Agenda item

Forward Plan Ref: 2020/046

Contact: Hugh Potter, Group Manager – Area Operations Hub Tel: 07766 998704/Ralph Green, Officer – Noticing & Scheduling Tel: (01865) 815816

Report by Director for Community Operations (Interim) (CMDE8).

The report presents responses to a statutory consultation to introduce a traffic calming chicane at Sydenham proposed by Sydenham Parish Council, who have undertaken to fund the project subject to approval being given to proceed with the scheme.

The Cabinet Member for Environment is RECOMMENDED to approve the proposed introduction of a traffic calming chicane at Sydenham as advertised.

The Cabinet Member for Environment considered (CMDE8) responses to a statutory consultation to introduce a traffic calming chicane at Sydenham proposed and funded by Sydenham Parish Council.

Tara Glenof Slade Farm which was located on Sydenham Road objected to the proposed location of the chicane and as a private local resident felt extremely concerned that a decision could be made that would significantly and adversely affect her current situation. The chicane approximately 20m from the only access to her home and on the opposite side of the road to the gate to the farm would create serious access problems into and out of the farm. As a resident of the village she fully supported traffic calming measures on Sydenham Road, just not in the exact location proposed. She advised that contrary to the report she was not operating a business but the equestrian and farming activities undertaken at her home were not run as a business. There had been a farm on this location in excess of 80 years and it had always only had this one access point from Sydenham Road. The proposed location of the chicane would make it impossible for her to access with her horsebox, let alone take receipt of regular feed deliveries or allow access to the necessary farm contractors needed to maintain the farm, from one direction and she had offered to demonstrate this but had not been contacted by anyone.  She did not agree with the officer report that the proposed chicane was far enough away not to be a factor and attempts to turn into the farm with the horse box while trying to avoid the point where the proposed chicane would be located had not been possible. She noted that the report suggested that the chicane could be moved a further 3m away but that was still not far enough away to alleviate the problem of being able to turn into her home. She proposed that the chicane could be moved to the opposite side of the road so as not to cause an obstruction for  lorries or farm vehicles needing to turn into the farm whereas if it was installed in either the proposed location or the alternative location 3m from that, she would be forced when in a horsebox to turn one way out of the farm, adding 13 miles to each journey. Also feed companies could refuse to deliver to the farm with farming contractors also forced to make an additional 13 mile detour (6 ½ miles in one direction) none of which was environmentally beneficial, contributing an additional 12.26kg of CO2 to the atmosphere per journey and, in addition to the significant detour, all that traffic, which would usually travel the 400m from my farm gate to the B4445, would be forced through the heart of the village of Sydenham which was only single track in places. She did not accept that it was right to restrict a resident’s access to their own home in the way proposed.

Michael May, Sydenham Parish Council advised that the village had suffered from speeding problems for the last 25 years. The Parish Council had carried out speeding surveys on many occasions on the relevant stretch of road using a SID and the County Council had also undertaken surveys on a number of occasions, all of which had demonstrated speeding into and out of both sections of the village. The Parish Council had held a number of village meetings over the last few years to discuss these issues and potential solutions and the outcome had been unanimous that pinch points/chicanes were the most appropriate solution in the rural environment of Sydenham while recognising  that to do this they would have to raise funds through grants from their local County Councillor, raising the precept and CIL money to fund the works. The first intervention, a pinch point at the west end of Sydenham Road as you entered the older part of the village, had been successfully delivered, with support from OCC some 18 months ago.  This had always been seen as the starting point and that further interventions would follow. The current chicane proposal was the next stage and the parish council were also starting to investigate a 20mph limit in the centre of the village with interventions on the B4445 near the Emmington Inn.  The County Council had designed the chicane proposal for us which complied with the necessary Highway Standards and did not impinge on lorry access to Slade Farm.  However, they also understood that Slade Farm already had issues with lorry access irrespective of the chicane, as referred to by the Slade Farm objection, due to the narrowness of the entrance to the Farm. In view of that and if technically acceptable and without the need for further consultation, the parish council had no objection to the chicane being moved eastwards towards the Emmington Inn, so that it was in a broadly similar position to the first pinch point relative to the field entrance on the same side of the road and moving the chicane further away from the Slade Farm entrance by some 5m - 7m.

County Councillor Jeannette Matelot the local member advised that Sydenham had been greatly impacted by the 1000 + new homes in both Thame and Chinnor but had had no call on the S106 and CILs funds from those developments. It was used as a rat run to avoid going through Chinnor to the M40 and ,when there was a road closure at Chinnor, which happened often with half a dozen ongoing large developments, then all traffic had to go through Sydenham with its one main village road running lengthways through the village. The problem was that vehicles were speeding through the village. Last year the Parish Council had a pinch point installed which had proved very successful and so they had designed and consulted on a new pinch point at a strategic position further along this main road. The Parish Council were funding this and she was supporting them from her Priority Fund. She had personally spoken to residents, pedestrians, cyclists and a horse rider, who all supported this pinch point as they had felt the benefit of the one installed in 2019. She asked the Cabinet Member to support this project as a further encouragement for cyclists and pedestrians to use this road as part of the County’s Active Travel policy. She had met with Ms Glen and supported any changes that could be made to address some of her concerns. She would also support a 20mph speed limit but accepted that that would be for the future.

The Cabinet Member thanked everyone for their submissions. There was clear support for the chicanes but the issue seemed to be where best to site it.  The parish council had stated that they would support moving it which would allow an extra 5 possibly 7 meters additional turning space for Slade Farm traffic, although that could impact on potential access to a neighbouring field. She noted advice from officers that swapping the chicane to the opposite side would, by changing priority for giving way, have a material effect and that moving the current site as proposed by the parish council would not require further consultation.  Therefore, having regard to the information set out in the report before her and the representations made to her at the meeting which set out clearly the need for the chicanes she confirmed her decision as follows:

to approve the proposed the design and introduction of a traffic calming chicane at Sydenham while requiring the positioning of the 2 build outs to be moved as far as possible within the current consultation process but at least 5 metres from the access to Slade Farm and asked officers to meet representatives on site to achieve the optimum solution. 

Signed……………………………………….

Cabinet Member for Environment

Date of signing………………………………