Agenda item

Forward Plan Ref: 2020/180

Contact: Tim Shickle, Group Manager – Traffic & Road Safety Tel: 07920 591545 / Ryan Moore, Senior Engineer (Road Agreements Team – S&V) Tel: 07557 082568

Report by Corporate Director Environment & Place (CMDHM8).

At the former Cabinet Member  for Environment delegated decisions meeting on 19 November 2020, the Cabinet Member  approved proposals for a 20mph speed limit as shown at Annex 1 to the report CMDHM8 but  - taking note of representations made by residents objecting to or raising concerns  about  the traffic calming measures as shown at Annex 2 to the report CMDHM8 -  asked officers to investigate alternative provision of raised tables at junctions on the route (in addition to the 2 proposed at the Churchill Road junctions), namely at Morrells Close with Brasenose Road and possibly Icknield way and Oxford Crescent.. The above proposals as shown at Annex 1 & 2 were put forward as part of the approved residential development at Great Western Park and, if approved, would be funded by developers.

Following the Cabinet Member’s decision on 19 November, officers requested the developers to explore this alternative design and this report now sets out the original design details along with the results of the further discussions with the developer on the alternative scheme.

The Cabinet Member for Highways Management is RECOMMENDED to approve the traffic calming measures in Brasenose Road and Slade Road as originally advertised between 30 September and 30 October 2020 and as shown at Annex 2 to the report CMDHM8.

The former Cabinet Member  for Environment on 19 November 2020  had approved proposals for a 20mph speed limit but, having taken note of representations made by residents objecting to or raising concerns  about  the traffic calming measures, had asked officers to investigate alternative provision of raised tables at junctions on the route (in addition to the 2 proposed at the Churchill Road junctions), namely at Morrells Close with Brasenose Road and possibly Icknield way and Oxford Crescent.. The proposals had been put forward as part of the approved residential development at Great Western Park and, if approved, would be funded by developers.

Following the Cabinet Member’s decision on 19 November, officers requested the developers to explore this alternative design and the report now before the Cabinet Member for Highways Management set out the original design details along with the results of further discussions with the developer on the alternative scheme.

Speaking against the proposals Dawn Elsley highlighted that no previous accidentshad occurred in Slade Road/Brasenose Road and no traffic surveys had taken place in Slade Rd/Brasenose Rd either before the Great Western Park estate was built or since to measure whether the volume of traffic had increased or indeed decreased.  She considered that to be a fundamental and necessary measurement which should have been undertaken to assess whether a calming system needed to be installed. However, she considered that these proposed road calming measures were being installed without the benefit of sound data on road traffic history when it might actually be the case that the road had less traffic than before the GWP development. As the prohibitive cost of installing an improved road calming scheme (raised junctions only) had been mentioned she suggested that current road traffic levels should be measured, simple 20pmh signs installed and then measured again to establish their effect. That would allow for an informed decision to be made regarding next steps for road calming measures and potentially be cost saving?  Bedroom & lounge windows in their property were situated at the front of the house and noise from braking and accelerating vehicles between cushions would significantly increase noise and air pollution. A speed cushion would present another obstacle to negotiate when reversing on to or reversing out from their driveway over their dropped kerb causing a potential safety issue. On investigation, there appeared to be no specific criteria to the positioning of cushions in a road and that that this was solely an engineer’s decision. Therefore, they were requesting that the speed cushion proposed outside their property be moved to along the road where driveway access would not be affected or where residents had expressed support for the calming scheme. They had suggested additional raised junctions along the length of Brasenose /Slade Road (sited at Oxford Crescent/Icknield Close/Churchill Road) but had been advised that the cost of doing that was too high.   The proposal had caused major conflict between their immediate neighbour and neighbours opposite as they were all opposed to having speed cushions outside their properties. A subsequent proposal with a suggestion to move one speed cushion to have a ‘staggered pair’ outside their properties had caused further upset regarding access obstruction to their neighbours’ driveways.

Also speaking against the proposals Sean Wilde reiterated his objections to the proposals namely:

o    Health and safety issues as a result of increased dangerous manoeuvres reversing over speed cushions on drives

o    Creating poor environment from increased vehicle fumes and vehicles slowing & increasing speed

o    Increased noise

o    Increased pollution

o    Parking issues/complications for visitors etc

o    Damage to vehicles

o    Additional wear & tear on roads surrounding the speed cushions as evidenced on other roads where these had been installed

A survey had been carried out to assess whether residents were in favour or against the project with the majority vote being against, which felt as if their views and concerns were not being heard/considered. Residents had never been informed what the original objective of the scheme had been or even consulted as to whether the proposed plan was wanted or why it was still being considered. They could  understand why such a traffic calming scheme would need to be implemented if prior to the GWP development there had been say 300 cars using Slade Road/Brasenose Road travelling at 30mph and then post GWP that had risen to say 600+ cars travelling in excess of 30mph but that wasn’t the case. Traffic monitoring surveys had not been conducted either pre or post GWP development so why was the scheme still being considered. In fact, having lived here for numerous years he considered that the volume of traffic had actually reduced in recent years, which he thought was mainly due to the road through the GWP development opening up. This scheme had probably been put in place to cover a potential problem but as in his opinion this was no longer the case they could not understand why the scheme was still required or even being considered. No accidents had been recorded on the proposed roads even with two schools and a large park on these roads. As the original costs of the scheme were not known it’s hard to know if the 655% proposed increase for the alternative plans for raised tables at junctions which they had proposed as a compromise at the meeting in November 2020 were a true figure. The County Council had not been aware of that information either, so it was hardly a satisfactory review/justification/response. S106 agreements weren’t cast in stone and could be amended so those funds could be used on more acceptable projects required elsewhere in the town. There were also  plans for another new road between Harwell village/Milton interchange (A4130) which could provide another alternative route to use and so potentially reduce the need to use Slade Road/Brasenose Road even further. He asked for a serious review of the reasons why this scheme had originally been suggested and whether the original/expected outcome of the scheme still stood. He questioned whether the County Council were just blindly going ahead with the project without any consultation with the impacted residents just because funds were available. This scheme needed to be re-evaluated as residents clearly didn’t support it.

In response officers confirmed that a survey had been carried out at the planning stage which had highlighted the need for a scheme prompting the S106 agreement. Responding to suggestions for alternative 20 mph signing that would not be as effective as traffic calming.  The road at 3.7 metres wide encouraged faster traffic and positioning of the staggered cushions avoided dropped kerbs.  Speed surveys had shown traffic speeds above recommended limits so calming would be benficial.

The Cabinet Member acknowledged the concerns expressed by residents and accepted that there was a difference of opinion on whether this scheme was required but he did not want there to be an accident before anything had been done which might have prevented that.  These proposals were for speed cushions and not raised tables across the whole width of the road and were the kind of measure usually welcomed.  His predecessor had taken into account the concerns of residents and had asked officers to investigate but the alternative scheme they had suggested had been costed and had proved to be too expensive and therefore unacceptable to the developers.  Therefore, having regard to the information set out in the report, the representations made to him at the meeting and the further advice given in response by officers he confirmed his decision as follows:

to approve the traffic calming measures in Brasenose Road and Slade Road as originally advertised between 30 September and 30 October 2020 and as shown at Annex 2 to the report CMDHM8.

Signed………………………………………….

Cabinet Member for Highways Management

Date of signing………………………………..