PROGRESS REPORT February 2021 for Members of the Executive Committee
Items included here are for information and reference. Please address any comments or queries to the relevant contributor.
1. Oxfordshire Futures Group Ian Green 723289
This report is experimental, attempting to show what progress has been made by the OFG towards achieving the Society’s Aims.
Aim 1 – Influence the development of Oxford as a city where people enjoy living, working and visiting Aim 2 – Inform its members - and others – about Oxford: its key qualities, as well as its problems, with constructive and soundly based proposals for its further improvement Aim 3 – Co-operate with Oxford’s residents’ associations and civic societies nationally to develop – and campaign for – community led solutions to shared problems Aim 4 – Learn from other cities, in both the UK and abroad, where creative strategies might be helpful to Oxford.
1.1 STRATEGIC PLANNING
1.1. 1 The ARC
The Government has announced its intention to create a 'Spatial Framework' and a new 'Growth Body' to oversee the preparation and implementation of the Framework. The spatial framework will have the status of national planning policy. It was also announced that a Growth Body for the Oxford-Cambridge Arc will also be established. It is not clear from the document what form this Body will take.
Planning for sustainable growth in the Oxford-Cambridge Arc (publishing.service.gov.uk)
The announcements have re-ignited concern about the remoteness of decision making from communities and locally elected representatives. CPRE and the POETs have led the way in expressing their concern1. CPRE has noted that the vision for Oxfordshire which is currently being identified and which will be considered by CPRE as being in line with local people’s aspirations is a line of defense against an Arc agenda imposed by central government. Similarly, CPRE notes that the Oxfordshire Growth Board has said that the Oxfordshire 2050 Plan is intended to meet the needs of local people and match their vision of the County’s future, and to be fully consulted on and tested through Public Examination.
If the Arc spatial framework has the status of national planning policy, local authorities will need to confirm consistency when revising their Local Plans, including the jointly
1 The intervention of the Secretary of State in the South Oxfordshire Local Plan preparation, the judicial review of part of the Cherwell District Council’s Local Plan and the widespread unpopularity of the recent Planning for our Future White Paper all add up to widespread and increasing concern about democracy – the effectiveness of locally elected representatives and the role of communities.
Page 1 of 14 prepared Oxfordshire 2050 Plan and including meeting jobs and housing growth targets. The dangers highlighted by CPRE are evident.
But, government commitment to the Arc is also evident. Arguments about economic, jobs and housing growth levels will be very difficult to resolve if they are not enriched by equal concern being given to the environmental and social benefits of the ARC and responsiveness to local plan and joint spatial plan priorities e.g., priorities established by elected representatives in established governing bodies – the district / unitary authority councils. The MHCLG report claims that this is the intention. It has clearly been met with skepticism, including by Buckinghamshire Council that has withdrawn from the Arc Leaders Group. (See also ‘Challenge the Arc’ a nascent anti-Arc movement).
www.challengethearc.co.uk
Ideally the remaining preparation of the Oxfordshire 2050 Plan and the multiple associated strategic plans (with demonstrable evidence of environmental and social strategic planning) would work in tandem with the ARC spatial framework, contributing the values and priorities of the Oxfordshire Councils. However, the MHCLG timeline for ARC activities is described as follows:
Developing a vision for the future of the Oxford-Cambridge Arc – We will undertake wide public engagement to shape a vision for the area, through a consultation in summer 2021. Towards a Spatial Framework – We will develop options for turning the vision into policy, based on engagement and initial evidence gathering and analysis. We will publish these options for consultation in spring 2022. Draft Spatial Framework – To finalise the Spatial Framework, we will consider responses to this consultation, and undertake spatial analysis, option testing, impact assessments and stakeholder engagement. We will publish a draft Spatial Framework for consultation in autumn 2022, with implementation of the final Framework shortly after.
The implication is that the proposed consultation on Arc spatial options in Spring 2022 will be nine months after the equivalent exercise on the recently rescheduled Oxfordshire Plan 2050. This is not working in tandem although it could enable the values and priorities of the Oxfordshire 2050 Plan to be evident to the MHCLG planning team?
1.1.2 Oxfordshire Local Transport and Connectivity Plan
The 'Vision' for the Oxfordshire Local Transport and Connectivity Plan has now been published for comment.
Consultation Homepage - Local Transport and Connectivity Plan - vision consultation - Oxfordshire County Council Consultation Portal
The Local Transport and Connectivity Plan (LTCP) is the long-term countywide transport strategy. The plan also takes into account the strategy for digital infrastructure and for connecting the whole county. The vision sets the direction for transport in Oxfordshire and outlines a long-term ambition for transport to 2050. The policies and transport schemes included in the LTCP document will all be aligned with the Vision. The consultation runs until 29th March 2021. It is expected that the Transport Group of the OCS will respond. Initial reactions are that it is another weak document (see notes of the Transport Group meeting of 19th February in the Progress Report).
Page 2 of 14
1.1.3 Strategic Rail
Please see notes of the Transport Group meeting for more details. In terms of strategic planning and especially the scope for using rail effectively in a central Oxfordshire ‘metro- system’ it was disappointing to note the apparent intention to cut 4-tracking to just Oxford to north of Radley. This will diminish the demand for and efficiency of the proposed housing development at Culham.
A full report on the next stage of ORCS at the next Growth Board meeting. It was suggested that the Society should write to the heads of the Councils about providing a proper rail service and it is suggested that this is considered after seeing the latest ORCS report. In the meantime two community led rail initiatives have re-emerged: https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/19111767.wantage-mp-launches-survey-need-new- railway-station-grove/ https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/19110938.plans-rail-link-witney-oxford-submitted/
1.1.4 Conclusions concerning OCS Aims
The problems are clear. OCS needs to develop sound proposals to overcome apparent problems if we are to influence the development of Oxford (a lot of time is spent just keeping up with events in what is a very complicated development planning context!) - AIM 1. Associated with this the problems and proposals need to be explained widely, and we are not doing this effectively – AIM 2 We could support local initiatives (the Wantage / Grove and Witney rail initiatives) – AIM 3 The proposed program of 4 seminars on strategic planning ‘Planning for our Future’ (now confirmed for May 15th and May 22nd) should ensure progress with Aim 1 and 2. There may also be some progress with Aim 4.
1.2 OXFORD WEST END SPATIAL FRAMEWORK
1.2.1 West End and Osney Mead SPD
As noted in the previous OFG Progress Report, the Oxford City Council has invited consultancies to provide quotations to produce a West End Spatial Framework (West End and Osney Mead SPD). It is understood that interviews are taking place and that work should start in very early March. The OCS will need to engage with the consultants at an early stage and Tom Bridgman has suggested a discussion on all things concerning the West End and Osney Mead on either 23rd March or 26th March.
1.2.2 Oxpens
Based on information being provided to the Oxford City Council Scrutiny Committee on March 2nd, OxWED (the City Council / Nuffield College consortium) has assembled a multidisciplinary team, led by architects and masterplanners, Hawkins/Brown, and including landscape architects, Gillespies, and planning agents, Prior & Partners. BDP and more recently Elementa have been providing input on sustainability, whilst a number of local firms have been working on the project, including AKSWard and Glanville.
Page 3 of 14
The OxWED and its professional team has produced an initial masterplan to inform the planning strategy and the delivery and viability assessments. This work has been subject to pre-application advice from the Planning Service and a workshop with the Oxford Design Review Panel2. The intention is that the masterplan will form the basis of stakeholder and public engagement in the summer of 2021.
While indicative at this stage and subject to further work, viability testing and a ultimately the grant of planning permission, the masterplan demonstrates that the 6 hectare site has huge potential. The mix and quantum of uses has not been agreed, and is subject to further design, planning and delivery considerations. However, the work to date demonstrate capacity for 120,000 sq. m. of mixed-use development, including nearly 70,000 sq. m. of commercial floorspace (which could include space for the science and tech sectors, as well as a hotel, and could support well over 3,000 jobs), together with around 450 dwellings. The expectation is that the residential mix will be brought forward in a policy complaint way, with a range of housing types (including market and affordable housing, alongside potential other uses such as student and later living) to create a multi- generation, mixed tenure community.
Based on the advice from OxWED Board and its professional team, the recommendation to the Joint Venture Shareholders of OxWED is for the company to proceed with the preparation and submission of its own outline planning application and associated site preparation and promotion work, rather than seek a development partner at this stage.
This strategy will give OxWED the opportunity to be at the forefront of defining and driving a joined-up approach and vision for achieving a genuinely mixed-use development on the site. This includes informing the upcoming West End and Osney Mead Supplementary Planning Document (SPD); the development of the Oxford Railway Station Masterplan; the Oxford West End Innovation District, a priority project within Oxfordshire’s Local Industrial Strategy Investment Plan; and responding to the climate emergency. It also makes sense for OxWED, rather than a third-party developer, to help coordinate work on the new Osney Mead Pedestrian and Cycle bridge, planned to the south of the site, which is being funded and delivered by the City Council. This will help expedite delivery of this key piece of infrastructure and ensure it is not delayed by the process of OxWED seeking a development partner.
1.2.3 Conclusions concerning OCS Aims
If we are to influence the development of Oxford we need to be effectively engaged with the preparation of the West End and Osney Mead Supplementary Planning Document. To date we have ensured that we are well placed to be able to do this. The meeting being convened with Tom Bridgman on either 23rd March or 26th March should be used to consolidate the OCS role – AIM 1 OCS will need to take a lead in discussion of the West End in the Press – AIM 2 International and national examples of city centre development, including of key transport facilities will be very helpful – AIM 4
2. Communications Group Hilary Bradley 762418 / Tony Turton 765727
The annual review and March issue of Visions were posted out at the end of the month. We’re now turning our attention to refreshing our shop window display in the
2 Yet another example of the ODRP working in isolation from civic and local groups. We really need to try to improve the way in which the ODRP is continuing to work.
Page 4 of 14
High Street. The Society’s support to the City Council’s work on a new strategy for the Covered Market has given us a useful theme for both the shop window and a ‘mini- survey’ of members’ views on the market. This will be the first time we have run a survey on a single theme and it will be interesting to see how the membership responds. We plan to use Mail Chimp as the survey platform, another experiment. The window display will invite members of the public to take the survey too, with an ‘I-Spy in the market’ for younger visitors. Both are tests of whether anyone takes notice of a shop window! But in any event the display gets our name across and brightens the High Street.
Meanwhile we continue to support the Programme Group in getting videos of talks online, most recently Bob Colenutt’s talk on the housing crisis. Some videos have had enormous viewing figures – over 200 each for Railways of Oxfordshire and the Botanic Garden and over 900 for the talk on rewilding. Clearly there are some new audiences in among those. How to capture them as members?
We had good coverage in the press with a big article on a ‘planning free-for-all’ (about the Government’s proposals for Permitted Development Rights) in the Mail and Oxford Times and a substantial article in the Mail on OxClean. This produced a number of requests for ‘anytime litter picks’. Gillian Coates was interviewed by BBC Radio Oxford on the planning proposals. The Mail/Times are appealing for local contributors to the papers and we are applying to have a regular slot.
We welcomed a new volunteer, the third in as many months. Roddy Maddocks has taken on the role of photographer, supplying photos for our publications and websites. He has supported the National Trust in this capacity so we are very lucky to have him join the team. If anyone in the Working Groups or Exec has ideas for photos (eg new buildings, work on roads, LTNs etc) please let us know so we can direct Roddy to relevant locations.
3. Membership & Community Groups Liz Grosvenor 765453
As at 24 February two new members have signed up via Direct Debit.
We now have 508 memberships records representing 717 individuals.
194 have signed up to Direct Debit, and 166 to Standing Order.
The remaining 148* include 95 memberships (representing 142 individuals) who have not updated their standing orders or paid the shortfall to bring their membership up-to- date.
Once the next issue of Visions has been distributed these 95 will be contacted (again) and advised that we will be unable to send them further issues until their membership subscription has been updated.
*The other 53 have paid by cheque or bank transfer.
4. Planning Gillian Coates 262203
See Appendix A for notes of meeting on 8 February
5. Transport Group Juliet Blackburn 554017 / Andrew Pritchard 240014
See Appendix B for notes of meeting on 19 February
Page 5 of 14
6. Programme Group ______Ian Salusbury
No report
7. OxClean Gillian Coates (721810) / Natasha Robinson
No report
8. Housing Policy Group Peter 558616 / Tony 765727 No report
Page 6 of 14
APPENDIX A: Planning Group
Notes of a meeting on Monday 8th February 2021 at 17.00
Present: Gillian Argyle (GA), Elise Benjamin (EB), Clive Booth (CB), Gillian Coates (GC), Jim Girling (Jim G), John Goddard (John G), Tony Joyce (TJ), Neil MacLennan (NM), David Nimmo Smith (DNS), Geoffrey Randell (GR), Sue Stewart (SS), Peter Thompson (PT), Tim Treacher.
Apologies: Ian Green, Richard Hayward, Eleanor Howard.
1. Notes of previous meeting and Matters Arising 1. 4. Supporting Housing delivery and public service infrastructure: OCS’ response had been submitted. (refer to item 7. Below) 2. 5. Bayswater Brook: JimG pointed out that the meetings were not open to the public, just an invited (albeit large) audience. The note was corrected to reflect this. GC noted that the last of the many consultations re this development will be on 9th March when the Revised Masterplan will be revealed. 3. 6. Broad Street Working Group: a meeting has yet to be convened. In the meantime, JimG and GR are working up some ideas for discussion. PT had circulated the Wilkie paper to the Group, 4. 7.Covered Market Masterplan: GC reminded the Group that ideas relating to features of the regeneration would be welcomed ahead of the workshop to be scheduled in March.
2. Applications for Discussion: (i) Comments Summary Wlists 4,5 Just one comment to submit to Planners (ii) 21/00036/37 FUL 107 St Aldate’s Oxford OX1 1BU: it was agreed to submit an objection to this application to convert an hotel into two flats and one large HMO. There were many aspects of the application that were problematic. [ACTION:CB/TT] (iii) 21/00216 5-7 Jack Straws Lane: this is a reworked application for a development of 9 dwellings on a brown field site. OCS have no objection to this and would not submit any comment.
3. Pre-application Consultations 5. Bayswater Brook (and Wick Farm) Development: two further consultative meetings are scheduled – 8th February for commercial users; 10 February for residents. The Group will await the meeting in March. 6. Clive Booth Hall: GR had circulated a note of some further thoughts relating to this development. It was agreed that he should submit these to Brookes Estates Directorate [ACTION:GR] 7. Clarendon Centre: Mark Ross at Development-Intelligence had passed on GRs comments to the development team. There was some uncertainty whether the application had been submitted. [POST MEETING: GC confirmed the application has been submitted to the Planners and we await sight of it in due course]
4. Oxford Station Masterplan: meeting with Network Rail: a number of the Group will attend this meeting along with representatives from the Transport Group. 10th February 2.30. Refer to JimGs email for the link to join the TEAMS meeting (not Zoom)
Page 7 of 14
[POST MEETING: IG is unable to attend this meeting, Jonathan Scheele will deputize]
5. Introducing the National Model Design Code: this proposal derives from the White Paper and was met with both cynicism and scorn. PT had succinctly identified 9 issues of concern. There was no appetite for a meeting to discuss this until it was made clear what the intended outcomes would be. It was noted that URBED may bid for a pilot scheme. It was agreed GC would convey the views of the Group to IG who had expressed some enthusiasm for the proposal. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/att achment_data/file/957207/Guidance_notes_for_Design_Codes.pdf [ADDITION POST MEETINGI offering our services as a way to increase community engagement is a good idea. As the city has already produced its recent invitation to tender for the framework exercise on the Oxford west end, it almost has a proposal for a pilot ready to go. The application process, and the running of the pilot itself, might turn out to be burdensome and beyond the capacity of the city planners to meet the challenge. In addition, it would complicate the current tendering exercise. How would the bidders know whether they would be in a pilot or not and what would the consequences be for them? CB]
6. Bob Colenutt talk: How the planning system was captured by the property lobby: deferred to next meeting.
7. Press Opportunities: GC reported a feature on OCS’ response to the proposed ‘planning free-for-all’ had appeared in the Oxford Mail. It was long but repetitive and some elements of our objections had not been adequately reported. It is proposed to submit a Letter to the Editor to draw this to the attention of the readership. Additionally, BBC Oxford had recorded a short interview with GC on the subject. It is currently languishing in the BBC Cloud until they want to use it. [ACTION:GC/PL]
8. East Chipping Norton Development: it was agreed the situation whereby OCC would not agree to have a meeting with representatives from the Town Council was unacceptable and the best solution would be for the voters to take action on May 6th by removing those who are being obstructive. TT will convey this to the Town’s Mayor. [ACTION:TT]
9. Any other Business
(i) Headington Centre development: TJ asked for further information relating to this. GC had no information but would contact Headington Action for an update. [POST MEETING: Richard Bradley has provided some background (see A. attached) and it was noted that Tony Turton is attending a meeting on 9 February, both as a resident and for OCS] (ii) Sewage: TJ had concerns relating to the provision of any sewage plants in the North of the city, given the significant number of developments that are taking place/planned in the area. Deferred to next meeting
Page 8 of 14
(iii) 1 Quarry High Street: GC reported that she had reminded IG that we had not heard further from the Council. (iv) Residents Forum: PT reported he would be in touch with Andy Murdoch to ask him to convene a meeting. One was promised last autumn but not delivered. [ACTION:PT] (v) Empty retail spaces: EB proposed that a working group is set up to discuss this problem and offer possible solutions. Further discussion deferred to the next meeting.
10. Next meeting: Proposed as Monday 22nd February 2021 at 17.00 hrs. .
Page 9 of 14
APPENDIX B: Transport Group
Meeting notes: Zoom meeting 19 February 2021, 10.15 a.m.
Present: Juliet Blackburn (JCB), John Broad (JLB), Alison Chivers, Chris Church, Nigel Fulford, Ian Green, Peter Headicar, Graham Jones, Tony Joyce, Mary Kroll, Penelope Lenon, Neil Maclennan, Andrew Pritchard, Jonathan Scheele (chair), Graham Smith, Peter Thompson
Apologies: Tim Wilson
1. Actions and Matters arising from the previous meeting
There were no queries on the notes from the previous meeting on 22 January 2021
1.1 IG to obtain and circulate the brief given to Atkins for their station work.
IG had still not received a copy of the brief. Continued.
1.2 PT to circulate the Planning Group’s summary comments on the St Frideswide Farm proposal. Done.
1.3 Eynsham Park & Ride planning application 19/01725/CC3REG
TJ had passed this to PH, who commented that the plans only gave a physical layout, with nothing about services. It was not clear what the P&R services would be, or whether they would enhance the existing S1 and S2 bus services to Oxford. AC said there was a half- hourly service from Carterton and Witney to the JR (S7, Monday-Friday). JCB commented that improvements were being financed in different bits. JS wondered how bus fares and parking charges might affect the use of the proposed P&R. PH said that no research appeared to have been done on this issue. AP said that the idea of Rapid Transit appeared to have been forgotten, though the idea of re-opening the railway to Witney was still alive. TJ asked about the status of the proposed A40-A44 loop road to take some lorries away from the Woodstock Road roundabout; GJ said this appeared to be on the back burner, and the Eynsham P&R might remove some of the heavy traffic.
2. Oxford Rail Station meeting with Network Rail
JS thanked AP for circulating a note on this meeting. He felt Network Rail were optimistic and looking about getting the money. They had offered to answer further questions by e- mail. The proposed limiting of 4-tracking from Oxford to north of Radley rather than to Didcot, and without which it would not be possible to offer the proposed ORCS service of 4 trains/hr on East-West Rail and enhanced services on the North Cotswold line were major issues, though neither of these were in Phase 2. AP said that the new island platform (4/5) would be accessed either by the existing bridge from platform 3, or by a new subway from a new western entrance. The proposed improvements for pedestrians and cyclists on the north side of the Botley Road would appear to offer a more attractive access to platforms 1-3 than using the subway to platforms 4/5 and then the bridge. He wondered whether the proposed western entrance would be viable, even though Network Rail were suggesting that a developer might provide accommodation above it. NR said that they were considering the possible extension of the subway to serve platform 3. He was very concerned that Phase 2 appeared to be being planned without any reference to Phase 3,
Page 10 of 14 neglecting the Group’s views that the rail station should be a key part of a new and improved transport hub with good modal interchange to buses, cycles etc. MK was concerned that the proposed 4-metre pedestrian and cycleways beneath the Botley Road should not be narrowed. JCB noted that the proposals for building over the track had been abandoned (and NF said that they would have created a monstrosity), but was convinced that monies from a developer were needed to make a new station viable. NF noted that two more freight trains/hr were expected for the Cherwell Valley line, and wondered how this might affect proposals for more local trains. PH felt that cutting 4-tracking to just Oxford to north of Radley might affect the proposed housing development at Culham; he was expecting a paper on the next stage of ORCS at the next Growth Board meeting. CC noted that there was no rail officer at the County Council, and suggested that the Society should write to the heads of the Councils about providing a proper rail service.
JS concluded that in the short term we should support Network Rail’s Phase 2, but raise concerns about the lack of longer-term thinking, including electrification. JCB felt that development of the Begbroke site should pay for a road bridge to replace the level crossings, and NF suggested that we should ask Network Rail if the signalling changes would permit a station at Begbroke. TJ believed that the University had given up on the station proposal due to a lack of interest by NR, and JLB noted the current judicial review of the local plan.
IG said that the spatial framework for the West End, for which Tom Bridgeman should have a briefing, needed to look at access to the station, and TJ said that the visual aspects were also important. The Society’s spring seminar needed to include 4-tracking issues and the connections with Oxfordshire 2050 and LTCP5.
3. Decarbonising Oxfordshire Rail
JCB raised the question of electrification of East-West Rail and the costings, and JS noted Network Rail’s recent paper on decarbonisation. JLB had written to Victoria Prentis MP about the issue, and CC said that David Johnston, the MP for Wantage, was part of the Conservative Environment Network.
4. Transport Planning in Oxford and Central Oxfordshire – LTCP5
PH had circulated the Vision Plan, now open for consultation with a series of questions. JS described it as underwhelming. AP found it confusing, with a range of topics instead of an overall aim, which he felt should be decarbonisation of transport, which accounted for 33% of the County’s emissions. Government policy was to achieve zero carbon emissions. Some of the individual topics would follow from decarbonisation, such as ZEZs and improved air quality. He noted the absence of any reference to LTP4’s Rapid Transit or trams. He felt that, in line with an earlier discussion by Group members, that “connectivity” in the title should be replaced by “accessibility”, since this was key for people, and might be achieved in some cases by providing services such as retail, banking etc in local communities, for which a degree of subsidy might be worthwhile. GS said that the consequences hadn’t been thought through, such as where and how things would happen. IG thought it a poor document, with a variety of visions and nothing about governance, which was very important. JCB thought it was more about aspirations rather than plans with financial implications, but CC felt it had been drafted to keep councillors on board. Most of the comments on the earlier draft 28 papers had been concerned with decarbonisation. There appeared to be a bland acceptance of traffic growth and little about spatial planning. JLB felt that there was a bias against motorcycles, based on accident rates, and an integrated
Page 11 of 14 plan was called for, but not what was presented. The Growth Board’s ideas seemed to imply increased journey mileages, whereas alternatives to cars were needed. P&R promoted the use of multiple modes of transport. NF suggested that the deficiencies might be policies, such as a managed decline of the railways.
PL said that she had found the discussion very interesting, and asked whether there was a case for publicising our views. LTCP5 was not a strategy, just a wish list, and IG agreed. PH asked for members’ replies to the specific questions by March 5th. None of the outcomes was expressed in specific terms. IG suggested a general response plus observations. PT agreed to produce a Word document containing all the questions. JLB commented that though there were lists of historic heritage assets, there was nothing about the canals or the airport; Yvonne Constance had said that this came under the Civil Aviation Authority, and TJ commented that OCS had always been involved with the Oxford Canal.
Conflicting initiatives – ZEZ etc
A Zoom meeting would be arranged with Craig Rossington on either 1st or 5th March at 10.30 a.m. about the relation between the ZEZ and bus gates. PH, IG, AP and AC expressed interest in taking part. PH said that the ZEZ was about air quality, and the bus gates effectively about traffic reduction. AP said that both should be outcomes from adopting a transport plan.
5. City Centre Vision and Action Plans including Historic Streets
5.1 Broad Street initiative
IG said that the initiative was to open up Broad Street to partial pedestrianisation from Jun-Oct. There were issues about servicing of the colleges, shops and the covered market, and access to Turl Street and Ship Street. A proposal was needed to cover these. Parking could go, but there was a question about which end would provide access, and for what hours. Together with the Oxford Preservation Trust we were gathering support from the colleges and Blackwells. He reminded us of the talk by Kim Wilkie to the Oxford Preservation Trust on The Future of Broad Street on 11 March at 5 p.m. GS noted that Bonn (twin city) had a large pedestrianised central area that could inform us about Broad Street. GJ said that all the issues had to be looked at before going forward: it was complicated. A small subgroup of AC, GJ and JB, led by IG, should be formed to look at servicing issues.
5.2 City Centre Vision and Action Plan status
IG reported that this was still alive. A new Oxpens plan was to go to cabinet on 10 March, probably to be approved for consultation. TJ asked whether this included the area between Hythe Bridge Street and Park End Street – it did not. IG had tried to talk to Nuffield but had not yet managed to meet the new bursar. The City Council had recruited consultants for the West End spatial framework. City centre bus use was 19% of normal business, and P&R just 8%, showing what a mountain had to be climbed to get back to normal. The Pear Tree P&R was closed. The economics group was to survey the return of people to the city centre. He would report the conclusions of the transport strategy group meeting to our next meeting.
5.3 Bridges to Oxpens and Osney Mead Industrial Estate
Nothing more to report.
Page 12 of 14
5.4 Woodstock/Banbury Road studies – co-production
AC said that this involved users rather than planners, especially vulnerable road users. The principles needed to be established, e.g. with bus users rather than bus companies. She would attend as a Cyclox member, and Sushila Dahl was to attend as well. MK was suggested for OCS as a non-specialist, and JS said that we should try to get two seats, for MK and GS, who commented that the Thorncliffe Road bus stop cut off pedestrians. PH said that motorists should also be represented.
6. Street Design Guide, Bin Lorries and Emergency Vehicles
JCB suggested that we should support the Urban Design Group’s views, expressed in the now closed consultation. GS said that the guide should help us to design for the future. He agreed to circulate the UDG’s comments, and IG said that we should express general support in a letter to be drafted by GS.
7. Other modes of transport
JCB asked how much we advised on these, such as the proposed Oxpens gondola lift above the railway to the Westgate. We should talk to the Westgate, for which a stream of visitors would help, as it would for Christ Church and its visitor centre. It would not operate at night time. JLB suggested we talked to Alex Hollingsworth, but IG said we should talk to DW first. JCB said that officers had not supported the idea, and NF thought there would be massive opposition from Network Rail. JCB said she would talk to Alex Hollingsworth and DW.
8. 15 minute communities
AC apologised for not having circulated her paper, so discussion was postponed.
9. Actions
9.1 IG to get a copy of the brief about the station work given to Atkins, and circulate it.
9.2 NF to pass to JS a question to Network Rail asking whether signalling changes on the Cherwell Valley Line would allow a station at Begbroke.
9.3 ALL to submit by 1 March any other questions to JS for Network Rail on Phase 2 for joint submission, as invited.
9.4 ALL to send their views on the questions asked in the LTCP5 consultation (these have been gathered together by PT in a e-mail already circulated) to PH by 5th March.
9.5 AC, AP, IG and PH to attend a meeting with Craig Rossington about the overlap between bus gates and the ZEZ policies.
9.6 ALL to note Kim Wilkie’s talk to the Oxford Preservation Trust on the Future of Broad Street on 11 March at 5 p.m.
9.7 GJ, AC and JB to work with IG on Broad Street servicing issues
9.8 MK (and if possible, GS) to represent OCS at the Woodstock Road/Banbury Road co- production stakeho0lders’ group.
9.9 GS to circulate the Urban Design Group’s comments on the Street Design Guide and draft a letter to be sent by IG to OCC..
Page 13 of 14
9.10 JCB to talk to DW, Westgate and Christ Church about their views on a gondola lift from Redbridge to Oxpens, and to sound out Alex Hollingsworth.
9.11 AC to write and circulate a short paper on 15-minute communities.
9.12 IG to report on the City Centre transport strategy group meeting at the next meeting.
10. AOB
10.1 JGS drew members’ attention to the consultation on the National Design Code. IG asked if it would be statutory. We should look at how it dealt with transport issues at our next meeting.
10.2 IG said that Laura Peacock had asked for the next meeting with her modelling group be postponed until May, when the next stage would be finished.
10.3 JLB noted the lack of inclusion of canal transport and e-scooter trials. Park & Charge was being set up at Bicester and at Redbridge, with solar panels and batteries. One had to pre-book charging slots.
11. Date of next meeting
The next meeting was fixed for 19 March at 10.15 a.m.
Andrew Pritchard 22 February 2021
Page 14 of 14