Agenda item

Report by the Deputy Director for Environment & Economy (Strategy & Infrastructure Planning) (PN6).

The report considers a proposed modification to the approved route for vehicles associated with the concrete batching operation at Dix Pit. The developer has implemented the consent (MW.0053/15) but found that journey times from the site into central Oxford are adversely affected by roadworks on the Wolvercote and Cutteslowe roundabouts, to the extent that concrete has been out of specification on arrival and has had to be returned.  Therefore, the developer has proposed an alternative route, using the B4449 and the B4044 to reach Oxford from the west. This route includes the B4449 through the village of Sutton, which is specifically protected from a significant increase in traffic intrusion by development plan policy.  The alternative route would only be used for the duration of the roadworks, only during off peak hours (9pm-3pm) and only by vehicles carrying concrete to the Westgate redevelopment in central Oxford. The applicant has also asked for agreement that the alternative route can be used for empty vehicles returning from the Westgate, however this is not considered to be justified.  

It is RECOMMENDED that the County Council enter into a deed of variation to the existing routeing agreement for application MW.0053/15 to allow off-peak HGV movements on the alternative route to Oxford for concrete mixer trucks travelling to the Westgate redevelopment in central Oxford only, until the completion of roadworks on the Cutteslowe and Wolvercote roundabouts.

The Committee had before it a report (PN6) which considered a proposed modification to the approved route for vehicles associated with the concrete batching operation at Dix Pit to enable the developer to meet delivery times to the Westgate redevelopment in central Oxford, which were being adversely affected by roadworks on the Wolvercote and Cutteslowe roundabouts to the extent that some deliveries of concrete had been out of specification on arrival and had had to be returned.  The proposed alternative route would use the B4449 and the B4044 to reach Oxford from the west and included the B4449 through the village of Sutton, which had been specifically protected from a significant increase in traffic intrusion by development plan policy.  The proposal was to use the alternative route for the duration of the roadworks, only during off peak hours (9am-3pm) and only by vehicles carrying concrete to the Westgate redevelopment in central Oxford.

Mary Thompson presented the report and confirmed that the alternative route would be a temporary variation during the redevelopment of Westgate and limited to off-peak hours and outward bound journeys only.  She referred to 3 late submissions which had been published with the addenda but which had raised no new issues in addition to those covered in the report and therefore no change had been proposed to the printed recommendation.

She then responded to questions from:

Councillor Johnston – there would be on average 21 vehicles per day half of which would be returning vehicles.

Councillor Phillips – hours currently allowed were 7 am to 5 pm which were the standard hours of operation.

Councillor Mills – the variation was proposed only for those vehicles supplying the Westgate re-development.

Councillor Lilly – if the roadworks at the Wolvercote and Cutteslowe roundabouts were to finish earlier than planned then the temporary variation would end.

Councillor Mathew reminded the Committee that he had expressed grave concerns when this permission had been originally granted and subsequently when changes had been made to the terms of that permission and now the Committee were faced with more.  Traffic continued to increase and was getting worse which called into the question the decision not to retain the Sutton Bypass, particularly as the project would have been partly funded by local gravel operators. He queried the statement that 2 hours was not long enough to get this material into oxford as he understood that it was possible to add a retardant to the mix to lengthen its life.  Hansons also had an operational unit at Horspath only 2.9 miles away which could supply this development yet in the meantime lorries continued to travel through Sutton.  He had TV evidence that this had been going on for some time prior to this decision today and therefor this constituted a retrospective application. He advised that he had followed a lorry only that morning and that the practice was severely interfering with the lives of residents and in fact the Minerals and Waste Local Plan stated that if an application aggravated traffic then it should not proceed. He had received over 50 emails from people directly affected and 160 from Oxfordshire residents not directly affected all of which seemed to call into question the view of highway development control which he felt was not equitable.

In response to a question from Councillor Greene officers confirmed that on average 10 vehicles per day would leave the site. That averaged one vehicle every half hour and as 4,500 vehicles travelled through Sutton per day it had been felt that the overall impact would be minimal, although officers had not stated that it was a desirable route.

Councillor Mathew then responded to questions from:

Councillor Bartholomew – the routeing agreement was clearly not being respected and since 16 November he had taken up to 6 calls daily with reports of lorries ignoring the agreed route.

Councillor Johnston – the lack of respect for the routeing agreement was indicative of the attitude adopted by the operator and that he had raised the issue with enforcement officers on 16 November 2015.

Councillor Owen – neither he nor, as far as he understood, had other residents made direct contact with the operator but there was a liaison committee which had last met 3 weeks previously when Hansons had not raised these issues.

Councillor Cherry – the B4449 has a higher accident rate than normal which should have formed part of the highway consultation.

Councillor Tanner appreciated the inconvenience clearly being suffered by local people but this was a relatively short term variation and the Committee needed to get some sense of proportion between that and the need to complete this major re-development. He moved and Councillor Reynolds seconded that the officer recommendation be approved as published.

The Chairman then invited Mr Tony Zilger to the table to take questions from members regarding the technical specification of the material being delivered. He responded to:

Councillor Bartholomew – he explained that it was not simply a question of life span for the material but one of compliance with an exact and very explicit specification insofar as any material older than 2 hours was non-compliant and could not, therefore, be used. That 2 hour period included the production time from first placing water into the cement (10 minutes) to placement on site (15 minutes) which allowed a journey time of only 1 hour 35 minutes, which could on occasion be very tight.

Councillor Johnston – it was not possible to mix material on site as that process needed a high specification forced action mixer in order to get the right dispersal of material and there was no room for that on the Westgate site.

Councillor Phillips – he understood that to date 12 loads had been rejected.

Councillor Cherry – there were between 18-20 tonnes of material per load.

Councillor Mills – the primary source of material was from Horspath but it was not possible to supply enough material for this contract from that site alone.

Councillor Mills then referred to the issue of road safety and why local residents were so concerned. He could not accept the argument that the amount of traffic was insignificant as these were very large lorries travelling on roads with serious bends. Policy SH2 stated that there should be no intensification of or increased traffic unless mitigation measures were taken and that needed to be a material consideration in this case. There was an alternative option to route traffic over Swinford Toll bridge, which he felt had not been adequately considered in the officer report and for those reasons he could not support the proposal.

Mrs White confirmed there had been 4 reported serious accidents over the past 5 years.

Councillor Lilly respected the feelings of local residents and had also been surprised that the alternative route as previously mentioned had not been considered. He moved an amendment that the application be deferred to enable consideration of the alternative route via Swinford Toll bridge. Councillor Phillips seconding.

Councillor Tanner felt a deferral would not be helpful as it represented another period of delay.

Councillor Lilly’s amendment was put to the Committee and lost by 6 votes to 4.

Councillor Tanner’s motion which had been amended with his and his seconder’s approval at the suggestion of Councillor Mills and Councillor Cherry was put to the Committee and carried by 6 votes to 4 (Councillor Johnston recorded as having abstained).

RESOLVED: that

(a)           the County Council enter into a deed of variation to the existing routeing agreement for application MW.0053/15 to allow off-peak HGV movements on the alternative route to Oxford for concrete mixer trucks travelling to the Westgate redevelopment in central Oxford only, until the completion of roadworks on the Cutteslowe and Wolvercote roundabouts  subject to that variation terminating on completion of the roundabout works or the Westgate development whichever was earlier.

(b)          officers seek a contribution from the operators for temporary signing on approaches to the ‘S’ bend at Bell Bridge.