All Saints Road – a building site?

New High Street residents have reported to us the problems they are having with parking at the moment while the builders’ vans are so much in evidence. Parking is never plentiful in the area and with two construction sites operating at the same time, we understand how significant this problem must be for everyone.

We asked the parking enforcement officers to carry out a series of visits to try and reduce the frequency with which the vans are parked up in visitor spaces. Here is our latest report from NSL:

The commercial vehicles in All Saints Road are parking in the 2 hour timed bay that we are logging, but they move when we return, any vehicle that is on the Double Yellow Lines just move before we can issue a Penalty Charge Notice.

Since the complaint we have made 32 visits, logged 18 vehicles, and have not issued any Penalty Charge Notices.

We will continue to make visits to this location to ensure vehicles are parked legally.

We shall continue to press for continuing patrols.

We were alerted by residents’ associations to the poor quality of trench filling (re-instatement) by the construction workers and utilities companies. We called in the County officer who liaises with them and he reports:

Regards the utilities works, I visited on the 6th. I did note that there were two sets of works on opposite sides of the road. Was concerned as this was affecting traffic as this left no room for vehicles to wait at the four way junction. Parties were Scottish and Southern Electric and Southern Gas. I phoned Southern Gas and was told their works should have been cleared that day and would chase up for clearance on Saturday. The electric works were on-going. I found it unacceptable that two utilities were there at the same time as road space is limited.

We have called in Building Control to make a site visit to ensure the quality of work is acceptable and heard today that all utility sites are now cleared and defective trenches made good.

Kennett Road planning appeal is dismissed

A decision has been made to dismiss the 62 Kennett Road appeal 13/00706/FUL appeal for the erection of single storey side and rear extension to existing subdivided building to create 1 x 1 bed flat (Class C3) with access from Bateman Street. Alterations to vehicle parking, cycle parking, bin storage and amenity space.

The appellant’s application for costs was refused.

The role of Highways in planning –

Due to popular requests (yes! we pushed for this on behalf of residents) the City Council has asked County Highways to make a presentation to City Councillors about the role of Highways in planning. Here are some of the questions we have tabled in advance. Some may not be answerable in this forum, but we are pushing to get answers on all of them while we have the opportunity…..

1. What is the protocol for informing Oxford City Councillors about County planning applications affecting property in their ward, and what is the protocol for informing Oxfordshire County Councillors about planning applications affecting property in their division? Can this be improved? There are often highways and access issues in these that councillors want to know about and challenge.
2. What is the County Highways policy on retrospectively supporting the inclusion of properties for residents’ permits when a condition has been placed on planning permissions by City Council planning committees to deliberately exclude them from the RPZ?
3. What is the County Highways policy on retrospectively supporting the issue of visitors permits to properties given planning permission conditional upon them being car-free? Is the County Highways department aware that if permission is given for the issue of unlimited visitor permits to car-free properties, the residents of those properties will use them themselves, negating the whole point of conditioning a development to be car-free in areas with parking pressure?
4. In a current case, the County acting as statutory consultee has supported a development conditionally upon parking spaces being moved elsewhere down the road, without any reference to wider public consultation and initially without informing ward councillors directly either. Does that conform to County policy?
5. What is the County’s policy for designating some areas of the City eligible for one permit per household only? Which areas of the City does this apply to, and what are the County’s criteria for this, as there are some parts of Headington where parking availability has reached a critical state
6. Re s106 and major developments: in the recent and on-going project at Barton West, the County Highways officer alluded to a total amount of developer money going to County Highways which could not be clearly defined at this stage as there was a ‘shopping list’ of projects on which money could be spent. How can ward councillors and county councillors with knowledge of the area and its problems input to this list and  influence the way in which spending on essential potential projects can be prioritised?
7. How much consideration is given to the needs of pedestrians and cyclists in district centres in the City as opposed to the interests of those travelling by bus, coach, taxi and car? What is the pecking order in priority of highway use?
8. Why are cycle lanes allowed to continue through areas where bus passengers alight from buses, leading to greater risk of collisions between pedestrians and cyclists? How can City and County Councillors get this policy changed so that cycle lane markings on shared space are always diverted behind shelters on high volume roads?
9. What are the criteria for installing box junctions as part of ongoing Highways planning improvement work? There is a great need for box junctions in Headington to improve road safety of cyclists and pedestrians but there is great antipathy from the County Council about putting these in as it will spoil the aesthetic look of the London Road.
10. How can the ward and county councillors get more involved in setting the specification for public transport contracts which are subsidised with s106 contributions? Narrow residential streets are being used by bigger and more frequent bus services which are causing congestion and near misses.
11. Why is the County Council Highways Planning Team so wedded to raised road surfaces at junctions between residential streets and major roads where there are dropped kerbs on corners? This encourages traffic to mount pavements causing near misses with pedestrians. What is the Highways Authority’s input into:
  • selection of sites for this purpose
  • specification of the installation, including criteria for materials used
  • selection of contractor
  • contracts for the contractor and the conditions the contractors were to adhere to
  • quality assurance of the work carried out
  • rectification of deficiencies

The meeting will be held on 15 October so the County officers will have lots of time to research the answers to these questions.

Planning appeals

The following appeals are on-going in our ward. Please ask David or Ruth for details

 

Headington

10 Stephen Road

13/00656/VAR

Variation of condition 10 of planning permission   08/01961/FUL to allow for a single parking permit to be provided to the 2 bed   flat identified on the plan

Headington

29 Old High Street

13/00880/FUL

Partial demolition of existing house and demolition   of existing garages and outbuildings. Erection of two storey side and rear   extension.  Provision of new access,   car parking and turning area.    Rebuilding of stone boundary wall fronting Old High Street.

Headington

29 Old High Street

13/00881/CAC

Partial demolition of existing house, boundary wall   and complete demolition of existing garages and outbuildings.

New planning document published by the City Council

Corporate Plan 2013-7 out now

Oxford City Council recently launched its Corporate Plan 2013-7. This key document sets out its main strategic direction over the next four years, as it works with partners to make Oxford a world-class city for everyone.

The key priorities for 2013-7 are:

§  Vibrant, sustainable economy, supported by effective education and training

§  Meeting housing needs, with more affordable, high quality housing in Oxford

§  Strong, active communities, which are socially cohesive and safe, and where citizens are actively engaged in pursuing their own well-being and that of their communities

§  Cleaner, Greener Oxford, in the city centre, our neighbourhoods and all public spaces

§  Efficient, effective council: a flexible and accessible organisation, delivering high-quality, value-for-money services.

The Headington Neighbourhood Forum will make references to this document when it has consulted all who live and work in the area and starts to produce a Headington Neighbourhood Plan.