Agenda, decisions 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

“When the Cutteslowe CPZ was approved and implemented last year, it was agreed that it should be reviewed after a year of operation. That year has now elapsed and there are some concerns and suggestions for improving the scheme. What are the plans for the promised review?”

Cabinet Member for Environment

“In line with previous undertakings given, and in line with previous reviews of CPZs, it is intended to send out a simple questionnaire to the 350+ residents who have permits seeking their views on what – if any – changes they would like to see. That will be done this October to coincide with the anniversary of the CPZ starting full operation. Once the results have been compiled officers will discuss with Councillor Fooks what issues could be progressed, although it should be noted that at present no funding has been set aside for any significant changes.”

Councillor Fooks

“Thank you and I look forward to seeing how the review progresses. Would the Cabinet Member agree that it would have been cost effective if the opportunity had been carried out concurrently with the request sent out to residents to renew permits?”

Cabinet Member for Environment

“I take the point”.

Cabinet Member: Environment

Forward Plan Ref: 2015/057

Contact: Paul Durham, Service Manager for Delivery Tel: (01865) 815074

Report by Deputy Director for Environment & Economy (Commercial) (CMDE4).

On 9 October 2014 the Cabinet Member for Environment approved implementation of a zebra crossing on Bridge Street, Witney at a location north of the mid-point, towards the West End mini roundabout. However, local County Councillor Langridge and a number of residents of Bridge Street who live close to proposed zebra, asked for the location to be reviewed, based on loss of parking and potential increase to pollution in area already recognised as having poor air quality and for an alternative location to be considered, namely the existing uncontrolled crossing close to the Mill Street roundabout at the southwest end of Bridge Street. This report considers responses to a re-consultation for a proposed zebra crossing on Bridge Street, Witney.

The Cabinet Member for Environment is RECOMMENDED toapprove the proposed zebra crossing on Bridge Street at its revised location. 

      Background

In October 2014 the Cabinet Member for Environment had approved the siting of a zebra crossing on Bridge Street, Witney at a location north of the mid-point and towards the West End mini roundabout.  Following further approaches by the local county councillor and a number of residents of Bridge Street the Cabinet Member now considered a report (CMDE4) setting out responses to a re-consultation for the crossing on a new location closer to the Mill Street roundabout at the south west end of Bridge Street.

He also noted receipt of a recent email from Councillor Richard Langridge reiterating his support for the new location.

Mr Wood referred to his previous submission in October 2014 in support of the east end location including a petition of 400 signatures.  A lot of support still remained for that location and yet it was now proposed to move that further west on Bridge Street. He questioned whether the new siting would prove as popular as the original and credence being afforded to the projected reduction in air pollution and parking levels both of which had been identified as being insignificant issues in the October report.  He also questioned the efficacy of the consultation process and that many of the responses received seem to him to be confused about the issues involved and were largely from people outside the Bridge Street area who he felt were unlikely to use it. Only 3 responses from Bridge Street preferred the new location with the majority of respondees favouring the original siting.  He urged the Cabinet Member to support the original location.

Mr Wasley reaffirmed that air pollution in Bridge Street remained a problem but considered that by relocating the crossing to the new location it would avoid that area of Bridge Street where the buildings created a canyon effect to an area which was more open and which should help dispersal. There would be a reduction in parking facilities with the ability to stop and unload reduced. With regard to consultation there were standard requirements to consult a certain radius and by moving the site that inevitably picked up a new audience which had resulted in new consultees and therefore new responses.  There had been objections to the new location and he accepted this was a difficult choice for the best and most appropriate location.  Bridge Street was difficult to cross and there was a need for a crossing and the site of the revised location was certainly used currently because of the splitter island.

The Cabinet Member agreed that there was significant demand for a crossing somewhere and there would be those for and against wherever it went but considered the proposed location best served the needs of residents as well as local development and offered improvements from a pollution point of view and therefore having regard to the information in the report and the representations made to him confirmed his decision as follows:

to approve the proposed zebra crossing on Bridge Street at its revised  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32/15

Forward Plan Ref: 2015/047

Contact: Owen Jenkins, Service Manager for Highways, Transport & Waste Tel: (01865) 323304

Report by Deputy Director for Environment & Economy (Commercial) (CMDE5).

The report considers the responses to the consultation on proposals to introduce a 40mph speed restriction on both Hagbourne Hill and Chilton Road, to prohibit right turns from Main Street, West Hagbourne onto the A417 London Road, and to introduce a priority build-out located on Chilton Road at the western entrance to Upton village.

The Cabinet Member for Environment is RECOMMENDED to approve:

(a)         the Oxfordshire County Council (Harwell and Various Parishes) (Speed Limits) Order 20** as advertised, and amended on Chilton Road as described in this report;

(b)            the Oxfordshire County Council (West Hagbourne Main Street – London Road) (Prohibition of right turn) Order 20** as advertised;

(c)             the Chilton Road, Upton – Proposed traffic calming build out as advertised and amended as described in this report;

(d)            approve the Chilton Road / A417 junction improvements as advertised and amended as described in this report;

(e)             approve the gateway features as advertised.

The Cabinet Member for Environment considered responses received to a consultation on proposals to introduce a 40 mph speed restriction on both Hagbourne Hill and Chilton Road to prohibit right turns from Main Street, West Hagbourne onto the A417 London Road and to introduce a priority build-out located on Chilton Road at the western entrance to Upton village

Presenting the report Mr Kirkwood explained that 4 elements of the proposal had been generally supported but Thames Valley Police had lodged a strong objection to one, namely the 40 mph speed limit on Hagbourne Hill favouring a 50 mph speed limit instead as more appropriate.  As that would have no impact on the other elements of the proposal officers were happy to undertake that should the Cabinet Member be so minded.

The Cabinet Member noted the support of the local member for the proposals but accepting the concerns expressed by the police supported the suggestion for a re-consultation with regard to the limit on Hagbourne Hill from 40 to 50 mph. Therefore having regard to the information set out in the report and the representations made to him at the meeting he confirmed his decision as follows:

(a)          not to approve the Oxfordshire County Council (Harwell and Various Parishes) (Speed Limits) Order 20** as advertised, but amended on Chilton Road as described in the report but undertake further consultation with regard to the introduction of a 50 mph spped limit instead;

(b)          approve the Oxfordshire County Council (West Hagbourne Main Street – London Road) (Prohibition of right turn) Order 20** as advertised;

(c)          approve the Chilton Road, Upton – Proposed traffic calming build out as advertised but amended as described in the report;

(d)          approve the Chilton Road / A417 junction improvements as advertised but amended as described in the report;

(e)          approve the gateway features as advertised.