Decisions

The Cabinet Member for Highway Management, Councillor Gant, considered a report by the Corporate Director, Environment and Place, which recommended approval of the proposed amendment to the hours of operation in the Marston North Area Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) in respect of Elms Drive, which would allow parking only for permit holders only between 9am & 5pm Monday to Fridays (thereby replacing the current restriction allowing for permit holder parking only at all times/days of week).

Councillor Gant noted that no persons had requested to make representations regarding the recommended proposals and that no written submissions had been received regarding the proposals.

Having reviewed the report and its recommendations, Councillor Gant was of the view that the recommendations were not controversial and that it was appropriate to concur with the officer’s recommendations. Therefore, he would approve the recommendations as set out in the report.

DECISION: To approve the report’s recommendations.

Signed: ………………………………………………………………………….

Dated:……………………………………………………………………………

The Cabinet Member for Highway Management, Councillor Gant, considered a report by the Corporate Director, Environment and Place, which recommended approval of the advertised proposals for the introduction of paid parking bays, permit parking areas, limited waiting bays, and no waiting at any time amendments in Woodstock, subject to the following changes –

(i)        The proposed free parking period within the 3-hour paid parking bays is extended from 30-minutes to 1 hour.

(ii)       The proposed max stay duration in the ultra-short stay bays is extended from 20-minutes to 30-minutes.

(iii)     The proposed 2-hour limited waiting bay on New Road is amended to a 3-hour limited waiting bay.

(iv)     A further assessment by officers is undertaken to consider the introduction of permits for visitors to Guest Houses, Hotels and Holiday Lets within the scheme. This would require further public consultation.

(v)      A further assessment by officers be undertaken to consider the best use of the existing 2-hour bays on Park Lane. This would require further public consultation.

(vi)     To amend the schedule of permit eligibility to include 1-11 Oxford Street.

Councillor Gant, having received a few representations on the proposals which he had taken into consideration ahead of today’s meeting, then heard several presentations by speakers present at the meeting both for and against the recommended proposals.

Having heard the speakers, and having taken into consideration the written representations, Councillor Gant made the following comments.

(a)  He noted that the officer’s report that was before the meeting today extended to over 300 pages including responses to an extensive consultation. Having read the report and the responses to the consultation, he thanked officers for their work in in preparing the report.

(b)  As there had been a significant response to the consultation, it was appropriate to address some of the issues that had been raised in response to the consultation, as follows –

(i)         That there was no such thing as “free parking”. The question was, who paid, that is, the user or the authority providing the parking space. It was his view that it was not unreasonable to tilt the balance such that it was the user who met the cost of using the space, as was the case with several local authorities.

(ii)        Whether a parking regime helped or hindered local businesses was a key issue and was addressed in Paragraph 20 of the report, which stated –

When considering options to manage on-street parking, there is often concern about the impact that this can have on the economy of town centres and that any increase in the types of control may discourage visitors to the town centre and reduce trade for businesses. However, there is no direct evidence that this is the case and careful kerbside management has proven to support parking for local retail centres in Oxfordshire including Abingdon, Wallingford and Henley-on-Thames

(iii)      The results of poll undertaken by the District Council under the Parish and Community Meeting (Polls) Rules 1987[1], asking whether residents wanted free parking could not be relied upon as the question upon which the poll was based was a value laden, leading question.

(iv)      The purpose of consultation was to add to the evidence base which had to be interpreted and set alongside the priorities and ambitions of the local authority. Oxfordshire County Council had been clear in its ambitions and priorities regarding climate change and transport within the City of Oxford.

       [Councillor Gant then went through several points in the report relating to the consultation and the response of Council officers to that consultation , including persons buying property in Oxford knowing there was no specific provision for parking; persons attending church services; the introduction of parking permits; the effect of cycle permits; permits to accommodate hotels, guest houses and holiday lets (Paragraph 17 of the report); and the reference in the report to keeping the types of permits and the issuing of permits under review].

(v)       There were heritage standards regarding the suitability of street furniture in historic locations and these standards were taken into consideration in any recommendations made by officers. Furthermore, officers would be reminded about the requirement to take these standards into consideration when making recommendations.

(c)   In conclusion Councillor Gant stated that there was a consensus that the present system was not working, and that this included a lack of enforcement of the current traffic restrictions. Therefore, to do nothing was not an option. He then addressed the following points made by persons who had made representations on the proposals –

(i)         The introduction of 12 electric charging points did not reduce the capacity for parking per se, only a reduction in the parking available to non-electric vehicles.

(ii)        Decisions on parking proposals for Woodstock were not taken behind closed doors as evidenced by the public forum in which the present proposals were being considered.

(iii)      Officers would be instructed to keep the interests of the elderly and immobile under review regarding the current parking proposals.

(d)   There had been some responses to the consultation detailing personal circumstances and political points of view: it was not appropriate to respond specifically to these comments which had been noted as part of the consultation process.

(e)  Any scheme that was introduced would be monitored and kept under review.

In conclusion, Councillor Gant thanked officers for their work in putting together the report and the proposals that were before him, and to everyone who had contributed to the consultation and who had made representations on the proposals.

DECISION: To approve the recommendations and amendments set out in the report.

Signed: ………………………………………………………………………….

Dated:……………………………………………………………………………

The Cabinet Member for Highway Management, Councillor Gant, considered a report by the Corporate Director, Environment and Place, which recommended approval of –

(a)  The proposed removal of Disabled Persons Parking Places (DPPP) at: Oxford – Bracegirdle Road, Elmthorpe Road, Sandy Lane, Slade Close, Winchester Road and Wood Farm Road.

(b)  The proposed provision of DPPP at: Barns Hay, Barns Road, Beaumont Buildings Bonar Road, Boults Close, Boundary Brook Road, Brampton Road, Charles Street, Comfrey Road, Dashwood Road, Farmer Place, Field Avenue, Heather Place, Kestrel Crescent (2 bays), Knights Road, Napier Road, Northfield Close, Peel Place, Pegasus Road and Warren Crescent.

(c)   The proposed relocation of DPPP at: Alma Place, Bayswater Road and Observatory Street.

(d)  The proposed relocation of DPPP at: Spindleberry Close following a local consultation to extend the bay subject to the result.

(e)  The proposed reduction in the hours of Operation from at all times to Monday -Friday 8am – 6.30pm within the DPPP in Junction Road.

(f)    But to defer approval of the proposals at the following locations pending further investigations: Oxford – Birchfield Close, Giles Road, Malford Road, Southfield Road.

Councillor Gant noted that there had been a representation regarding deferral of the proposals in relation to Malford Road and that this had been agreed by officers as set out in the recommendations.

DECISION: To approve the report’s recommendations.

Signed: ………………………………………………………………………….

Dated:……………………………………………………………………………

The Cabinet Member for Highway Management, Councillor Gant, considered a report by the Corporate Director, Environment and Place, which recommended approval of the following proposals in respect of eligibility for parking permits:

(a)  Divinity Road - exclude Nos. 2A, 2B & 2C Bartlemas Road from eligibility to apply for residents & visitor permits;

(b)  East Oxford - exclude No. 163 Cowley Road, and Flats 1-4 at 55 Rectory Road from eligibility to apply for residents & visitor permits;

(c)   Girdlestone Road - exclude No. 2 Everard Close from eligibility to apply for residents & visitor permits;

(d)  Lye Valley - exclude No. 3 Bulan Road and No. 4 Cinnaminta Road from eligibility to apply for residents & visitor permits; and

(e)  North Summertown - exclude i) Nos. 26 & 26A Davenant Road from eligibility to apply for residents & visitor permits, ii) No. 43A Davenant Road from eligibility to apply for residents permits only, and ii) No. 327 Woodstock Road from eligibility to apply for residents & visitor permits.

Noting that there was nothing controversial in the recommendations, Councillor Gant stated he would approve the recommendations.

DECISION: To approve the report’s recommendations.

Signed: ………………………………………………………………………….

Dated:……………………………………………………………………………

It was agreed to DEFER implementation of the proposals to allow further consideration to be given to how the proposals might be aligned with the wider development issues, including coherent active travel links between the development and the town centre.

The Cabinet Member for Highway Management, Councillor Gant, considered a report by the Corporate Director, Environment and Place, which recommended approval, as advertised, of –

(a)  A Zebra crossing at First Turn south of its junction with Mere Road;

(b)  The “No Waiting At Any Time” restrictions on First Turn and Mere Road, north of the proposed zebra crossing;

(c)   The “No Waiting At Any Time” restrictions on First Turn, south of the proposed zebra crossing, but with implementation to be deferred to allow an assessment of the operation of the crossing following construction, [the restrictions] being omitted if found not to be required in order to reduce the impact of the proposals on the adjacent parish church premises; and

(d)  A new pedestrian refuge at Godstow Road approximately 50 meters south-west of the junction with the A40 Wolvercote roundabout, and an improved pedestrian refuge north-east of its junction with Wolvercote Green.

The Chair then invited Councillor Sandelson of Oxford District Council who, having made a request to speak on this item, to make her presentation.

Having heard Councillor Sandelson’s presentation, and there being no other presentations, Councillor Gant referred to several points made by Councillor Sandelson, as follows –

(i)    Regarding proposals to remove parking affecting the Church that fell within the area of the parking proposals, it was noted that provision had been made for parking arrangements to accommodate the requirements of the Church in respect of funerals and other services and that these measures had met the concerns of the Parish Council.

(ii)   Of primary importance was the safety and amenity of the nearby primary school including appropriate signage, noting that there was a requirement to replace the existing signage with new signage.

(iii) The recent repainting of road markings was not consistent with the colour of existing road markings and, as this was a conservation area, officers were requested to ensure that road markings were of a consistent colour and in accordance with road marking regulations and best practice.

Regarding the crossing from the school to the church, Councillor Gant proposed that a zebra crossing with a hump would be safer. Therefore, he instructed officers to look at the possibility of installing a zebra crossing with a hump, notwithstanding the additional cost of so doing, given the primary importance of the safety of schoolchildren.

Councillor Gant noted that the scheme had come forward because of the proposed development of Oxford North as a way of facilitating active travel links between Oxford North and Upper Wolvercote. He noted that the proposals included a pedestrian refuge on Godstone Road, which was already under construction. He therefore proposed that there should be a report on why this work had been initiated without the requisite authority.

Furthermore, regarding the amenity that was intended to be delivered by the installation of a pedestrian refuge, Councillor Gant asked that a review be undertaken as to whether this was the best option given the opposition to what was deemed by some to be an inadequate proposal for such a busy road and whether a pedestrian crossing might be a better option.

DECISION: To approve the report’s recommendations subject to reviews on the following matters –

1.     Why the work on the pedestrian refuge on Godstone Road had been initiated without the requisite authority; and

2.    Whether a pedestrian crossing on Godstone Road would be preferable to the current pedestrian refuge that was being installed.

Signed: ………………………………………………………………………….

Dated:……………………………………………………………………………

The Cabinet Member for Highway Management, Councillor Gant, considered a report by the Corporate Director, Environment and Place, which recommended approval of the proposed 40mph speed limit on the A44 Woodstock Road and the introduction of a bus lane.

In response to a request by Councillor Gant for clarification on Paragraphs 11 to 13 of the report, under the heading “Consultation”, officers reported on the results of a further consultation referred to in Paragraph 13 of the report.

Councillor Gant noted there were two issues to be considered: the scheme, and the consultation process, and asked that officers provide clarification on the following points –

(a)  Access to the Sheehan Haulage and Plant Hire site at the King’s Railway Bridge embankment (Paragraph 23 of the report); and

(b)  The proposal that there be a bus gate at the Canal Bridge but not at the King’s Railway Bridge.

In response, officers provided the following information –

(a)  The proposals for the bus lane and access to the Sheehan Haulage and Plant Hire site reflected standard practice for bus lanes with a break in the bus lane for side road entry to allow vehicles to enter and exit the junction without contravening traffic regulations in relation to the bus lane, with vehicles turning in and out of the side road having to give way to buses.

(b)  It was proposed that there would be a bus gate at the Canal Bridge for the reasons set out in Paragraph 20 of the report, that is, the width of the road did not permit a continuation of the bus lane without compromising cycle and pedestrian provision.

(c)   There was no requirement for a bus gate at the King’s Railway Bridge as the general traffic lanes could be reduced for a short distance without raising safety concerns as set out in Paragraph 26 of the report.

Referring to Chernwell District Council’s Local Plan and Rapid Transit provisions, it was noted that Oxfordshire County Council’s 2015 Local Transport Plan, Connecting Oxfordshire, had given priority to buses, and modelling had shown that the current proposals would reduce bus journey times.

In considering the proposals, Councillor Gant made the following observations.

Regarding the scheme itself, he noted that –

(a)  The proposed reduction in speed limits was sensible and in accordance with Council policy, noting that, sometimes, a reduction in speed limits improved the overall flow of traffic.

(b)  Having a bus lane on one side of the road but not the other was a compromise that was necessitated by what was available without embarking on expensive engineering schemes involving compulsory purchase orders.

(c)   Persons coming into Oxford by bus would, travel out of Oxford by bus and that was to be encouraged.

(d)  It was not the case that bus gates would inevitably lead to tailbacks of traffic as evidenced by existing bus gates. However, the position would have to be monitored.

(e)  The use of bus gates reflected the hierarchy of road users as set out in Council’s Local Transport Plan, that is, active travel; public transport; and then cars. When all three reached a pinch point, buses and bicycles would proceed first, followed by cars.

(f)    In relation to surrounding infrastructure, there were proposals to address issues at other roundabouts and pinch points.

Regarding the consultation process, Councillor Gant commented that –

(a)  The consultation had not been carried out in the way it should have been done. Specifically, he referred to Paragraph 12 of the report setting out details of the proposals in the first and second consultations, which were not clear; and the inappropriate timing of the third consultation.

(b)  He noted the requests by Divisional Councillors to request that officers review the proposals and redo the consultation exercise. However, he stated that there had to be an element of pragmatism in decision-making and that to delay the scheme would jeopardise funding for the scheme.

(c)   He agreed with the Councillor Middleton’s proposal that a briefing for local stakeholders be arranged before the scheme went ahead. Therefore, he was going to add that as a recommendation.

DECISION: To approve –

1.     The report’s recommendations as per the Plan set out in Annex 2 of the report; and

2.     Subject to officers arranging a briefing meeting for all stakeholders prior to work commencing on the scheme.

Signed: ………………………………………………………………………….

Dated:……………………………………………………………………………

The Cabinet Member for Highway Management, Councillor Gant, considered a report by the Corporate Director, Environment and Place, which recommended approval, as advertised, of the proposed extension of the 30mph speed limit and bus stop clearways on Reading Road as advertised.

Councillor Gant noted that, similar to the previous report, this report made proposals to reduce the speed limit as a result of an adjacent development. He stated that there had been a lot of support for the proposal from the residents of village of Woodcote. He also noted that the proposals tidied up the speed limits in relation to Tidmore Lane.

By way of general comment, Councillor Gant asked that officers factor in the reduced speed limit with speed limits in the village, noting that the Reading Road went through a residential area, past a primary school and a secondary school, public library, and a convenience store with parking on one side of the road which was also a bus route, giving rise to traffic problems, notably at the beginning and at the end of the school day. In addition, Woodcote was registered for the Council’s 20 mph scheme.

Accordingly, the proposals were a welcome first step to possible wider traffic proposals for the village.

DECISION: To approve the report’s recommendations.

Signed: ………………………………………………………………………….

Dated:……………………………………………………………………………

The Cabinet Member for Highway Management, Councillor Gant, considered a report by the Corporate Director, Environment and Place, which recommended approval, as advertised, the proposed zebra crossing at Wellington Street, Thame.

Having heard oral presentations by local residents, Councillor Gant made the following observations –

(a)  He thanked the presenters for contributing their local knowledge to the scheme’s proposals. However, in considering the proposals, he had to rely on the judgement of officers and the responses to the consultation.

(b)  In so doing, he noted that the points that had been raised in the presentations had been addressed in the officer’s report and that he had considered several written representations both for and against the proposals, and representations that were confined to making observations on the proposals.

(c)   In conclusion, he was satisfied that all the points that had been made in the oral and written representations, along with alternative proposals, had been considered and addressed by officers in the report.

DECISION: To approve the report’s recommendations.

Signed: ………………………………………………………………………….

Dated:……………………………………………………………………………

The Cabinet Member for Highway Management, Councillor Gant, considered a report by the Corporate Director, Environment and Place, which recommended approval, as advertised, of the proposed extension of the 30mph speed limit on the B4437 Forest Road.

Councillor Gant noted that both this item and the next item on the agenda concerned proposals to reduce speed limits, which was a key part of Oxfordshire County Council’s policy programme.

Regarding the proposals set out in this report, he stated they were in response to a new development and that the reduction in the speed limit had been agreed when granting consent to the scheme. In addition, the proposals covered an existing turning to a hamlet. He also noted that the proposals created a buffer into a 20mph zone further along the road.

Councillor Gant stated there had been some written representations in response to the proposals but that he was satisfied that the officers had made a case for introducing the proposals

DECISION: To approve the report’s recommendations.

Signed: ………………………………………………………………………….

Dated:……………………………………………………………………………

It was proposed, seconded and agreed that Councillor Ian Hudspeth be elected as Chairman of the meeting.

RESOLVED:             that the public be excluded for the duration of item RC6 since it is likely that if they were present during that item there would be disclosure of exempt information as defined in Part I of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended) and specified below in relation to that item and since it is considered that, in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.

None

None

To seek statutory approval to expand to 2 forms of entry.

Recommendations agreed.

The meeting went into private session.

Noted

6: Climate Change Update

Cllr John Howson

8: Local Area SEND Strategy

Cllr John Howson

9: Libraries and Heritage Strategy

District Cllr Julian Cooper

Cllr Andy Graham

See attached Annex.

The minutes of the meeting held on 26 April 2022 were approved and signed.

None

None

Entering in to an s101 Agreement with London Borough of Bromley, authorising Bromley to undertake a prosecution in relation to an Oxfordshire resident.

Recommendations agreed.

Sign off of Local Area SEND Strategy (only outstanding item on OCC Ofsted/CQC Written Statement of Action, subject to monitoring visit on 6^th June 2022 by DfE/NHS England who expect Local Area SEND Strategy to be signed off and published in advance).

Recommendations agreed.

To seek approval of the Climate Action Programme 2022-23 annual delivery plan and the Carbon Management Plan 2022-25.

Recommendations agreed.

To seek approval and delegated responsibility to Portfolio Holder and Directors to implement the strategy.

Recommendations agreed.

To consider member appointments to a variety of bodies which in different ways support the discharge of the Council’s Executive functions.

Recommendations agreed with two amendments to the Annex:

Under Joint Committees – Future Oxfordshire Partnership

Oxfordshire Plan 2050 Group – substitute to be Cllr Andrew Gant

Environment Advisory Group – substitute to be Cllr Andrew Gant

To seek approval of the Oxfordshire Food Strategy and agree the actions that the County Council will undertake.

Joint Responsibilities:

Cabinet Member for Climate Change Delivery & Environment and Cabinet Member for Public Health & Equality

Recommendations agreed.

(Matthew Barber, Police and Crime Commissioner, John Campbell, Chief Constable and Katy Grint, Chief Superintendent, Thames Valley Police attended the meeting for this item)

The Police and Crime Commissioner, with the aid of slides, gave a presentation on the Thames Valley Police & Criminal Justice Plan for 2021-2025.  He referred specifically to the changing nature of community policing, fighting serious organised crime, fraud, and cyber-crime, improving the criminal justice system, and tackling illegal encampments. He also outlined future strategies included rural crime, business crime, neighbourhood policing, road safety and fly-tipping and environmental crime.  He referred to the work of community safety partnerships, the current position on police officer recruitment and services for victims and the violence reduction unit

The following issues were raised by members: -

·         Concerns that the law on illegal encampments needed to be strengthened. The Commissioner said that legislation going through parliament would criminalise specific examples of trespass.

·         Lack of enforcement of road offences and a need for more speed cameras and protection for vulnerable road users.  The Commissioner said that improvements were needed in dealing with reactive reports of road offences and public confidence that these will be dealt with appropriately. He was waiting to see the results of a trial of average speed cameras in Hampshire.  The Chief Constable said that the force issued around 200,000 fines for road offences.  Members considered it would be appropriate for enforcement of these offences to transfer to local authorities.

·         Concerns about racism, misogyny, and other types of discrimination within police forces.  The Commissioner said that any cases within Thames Valley Police have been brought to the attention of senior colleagues and there was a healthy culture around reporting such incidents.  He also emphasised the importance of screening applicants during recruitment

·         Concerns about the increase in hate crimes in the County.  The Chief Constable referred to the need to encourage the reporting of such crimes and the need for a better understanding of the motives.

·         Question about the number of front offices in the County.  The Chief Constable said he had to review the use of resources available and the level of use when deciding whether to keep open front offices.

·         Concerns about rural crime and incidents of valuable items being stolen from properties at night.  The Chief Constable said that a rural task force had been established to deal with these incidents

·         The Commissioner reported that the Police and Crime Panel would be considering a report on CCTV provision recommending improved coverage and a unified system covering the entire force area.

·         Need to improve the process for community trigger applications.  The Commissioner said that he could provide a central secretariat and an independent chair.

·         The Commissioner said that the force had new in-house expertise devoted to dealing with modern slavery and increased awareness and training was being provided

·         Concerns that insufficient priority was being given to tackling crime against women and girls.  The Commissioner said that there were priorities in the plain aimed at dealing with these types of crime

·         Concern about the high proportion of annual council tax increase being allocated to the police.  The Commissioner said that he had to justify any increase in Council Tax for police services when making recommendation to the Police and Crime Panel

·         The need to use all criminal justice levers to deal with County drug lines and knife carrying

·         Concerns that there were no statistics on the diversity of the workforce in the presentation. The Chief Constable said that the current establishment was 52% male and 48% female and that recruitment of applicants from ethnic minorities had increased to 14% of the workforce.

·         The Chief Constable said that authorities were working together on co-ordination of the homes for Ukraine initiative

·         The Chief Constable said that sickness absence had affected the response times to answer calls to the 101 service

RESOLVED to:-

a)    note the presentation by the representatives of the Thames Valley Police and the responses to the points raised at the meeting;

b)   ask members to relay any further questions and concerns to the Scrutiny Officer by e-mail so that these can be forwarded to the Commissioner and Chief Constable

.

.