Agenda item

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 was not installed at Chilton then riders would either cross on a green signal in the face of oncoming traffic; try to use the Toucan crossing if that was physically possible or cease to use this route ultimately severing the rights of way network. That was inconsistent with statements in OCC’s LTP3 and Rights of Way Management Plan which had not been referred to in this report. On behalf of the British Horse Society she asked that a decision be delayed to enable design engineers to meet with the Society & local riders to look into how the needs of horse riders could be catered for at this site, thus preserving the amenity value of the rights of way network in this area and supporting the economic value of the horse industry.

Frank Dumbleton speaking on behalf of Chilton Parish Council advised that one of the documents published at the time of consultation on the northbound slips scheme had included the sentence that:

"The impact on NMU facilities as part of this proposal will be considered as part of detailed design, but care will be taken to ensure that NMU’s are not disadvantaged as a result of the scheme, existing facilities will be maintained and any opportunities to enhance the facilities for NMUs will be sought."

However, the scheme had not included a safe crossing for equestrian users, who would therefore be disadvantaged. It had been further observed that it was deemed inappropriate to encourage equestrians to use a controlled crossing when there was no facility for them to use on the other side. That betrayed a lack of knowledge of the roads within Chilton village, which had no through traffic and were therefore safe for equestrians to use. In addition he sought reassurance that the measures for the Toucan lights to be controlled by traffic exiting Chilton village at Townsend and Chilton Field at Newbury Road were to be provided in order to avoid queues of traffic exiting the village and Chilton Field against the predicted huge increase in traffic on Hagbourne Hill and the A4185. Also the measure allowing buses to turn right into the village at Townsend would trigger the Toucan crossing to prevent delays to the bus service. The new scheme would result in a huge increase in traffic off Hagbourne Hill and the new slip road from the A34 southbound, which might delay buses if they had to wait for an opportunity to turn right.  These measures had not been mentioned in the recent consultation on the crossings, and the County Council's attempt to renege on the agreement not to disadvantage equestrian users had prompted his calls for reassurance that the other agreed enhancements in connection with the crossing were to be provided.

Councillor Patrick Greene supported the concerns expressed by the speakers all of which needed to be investigated and he called for deferral of the specific element relating to the crossing.  The issue of varied speed limits in the area which had been raised by West Hagbourne Parish Council also needed to be addressed.

Mr Tole confirmed that with regard to issues of speed limits as raised by Councillor Greene West Hagbourne parish council had been consulted. However, those issues were not part of this scheme although any issues which required consideration would come back for decision if required ending with it was hoped with a logical set of speed limits.

He confirmed that issues as raised by Mr Dumbleton regarding Townsend and Chilton Field would form part of the scheme.

Additionally he confirmed there had been no real objections to the published proposals other than the one generic objection regarding the suitability of crossings on major roads to which the County Council had well established protocols. 

He accepted the unfortunate nature of the survey which as the photographs tabled by Dr Bridger showed would not have established true levels of use.  As there were no other Pegasus crossings elsewhere in the county the examples of simplified crossings tabled by the speakers were useful but it was clear that within the existing land constraints it would not be possible to comply fully with government guidance for such a crossing. However, in the light of concerns expressed at the meeting he suggested a decision could be deferred in order to consult with the design team and equestrian groups and possibly other areas where such crossings were in use to see if a satisfactory design for a modified crossing could be agreed by all parties and if so then authority be given for that to proceed.  However, if that was not possible and there were outstanding issues which needed to be considered then a report be brought back to the March meeting of the Cabinet Member for Environment.

Responding to questions from the Leader of the Council Mr Tole:

Confirmed that a 30 mph limit existed.

The desire line for a crossing was more or less straight across Hagbourne Hill road.  There would be no central reservation.

The approaches to the crossing point would also need to be widened.

The Leader of the Council was minded to support further investigation for a modified crossing as suggested by officers on the basis that a Pegasus crossing might not be able to be accommodated but stressed the need for that to come back if necessary to the March meeting for the Cabinet Member for Environment. Therefore, 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 as advertised and set out in the report but to defer a final decision on provision of a crossing near Townsend to enable further discussions on provision of a form of modified Pegasus crossing for equestrian users.  In the event there were further objections than that element should be reconsidered by the Cabinet Member for Environment at the 17 March 2016 meeting but if there were none then the agreed provision should proceed to implementation without further consideration.

Signed…………………………..

Leader of the Council

Dated……………………………