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 Roz Smith

“Access to Headington project – a question about costs

Please could the Cabinet Member give further details on costs relating to the Project:

·                expenditure to date on consultants/consultancy work

·                approximate costs for the proposed raised pedestrian entry treatments recommended by officers

·                approximate financial savings generated from changes to the original proposals made after consultation as per the officer’s report & recommendations

·                approximate costs for the changes to the double mini-roundabouts and junctions in Headley Way, and the changes to the mini roundabout junction into the JR Hospital?”

Response by Cabinet Member for Environment

“The information you requested is set out below.

 ·         Expenditure to date on consultants/consultancy work - £517,000

 ·         Approximate costs for the proposed raised pedestrian entry treatments recommended by officers - £6,000 - £8,000 per treatment. Actual cost depends on the amount of drainage work required. Cost also includes traffic management.

 ·         Approximate financial savings generated from changes to the original proposals made after consultation as per the officer’s report & recommendations - no savings have been made by changing the proposals; in fact there is an additional cost for the provision of the retaining wall on the western side of Headley Way which is estimated to cost £246,243. The additional costs will be funded from the existing project budget. 

 ·         Approximate costs for the changes to the double mini-roundabouts and junctions in Headley Way -£2.5m (including public realm improvements)

 ·         Approximate costs to changes to the mini roundabout junction into the JR Hospital - £845,000

Costs may change as the detailed design process continues, but these are the latest estimates we have.”

Supplementary question from Councillor Roz Smith

“I note it’s estimated that for every £1 spent there would be a benefit of £3.50 but how would that be monitored and by who.”

Response by Cabinet Member

“Essentially there is a required minimum level of value for money which is part of the agreement for the scheme along with a requirement for before and after monitoring.”

Forward Plan Ref: 2016/003

Contact: Owen Jenkins, Service Manager for Highways, Transport & Waste Tel: (01865) 323304 and Paul Fermer, Service Manager, Major Infrastructure Delivery Tel: (01865) 815764

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

The report presents the outcomes of consultation on the Access to Headington project which includes proposals to introduce and amend various Traffic Regulation Orders and other traffic measures.  

The Cabinet Member for the Environment is RECOMMENDED to approvethe implementation of proposals as advertised and as set out below:

a)           waiting restrictions on The Slade

b)           the amended proposals for waiting restrictions and residents parking places on Headley Way and Windmill Road (as consulted on between 30 April 2016 and 23 May 2016)

c)           the new residents parking bays on side streets adjacent to Windmill Road with the exception of the following:

                 i.             Stile Rd – 3 bays on boundary of 62 St Leonards (east side)

               ii.             Stile Rd – 1 bay outside 25 Stile Road (east side)

              iii.             Margaret Road – 1 Bay outside number 12 (south side)

              iv.             Windsor Street – 1 bay opposite 18 (north side)

               v.             St Anne’s Road – 3 bays boundary with 18 Gathorne Road (west side)

d)           the proposed mandatory cycle lane on the east side of Headley Way, but shortened by 9m between its junction with Bowness Avenue and Snowdon Mede

e)           the proposed mandatory cycle lane on the west side of Headley Way between the John Radcliffe Hospital junction and Eden Drive 

f)            shared use cycle track on Headley Way

g)           the reversal of  the permitted direction of travel, and proposed changes to the waiting restrictions (including the provision of a traffic calming narrowing)  in the Cherwell Drive service road.

h)           the turning restrictions at the proposed new signalled junctions of Headley Way and the John Radcliffe Hospital access road and the Headley Way / Cherwell Drive junctions with Marsh Lane and Marston Road and at the existing signalled junction of Old Road with Warneford Lane, Gipsy Lane and Roosevelt Drive, and A4142 Eastern bypass junction with Horspath Driftway

i)             proposed new and amended pedestrian and pedal cyclists crossings with the exception of:

                 i.             the new pedestrian and cycle controlled crossing on Old Road

               ii.             the proposed signal controlled crossing on Headley Way by Coniston Avenue

j)             the raised side road entry treatments on Headley Way, Windmill Road and The Slade

The Cabinet Member for Environment considered (CMDE4) the results of a consultation on the Access to Headington project which had included proposals to introduce and amend various traffic regulation orders and other traffic measures.

Chris Clifford advised that although the Windmill Road Residents Association cautiously welcomed the revised scheme concerns remained regarding speeding traffic and potential knock on effects of the scheme. Windmill Road was a residential road close to a school and it was important to retain access for disabled and safe passage for cyclists.

Michael Hugh Jones expressed his dissatisfaction at only being given 2 minutes and dismay at the costs involved for this scheme adding that growth and expansion was the last thing Oxfordshire needed.  Money should instead on supporting bus services.  He also considered that as toucan crossings were frequently misused resulting in traffic delays they should be replaced with zebra crossings.

Valerie Seagroatt was concerned that proposals to remove residents parking could potentially encourage greater traffic speed with further potential for more accidents and suggested a 20 mph speed limit would help.  Supporting travel by means other than car she questioned whether the project offered value for money and the efficacy of using S106 money for this project.

David Preiss supported the revised scheme but pointed out that Windmill Road should be classified as a primary route. Traffic speed remained a concern for cyclists and serious consideration needed to be given to measures to achieve reductions in speed.

Geoff Sutton spoke on behalf of Windmill School whose catchment area was split by Windmill Road. Supporting the proposals he referred to a fatality involving a child some years back. That had nearly been repeated recently which indicated a clear risk was still present and he appealed to the County Council to listen to local concerns to reduce traffic speeds through traffic calming and a 20 mph speed limit.

City Councillor Mick Haines called for retention of the Marsh Lane and Cherwell junctions roundabouts. Accepting that the junctions were busy that was however only for short periods during the day and replacement with lights would cause greater chaos.  There was a lot of support to keep things as they were.

City Councillor Dee Sinclair welcomed the proposed amendments but there were still concerns which included the one-way system around Stile and Holyoake roads which was not always observed; use of the St Leonards car park by permit holders would result in less parking available for shoppers; reduction in visitor permits for new development and the potential for increased speeds on Windmill Road through removal of parking spaces. She also asked for consideration to be given to reinstating the yellow boxes on the Stile Road/London Road junction.

City Councillor Ruth Wilkinson supported the proposals but highlighted the need for traffic calming in Windmill Road to control speed and suggested a 20 mph speed limit and solar powered repeater speed signs. She also expressed concern regarding additional parking bays outside and opposite 57 York Rd are which were immediately  ...  view the full minutes text for item 72/15

Forward Plan Ref: 2016/010

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

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

The report presents objections and comments received in the course of a statutory consultation on proposals to introduce and amend various traffic restrictions and provide new and amended pedestrian crossings, in the vicinity of the Westgate Centre in central Oxford as part of the major redevelopment of the Centre. 

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

The Cabinet Member for Environment considered objections and comments received to a statutory consultation on proposals to introduce and amend various traffic restrictions and provide new and amended pedestrian crossings  as part of the major redevelopment of the Westgate centre.

Speaking on behalf of SENDRA Ian Green thanked officers for their responses to their comments. They remained interested in pedestrian access to the south west corner of the development. Pedestrian access to the underground car park would increase from the south and that needed to be reviewed. Also the situation at the junction of Blackfriars Road and Thames Street needed to be monitored and SENDRA asked to be kept informed of that monitoring.

Speaking on behalf of COLTA Sajid Khan advised that taxis were currently able to access bus gates and it was essential that that should continue with regard to the length of new public highway linking Castle street and Speedwell Street. That was essential in order for them to continue to provide a good service as well as helping to reduce the carbon footprint adding that they had in fact made these points during the informal consultation.

Councillor John Tanner shared the concerns expressed regarding the Blackfriars Road/Thames Street junction. The proposal would call into question the priorities for vehicles coming in and out of Blackfriars Road and he also asked to be copied in on any responses from the consultants as set out in paragraph 20.

On the advice of officers the Cabinet Member for Environment advised that he was minded to defer consideration of this report until July to allow for further consultation on the points raised by COLTA.  He therefore confirmed his decision as follows:

To defer consideration of these measures to the 21 July 2016 meeting  to allow further consideration of various issues including the proposal to exclude taxis along the new length of highway linking Castle Street with Speedwell Street.

Signed………………………………….

Cabinet Member fro Environment

Date of signing………………………..

Forward Plan Ref: 2016/032

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

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

This report presents objections received in the course of the statutory consultation on proposals to introduce no waiting at any time parking restrictions along the majority of Elms Road in Thame which are being proposed as part of a planning approval for residential development on the northern side of Elms Road, which will also include the construction of a new junction entry close to the corner of Elms Road & Broadwaters Avenue.

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

The Cabinet Member for Environment considered (CMDE6) objections received to a statutory consultation on proposals to introduce no waiting at any time parking restrictions along the majority of Elms Road, Thame proposed as part of a planning approval for residential development on the northern side which would include construction of a new junction entry close to the corner of Elms Road and Broadwaters Avenue.

Michael Moore speaking on behalf of the Kingdom Hall of Jehovah’s Witnesses advised that the proposed changes would have a considerable impact on their services with an average attendance of between 60 – 70 on Sunday mornings and Thursday evening.many of whom were elderly with some disabled and children under 5.  He tabled pictures of their current car park which was small and loss of parking as proposed would leave little option other than for visitors to park on High Street which had its own dangers. He asked that the proposals for double yellow lines be reviewed with single yellow lines as an alternative.

Rachel Fisher a resident spoke against the proposals. Paragraph 11 meant a reduction in real terms of 50% in real terms. Proposals to narrow footway width in Elms Road (paragraph 12) were not justified as it connected manyareas for youth and elderly. She queried that there had only been one accident (paragraph 13) in Elms Road and that statement inferred that it was safe.  She disputed that and felt the situation would deteriorate. She called for further consultation with all residents.

Mary Stiles of Thame Town Council objected to the proposals. The Cabinet Member had heard personal representations from one resident objecting with many more holding similar views. It was widely considered in Thame that a  scheme for the whole of the town was required rather than specific areas in isolation. With regard to paragraph 14 the proposals for Elms Road did not conform with the Thame Neighbourhood Plan and as local representatives were not transport professionals the County Council needed to take the lead with regard to these issues.

Councillor Nick Carter advised that contrary to paragraph 6 he did object to these proposals and was dismayed that the recommendation was for approval.  Implementation would remove up to a dozen spaces unnecessarily in his view and ir was down to residents who had genuine concerns regard displacement to organise themselves rather than introduce such a formal scheme. He endorsed everything that Rachel Fisher and Mary stiles had said and felt that Thames valley police had also effectively objected. Paragraph 14 was not acceptable and parking issues in market towns needed an holistic approach rather than a piecemeal approach. It had been expected that construction traffic would create a nightmare situation for residents and should only approach from the High Street end and that where development like this was proposed the developer should make provision for alternative parking for local residents affected by it.

Responding to the Cabinet Member regarding the need to reract to condition attached to a permission already granted  ...  view the full minutes text for item 74/15

Forward Plan Ref: 2016/031

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

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

The report considers objections received to a formal consultation on proposals to introduce new Disabled Persons’ Parking Places (DPPP) at various locations in South Oxfordshire, The Vale, and Oxford.

The Cabinet Member for Environment is RECOMMENDED to approve the proposed new DPPPs as advertised. 

The Cabinet Member for Environment considered objections received to a formal consultation on proposals to introduce new disabled persons’ parking places at various locations in South Oxfordshire and Vale of White Horse districts and Oxford City.

He also noted the support of the Councillor Lynda Atkins and Councillor Judith Heathcoat for the proposals relating to their divisions

With regard to the proposals for Meriden Court Mr Tole advised that following further discussions with and at the request of the applicant it was proposed to move the parking space to the lower corner of the Court. He also advised that very minor adjustments could be possible to the proposals for Tyrells Way, Sutton Courtenay and Magdalen Road, Oxford to alleviate local concerns.

With regard to the information set out in the report and the representations made to him at the meeting the Cabinet Member for Environment confirmed his decision as follows

(a)       approve the proposed new disabled persons’ parking places as advertised  subject to moving the proposed DPPP in Meriden Court, Wallingford to the lower corner;

(b)            authorise minor adjustments to be made the proposed sitings in Tyrells Way, Sutton Courtenay and Magdalen Road, Oxford.if required.

Signed……………………………..

Cabinet Member for Environment

Date of signing……………………