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 Nick Hards

Please would the Cabinet Member for Environment and Economy provide an update regarding the negotiations with South Oxfordshire District Council over their plans for redeveloping the east end of Lydalls Road, particularly the proposal to alter the junction between Lydalls Road and  Station Road. The latest amendment to planning application reference P15/S2159/O refers to a possible shared use surface at the east end junction between Lydalls Road and Station Road and some clarity about what exactly is being discussed would be appreciated by the local residents.”

Reply from the Leader of the Council (deputising for the Cabinet Member for Environment)

 “Oxfordshire County Council deadline for responding to the application is 19^th January, therefore Transport Development Control officers haven’t yet fully assessed the application at this point in time.

The outline idea of closing access at Lydalls Road junction with Station Road is one that has been discussed and accepted in principle, subject to the transport assessment. The shared use space would be used to help wayfinding from the station to the town centre and give more room over to pedestrians and cyclists, thus creating an improved movement space. This is an outline application with all matters (apart from access to the site) reserved, therefore the detail of the shared space area will come at a later stage - subjected to the outline planning application being consented. If consented, there will be opportunity at a later date to review more plans of this area and provide comment upon them then.

We continue to work with the district council on the proposals for the area going forward”

Supplementary from Councillor Hards

“As the deadline for responding to the application is 19 January it seems obvious to me that some discussions will have been and are being held with South Oxfordshire District Council and it would be helpful if I could be given some indication of that discussion. Could the leader ask officers to do that?”

Response from the Leader of the Council

“I will ask officers to contact you.”

Petition

Councillor Purse presented a petition (220 signatures) organised by residents of Horton-cum-Studley regarding withdrawal of subsidies to the 118/108 bus services. She advised that a second on-line petition, which also called for the protection of these services would obviously include signatures from outside the relevant area.

The submitted petition highlighted that “the service was an essential part of the community for the following reasons:

·                     They were an isolated rural community without any amenities such as a shop, post office or pub.

·                     Many residents were elderly without cars and were dependent on the bus to access Headington or Oxford for shopping and other such facilities.

·                     Many in the village used the bus in order not to drive into Oxford where cars were discouraged and parking difficult and expensive. That also helped reduce ‘carbon footprints’.

·                     Many used the bus to get to work and children who attended school in Oxford also made very good use of the bus which was full in the early morning. Loss of bus service would inevitably increase car usage at rush hour times which was highly undesirable.”

The Leader of the Council referred the petition to the Director for Environment & Economy to respond.

Public address

Councillor Hudspeth advised that he was deputising for the Cabinet Member for Environment Councillor David Nimmo-Smith and wished him a speedy recovery following recent hospital treatment.

Cabinet Member: Environment

Forward Plan Ref: 2015/081

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

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

The report presents objections received in the course of a statutory consultation on a proposal to introduce a prohibition of driving of motor vehicles (except for access) and a prohibition of parking along a section of Meadow Lane in Oxford.

The Cabinet Member for the Environment is RECOMMENDED to approvethe implementation of the proposal as advertised.

The Leader of the Council considered (CMDE4) objections received to a statutory consultation on a proposal to introduce a prohibition of driving of motor vehicles (except for access) and a prohibition of parking along a section of Meadow Lane in Oxford.

Referring to past opposition to a previously proposed CPZ for this area Councillor Curran was aware that there was likely to be more support for such a scheme particularly from residents of Stratford Street, which was already overparked.  Although a number of houses on Meadow Lane had off-street parking there were some which did not and therefore it was likely if this proposal went ahead then those vehicles would be displaced, probably to Stratford Street, exacerbating the problems there. He felt any proposals for Meadow Lane should be considered as part of a proposed scheme for the area as a whole.

Responding to the Leader of the Council he confirmed that in his view residents would now favour a CPZ.

Mr Tole confirmed that the local member had also confirmed that local opinion seemed to have changed with more local support for reviving proposals for a CPZ for the Iffley Fields area. However, there was nothing programmed for that nor any developer funding available to fund any work.

Additionally he confirmed that as part of the consultation on this current proposal the County Council had contacted all residents with rear access to Stratford Street as well as residents of Meadow Lane with a reasonable level of support.  He accepted that whilst not ideal it would fix the most significant problem in that Meadow Lane was not really wide enough for any parking and help address the concerns from St Mary and St John school regarding the operation of the school and safety of pupils.

The Leader of the Council acknowledged that a CPZ would be the ideal alternative but accepted that in reality that was unlikely to happen in this case due to funding issues. He agreed with officers that it was not an option to do nothing and in view of the City Council’s support and funding for the proposal and having regard to the arguments and options set out in the documentation before him, the representations made to him and the further considerations set out above he confirmed his decision as follows:

to approve implementation of the proposals for the prohibition of driving and waiting restriction in Meadow Lane, Oxford as advertised.

Signed………………………………..

Leader of the Council

Dated…………………………………

Forward Plan Ref: 2015/094

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

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

The report presents comments and objections received in the course of a statutory consultation on proposals to introduce and amend various traffic restrictions in Station Road and The Broadway, Didcot, as part of the Orchard Centre (phase 2) development. 

The Cabinet Member for the Environment is RECOMMENDED to approveimplementation of the proposals as advertised.

The Leader of the Council considered (CMDE5) comments and objections received in the course of a statutory consultation on proposals to introduce and amend various traffic restrictions in Station Road and The Broadway, Didcot as part of the Orchard Centre (Phase 2) development.

Tim Foxhall (Glanvilles) explained that his company had provided support to both District Council and county highway officers and that the orders currently before the Leader of the Council were fundamental to the success of the scheme. Having reviewed the findings of Vectos the other consultants involved he agreed that objections lodged could be met.

David Bird (Vectos) advised that his company had worked closely with both County and District Councils and he was satisfied that all issues had been fully considered and addressed. Thames Travel and Oxford Bus Company were now content with the road width proposed for Station Road and that there would be sufficient emergency procedures should there be any failures of the rising bollards.  As all servicing would take place off-street there would be no interruption to bus flow. He confirmed one resident parking place would be lost but advised that Hammersons had agreed a provision of £10,000 towards the cost of a controlled parking zone. The scheme had been fully assessed with full safety audits carried out and there were no technical reasons why the scheme should not be approved.

Councillor Patrick Greene opposed the recommendation. He referred to a petition of over 1,500 signatures against the Station Road bus route proposals which had been presented to the County Council in April 2015 but not mentioned in the report currently before the Leader of the Council.  Comparisons between this scheme and Queen Street in Oxford were misleading as the situation in Didcot was very different.  He felt that opponents to this scheme had been denied a fair opportunity to present their views particularly at meetings at South Oxfordshire District Council and he asked that those concerns be conveyed to the District Council. He urged the Leader not to approve the scheme or at the very least defer to enable all necessary information to be considered including the petition previously presented to Council.

Mr Kemp confirmed that he had not been aware of the petition referred to by Councillor Greene.

Councillor Nick Hards also opposed the proposals and referred to a pre-planning public exhibition for the Orchard Centre Phase 2 proposals held in November 2013 which had been the first time that a large number of the public had first been alerted to the proposed arrangements for buses including closure of the bus link along High Street. He also referred to congestion at the Jubilee Way roundabout and asked if consideration had been given to the recent award of Garden Town status and how that might affect what was now being proposed. The proposals also needed to be considered in the light of a statement from the Leader of South Oxfordshire District Council who had referred to the need  ...  view the full minutes text for item 47/15

Forward Plan Ref: 2015/109

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

Report by Deputy Director for Environment & Economy (Commercial) (CMDE6).

The report presents comments and objections received in the course of the statutory consultation on the proposals to introduce various traffic restrictions in the Science Vale UK (SVUK) area, in relation to the Chilton Interchange Improvement.

The Cabinet Member for the Environment is RECOMMENDED to approveimplementation of the proposals as advertised and set out in this report.

The Leader of the Council (CMDE6) considered comments and objections received to a statutory consultation on proposals to introduce various traffic restrictions in the Science Vale UK (SVUK) area, in relation to the Chilton Interchange Improvement.

Jane Imbush considered the report incorrect insofar as it stated that horses didn’t cross at this point and that video surveillance had supported that. However, she tabled evidence which showed that the approaches that particular day had been heavily flooded. Contacts made with neighbouring societies indicated that there were 200+ horse users in the area and that this particular point was an integral part of the local horse route and without an adequate crossing point there were huge safety implications for horses and riders. It was a concern that non-traffic use was not being encouraged and she asked that this particular element of the proposal be deferred to enable further research.

Dr Janice Bridger supported calls for a modified crossing that could be used by horse riders.  This was an important crossing point for horses and the report (paragraph 16) was incorrect insofar as a signal crossing which a horse rider could not operate would require that user to cross the road when the traffic signals were green for road traffic presenting a danger to horses and riders as well as traffic on Hagbourne Hill road who might not be expecting a horse to be crossing when the signal was green. Also the line of the restricted highway had recently moved so unless use was catered for in any new design riders would have to ride along the road rather than straight across. Paragraphs 14 and 15 of the report stated that there were significant delivery challenges and referred to Traffic Advisory leaflet 03/03. However, the report failed to mention paragraph 4.27 from the Design Manual for Roads & Bridges published in the following year which listed parameters, such as fenced waiting areas and segregation of users and that needed to be considered. The project design engineers seemed to have interpreted these as mandatory for the provision of a crossingbut her society did not believe that they were and that a simplified and modified Pegasus crossing would allow riders to cross safely. Experience over the 10 or so years since that Department of Transport advice had been drawn up was that, in a number of instances, Pegasus crossings were being over engineered to the detriment of equestrian safety. There were examples of throughout the UK where a simplified specification has been installed which took up less space and had been significantly cheaper to install. She asked that these be considered with a view to designing a safe crossing for horses at Chilton. The basic needsfor horse riders were that they could reach a button which controlled the traffic signal and that that button be set back from the carriageway so that the horse’s head was not in the path of the road traffic as the rider operated the button. If a suitable crossing  ...  view the full minutes text for item 48/15

Forward Plan Ref: 2015/112

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

Report by Deputy Director for Environment & Economy (Commercial) (CMDE7).

The report presents comments and objections received in the course of a statutory consultation on a proposal to clarify the precise extent of a current one-way traffic restriction on a minor road in Old Minster Lovell, which has been in place in some form since 2008.

The Cabinet Member for the Environment is RECOMMENDED to approvethe implementation of the proposal as advertised.

The Leader of the Council considered (CMDE7) comments and objections received to a statutory consultation on a proposal to clarify the precise extent of a current one-way traffic restriction on a minor road in Old Minster Lovell, which had been in place in some form since 2008.

Ben Arrowsmith spoke on behalf of the residents of Windrush who whilst not objecting had specific concerns regarding the siting of the no entry sign as in its current location it restricted the lower access to their property. Approaching the property from the bridge over the river Windrush there was already one very clear no-entry sign and that together with the fact that the road was not very narrow at this point had prompted them to request that the other sign be relocated above the lower access to their property and to amend the traffic restriction order accordingly.

He then responded to questions from the Leader of the Council. 

He could not confirm whether or not his clients had attended meetings of the parish council.

He accepted that the lower access could be used if the one-way system was used but that his clients felt this seemed very disproportionate.

Colin Alderman for the Parish Council confirmed the one-way system had been in existence since 2008. He had been involved in its implementation and he was clear that the intention had been to site signs at the bridge junction with School Hill. However, the sign in question had been moved without permission from its correct spot some 18 months previously to enable the occupants of Windrush to use their lower access but had now been moved back to its original and correct siting. He emphasised that this was a dangerous corner and asked that the current siting be ratified as per drawings in Annex 1 to the report.

District Councillor Warwick Robinson confirmed that the plans originally considered by the Parish Council were as those set out in Annex 1 to the report.  The lower access to Windrush had only recently been opened up following development at the property and he had been surprised to find that the sign had been moved without any consultation. That was now back in its correct position and he urged that that situation be ratified.

County Councillor Rodney Rose had been the local member for Minster Lovell when this scheme had originally been put in place and no discussion had taken place at that time regarding the need for a second access to the Windrush property. The intention had clearly been to prevent any turn after crossing the river bridge from Leafield but when the sign had been moved it presented a clear danger to motorists who had made that turn and who then might be required to reverse. He supported the recommendation.

Mr Tole confirmed that following legal advice it had been agreed that the most appropriate way to resolve the uncertainty was to formally consult on a new traffic restriction order which had been worded in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 49/15