HW10 - page 1
ANNEX 1
WEST OXFORDSHIRE 30 MPH SPEED LIMIT PROJECT – PHASES 3 & 4
OBJECTIONS and REPRESENTATIONS
Parish / Date / Respondent / Objection/Representation / Director's Comments and RecommendationsGeneral / Various / Thames Valley Police / Various comments in several parishes in addition to objections / For brevity only police objections are listed in this schedule, however they have comments and suggestions in various parishes and these can be examined in their letters identified separately in the Member's Resource centre.
12/12/00 / The Road Haulage Association / No objections but reserve the right to support any members’ objection at a later stage. / Noted
1/5/01 / West Oxfordshire DC / Generally welcome lower speed limits but will give any direct feedback after cabinet meeting on 9 May / Noted
27/4/01 / Mr McArthur-Christie
Farmer’s Cl.
Witney / The respondent is a Senior Observer for the Institute of advanced Motorists. A long and detailed technical explanation against unrealistic lower speed limits that clash with government advice and will jeopardise safety. Uninformed opinion of locals who only consider the issue when asked should not take precedence over well-founded academic research and advice of road safety professionals.
Specific detailed objections to individual Orders are given. In each case the limits are believed to be unrealistically low for the environment and full details can be found in Mr M-C’s letter. The parishes are listed in the schedule. / The issues have been debated at length over the duration of the speed limit project. Decisions are being made balancing both technical evidence and the wishes of those they represent.
Alvescot;
Black Bourton / Alvescot Parish Council / The Parish Council refer to a widespread belief that the section of the B4020 by the hump-backed railway bridge with adjacent hidden accesses should be protected by a 40 limit. They suggest that the proposed 40 limit for Black Bourton be extended to encompass the railway bridge and the accesses on the Alvescot side. / Although it is predominately rural with only a few hidden accesses the parish’s suggestion to extend the proposed Black Bourton 40 limit is reasonable and preferable to extending the Alvescot limit as it maintains a discrete derestricted length in the rural environment. The Black Bourton limit will be slightly but not unduly devalued by this proposal.
Recommend that the order for Black Bourtonbe implemented as modified by the inclusion of a 40 limit on the B4020, subject to further consultation on the proposed modification.
Aston / 18 /4/01 / Thames Valley Police / Support measures in Cote itself but object to a 30 mph limit on the B4449:
- Predominately rural so drivers will not respect limit.
- Existing speeds also suggest a 30 limit will not be respected.
- No accident history.
- Site geography will prevent any enforcement.
Recommend that the speed limit be implemented as advertised.
Bladon / 18 /4/01 / Thames Valley Police / Support the existing 30 limit but object to its extension in the current 40 limit:
- Environment and existing speeds suggest current 40 limit will give best sustained speed reduction - drivers will not respect lower limit.
- Lighting prevents use of small reminder signs in a 30 limit.
- Jeopardises the effect of the existing 30 limit in the core village.
- Residents likely to be disappointed at resulting speeds.
The proposals conform to the County council speed limit criteria.
Recommend that the speed limit be implemented as advertised.
27/4/01 / Mr McArthur-Christie / See comments in ‘General’ above
Carterton / 18 /4/01 / Thames Valley Police / Support reducing part of Upavon way to 30 limit but object to it all being reduced:
- Environment suggests current 40 limit will give best sustained speed reduction - drivers will not respect lower limit.
- Lighting prevents use of small reminder signs in a 30 limit.
- Will devalue the effect of the existing 30 limits on other part of Upavon Way and jeopardise the gateway effect.
- Potentially detrimental to safety.
Recommend that the speed limit be implemented as advertised.
Crawley / 27/4/01 / Mr McArthur-Christie / See comments in ‘General’ above / Recommend that the speed limit be implemented as advertised.
Curbridge / Seeks a 40 mph limit on the B4047 Burford Road to encompass the section built-up on one side between Witney and Minster Lovell. / Although the road is wide with no buildings on the north side there is sufficient activity on the south side to justify a 40 limit. The main problem is siting the eastern terminal. It is preferable to have a buffer between the proposed 40 limit and the one in Witney but it may be open to criticism wherever the derestriction sign is sited for drivers approaching Witney. One eastern terminal option is at the eastern end of the deceleration lane into Downs Road but the best option is immediately east of the petrol station.
Recommend that the order for Curbridge be implemented as modified to include a 40 mph limit on B4047, subject to further consultation on the proposed modification.
Ducklington / 27/4/01 / Parish Council / Seek an extension of the proposed limit on Standlake Road at least as far as the last house and preferably to the A415 junction. / Any undue extension of speed limits into rural areas will give a false sense of security and devalue the part of the limit in the built-up area itself where excess speeds will have a worse effect on both safety and the environment. The large speed limit terminal sign is most effective where it reinforces the change of environment seen by drivers; one reinforces the other to give a stronger speed reduction message than could be achieved by either individually. The sign tells drivers to reduce speed and their sight of the different environment helps convince them they should do so. If the sign is placed too far out a double problem occurs; it is ignored as irrelevant where it is and the opportunity to remind drivers to slow down where the sign would be most effective is lost. This issue has been explained twice to parish councillors who accepted the reasons at the time.
Recommend that the Director should decide on the final format of the speed limit following a site meeting and discussion with the Group Spokespersons and Local Member.
Eynsham / 25/4/01
+
3/5/01 / Mr Blakeman Newland Cl.
Eynsham / Concerned at inaccuracies in schedule road names. Ridiculous to move 30 limits further in on 2 roads. / The parish council proposed truncating the Oxford Rd 30 limit after careful consideration and believe that speed limit terminal signs closer to where people cross the road are more likely to give reduced speeds at the critical point. The current limit starts immediately after the roundabout and the signs are less conspicuous to drivers negotiating the junction than the proposed ones that will give good forward visibility. I agree and proposed a similar measure on Hanborough Road, these proposals found favour at initial consultation.
Recommend that the speed limit be implemented as advertised.
Filkins and Broughton Poggs / 23/4/01 / Alan Brydon Burford Road
Filkins / Seeks an extension of the proposed 30 limit to cover isolated houses outside the main village. Principally concerned with the derestriction sign tempting drivers to speed up as they pass these houses. / Conventional judgement would preclude such extensions as devaluing more realistic limits. However, the criteria are open to interpretation and I do not believe there is a single clear and correct decision in this instance. A Group Spokespersons’ visit to several of these sites is suggested to confirm procedure.
Recommend that the Director should decide on the final format of the speed limit following a site meeting and discussion with the Group Spokespersons and Local Member.
24/4/01 / Mr R Chitty Clarks Barn
Old Burford Road
Filkins / Seeks an extension of the proposed 30 limit to cover isolated houses outside the main village. He has young children and the family are keen cyclists and walkers. An extended limit would protect vulnerable road users where there is no path or street lighting. Current proposals would worsen the situation.
Freeland / 29/4/01 / Parish Council / Seek an extension to the current Wroslyn Road proposal to include all sections of a rural bend beyond the first house in the village. Local knowledge should prevail over criteria / My original recommendation to cover a section of the rural bend in the draft Order misinterpreted the extent of the limit sought by the parish council who want the whole bend within the 30 limit. This request would place the terminal signs where no houses were visible and hence seriously devalue the impact of the speed limit signs and hence the limit itself. The request lies outside the County Council criteria but given the sensitivity of the issue the Group Spokespersons’ site visit should include this site before a final decision is taken.
Recommend that the Director should decide on the final format of the speed limit following a site meeting and discussion with the Group Spokespersons and Local Member to discuss the extension in Wroslyn Road.
26/4/01 / Thames Valley Police / Object to proposed extension in Wroslyn Road:
- Almost totally rural environment means drivers will not respect limit.
- Will jeopardise the effect of the existing 30 limit in the core village.
17/4/01 / T G Holden
East End
North Leigh / Proposals on A4095 are unnecessary, uses the road frequently and has never seen vehicles travel at excessive speed.
Fulbrook / 10/5/01 / Ms K Hedigan
Westhall Hill
Fulbrook
(on behalf of self and other Westhall Hill residents) / Object to replacing the 40 limit on Westhall Hill with a derestriction as the road is narrow with 2 blind bends. Seek a 30 over whole length between the A361 and A424. / Following discussion with the Parish Council I consider that the request is reasonable in the context of the criteria
Recommend that the order for Fulbrook be implemented as modified to include a 30 mph limit on Westhall Hill, subject to further consultation on the proposed modification on the proposed modification.
Hailey / 18/4/01
(phone call) / Dr J Simpson
Stacks House
Priest Hill La.
Hailey / Seeks an extension of the proposed 30 limit on Priest Hill Lane to cover 3 houses outside the main village. / The parish council has comprehensively considered possible new limits and is aware of the Poffley End request, however they have not sought to introduce limits at either location. The case for limits is far less strong than for Filkins (above) and would normally elicit a recommendation not to meet the requests. However to help formulate objective policy decisions for future requests I suggest the Group Spokespersons’ site visit should include this site before a final decision is taken.
CONT’D
26/4/01
(phone call) / Mr Nash Priest Hill La.
Hailey / Seeks an extension of the proposed 30 limit on Priest Hill Lane to cover 3 houses outside the main village.
March 00
(via parish meeting) / Poffley End Resident / Seeks an extension of the proposed 30 limit in Poffley End to cover houses outside the main village. / The parish council sought a 40 limit to replace the derestriction between Hailey and Witney at the Initial Consultation stage. This resulted in a site visit with the Parish Council and Group Spokespersons where all parties agreed to retain the current derestriction. Although the section in question is relatively short it is totally rural and a 40 limit would devalue the adjacent limits as well as 40 limits in general.
Recommend that the Director should decide on the final format of the speed limit following a site meeting and discussion with the Group Spokespersons and Local Member but that Mr Kernahan’s request not be agreed.
30/4/01 / Mr Owen Kernahan
Foxburrow La
Hailey / Seeks the replacement of the derestricted length between Witney and proposed 40 limit in Hailey with a 40 mph limit, chiefly to protect the sharp rural bend.
27/4/01 / Mr McArthur-Christie / See comments in ‘General’ above
Hanborough / 15/1/01 / Thames Valley Police / Object to the extent of the proposed 30 limit on the eastern approach as unrealistic and will reduce safety but will remove objection once agreed physical measures are in place. / Police concerns over an undue eastern extension to the proposed 30 limit on the A4095, particularly of the hazard of a raised pedestrian crossing where actual speeds are likely to be high, are well documented. It is a measure of their concern that their objection remains until the agreed works are in place.
Recommend that the speed limit be implemented as advertised subject to the proposed calming measures (see later agenda item) being implemented also.
17/4/01 / T G Holden
East End
North Leigh / When the limit was raised from 30 to 40 in about 1970 it reduced speeds, altering it will almost certainly reverse that situation.
27/4/01 / Mr McArthur-Christie / See comments in ‘General’ above
Minster Lovell / 30/4/01
(date rec’d) / Parish Council / Seek a 40 limit on B4047, all limits should be extended beyond the current proposals. Should be a 20 limit by the Swan Conference Centre due to poor visibility. All roads in the village should be subject to a 30 limit. / The poor accident history of the B4047 and the strong desire of the community for lower speeds were considered at the Group Spokespersons site visit from where the current proposals originate. However, the road is wide with properties set back making any lower limit unlikely to be effective. Traffic calming offers the best chance of a safer environment and the Area Engineer will discuss county-funded proposals with the parish council. We will monitor speeds and if the currently proposed limit with calming proves successful the B4047 limit can be considered further as part of the ongoing speed limit review due in 2003.
The School Lane 30 limit is proposed to start back from the B4047 as drivers can easily overlook speed limit signs sited at the junction as they make the turn. By setting it back drivers have the opportunity to view the signs for an extended period as they approach them to help emphasise the limit. In practice the stretch between the B4047 and proposed 30 terminal is short enough that a 50 limit there would be irrelevant to actual speeds. An alternative might be to have a short derestricted length on the basis that the speed limit would be equally irrelevant but the black diagonal stripe is less indicative of a target speed than a numerical sign.
Any undue extension of speed limits into rural areas will give a false sense of security and devalue the part of the limit in the built-up area itself where excess speeds will have a worse effect on both safety and the environment. The large speed limit terminal sign is most effective where it reinforces the change of environment seen by drivers; one reinforces the other to give a stronger speed reduction message than could be achieved by either individually. The sign tells drivers to reduce speed and their sight of the different environment helps convince them they should do so. If the sign is placed too far out a double problem occurs; it is ignored as irrelevant where it is and the opportunity to remind drivers to slow down where the sign would be most effective is lost.
CONT’D
5/5/01 / Mr W Robinson (WODC Cllr) 176 Brize Norton Road, Minster Lovell / Thinks the Brize Norton Road 30 limit should commence at least 50m south of the A40 exit slip, supplemented by traffic calming. Seeks a 40 limit on the B4047, which cuts the village in half, with pedestrian crossing facilities at the White Hart PH. Seeks application of the 30 limit in School Lane from the junction with B4047.
25/4/01 / Ann Sullivan
Brize Norton Road
Minster Lovell / Seeks a blanket 30 limit to cover the entire village, i.e. to include the B4047. Most houses are to the north of this dangerous road and most facilities to the south so many vulnerable road users have to cross the road regularly.
26/4/01 / Mr Sullivan
Brize Norton Road
Minster Lovell / Seeks a 40 limit on the B4047, it has had many accidents. Ludicrous to start School Hill limit 70 metres away from the junction
24/4/01 / The Society For The Protection of Minster Lovell / Strongly object to a 50 limit on the B4047, seek at least a 40 limit with a 30 limit on part of it to replace the proposed 50 limit. It is a dangerous road built up on both sides and will suffer from increased traffic form new Carterton estates. Seek calming on the B4047.
The 50 limit on School Hill should start at the B4047 junction rather than further down the hill.
20/4/01 / Residents of Little Minster and Old Minster Lovell
(Petition) / Object to a 50 limit on the B4047 and seek a 40 limit to replace it. It is a dangerous road built up on both sides and will suffer from increased traffic form new Carterton estates. Deer Park Road in Witney is more open yet has a lower limit.
The 50 limit on School Hill is absurd and it should start at the B4047 junction rather than further down the hill.
Request that the limit on Minster Riding be extended at least as far as the Asthall junction.
26/4/01 / Mr Pitchforth Bushey Ground
Minster Lovell / The B4047 should have a 40 limit. The recent accidents may have been reduced if drivers were travelling slower.
27/4/01 / Mrs L Bentley
Brize Norton Road
Minster Lovell / Proposals do not correspond to agreements at site meetings. The B4047 should have a 30 limit and all proposed limits should be extended further out so drivers will slow before the village. / Recommend that the speed limit be implemented as advertised.
North Leigh / 26/4/01 / Thames Valley Police / Object to the proposed 30 limit between North Leigh and New Yatt (Hailey parish). It will devalue the limits in the core part of both settlements. / The current proposals result from the Group Spokespersons site visit.
It has always been accepted that the limits alone will not greatly influence driver behaviour with the inevitable low levels of enforcement. They are designed to support and give consistency to the SpeedWatch long-term educational campaign that preaches responsible speeds where people live. The proposals in North Leigh and East End are generally realistic in terms of current driver habits and enforcement levels.
Recommend that the speed limit be implemented as advertised.
17/4/01 / T G Holden
East End
North Leigh / North Leigh: existing speed limits are realistic and not enforced in any case. Lower limits will bring more necessary limits into disrepute.
East End: a speed limit is not needed, the proposed 30 limit will be ignored and few drivers exceed 40 mph.
Northmoor / 27/4/01 / Thames Valley Police / Object to the proposed buffer 40 limits either side of the existing 30 Mph limit. Drivers may increase speed as they drive up to this limit that was placed merely to placate local desires for a lower limit where a 30 limit would be against best practice. / The buffer lengths were suggested as a compromise to the parish council who would otherwise seek an extended 30 mph limit over the same length. Neither option is ideal but the 40 buffer option would help to highlight the 30 limit in the village centre.
Recommend that the speed limits be implemented as advertised.
South Leigh / 19/4/01 / Thames Valley Police / The proposals take the 30 limit beyond the built-up environment. It is likely to have no effect in the rural sections and therefore be seriously jeopardised in the built-up part of the village. / The current proposals result from the Group Spokespersons’ site visit.
Recommend that the speed limit be implemented as advertised.
Standlake / 27/4/01 / Mr McArthur-Christie / See comments in ‘General’ above / Recommend that the speed limit be implemented as advertised.
Stanton Harcourt / 12/4/01 / Parish Council / Seek a southern extension to the proposed 30 limit for Sutton as it is not possible to site the terminal signs at the best location. / The difficulty of siting the terminal signs leads the current proposal to start the limit at the edge of the nucleus of the village albeit omitting 2 isolated properties further to the south. This is technically the best solution in any case and the alternative sought by the parish does not meet the County Council speed limit criteria. It would lead to a far less effective limit in the main village where it is most needed as the terminal signs would be in a totally rural environment where drivers would not see the need for them and accordingly not respect the limit.
A 30 mph speed limit in Sutton meets County Council criteria and is keenly sought by the parish council.
Recommend that the speed limit be implemented as advertised.
26/4/01 / Thames Valley Police / Object to the proposed 30 mph limit for Sutton as speed monitoring suggests the optimum benefit would come from the originally proposed 40 mph limit.
Westwell / 26/4/01 / Parish Meeting / Support a limit through the village but seek it extended farther westwards to encompass a rural bend. Have indicated that if their request is not met they do not wish a limit at all but the chairman will confirm this at their meeting on 5 May / The site in question is totally rural and speed limits are not the correct solution for rural bend problems. Drivers will drive according to how they perceive the bend itself rather than to any limit. By placing the terminal signs before the bend drivers will not associate them with a settlement and not see the need to reduce speed. This will reduce the beneficial effect of the limit in the village itself where it protects vulnerable road users.
Recommend that the speed limit be implemented as advertised.
Witney / 27/4/01 / Mr McArthur-Christie / See comments in ‘General’ above / Recommend that the speed limit be implemented as advertised.
HW_MAY2401R05.doc