The officer report can be found here

This report will be considered by Cabinet Member Cllr Nimmo-Smith in his decision meeting next Thursday 9 June at  County Hall.

If you wish to speak at that meeting, please phone the Committee Services Team on  01865 815321 before 9am on 9 June.

Here are the comments we sent to the County Council this evening.

Access to Headington design proposals retaining some parking 

Submission by Headington City Councillors Ruth Wilkinson, Altaf-Khan, and Headington & Quarry County Councillor Roz Smith and team

The comments are focused on the latest proposals and should be read in conjunction with our previous submission.

General points

These comments on the new proposals have been written after listening to the views of local residents and businesses, at street surgery meetings, informal public meetings and from phone calls and email messages. Cllr Roz Smith also attended the invited meeting at Speedwell House on 19^th May with residents. Some details are not given in the proposals so questions remain.

We are pleased that the requests of local residents to retain some on road parking in Headley Way and Windmill Road have been accommodated in the revised proposals, but remain very concerned about safety aspects relating to some of the alternative proposed parking bays.

Residents do not understand why there are 20MPH speed restrictions on London Road and Old Road, which are similarly congested at rush hour times, yet Windmill Road and Headley Way with their schools and hospitals are still designated as 30MPH. This seems illogical and counter-intuitive to both residents and councillors and it would be helpful for the County Council to give a clear explanation of why this is the case. Speed of traffic, particularly out of hours, is a worry for residents in both roads and the introduction of solar powered speed signs at the very least would help to allay their fears.

With regard to cycle lanes throughout the Access to Headington scheme, we believe that guidance by DFT in Local transport note 2/08: “Cycle infrastructure design” should be followed. Maintenance of cycle routes must be included in current proposals otherwise people may stop using them.

We recommend that repeater bike symbols are used in advisory cycle lanes and that cycle lanes are visibly delineated with physical features.

Headley Way

This road is recognised as one of the main arteries into and from the JR Hospital and central Headington, but also has a considerable number of homes without access to off road parking, so the retention of some parking spaces is welcomed. However it is noted that 11 spaces within the CPZ will be lost and there are concerns that parking near to homes will become more difficult.

• Residents tell us that the 2 hour parking bays (no restrictions at weekends) outside St Joseph’s School are used by parents during term time, morning and afternoon and by visitors to the JR, especially at the weekends, when cars are often parked for the whole weekend so there is local support for retention of these bays.
• We note that the proposed Toucan crossing on Headley Way is not set out on the Headley Way map in the latest consultation. We have a written assurance that the proposal is still to upgrade the existing crossing outside the school to a Toucan, and we believe this is definitely needed so that up to 11 residents can cross to side roads to find a space to park overnight
• We note that vehicles will be parked half on and half off the carriageway and that the lower footway will be widened with retaining walls to hold earth back. We share residents’ concerns about the materials used for the retaining walls, and residents have asked whether the materials chosen will have sound-proofing properties?
• The width of all footways should be able to accommodate mobility scooters and double buggies
• There are local concerns about surface water drainage as residents are aware of an underground spring. The water is currently taken up by trees which are due to be removed, so we believe it may be expedient to investigate this further before the June cabinet member decision meeting.
• Tree removal at the junction with Marston Road is also a concern because there are already surface water drainage problems in that location.
• We have safety concerns relating to the poor state of maintenance of steps to be retained, and would strongly recommend that the steps and upper path be repaired prior to the start of works to Lower Headley Way.
• We seek an assurance that the slopes to the higher footways will be DDA compliant.
• There is concern about the positioning of bus stops – there are two proposed bus stops either side of Headley Way which are staggered, and residents fear that near misses may arise if queued vehicles try to edge out behind parked buses when two buses arrive at the same time.
• There is continuing concern about the change in direction of traffic outside the shops from both residents and businesses.
• Some residents have requested that traffic flows could be measured more accurately at different times of the day if temporary trial traffic lights were to be installed.

Windmill Road

The proposal for the retention of some on road parking bays is welcome but councillors and residents still have safety concerns about the location of some of the proposed new parking bays in adjoining roads (see our previous comments).

We support the Windmill Road residents’ group’s suggestion to incorporate trees if possible into the streetscene at each end of new parking bays as this would reinforce the impression to drivers that Windmill Road is a residential area and would also bring environmental benefits.

We recognize that the proposed Tiger crossing will be needed by residents needing to cross the busy road to access parking by the NOC. We have received an objection from two residents about its proposed location with a preference for it to be moved further south towards 149 or 157 with a re-adjustment of parking bays, however the Windmill Road residents’ action group supports its current location.

We have had mixed reactions to the removal of all 2 hour or 1 hour parking from Windmill Road. Resident parking places should be paramount and there is concern that staff and visitors to the NOC might fill up spaces, but we do note that there may be a need for the designation of one 1 or 2 hour parking space for use, for example, by visitors to tenants in Windmill House. We would also support the idea that an electric vehicle charging point could be installed within the area of Windmill Road and its adjacent streets.

We still believe strongly that a toucan crossing should be installed as near as possible to the Bateman Street junction (see comments in our last submission). Reasons include:

• This would improve connectivity for cyclists travelling from Green Road roundabout/Barton along London Road and St Leonard’s Road across to the major employment sites an access route to major employment sites off Old Road
• This is a key crossing point for young children and their parents from the Highfield and New Headington areas on their journey to and from St Andrew’s and Windmill Primary Schools
• It would assist residents in upper Windmill Road whose parking has been removed to access additional spaces proposed in New Headington

Speeding vehicles are a constant concern for many residents. We would like to see a 20mph limit throughout its length, especially as Windmill Road is a main access route to an orthopaedic hospital and a primary school. However residents are adamant that any 20 MPH designation must be enforceable, this does not happen currently in other parts of Headington.

We understand that the cabinet member decision on Access to Headington may be delayed until 9 June to give more time for work to be done. We shall update this site as soon as we have more details

We have sent the following comments to the County Council regarding raised entry treatments proposed in the Access to Headington consultation. The end date for comments is today Friday 8 April.

Response to consultation on changes to junctions as part of the Access to Headington project

Following public meetings, local street surgeries, phone calls and over 130 email messages our response to the proposal to construct new or amended existing road humps across the side roads at their junctions as described in the published TROs. The proposals for side raised entry treatments (SRET) from Headley Way and Windmill Road have given us the highest number of responses, with only a handful of residents being in favour.

From the correspondence and phone calls received, the public meetings and local street surgeries we have recorded the following reasons for objecting to the changes proposed to the junctions:

• Will do little to stop drivers speeding in the 20mph residential roads
• No clear understanding of who as priority on the SRET – pedestrian, cyclist or vehicle
• Waste of public monies – a pedestrian crossing is still needed further along the Marston Road to the shops
• The platform at Copse Lane junction would deteriorate very quickly given the weight and number of busses
• Will do little to increase pedestrian movement and cycle journeys
• Sight lines impaired for all users

In addition the TRL Limited report 2006 (commission by Transport for London) showed that there was an increase in collisions with motor cycles at junctions with SRETs and an increase in right hand turn collisions when turning into side roads.

This response is in addition to the comments already submitted to the Access to Headington project as shown in the first paragraph below.

Raised entry treatments

We dispute that raised entry treatments to side roads aid pedestrians for the following reasons:

• There are near misses as priority is unclear and these treatments are not well understood
• Drivers need clear lines of sight when pulling out into busy roads; this may mean they need to wait on the raised entry bumps until the road is clear
• These are frequently poorly installed by contractors and require remedial drainage work because of puddles either side after rain
• They are sometimes used by cyclists to access pavements on which pedestrians should have sole access
• In our experience, existing treatments have given poor value for taxpayers’ money in the past and the money could be better spent elsewhere
• One resident told us these treatments are dangerous in wet weather for motor cyclists and knew of two incidents where riders had come off their bikes