Agenda, decisions and minutes

There were no declarations of interest.

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

As it has been agreed to implement Active Travel measures in Cowley over the next month, I would appreciate knowing the proposed implementation dates for:

The CPZs for Cowley East and West

The three LTNs in Cowley

The School Street proposed for Temple Road

Response by Cabinet Member for Environment

CPZ East and West

·           19^th Feb – Letters posted out to residents inviting permit applications.

·           1^st March – Works start to install signs and make any line changes.

·           15^th March – Permit schemes become operational, websites updated, and enforcement officers start patrolling.

·           15^th March to 28^th March - Warning notices issued to vehicles parking without a valid permit.

·           29^th March - Live PCN’s issued to vehicles parking in contravention.

The three LTNs in Cowley

·           Church Cowley - March 1st

·           Florence Park  - March 8th

·           Temple Cowley  - March 15th 2021

School Street proposed for Temple Road

The School Streets Trial for St Christopher’s will be going in alongside the Cowley LTN starting from 15^th March.  It will be an initial 6 week trial with an option to extend or alter it.

This Cabinet Member for Environment Delegated Decisions meeting will be held virtually 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 19 February. Requests to speak should be sent to graham.warrington@oxfordshire.gov.uk. We ask for a written statement of your presentation to ensure that if the technology fails then your views can still be considered. That statement can either be submitted with your request but should in any event be provided no later than 9 am 2 working days before the meeting – Tuesday 23 February).

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

Written submissions should be no longer than 1 A4 sheet.

County Councillor Pete Sudbury

Forward Plan Ref: 2020/183

Contact: Hugh Potter, Group Manager – Area Operations Hub Tel: 07766 998704/Julian Richardson, Senior Engineer (Road Agreements Team C&W) Tel: 07825 052736

Report by Interim Corporate Director Communities (CMDE4).

The report presents responses received to a statutory consultation on proposed pedestrian and cycle improvement measures on Osney Mead and Ferry Hinksey Road (Oxford) put forward as part of a wider highway improvement scheme, which is being delivered by the University of Oxford (via a Section 278 agreement) to improve access by sustainable travel modes to/from and through the Osney Mead Industrial area.  Osney Mead is an identified development site in the adopted Oxford Local Plan.  Proposals will therefore help facilitate and support potential future re-development and growth of the Osney Mead area whilst also improving a key sustainable travel link to Oxford City Centre from the West.  

The Cabinet Member for Environment is RECOMMENDED to approve proposals for a shared use footway/cycle track, parallel crossing and amendments to parking places as advertised.

The Cabinet Member for Environment considered (CMDE4) responses received to a statutory consultation on proposed pedestrian and cycle improvement measures on Osney Mead and Ferry Hinksey Road (Oxford) put forward as part of a wider highway improvement scheme, being delivered by the University of Oxford (via a Section 278 agreement) to improve access by sustainable travel modes to/from and through the Osney Mead Industrial area.  As Osney Mead was an identified development site in the adopted Oxford Local Plan the proposals would therefore help facilitate and support potential future re-development and growth of the Osney Mead area whilst also improving a key sustainable travel link to Oxford City Centre from the West.  

County Councillor Susanna Pressel was less than happy with the report. The summary of the public consultation responses (in paragraph 7 of the report) stated that 8 people objected to the proposals for shared use, 1 supported with 5 having concerns. This was incorrect as all 5 who allegedly had concerns were, in fact, adamantly opposed to the idea of shared use with one of them (number 15) even saying “please record this as an objection”! Others who were also listed as having concerns said things along the lines of shared use was “dangerous and unpleasant to use” and “I’m not going to use shared cycle tracks no matter what. They are always a bad idea and in fact allthe cyclists who had replied had objected strongly to the shared use proposals. The one person who supported them was clearly a driver and those who made no comment clearly not cyclists. OXTRAG who represented people with visual and mobility impairments were also strongly opposed, of course and she stressed that this was not an organised campaign by cyclists with everyone making very different points.  The proposal set out in paragraph 10 to paint a line down the pavement was not good enough to address the concerns made. She accepted that it wasn’t desirable to spend a lot of money on this scheme, since the whole area was soon to be completely redeveloped and in view of that she suggested as had many other respondents that pavements should not be widened and money spent on dropped kerbs that no cyclist would use but for the time being advisory cycle tracks should be painted on the carriageway, which was where cyclists wanted to be and where they were safest (since there is a 20 mph limit here) with improvements to the road surface by getting rid of potholes and one dropped kerb at the end of the path from the lock with a segregated cycle track when the roads were redesigned in a year or two from now. The footway was notsafe, because of conflict with vehicles at each entry/exit and often with pedestrians.  This was a scheme which nobody liked and one which she considered would be a waste of money.

In response to questions regarding options to delay the scheme officers confirmed that funding would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 39/21

Forward Plan Ref: 2020/189

Contact: Hugh Potter, Group Manager – Area Operations Hub Tel: 07766 998704/Naomi Barnes, Project Manager Tel: 07824 528681

Report by Assistant Director Growth & Place, Communities (CMDE5).

The report outlines responses received to a consultation for the statutory and legal measures required to proceed with the Bicester active travel scheme. These measures include a 20mph speed limit, toucan crossings and legal conversion to shared use footway/cycle tracks. The Bicester active travel scheme in its entirety will be reported separately to the Director of Growth and Economy, under delegated authority, on 26 February for implementation decision subject to the public consultation and available funding.

The Cabinet Member for Environment is RECOMMENDED:

a)        to approve the proposed 20mph speed limit, toucan crossings and shared use footway/cycle tracks as advertised and as permanent measures;

b)        to approve the introduction of an Experimental Traffic Regulation Order including the following provisions:

i)          Waiting restrictions at Loddon Close and Villiers Road;

ii)        Width limit, loading restrictions and a contra flow cycle lane on Causeway.

The Cabinet Member for Environment considered (CMDE5) responses received to a consultation for the statutory and legal measures required to proceed with the Bicester active travel scheme and which included a 20mph speed limit, toucan crossings and legal conversion to shared use footway/cycle tracks. The Bicester active travel scheme would in its entirety be reported separately to the Director of Growth and Economy, under delegated authority, on 26 February for implementation decision subject to the public consultation and available funding.

Chris Brennan (Sustrans) asked why closure of the Causeway as a through route had been ruled out of consideration and suggested that a trial closure at minimal expense should be considered. The Summary of Assessment for the Bicester Active Travel Scheme stated its purpose as the promotion of active travel for short journeys as opposed to carbon intensive modes and contributing to Oxfordshire County Council’s ambition of reducing carbon emissions with the aim of this second tranche of DfT funding being to support active travel interventions that would aid the reopening of the economy and social distancing; reallocate road space for cyclists and develop both cycling and walking as an attractive alternative mode of travel for short journeys.  However, a full closure to motor vehicles on Causeway had been suggested by a number of stakeholders but had not been taken forward to consultation due to a number of factors including timescales for delivery and a lack of political support. The 2020 survey of Bicester residents had included questions on how they travelled to the town centre with walking and cycling combined representing a greater proportion than car travel. The survey included questions on levels of traffic management that the local population would accept with generally a lot of support for change.  Closure of the Causeway would be beneficial and asked for a trial closure to through traffic scheduled for October 2021 to coincide with the Women’s Tour of Britain cycle race on Monday 4 October to show that Bicester really was serious about cycling and the Active Travel Scheme.

Paul Troop - Bicester Bike Users’ Group broadly support the proposals and were looking for solutions that would work for all road users including shared spaces which, while not perfect would be unavoidable where space was limited, but needed to be as wide as possible. With regard to the Causeway he asked the Cabinet Member to defer approval until the county officers had shared their plans as the current thinking seemed unworkable and dangerous.  The Causeway was a beautiful, old and characterful street that was the only real connection for pedestrians and cyclists between the town centre, Bicester Village, the historical quarter of Bicester and south and west Bicester and connecting these areas had crucial economic, health, air quality, touristic and safety importance. But it had been much neglected with provision for pedestrians poor and for cyclists non-existent in one direction, leading to widespread lawbreaking.  The optimal solution would be to close Causeway to motor vehicles as accommodating one-way motor  ...  view the full minutes text for item 40/21

Forward Plan Ref: 2020/188

Contact: Hugh Potter, Group Manager – Area Operations Hub Tel: 07766 998704/Naomi Barnes, Project Manager Tel: 07824 528681

Report by Assistant Director Growth & Place, Communities (CMDE6).

The report outlines responses received to a formal consultation on statutory and legal measures required to proceed with the Witney active travel scheme. These measures include a 20mph speed limit, toucan crossings and legal conversion to shared use footway/cycle tracks. The Witney active travel scheme in its entirety will be reported separately to the Director of Growth and Economy, under delegated authority, on 26 February for implementation decision subject to the public consultation and available funding.

The Cabinet Member for Environment is RECOMMENDED:

a)        to approve the proposed 20mph speed limit, toucan crossings and shared use footway / cycle tracks as advertised as permanent measures;

b)        to approve the introduction of an Experimental Traffic Regulation Order for the removal of car parking on at 146 - 152 Corn Street, Witney.

The Cabinet Member for Environment considered (CMDE6) responses received to a formal consultation on statutory and legal measures required to proceed with the Witney active travel scheme which included a 20mph speed limit, toucan crossings and legal conversion to shared use footway/cycle tracks. The Witney active travel scheme in its entirety would be reported separately to the Director of Growth and Economy, under delegated authority, on 26 February for implementation decision subject to the public consultation and available funding.

Mark Upton spoke on behalf of the Oxfordshire Association for the Blind. The Associationsupported all the 20mph zones and the addition of 2 new toucan crossings, which would help improve the confidence and independence of visually impaired people. However, they opposed the introduction of shared use for cyclists and pedestrians on Tower Hill. As this was not segregated a visually impaired user would not be able to identify that they were in a shared space with obvious disbenefits. They were also concerned that as it was beside a busy road, pedestrians would be forced into the roadway to avoid passing cyclists. A segregated line, appropriate tactile paving with pedestrians on the side away from the road would provide a safer route for everyone. Although they opposed the shared space scheme at Witan way, they felt that while the shared path could be suitable as it was off the roadside there was not enough space by the crossing point on the Waitrose side and that could cause congestion of pedestrians/cyclists forcing people into the road. That could be improved by removing a section of barrier and widening the crossing point, allowing pedestrians and cyclists to stand side by side when crossing.  With regard to the Oxford Hill shared space that was on a very busy road which would certainly not work as shared space, even if pavements were widened. They urged the council to reconsider any shared use schemes and reinvest in shorter areas with the proper infrastructure. That would cost more but they felt that investment into less areas with the right infrastructure would be better than more areas which were less safe. Tactile paving provided vulnerable road users and should be used appropriately.

Officers advised that every effort had been made to follow government guidance for segregation but as this was a retrofit scheme with constraints on space there was no alternative other than for a shared use facility.  The proposal was for a minimum 3metre width but a segregated facility would require 4 metres. No lining or tactile paving had been included.

The Cabinet Member accepted the merits of active travel and the need to target the young and less confident cyclists. However, the concern for some as had been pointed out by the speaker was that this was being done to the detriment of pedestrians. There was a need to set the right standard for future schemes and she considered it vital that everything that could be done was done to provide the right facilities including tactile  ...  view the full minutes text for item 41/21

Forward Plan Ref: 2020/162

Contact: Hugh Potter, Group Manager – Area Operations Hub Tel: 07766 998704/Robin Calver, Principal Officer (Structures) Tel: 07741 607453

Report by Interim Corporate Director Communities (CMDE7).

Mitigation measures are required to protect the damaged narrow three span masonry arch bridge across the River Islip on the B4027 from further damage. A scheme comprising permanent traffic signals and other traffic management measures has been identified as the least-worst option, recognising that while inevitably leading to some traffic delays and queuing in the village it will help address long standing concerns over the safety of pedestrians crossing the bridge, where the only provision is a narrow ‘virtual’ footway using carriageway markings as there is no space for a kerbed footway.

Separately from the above proposal, a request has been received from Islip Parish Council to extend the 20mph speed limit on the B4027 Wheatley Road, which currently terminates just south of the above bridge to the current terminal point of the 30mph speed limit and to then provide a ‘buffer’ 40mph speed limit in place of the current 50mph speed limit south of Islip. Although the speed limit proposals were not identified in the context of the proposed signals, they are complementary in that lower speed limits would help mitigate the risk of shunt type accidents on the northbound approach of the B4027 into the village when vehicles are queuing on the approach to the signals.  

The Cabinet Member for Environment is RECOMMENDED to approve:

a)           the proposed traffic signals on the B4027 river bridge at Islip and the one-way restriction on Mill Street as advertised;

b)           the proposed 20mph and 40mph speed limits on the B4027 Wheatley Road as advertised.

In order to protect the damaged narrow three span masonry arch bridge across the River Islip on the B4027 from further damage a scheme comprising permanent traffic signals and other traffic management measures has been identified. While inevitably that would lead to some traffic delays and queuing in the village it was seen as the least-worst option to help address long standing concerns over the safety of pedestrians crossing the bridge, where the only provision was a narrow ‘virtual’ footway using carriageway markings. Separately from the above proposal, a request had been received from Islip Parish Council to extend the 20mph speed limit on the B4027 Wheatley Road, which currently terminated just south of the above bridge to the current terminal point of the 30mph speed limit and to then provide a ‘buffer’ 40mph speed limit in place of the current 50mph speed limit south of Islip. Although the speed limit proposals were not identified in the context of the proposed signals, they were complementary in that lower speed limits would help mitigate the risk of shunt type accidents on the northbound approach of the B4027 into the village when vehicles were queuing on the approach to the signals. 

Calum Miller objected to the proposed changes to traffic management on Islip bridge on the grounds that as the County Council had failed to conduct a fair consultation it was, therefore, unlawful and open to challenge. He suggested the proposal be withdrawn and a lawful consultation undertaken giving those affected by the proposed changes sufficient information and adequate time to respond. He considered the Cabinet Member was being misled as the proposed changes to Islip bridge had never been directly consulted on and the fact that a number of consultees had chosen to comment it should not be assumed that there had been a fair process. Consultation needed to occur when proposals were at a formative stage; giving sufficient reasons for any proposal and allowing adequate time to consider and respond. It was not reasonable for the county council to argue that publicising the minor change alerted interested parties to the more major proposal. Furthermore, the information provided in support of the minor change had been insufficient to allow consultees to understand how the different parts of the proposal joined so preventing a meaningful and informed response. There were no mitigating factors to justify this failure to consult fairly and rather than trying to sneak its proposal through behind a more minor change the county council should carry out a proper consultation on the management of traffic through the village.

Jenny Surtees agreed that the bridge needed remedial works but blocking agricultural machinery crossing the River Ray in Islip would cut them off from a significant portion of the land they farmed at Kirtlington affecting the viability of their business. Hard restrictions that prevented wide or tall machinery from crossing the bridge meant that any machinery would have to be moved via the A40 / Oxford ringroad / A34 which  ...  view the full minutes text for item 42/21

Forward Plan Ref: 2020/185

Contact: Hugh Potter, Group Manager – Area Operations Hub Tel: 07766 998704/Anthony Kirkwood Turner, Principal Officer Road Safety Team –Tel: 07393 318871

Report by Interim Corporate Director Communities (CMDE8).

Following provision of cycle bypasses in October/November 2020 at the two existing traffic calming build-outs in High Street, Long Wittenham complaints and comments have been received from cyclists that vehicles parking close to the build-out on the north side of the road have prevented cyclists from using the bypass.  While it had been hoped that drivers would refrain from parking too close to the build-out without the need for waiting restrictions that has not been the case and the need for the latter has, unfortunately, been confirmed by recent experience. Therefore, no waiting at any time restrictions of the minimum length required to ensure safe and convenient access to the bypass are now being proposed

The Cabinet Member for Environment is RECOMMENDED to approve the waiting restrictions at Long Wittenham High Street as advertised.

Following provision of cycle bypasses in October/November 2020 at the two existing traffic calming build-outs in High Street, Long Wittenham complaints and comments had been received from cyclists that vehicles parking close to the build-out on the north side of the road had prevented cyclists from using the bypass.  While it had been hoped that drivers would refrain from parking too close to the build-out without the need for waiting restrictions that had not been the case and the need for the latter had, unfortunately, been confirmed by recent experience.

County Councillor Pete Sudbury confirmed that although there had been a problem the situation had improved with the areas concerned virtually always clear and therefore there were no safety issues.

Officers understood the comments from the parish council and while accepting that problems had diminished to some extent this was seen as a very limited and proportionate measure to remove any issues. The visual objection reaised regarding lining had been dealt with.

The Cabinet Member for Environment acknowledged the objections by Long Wittenham Parish Council and local member but as this formed part of the overall cycle network in this area and having regard to comments by officers regarding the limited nature of the scheme and the amendments made to reduce the visual impact of it she confirmed her decision as follows:

to approve the waiting restrictions at the existing traffic calming build-outs on Long Wittenham High Street as advertised.

Signed……………………………………….

Cabinet Member for Environment

Date of signing……………………………..

Forward Plan Ref: 2020/186

Contact: Hugh Potter, Group Manager – Area Operations Hub Tel: 07766 998704/Aaron Morton, Road Agreements Engineer (S&V) Tel: 07393 001028

Report by Interim Corporate Director Communities (CMDE9).

A new car park for staff of Wallingford School on the west side of St Georges Road has been required as part of enabling works for a new £6m teaching block on the school site which will start as soon as the new car park can be used. No waiting at any time restrictions adjacent to the access of the car park onto St Georges Road have been identified as being required on road safety grounds to ensure that visibility for vehicles using the access is adequate.

The Cabinet Member for Environment is RECOMMENDED to approve the waiting restrictions at St Georges Road, Wallingford as advertised.

As part of enabling works for a new £6m teaching block on the school site a new car park was being proposed for staff of Wallingford School on the west side of St Georges Road and requiring no waiting at any time restrictions adjacent to the access of the car park onto St Georges Road to ensure adequate visibility for vehicles using the access.

Councillor Pete Sudbury did not consider there was a safety issue and that the site should be used outside school times.

Officers confirmed that there would be a visibility splay as with any other development and the provision of parking had been a condition of the permission.

The Cabinet Member for Environment acknowledged that out of school use would be within the gift of the school and so having regard to the information set out in the report before her and the representations made to her at the meeting confirmed her decision as follows:

to approve the waiting restrictions at St Georges Road, Wallingford as advertised.

Signed ………………………………………

Cabinet Member for Environment

Date of signing……………………………...

Forward Plan Ref: 2020/178

Contact: Hugh Potter, Group Manager – Area Operations Hub Tel: 07766 998704/Ryan Moore, Senior Engineer (Road Agreements Team S&V) Tel: 07557 082568

Report by Interim Corporate Director Communities (CMDE10).

Proposals for introducing a 30mph speed limit on Denchworth Road and a  prohibition of motor vehicles at Denchworth Road and Cane Lane on parts of the existing highway being superseded by a new road layout as part of an approved major residential development were first consulted on in 2017 and approved as part of a package of wider highway works by the Cabinet Member for Environment at her Delegated Decisions meetings on 23 November 2017 and 8 March 2018. Due to delays in the developers progressing the 30mph speed limit and new road layout beyond the two years from the start of the previous consultation, a further consultation on the traffic regulation orders giving effect to these specific provisions is statutorily required.

The Cabinet Member for Environment is RECOMMENDED to approve the 30mph speed limit and prohibition of motor vehicles at Denchworth Road and Cane Lane as advertised.

Proposals to introduce a 30mph speed limit on Denchworth Road with a  prohibition of motor vehicles at Denchworth Road and Cane Lane on parts of the existing highway being superseded by a new road layout as part of an approved major residential development were first consulted on in 2017 and approved as part of a package of wider highway works by the Cabinet Member for Environment on 23 November 2017 and 8 March 2018. However, due to delays in the developers progressing the 30mph speed limit and new road layout beyond the two years from the start of the previous consultation, a further consultation on the traffic regulation orders giving effect to these specific provisions had been statutorily required.

Councillors Jenny Hannaby and Jane Hanna spoke in support of the proposals highlighting the large-scale development, increased traffic and safety issues in the area.

Officers would discuss with the local members issues raised regarding provision of a pathway.

Having regard to the information in the report before her together with the representations made to her at the meeting the cabinet Member for Environment confirmed her decision as follows:

approve the 30mph speed limit and prohibition of motor vehicles at Denchworth Road and Cane Lane as advertised.

Signed…………………………………………

Cabinet Member for Environment

Date of signing……………………………….