Agenda item

The Cabinet Member for Environment considered (CMDE4) a report setting out objections and other comments in response to a statutory consultation on proposed pelican crossings on the A415 Marcham Road and Ock Street, Abingdon. The proposals had arisen following an Appeal Decision made by the Planning Inspectorate on 11 July 2013 granting planning permission for a the proposed development of 159 dwellings on land adjacent to the B4017 Drayton Road in south Abingdon insofar as that decision had included a condition that no development should take place until the earlier of the following two events had taken place:

a)                 The local planning authority had received written confirmation, issued by Oxfordshire County Council, that highway alterations were to be carried out comprising the introduction of an additional crossing of Ock Street to the east of Drayton Road and the relocation of the existing crossing further west on Marcham Road.

b)                 Highway alterations had been implemented comprising the introduction of an additional crossing of Ock Street to the east of Drayton Road and the relocation of the existing crossing further west on Marcham Road and the associated traffic signals were first in operation.

The reason for this, as outlined by the Inspector and discussed in detail at the appeal, had been to avoid severe transport effects that would otherwise arise from the development.

Anthea Norman-Taylor a resident in this area suggested that this proposal had been formulated purely for traffic reasons associated with the proposed housing development and not to meet any identifiable need or provide any advantage for pedestrians. She considered the Inspector’s decision flawed and that the proposed crossing sites presented a clear and significant danger to pedestrians which she felt would inevitably result in fatalities.

Roberta Nichols (Abingdon Civic Society) pointed out that the original objection by the County Council had been based on the potential for severe traffic congestion.  There had been little success in identifying a suitable scheme to alleviate and mitigate against traffic impact and yet the Inspector had agreed this condition.  These crossings would not help the situation. However, if it was to go ahead then a trial period of say 2 weeks in school term time should be introduced.

Anne Dodd a local resident of 37 years used the crossing daily and addressed specific concerns regarding school children.  The proposed site was not on a desire line and she considered it reasonable to expect that children would not use them therefore increasing the risk of accidents. She was familiar with traffic modelling but residents were all to aware of the problems this would cause.

Roger Bush considered the proposals flawed.  The roads were already subject to an unacceptable level of queuing and the only conclusion to be drawn was that that situation would worsen if these proposals went ahead. Air pollution levels would also increase and he questioned whether there these had been adequately considered.

Councillor Samantha Bowring (Abingdon Town Council) referred to the work previously undertaken to mitigate the effects of traffic in Abingdon which would be undermined by piece meal changes.  That should be resisted. These proposed sitings offered limited pedestrian visibility with little advantage for wheelchair users.  Recent improvements achieved in air quality levels would inevitably be affected by increased traffic queuing.  She urged the Cabinet Member to consider the strength of feeling locally.

Councillor Alice Badcock (Abingdon Town Council) expressed disappointment that the Town Council’s 3 page consultation submission had been reduced to just 4 lines. Referring to the numbers of schoolchildren in this area she emphasised that for them the natural way would always be the quickest way possible and this proposal did not offer that.  The current crossing points were put in by the County Council as part of the AbITS traffic management scheme and extra barriers would exacerbate an already bad situation and also restrict access to the MG gardens.  The repercussions of this development not going ahead would be nothing compared to what would happen if there was a fatality.

Councillor Jeanette Halliday (Vale of White Horse District Council) referred to yet another crossing on Ock street and the impact that that would have on local residents. Concerns that air quality would worsen had been dismissed by the Inspector who had suggested that traffic levels would have minimal effect and yet air quality monitoring work undertaken by the Vale of White Horse District Council had suggested nitrogen dioxide levels close to unacceptable.  The District Council also took the view that the proposed crossings would affect and increase  traffic congestion on a narrow road which was already subject to frequent queuing.  Approval would make matters worse.

Councillor Jim Halliday (Vale of White Horse District Council) had grave concerns regarding the effect of these proposals on local residents.  The current crossings had been installed in the 1990s on carefully selected desire lines and any alteration needed to be carefully considered otherwise the fear of increased accidents could be realised.  The Vale of White Horse had commissioned a report on this and whilst fencing might help it would not meet the requisite space criteria because of narrow pavements.  Urging that the proposals be rejected he did not consider the promise of house building to be worth the threat of losing a single life.  He also felt that at the very least a trial scheme should be undertaken.

Councillor Richard Webber (Vale of White Horse District Council) was a resident in an adjoining area but was at the meeting to present the Vale of White Horse District Council’s report. The Inspector’s decision had effectively meant that safety had now become the major concern rather than one of acceptability as the proposal was to replace the existing set up which was clearly on a desire line with one which was generally regarded as less safe and where pedestrians would be asked to use 3 crossings instead of the existing one.  The Cabinet Member also needed to take into account the effect on air quality. These issues flew in the face of the work undertaken by local Councils and put issues of safety and air quality in the hands of the Inspector. He also urged that if a trial period were considered then it should when children were using the crossing. 

County Councillor Sandy Lovatt suggested deferral on the grounds that information was incomplete.  Ock Street was currently well over capacity with 800 cars per hour which resulted in huge tail backs through Abingdon and caused huge pollution problems.  AbITS would be seriously undermined and other plans seriously affected.  It seemed a relatively minor matter but would in fact have a huge impact over a very wide area and the report didn’t address those issues.

County Councillor Neil Fawcett had assumed that the County Council had to undertake this work but it was clear that when assessing the siting of a crossing that assessment should be based on safety and benefit to pedestrians.  The report did not seem to address that and he did not consider the proposed sitings to be the best placement whereas the current crossing was on a clear desire line.  It seemed to him that the decision of the Inspector that planning permission should be subject to the County Council moving the crossings meant that a clear decision had been left to the County Council and to do that the Council needed to pay adequate attention to the relevant guidance.  The Inspector had concluded that there would be severe traffic impacts arising from the new development in Drayton Road and in his view had said that the proposal for the crossings would reduce that but he had not considered the impact on other roads.  Traffic already went back into the town centre.  The County Council was not bound by the planning framework as was the Inspector.  He was not confident that children could be persuaded away from using 1 easy crossing in order to use 3.  It was no longer a question of acceptability but one of safety and he felt that the proposal should be turned down on the grounds that there would normally be no case for making such a change.  If a trial was considered then that should be undertaken during school and university term time.

Ms Santiago confirmed that modelling had been carried out to assess impact and whether or not the proposal for the crossings would mitigate the effect of the development.  That modelling had been scrutinised by 2 independent parties and discussed at length at the Public Inquiry and the Inspector had been satisfied that he had all the facts to form an opinion.

Mr Tole advised that a decision was required in accordance with the decision of the Inspector and bearing in mind the different roles regarding planning and highway matters that came down to whether the proposal for the crossings was safe. He confirmed the information at Annex 3 that no pedestrian accidents had been recorded. He had observed personally the situation in the am peak and it was clear that some pedestrians from south of the bridge would still need to cross twice.  He accepted it was a difficult decision but it was to be hoped that if the proposal went ahead then children could be educated and encouraged to use the crossings as nobody wanted injuries occurring.

Mr Fermer said that it was important to note that both the County Council and the Vale of White Horse District Council had been legally advised that there were no grounds for a challenge to the Inspector’s decision. He confirmed that lights could be linked and timings reviewed in order to optimise traffic flow.

The Cabinet Member dismissed calls for a trial period as the proposed set up had been devised with the new development in mind and any temporary set up now would not relate to that development.

Councillor Sanders referred to the National Policy Planning Framework and the term “severe”.   Could the Inspector be considered a traffic expert and in a position to adjudicate what was severe in traffic terms?  There was no case history here to gauge severe but there was an opportunity to investigate that and a trial would help in gauging levels of danger.

Mr Mytton confirmed that for these purposes the Inspector should be considered a traffic expert and that the congestion issue had been considered. In Counsel’s opinion there was no case to challenge.  The key issue was one of safety and the County Council had to make a decision with regard to all relevant factors.  The Inspector’s judgement was an important consideration and the County Council must not be blind to the Inspector’s conclusions in granting planning permission.  If a decision was taken not to comply with the Inspector’s judgement then it would be for the applicant to consider whether or not to challenge that decision.

The Cabinet Member recognised this was a difficult decision and having regard to that, 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 that he was minded not to approve implementation of the proposals for 2 proposed pelican crossings on the A415 Marcham Road and Ock Street Abingdon as advertised.

………………………………………..

Cabinet Member for Environment

………………………………  2014