Agenda, decisions and minutes

None declared.

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 John Sanders

“In view of the pressures on the work of Officers during the Coronavirus emergency, can the cabinet member advise whether it is still planned to implement the two CPZs for Cowley (Cowley West and Cowley East) later this year? “

Cabinet Member for Environment

“I’m afraid I can’t give an answer as to how long any work programme will be delayed due to the current crisis but as the situation with regard to Covid19 improves and social distancing measures can be relaxed officers will continue to review where we are and make every effort to avoid delays.  Officers I’m sure will keep local members posted.”

This Cabinet Member for Environment Delegated Decisions meeting will be held remotely in order to conform with current guidelines regarding social distancing.  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 Friday 24^th April. Requests to speak should be sent to graham.warrington@oxfordshire.gov.uk together with 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.

Where a meeting is held remotely and the addressee is unable to participate remotely their written submission will be accepted.

Written submissions should be no longer than 1 A4 sheet.

Forward Plan Ref: 2019/146

Contact: Hugh Potter, Team Leader – Area Operations Hub Tel: 07766 998704

Report by the Interim Director for Community Operations (CMDE4).

New Controlled Parking Zones (CPZs) are being proposed across Oxford to address parking pressures for residents due to commuter parking. In addition to the difficulties residents face in finding a parking place, such excess parking demand can result in the roads (in particular near junctions), footways and accesses being obstructed by parked vehicles to the detriment of road safety and the movement of pedestrians, cyclists and other road users including the emergency services.

The Cabinet Member for the Environment is RECOMMENDED to approve  the proposals as advertised for a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) in the Hollow Way North area, but to review specific suggestions for minor adjustments as raised in the consultation responses as noted in paragraphs 11 and 17 of the report CMDE4.

Following approval by the Cabinet Member for Environment in June 2018 and April 2019 of a programme of  new CPZs in Oxford she now considered (CMDE4) responses to a formal consultation to introduce a new CPZ in the Hollow Way North area.

Stephen Creed (resident of Cranmer Road/Hollow Way). Since the opening of Parade Green in James Wolfe Road there had been persistent parking of student cars in Cranmer Road at various times including overnight and weekends.  On occasion his driveway had been blocked.  Also, his car tyres had been slashed in December along with about 4 student cars being similarly damaged. There was also the noise disturbance from cars doors slamming in the late evening as students parked their cars. He considered the proposed CPZ hours for Cranmer Road (9am-5pm Mon-Fri) insufficient as it would still allow students to park in Cranmer Road in the evenings, overnight and weekends. The existing problem in Cranmer Road would also be exacerbated further because Cranmer Road only had daytime restrictions, whereas nearby roads James Wolfe Road, Hundred Acres Close and other roads had evening, overnight and weekend restrictions and only allowed permit holders in the evening and overnight (6.30pm-8am - 7 days week).  That would cause significant displacement of student parking onto Cranmer Road exacerbating the existing problem in Cranmer Road.   Students would also be able to park overnight in Cranmer Road but not other roads. One of the roads with these overnight restrictions was Hundred Acres Close which was approximately the same distance from the Parade Green main entrance as Cranmer Road. So it seemed to him sensible for Cranmer Road to have the same restrictions. As he was likely to pay for a permit anyway (for 9am-5pm) then the CPZ hours might as well be extended in Cranmer Road to evening, overnight and weekends and he asked for this to be considered.

Responding to the Cabinet Member officers confirmed that the situation in Cranmer Road could be monitored and if appropriate included in a later consultation.

Councillor Brighouse expressed her concern over student parking with their cars used predominantly for recreation left sometimes for weeks.  She had been disappointed with the level of response to the consultation but confirmed a number of residents had been in touch with her supporting implementation as soon as possible and before September.  She empathised with Mr Creed but felt many residents would speak against that change.  There was a high multi occupation in this area with upwards of 1200 students and it needed to be monitored carefully.

The Cabinet Member acknowledged the points made by Mr Creed and echoed the point by Councillor Brighouse on the desirability for priority implementation. 

Other written representations had been received from:

Darryl Ross who saw no need to implement a controlled parking zone for Hollow Way north. The majority of residents had voted against this proposal and if there was a problem at all from increased traffic or parking it was due to the increased number of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23/20

Forward Plan Ref: 2020/015

Contact: Hugh Potter, Group Manager – Area Operations Hub Tel: 07766 998704

Report by the Interim Director for Community Operations (CMDE5).

New Controlled Parking Zones (CPZs) are being proposed across Oxford to address parking pressures for residents due to commuter parking. In addition to the difficulties residents face in finding a parking place such excess parking demand can result in the roads (in particular near junctions), footways and accesses being obstructed by parked vehicles to the detriment of road safety and the movement of pedestrians, cyclists and other road users including the emergency services.

The Cabinet Member for the Environment is RECOMMENDED to approve  the proposals as advertised for a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) in  the Cowley Marsh area, noting that local consultations may be carried out in respect of changes to proposals for part of Barracks Lane and also in respect of minor changes to proposals for no waiting at any time restrictions.

Following approval in June 2018 and April 2019 of a programme of new CPZs in Oxford, the Cabinet Member for Environment considered (CMDE5) responses to a formal consultation on a new CPZ in the Cowley Marsh area.

Steve Malton a resident spokein favour of a CPZ in this area. It was notuncommon to have to park over 100m from your own property, or to have to do 3 or 4 laps of the block before a space became available. Residents were parking on blind corners or across driveways, as there was simply no space available although that had improved slightly due to the absence of students due to the ongoing Covid situation.  Having reviewed other responses he had seen that a number of people had stated that they saw no issue with parking while noting that the majority of those respondents lived at the more southern end of the proposed zone - Bhandari Close, Morris Crescent, etc. While he had no doubt that they genuinely saw no issue in their area, he hoped they would also acknowledge that there were genuine issues in areas adjacent to the existing zones such as sections of Cricket Road and Ridgefield Road north of Howard Street, which lay adjacent to two existing zones, and needed this CPZ to prevent both commuter parking and spillover from the other zones. While the areas of the zone further away might not see problems now, should they be excluded from a new zone, those issues would quickly move to those areas.  Others had objected to permits even though they had dedicated parking. As you will be aware, permits are not required for parking on land that is part of the residents' own property, so I hope the concerns of these residents can be met.  He believed the creation of a CPZ in this area would make it less attractive as an informal park and ride for commuters; reduce the number of cars brought in by residents of HMOs and encourage residents just inside the boundary of adjacent zones to obtain their own permits and use the zone where they lived. Finally, he sought assurances that new subdivisions, and existing subdivisions made without planning permission, be excluded from permit entitlement.

Judith Harley spoke on behalf of the Elder Stubbs Charitywho owned the allotment site adjacent to Bhandari Close, within the Cowley Marsh Area proposed CPZ. As there was no parking provision within the site allotment holders and employees parked in Bhandari Close and Cricket Road. They opposed the proposals as no provision had been made for allotment holders or employees or contractors and, if approved, as advertised would make it difficult for them and others to park near to the allotments, especially during evenings and weekends, or for longer daytime periods and as many allotment holders were elderly and often needed to transport equipment and materials to the site they needed to park close by. The proposals for Bhandari Close and Cricket Road would particularly  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24/20

Forward Plan Ref: 2020/022

Contact: Hugh Potter, Group Manager – Area Operations Hub Tel: 07766 998704

Report by the Interim Director for Community Operations (CMDE6).

Following approval on 21 January 2020 by Cabinet for revised fees the County Council was then obliged to advertise its intention to alter the Traffic Regulation Order to give effect to these changes. The report presents responses received to a statutory consultation to increase fees for on-street parking and parking permits required in Controlled Parking Zones (CPZs).

The Cabinet Member for Environment is RECOMMENDED to approve the proposed increases to fees for permits for the Controlled Parking Zones in Oxford, North Hinksey and Henley on Thames and for on-street pay and display parking in Abingdon, Henley and Wallingford as advertised.

Following approval on 21 January 2020 by Cabinet for revised fees the County Council was then obliged to advertise its intention to alter the Traffic Regulation Order to give effect to these changes the Cabinet Member for Environment considered (CMDE6) responses received to a statutory consultation to increase fees for on-street parking and parking permits required in Controlled Parking Zones (CPZs).

Having regard to the information set out in the report before her the Cabinet Member confirmed her decision as follows:

to approve the proposed increases to fees for permits for the Controlled Parking Zones in Oxford, North Hinksey and Henley on Thames and for on-street pay and display parking in Abingdon, Henley and Wallingford as advertised.

Signed………………………………………

Cabinet Member for Environment

Date of signing……………………………

Forward Plan Ref: 2020/009

Contact: Hugh Potter, Group Manager – Area Operations Hub Tel: 07766 998704

Report by the Interim Director for Community Operations (CMDE7).

The report presents responses received to a statutory consultation on a proposal to amend the permitted vehicles in Oriel Square and Turl Street in Oxford. 

The Cabinet Member for the Environment is RECOMMENDED to approve the proposed amendments to access restrictions applying to Oriel Square and Turl Street, Oxford.

The Cabinet Member for Environment considered (CMDE7) responses received to a statutory consultation on a proposal to amend the permitted vehicles in Oriel Square and Turl Street in Oxford and having regard to the information set out in the report before her the cabinet Member confirmed her decision as follows:

to approve the proposed amendments to access restrictions applying to Oriel Square and Turl Street, Oxford.

Signed…………………………………..

Cabinet Member for Environment

Date of signing…………………………

Forward Plan Ref: 2020/016

Contact: Hugh Potter, Group Manager – Area Operations Hub Tel: 07766 998704

Report by the Interim Director for Community Operations (CMDE8).

A decision is sought on the proposed exclusion of eligibility for parking permits for residents of 77A-81A London Road Oxford in accordance with a planning condition set by Oxford City Council for the redevelopment of these properties

The Cabinet Member for the Environment is RECOMMENDED to approve the proposed exclusion of eligibility for 77a to 81a London Road Oxford for residents and visitor permits as advertised.

The Cabinet Member for Environment considered a report (CMDE8) which is sought to confirm the proposed exclusion of eligibility for parking permits for residents of 77A-81A London Road Oxford in accordance with a planning condition set by Oxford City Council for the redevelopment of these properties.

Rakesh Joshi (LCP Developments) spoke on behalf of, London and Cambridge Properties Limited (LCP), which owned numbers 77a-81a London Road, Headington.  LCP had obtained permission to convert the first floor from offices to two flats in May 2019 subject to conditions.  All of the relevant conditions had been discharged apart from Condition 4, which required an order governing parking at the properties to be varied by the County Council.  Until this had been confirmed the properties could not be occupied. LCP had no objection to that condition and had applied for the necessary order.  Furthermore, the flats had been converted and sold to overseas purchasers, subject to this condition being satisfied. The officer report set out the relevant background to this issue and he noted that that there had been no objections from Thames Valley Police or any other emergency service.  Furthermore, the order was consistent with adopted policies of both Oxfordshire County Council and Oxford City Council. There had been one objection from a local resident but he considered that that appeared to be ill-conceived and as concluded in the officer report, confirmation of the order would have no adverse impact on any adjoining neighbour. In view of the above he asked that the officer recommendation b approved.

Having regard to the information set out in the report before her along with the representation made to her at the meeting the Cabinet Member confirmed her decision as follows:

to approve the proposed exclusion of eligibility for 77a to 81a London Road Oxford for residents and visitor permits as advertised.

Signed…………………………………….

Cabinet Member for Environment

Date of signing…………………………..

Forward Plan Ref: 2019/191

Contact: Hugh Potter, Group Manager – Area Operations Hub Tel: 07766 998704/Paul Dear, Senior Engineer Tel: 07557 082569

Report by the Interim Director for Community Operations (CMDE9).

The Longford Park residential development in south east Banbury is underway  with a significant number of homes already completed and occupied. As the site is further developed, a new junction at Bankside is being constructed and measures on Bankside are now proposed to provide for the additional demands for travel arising from the development. If approved, these measures, which include the replacement of the existing traffic calming chicanes with speed cushions, a raised zebra crossing and the introduction of additional waiting restrictions, will be funded by the developer. Also proposed, although not requiring formal consultation are advisory cycle lanes on both sides of the road along its full length, reflecting that Bankside already forms part of a signed cycle route to the station.

The Cabinet Member for Environment is RECOMMENDED to approve the proposed waiting restrictions, zebra crossing and traffic calming measures at Bankside, Banbury, as advertised.

The Longford Park residential development in south east Banbury was underway with a significant number of homes already completed and occupied. As the site was further developed, a new junction at Bankside was being constructed with measures proposed to provide for the additional demands for travel arising from the development. If approved, those measures, which included the replacement of the existing traffic calming chicanes with speed cushions, a raised zebra crossing and the introduction of additional waiting restrictions, would be funded by the developer. Also proposed, although not requiring formal consultation were advisory cycle lanes on both sides of the road along its full length, reflecting that Bankside already formed part of a signed cycle route to the station. The Cabinet Member for Environment considered (CMDE9) responses received to a consultation on the proposals.

Having regard to the information set out in the report before her the Cabinet Member for Environment confirmed her decision as follows:

to approve the proposed waiting restrictions, zebra crossing and traffic calming measures at Bankside, Banbury, as advertised.

Signed……………………………………..

Cabinet Member for Environment

Date of signing……………………………

Forward Plan Ref: 2020/036

Contact: Hugh Potter, Group Manager – Area Operations Hub Tel: 07766 998704

Report by Interim Director for Community Operations (CMDE10).

The report presents responses received to a statutory consultation on a proposal to introduce a permanent 40mph speed limit on the A4130 Calvin Thomas Way (forming part of the Wallingford bypass) between its roundabout junctions at Slade End and the Hithercroft Road and a prohibition of the right turn to and from the A4130 at the junction of the access to new residential development to the east of the A4130 Calvin Thomas Way. The proposed speed limit and right turn prohibition will replace existing temporary Traffic Regulation Orders giving the same effect as the current proposals. It is however intended – once the development is completed in several years’ time - to remove both proposed restrictions when construction works are complete, though noting that a further consultation will be required ahead of these restrictions being revoked.

The proposals have been put forward to accommodate the development of adjacent land and, if approved, would be funded by the developers.

The Cabinet Member for the Environment is RECOMMENDED to approve the 40mph speed limit and prohibition of right turns as advertised.

The Cabinet Member for Environment considered (CMDE10) responses received to a statutory consultation to introduce a permanent 40mph speed limit on the A4130 Calvin Thomas Way, which formed part of the Wallingford bypass, between its roundabout junctions at Slade End and the Hithercroft Road and a prohibition of the right turn to and from the A4130 at the junction of the access to new residential development to the east of the A4130 Calvin Thomas Way. The proposed speed limit and right turn prohibition would replace existing temporary Traffic Regulation Orders giving the same effect as the current proposals. It was, however, intended, once the development was completed in several years’ time, to remove both proposed restrictions when construction works were complete, though noting that a further consultation would be required ahead of these restrictions being revoked. The proposals had been put forward to accommodate the development of adjacent land and, if approved, would be funded by the developers.

Councillor Giles Cattermole (Wallingford Town Council)opposed the imposition of speed limits on the A4130 Calvin Thomas Way, whether temporarily or permanently. The A4130 was a major trunk road and should, therefore, be subject to speed limits below the National Limit only where specifically justified. Calvin Thomas Way had been built to serve as a bypass to Wallingford and to ease traffic loads and pollution through the centre of the town which was an Air Quality Management Area particularly at the notorious choke points at Wantage Road, the Waitrose crossroads and over Wallingford Bridge.  It was over 50% longer than the direct route through the town centre and already had speed restrictions along 0.9 miles of Portway.  Further speed restrictions on the 1.05 miles of Calvin Thomas Way would significantly reduce the relative attractiveness of the bypass and lead to increased traffic choosing the town centre route.  Wallingford Town Council proposed instead:

1.   ‘No Right Turn’ instructions for traffic both entering and leaving the site [so that entering traffic comes from the Slade End Roundabout, and leaving traffic goes to the Hithercroft Roundabout],

2.    Adequate slipways both onto and off the southbound A4130 carriageway, to enable safe deceleration from and acceleration to trunk road speeds

3.    A lane separation barrier on the A4130 for 50 metres either side of the site entrance

Given these measures, no speed restrictions would be necessary.  The Town Council also considered that a permanent TRO for this site was inappropriate, given the temporary nature of the requirement and the site developer should be responsible for applying for Temporary TROs to cover the works for the entirety of the build programme.

In response to the suggestion from the Town Council officers responded to confirm that the scheme would not alter the current situation on the ground and that following completion of the development the speed limits would be removed. Also, it would be ultra vires for the County Council to seek provision of additional slipways onto and off the southbound carriageway of the A4130 and that officers  ...  view the full minutes text for item 29/20

Forward Plan Ref: 2020/035

Contact: Hugh Potter, Group Manager – Area Operations Hub Tel: 07766 998704

Report by Interim Director for Community Operations (CMDE11).

The report presents responses received to a statutory consultation to extend the 40mph speed limit on the northbound carriageway of the A41 on the approach to its roundabout junction with Vendee Drive and also to introduce a 50mph speed limit to the south of the extended 40mph put forward following a review of the recent accident history and specifically at the A41 roundabout junction with Vendee Drive, where there has been a significant record of injury accidents involving northbound vehicles on the A41 travelling at excessive speed and, if approved, would be funded by the Road Safety budget within the County Council’s Capital programme.

The Cabinet Member for the Environment is RECOMMENDED to approve the extension of the 40mph speed limit and introduction of a 50mph speed limit on the A41 as advertised.

The Cabinet Member for Environment considered (CMDE11) responses received to a statutory consultation to extend the 40mph speed limit on the northbound carriageway of the A41 on the approach to its roundabout junction with Vendee Drive and also to introduce a 50mph speed limit to the south of the extended 40mph put forward following a review of the recent accident history and specifically at the A41 roundabout junction with Vendee Drive, where there had been a significant record of injury accidents involving northbound vehicles on the A41 travelling at excessive speed.

Tim Hibbert (Wendlebury PC)advised thatWendlebury was a small village of 180 households with no street lighting, or pavements and was a vibrant community that tried to maintain a quality of rural life. It was vital that the current physical containment of the village was understood. The M40 to the West, the A41 to the North and the Chiltern Railway line to the South.  Junction 9 fell within the parish boundary as well as part of the A41. The remainder of the A41 fell within the parameters of Chesterton Parish Council, the neighbouring Parish.  To set the context in relation to the proposed speed reductions in this report the A41 and Bicester itself were already experiencing operational stress and a number of serious collisions and fatalities had been reported at the A41/Vendee Drive junction and on the A41 near Wendlebury in recent years. Both Junctions 9 and 10 of the M40 were already operating at capacity and when accidents occurred, significant queueing and rat running occurred on surrounding roads. Wendlebury suffered from severe ‘rat running’ through the village from traffic being diverted to avoid Junction 9. For safety reasons, the Parish Council, supported by OCC had introduced a speed limit of 20 mph. There were a number of major commercial developments as part of Cherwell Local Plan Policy Bicester 10, not only on the A41, but particularly adjacent to the Vendee Drive roundabout. The Parish Council was particularly concerned with the real impact of traffic congestion from these developments as they would inevitably generate a significant amount of extra travel.

Their concerns over the proposals centred on an absence of appropriate data which prevented the PC being in a position to make a judgement. A further concern was there was no information to show that the impact of developments around the Vendee Drive roundabout had been considered, or the impact of Tritax Symmetry warehouse proposals. To what extent had the traffic from the future developments been taken into account? Enforcement options were also critical, to help us make a judgement it would have been helpful to see this data as well. Had a cost benefit analysis been carried out? In August 2018, there was a fatal accident on the A41 by the pedestrian crossing at Wendlebury. The Inquest concluded that death was caused by excessive speed. Following that accident, OCC were to look at proposals for a bridge crossing, funded by a third party. To date there  ...  view the full minutes text for item 30/20