Agenda item

Forward Plan Ref: 2017/155

Contact: Hugh Potter, Team Leader – Area Operations Hub Tel: 07766 998704

Report by Director for Infrastructure Delivery (CMDE5).

The report presents responses to a statutory consultation on proposals to install two zebra crossings on Newlands Drive, Grove and also the outcome of further discussions with Grove Parish Council and the local member in respect of proposals to extend the 30mph speed limit on Denchworth Road, to provide calming measures on Newlands Drive and to prohibit the use by motor vehicles of parts of Cane Lane and Denchworth Road, which are superseded by the proposed new road layout at Grove and which were reported to the Cabinet Member for Environment delegated decisions meeting on 23 November 2017.

The measures have been proposed in conjunction with a major new residential development to the west of Denchworth Road and Newlands Drive at Grove.

The Cabinet Member for the Environment is RECOMMENDED to approve:

a)        proposals for the zebra crossings on Newlands Drive, Grove;

b)        proposed traffic calming measures on Newlands Drive, the proposed speed limit reduction on Denchworth Road and the proposed prohibition of motor vehicles at Denchworth Road and Cane Lane as considered at the Cabinet Member for Environment delegated decisions meeting on 23 November 2017.

The Cabinet Member for Environment considered (CMDE5) responses to proposals to install two zebra crossings on Newlands Drive, Grove together with the outcome of further discussions with Grove Parish Council and the local member in respect of proposals to extend the 30mph speed limit on Denchworth Road, provide calming measures on Newlands Drive and prohibit the use by motor vehicles of parts of Cane Lane and Denchworth Road. The measures had been proposed in conjunction with a major new residential development to the west of Denchworth Road and Newlands Drive at Grove.

Rodney Pollock stressed the need to get this right.  There was one opportunity to do so but he felt that some of the analysis used to date was questionable and raised a number of issues:

·      Pollution. Recent Government advice appeared to recommend against the use of road humps.

·      Speed Surveys.  He questioned the justification for the queries raised by the police regarding current traffic speeds.   He was aware of regular speed checks on many local roads but not Newlands Drive so was not convinced that that was evidence based.

·      He could not see how 3 mini roundabouts were appropriate for Denchworth Road between Mably Way and the junction with the Faringdon Road when Newlands Drive was 2ft wider with much wider verges.  The ransom strip only affected land availability at the north end so It didn’t seem reasonable therefore that mini roundabouts couldn’t be provided at Savile Way and Columbia Way or the direct entrance to the south end of the airfield as an alternative to humps. The issue about right turning vehicles seemed tenuous as the situation would only replicate Denchworth Road with housing either side of a straight road.

·      The maps issued by Brookbanks were incorrect insofar as they showed playing fields on only the east side of Denchworth Road whereas, because of road alterations, they were on both sides. There were regular sports tournaments with youngsters needing to cross as would school children attending King Alfred’s. Careful consideration was required with regard to provision of crossings and it was essential to work out which paths people would take and ensure that they were safe.

·      Was it right to invest so heavily in this one scheme with no funds then available to deal with problems should they arise elsewhere.

He again stressed the need to get this right and as far as possible future proof it for the whole community.

Councillor Zoe Patrick endorsed the comment regarding the need to get this scheme right. She considered Newlands Drive key to the scheme and that crossings were needed. She had issues with the limited access to the development site with a 3^rd access compromised by the ransom strip at the northern end. That situation was wholly unacceptable and as a contributory cause of the problem should be subject to a CPO process. She favoured mini roundabouts at the southern end but felt that the northern end should be left until after the development had been completed and monitored and felt there was enough space for that to be achieved.  The effect of the northern perimeter road also needed to be factored in to this scheme. It seemed little thought had been given to provision of improved cycling facilities and she had been lobbying for a safe route to Rutherford and Harwell campus and for local schoolchildren. She had no issue with the speed limit proposals or Cane Lane but had strong objections to the installation of humps with real concerns regarding pollution and displacement of problems elsewhere such as to Brereton Drive.

With regard to mini roundabouts o0fficers confirmed that there would be an issue with mini roundabouts as there was insufficient land to achieve the required deflection and traffic failing to give way to right turning traffic. 

Mr Kirkwood agreed that the scheme on Denchworth Road had not, as an accident remedial scheme, been a great success with accidents showing a slight increase so care would be needed to avoid a repeat of that situation. Similarly comparisons between the Oxford Lane scheme and these proposals were misleading as both schemes were different. There was a vast amount of traffic calming elsewhere in the county all of which worked well and officers considered that the measures as proposed here were an appropriate balance. Regarding concerns expressed about the potential for displacement of traffic to other roads such as Brereton he advised that monitoring elsewhere in other areas had indicated an expected displacement of 25% traffic but usually that only occurred where speed limits had been affected. However, in this case as the humps would allow traffic to drive over but not exceed the correct limit that meant that that level of displacement would be unlikely to happen. The scheme would be monitored and in his view offered an appropriate balance.

He also confirmed that the specification for the installation of humps was very precise. The Roads Agreement Team would regularly inspect them during construction to ensure compliance and if at any time that was found not to be the case then the installation would be put right at their cost.

If mini roundabouts were provided they would need to be constructed on a flat top in order to comply with the requirements of a road safety audit.

There were no funds available to address issues in the event this scheme was not successful.

Mr Moore confirmed that the scheme was being progressed now as a requirement of the S106 agreement and needed to be in place before the first house was occupied.

The Cabinet Member for Environment acknowledged there were issues related to this scheme as raised by the two speakers but felt they did not warrant delaying the scheme particularly when it seemed future improvements could be achieved if access issues were resolved, She was satisfied that a decision today would not prohibit for example further integration or designated cycle facilities and while recognising the need to get this right accepted the officers’ professional advice that the scheme as proposed offered the best way forward. Therefore, having regard to the information set out in the report and the representations made to her at the meeting she confirmed her decision as follows:

to approve:

a)        proposals for the zebra crossings on Newlands Drive, Grove;

b)        proposed traffic calming measures on Newlands Drive, the proposed speed limit reduction on Denchworth Road and the proposed prohibition of motor vehicles at Denchworth Road and Cane Lane as considered at the Cabinet Member for Environment delegated decisions meeting on 23 November 2017.

Signed………………………………….

Cabinet Member for Environment

Date of signing………………………..