planning

London Road Improvements

TonyOX3

London Road Improvements Stage 3

Meeting held at Headington Community Centre, Gladstone Road

12 December 2012


Background

After the work on Headington Road/London Road over the past few years Oxfordshire County Council plans to complete the upgrade of the London Road by carrying out improvements on the section from Bury Knowle Park to the Headington Roundabout. The Council has some £8m to spend on this and other related schemes. £5m comes from the Government under the ‘Local Sustainable Transport Fund’, the rest from developers and the County’s own capital spend.Their proposals for the London Road scheme should have been released for public consultation by now but have been delayed at least until March 2013. In an effort to keep local people informed County Councillor Roz Smith (LibDem, Barton & Churchill) arranged this informal meeting for the responsible County officer to explain the latest thinking. The meeting was not part of any official public consultation, which will happen in 2013. By my rough estimate over 50 people turned out at 6.30 on a freezing evening. Roz Smith explained the reason for the meeting and its status before introducing Owen South, Transport Planner from the County’s Transport Strategy Team.


Proposed improvements

Owen South outlined the problems the scheme is being designed to alleviate. These are principally to do with traffic congestion on this stretch of road, particularly in-bound (west-bound) at peak times. Before the in-bound bus lane starts at Gladstone Road buses stopping to pick up passengers (or drop off, in the case of London and airport coaches) can hold up other traffic – both cars and other buses – for several minutes. In the worst case this can mean traffic backs up to the roundabout and causes knock-on problems there. Outbound problems are not seen to be as bad. The County hopes that by reducing congestion bus travel times can be improved at peak times and people encouraged to use buses and alternative forms of transport instead of driving further into the City.

The preferred option at present is to extend the in-bound bus lane back to the roundabout but not to build an out-bound bus lane from Bury Knowle Park to the start of the bus lane which runs from near Gladstone Road almost to the roundabout. Creating a new in-bound bus lane would mean reducing the width of the pavement on the south side of the London Road over the corresponding stretch.

Discussion

I will post a link to the more formal record of the meeting when it’s available. What follows is my own version of events. If you were at the meeting and feel I’ve missed something important or misrepresented your contribution please leave a comment.

Almost everyone in the audience who spoke thought that the plan as outlined was flawed, inappropriate, or just wrong. There were three main themes.

  • Safety. Speakers were concerned that reducing congestion meant higher traffic speeds, increasing the risk to both cyclists and pedestrians. Reducing the pavement width would mean less room where cycles and pedestrians share space, increasing the likelihood of accidents and also encouraging more cyclists to use the road (bus lane), which is more dangerous.
  • Community. The point was made many times that the London Road is not just an arterial highway. People live in houses on and near the road; they need to walk along it and cross it to get to schools, shops, doctors, the park, library, etc. Nothing in the County’s plans seemed to recognise this or the desire of local residents to maintain or improve their quality of life.
  • Relevance. The scheme seemed to be exclusively concerned with, and for the benefit of, buses and their passengers, including those travelling to and from London and the airports. It seemed to ignore other plans, for example the impact of the Barton West and Old Road campus developments, and encouragement of increased cycle use (eg cycle hire at Thornhill P&R). In my own words, it seemed to show a lack of joined-up thinking and risked becoming a missed opportunity to make a real improvement in this part of Headington. Bringing this scheme forward in isolation from the other plans covered by the Sustainable Transport funding (currently Thornhill P&R changes, walking & cycling facilities, and something called ‘Travel Choices’) seems misguided.

Owen South was rather at a disadvantage as he had drawn up the scheme (I assume it was ‘his’ project) according to the brief he’d been given. He defended it as best he could but it was plain that the collective view was that the brief was inadequate or just wrong.

The next stage is for the County to finalise a ‘preferred plan’ and approve its release for public consultation. It remains to be seen if the views from the meeting will have any influence over what emerges.

I should add that Shaun Hatton, the officer responsible for highway maintenance, was the other invited speaker. Time ran out and he didn’t get much chance to contribute, although some people managed to raise the familiar problem of road flooding.

[Update 15/12/12: No comments here but a lively response on the Headington & Marston e-democracy forum. The Oxford Times’ report of the meeting, with a slightly different slant, is here.]

Future Development in OX3

TonyOX3

One of the big issues in Headington in 2011 was the City Council’s proposals to build over the car park in Headington. This was just one of scores of proposals for the future of sites all over Oxford driven by the need to identify places where much-needed housing can be built. The proposals formed the Sites and Housing – Preferred Options document which went through an extensive public consultation during the year. One welcome result was the abandonment of the Headington car park proposal.

The Sites and Housing Development Plan Document (DPD) was considered by Oxford City Council on 19 December 2011 after the results of the consultation exercise had been analysed. The amended DPD will be open for a six week public consultation early in 2012 before being submitted to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. An enquiry under a Planning Inspector may follow.

A revised version incorporating any changes made at the Council meeting has not yet been published, so this post is based on the paper which was debated on 19 December. The document is not easy to navigate in digital form. The details about each site are in Section B2 of Appendix 3 of the paper: the SP number against each site is that site’s Site Allocation Policy number. These SPs set out the type of development it is proposed should be allowed on the site and any conditions that apply. The Barton West development is NOT included in this document.

Sites in Headington

I have extracted all the sites which lie within the OX3 postcode area and shown these on a Google map. I’ve given the benefit of the doubt to the BT site on Hollow Way which I think is partly in OX3. Clicking a marker on the map shows the Site Allocation Policy for the site. I have also given the paragraph numbers in the full document (eg B2.22-24) where each site is discussed, and the page number in the pdf document from the Council’s agenda papers (eg PDF pp 26/27). These page numbers are not the same as the numbers in the DPD itself. At the bottom of each box which appears when you click the marker is a link to a short pdf file which I have extracted from the full document and which contains the whole section dealing with the site. [NB: Some of these extracts cover more than one site, so scroll down if you don’t immediately see the one you’re looking for.]

I hope you find this form of presentation easy to follow, and I’d be happy to have your comments.

As well as development policies for specific sites the DPD also contains general policies on housing matters which could affect planning decisions and development in the City for many years – worth reading if you’re interested in these things.

Planning woes.

TonyOX3

Councillor Ruth Wilkinson (@RuthWilk) tries hard to keep her twitter followers up to date with local planning issues. Today she posted a link to the document reporting comments on the draft Old Headington Conservation Area Appraisal. I looked at the document and despaired!

It is 21 pages long and seems to consist of just three detailed responses. Each response picks through the original document almost paragraph by paragraph and line by line, so repetition is inevitable. On such-and-such a point, Respondent 1 may say something, Respondent 2 may agree, disagree, or have no comment. But to see this you would have to be constantly hopping backwards and forwards in the document trying to collate the comments into a coherent whole.

Then we are not told who the Respondents are so we don’t know what if any vested interests they may have. I guess Ruskin College is one of them, the Friends of Old Headington may be another, I just don’t know. It implies that all respondents, individual or collective, are given equal weight. Similarly simple drafting suggestions are not distinguished from comments about major environmental issues.

I think the tedious pile of stuff people have to wade through to get any useful information is a major problem with our planning system. Communication of important facts doesn’t seem to be an objective. How on earth are our busy representatives supposed to have an informed debate about planning issues with documents like this as the basis for discussion? And unless they are acting on behalf of some pressure group ordinary members of the public just aren’t going to bother. It doesn’t say much for democracy – or, the cynic would say, is that the whole purpose? I’m sure it’s not, but …..