Cherwell Street, Banbury - Bus Service Improvement Scheme (including Bridge Street & George Street Junctions)

The consultation is already open and closes on Monday 1st April 2024.

https://letstalk.oxfordshire.gov.uk/cherwell-street-banbury-bus-service-improvement-scheme

 

Repairs at 25-26 Bridge Street

The condition of these vacant Grade II-Listed townhouses (former head offices of Hunt Edmunds, Brewers) only yards from Banbury Town Hall, is a matter of increasing concern. The sash windows urgently require conservation. Worse, the external render has been long deteriorating, to the point where pieces are falling off, endangering pedestrians and causing damp to penetrate deep into the facades. The condition of these fine buildings is frankly a disgrace, not only to the owners, but to Banbury's town-centre and conservation area in general. With no investment likely to be voluntarily forthcoming from the owner(s), the Banbury Civic Society most strongly urges the Council to serve a repairs notice on the owner(s), to include appropriate repairs to the fenestration and (lime) render, in order to enhance the built environment, protect these buildings until new uses or new tenants are found and assist in their marketing to prospective tenants.       

 

 

LCWIP New Proposals

Following the consultation on the first version of this Cycling and Walking project, the results of which have still not been revealed by Oxford county Council, a new consultation has been launched. The full details are available from the 'Let's Talk Oxfordshire' site, which includes links to a survey and detailed plans. You can also see the individual route plans and lists of proposed works (called 'improvements' which is rather begging the question) by going directly to the page on this website 'LCWIP 2023'. 

The closing date for the consultation survey is the 26th February. 

The BCS's views will be published here in time, hopefully, for you to add similar comments if you wish. Suffice it to say that many of the new proposals seem at first sight to be identical to the earlier ones, which makes one wonder how effective the previous consultation was. But one first impression is that nowhere in the 100 page justification is there any mention of costs to other road users if these proposals are implemented. It goes without saying that every scheme, no matter how extreme, can easily be 'justified' if the obvious negatives are ignored.

 

 

Some comments to the Consultation submitted by one responder:

 

Overall, what do you think of the proposed cycling improvements?

 Undeliverable. these proposals would kill of business and raise unemployment. residents will not agree to LTNs and Model Filters (bollards blocking roads0 Loss of residents on-road parking would not be achievable due to objections. it makes proposals on land the County Council does not own. The loss of Right and or Left turn lanes at junctions would cause more congestion, make air quality worse and cause traffic chaos. the proposals on main HGV routes would make some roads and junctions unsafe for all road users. Banbury is hilly and some routes do not take this into consideration. Banbury and its surrounding villages do not have suitable or in some cases any public transport, put reliable quick buses in first and people will use them rather than a car. You ask questions concerning how often i/we cycle but no questions on walking to work, school, leisure. this proves OCC are only interested in cycling to the exclusion of all other modes of travel. the lack of local knowledge and miss naming of some areas and lack of topography in the options leads me to believe the consultants do not know Banbury and did a desk top excercise. The lack of prior consultation with Banbury Town Council and the parish councils shows disrespect to other tiers of local government.

 

Individual Route comments 

Route 1: A361 North Bar Street/ Oxford Road

What is the school located at the N. Bar Junction?

1.1 Object to narrowing the highway or losing a L or R turn lane at N/S/E/W of this junction, it will cause congestion and worsen air quality due to idling traffic.

1.2/1.3 Object to any loss of car parking or narrowing of road or loss of vehicle lanes.

1.4 Object. Banbury Cross is not suitable for a dutch style roundabout. The land needed is not all Highway.

1.5 Object. There is already a crossing at this point.

1.6/1.7 Object to any loss of vehicle movement at what you call the "design stage" Object to any loss of vehicle capacity at the Bloxham/Oxford Rd. junction. its the East/West HGV route to and from M40. the camber of the road could become unsafe for high vehicles and the tail back congestion would be huge. Object to any proposal to lose a L or R turn lane at this junction. Proposal. Use Beargarden Rd New Rd and Crouch St. for bicycles as it is quiet.

Route 2: A361 Bloxham Road

Object to the segregation proposal at the junction. This will cause congestion and potential HGV safety implications for the turning circle. This is the main E/W Highways England M40 route. Use Beargarden, New Rd & Crouch St. permanently, it is relatively underused and New Rd almost car free. Object to "model filters and LTN type obstructions at Horton View. This is a main route to the hospital.

2.1 agree to aid pedestrians.

2.2 Strongly object to removing the Northbound left turn lane and narrowing of the Southbound lane on Bloxham Rd. This is the main Highways England route for HGVs and it will cause traffic congestion that will impact on Inner relief rd Oxford rd and Hospital emergency vehicles, Queensway and Springfield Ave junctions.

2.3 Use of New Rd agree as a permanent measure NOT a temp measure. this was proposed before.

2.4 Object to loss of on street parking, some of which may be disabled. Object to narrowing vehicle lanes, the path and grass verge is very wide so use that.

2.5 Object. No need to narrow any road space as footway is wide with a wide grass verge on both sides., use this.

2.6 Object if this means narrowing the road.

2.7 Agree to the use of the parallel access roads and verge.

2.8 Crossing already exists at 2e

2.9 Object to narrowing carriageway along this route. Agree to using existing path and grass verge. This road already has wide paths and side access roads along its length on both sides of the road it also has very wide grass verges, use these Do Not narrow carriageway. This is a Highways England route for HGVs and your proposals would increase the potential for serious conflict with HGV and other road users.

Route 3: Ruscote Avenue A422/ Orchard Way/ Woodgreen Avenue/ Queensway

This section is a main route to all the schools both primary and secondary. It has a very wide grass central reservation along its entire length that could be utilised. I Object to any proposal to restrict or lose on street parking along this corridor. I object to any loss of R or L turn road lanes at the Tesco roundabout

3.1 agree to the proposal to use the wide path and grass verge. Object to any loss of carriageway in the design.

3.2 Agree to using grass verge/wide path Object to any loss of carriageway.

3.3 Agree

3.4 Agree. Object to any loss of carriageway in design.

3.5 Agree. Object to any loss of carriageway in design.

3.6 Agree. Object to any loss of carriageway in design.

3.7 Object to any loss of carriageway or L/R turn lanes. Agree with looking at other improvements.

3.8 Agree to the link in Route 2. Object if loss/narrowing to carriageway.

Route 4: A422/ B4100 Warwick Road

Q. what is "Banbury Primary School at N. Bar Junction? Object to any One Way proposal for Warwick Rd. The "Quiet Route" mentioned, I object to any loss of on St. parking on Belgrave, Wimbourne, Townsend, Beesley or Cromwell Rd. Belgrave Crescent is very steep and may not be suitable. Object to any LTN/Bollard/Planters in the streets as shown on the maps. Belgrave/Neithrop Ave/Union St. this should be explicit in what they mean, no one knows what a 'model filter' or 'LTN' means and your Key is not shown. Object to any loss of R/L turn lane at any point of the Warwick/Stratford Rd junction

4.1 object to carriageway narrowing. agree to use of path and verge

4.2 Agree

4.3 Agree to using service road. Object to any loss of main carriageway.

4.4 Object to narrowing Belgrave Crescent or introducing model filters and LTNs at this junction. propose protecting junction with double yellow lines at junction itself. Object to loss of residents parking.

4.5 Use slip road by former Magistrates Court. Object to any loss of carriageway. Object to any loss of L/R turn lanes at junction. Object to any proposals to lose resident and short term parking at Clarkes Court and Vulcan Court on Warwick rd.

4.6. Object to any model filters/LTNs at Belgrave junction. Object to any loss of residents parking.

4.7 Object to narrowing of carriageway. Object to loss of residents parking.

4.8 Q what is it it is not shown.

4.9 ditto

4.10 Agree. Object to narrowing of carriageway.

4.11 Object to loss of carriageway, this is needed for the car park. Object to any cycle parking in Corn Hill.

Route 5: A361/ A423 Southam Road

Object to any proposal to make the Southam Rd 'One Way' as per an earlier proposal. There is a wide path and verge along its southern route which can be used. Object to any loss of carriageway, this is a major HGV route.

5.1 Agree to separate cycleway on wide existing path and verge. This was proposed at the planning stage of the new development but Highways put in a narrow strip of grass along the whole length! Short sighted.

5.2 Agree. Object to any narrowing of carriageway.

5.3 Object to any loss of lanes/carriageway or L/R turn lanes at this junction. it is a major HGV turning point and HGV route.

5.4 Object to any loss of carriageway. Use wide path and grass verge.

5.5 Object to any loss of carriageway. Object to any loss of L/R turn lanes.

5.6 Agree to an off road way.

Route 6: B4035 Broughton Road

Object to the Broughton Rd becoming One Way as per your earlier proposal. Object to LTNs/Model filters (bollards) at Bath Rd and Beargarden Rd. NB this is a steep road.

6.1 Object to a one Way system. Object to loss of residents parking. Object to loss of vehicle capacity at Banbury Cross.

6.2 Object to narrowing of High St. object to loss of short stay car parking on High St. this will impact on businesses. Object to the implementation of bollards to prevent parking. Q Has OCC not learnt from Oxford? Object to use of High St and pedestrian area for cyclists. Bye Laws prohibit cyclists. Conflict and potential injury to pedestrians, elderly and disabled would be worse.

Route 7: Former railway path through Hardwick

Agree

Route 8: Dukes Meadow Drive

8.1 Agree to use of grass verge to widen path. Object to coloured tarmac. its garish, never maintained to its original colour after works or utilities and is more expensive than black top.

8.2 Agree

8.3 Object to any loss of carriageway or R/L turn lanes at junctions. Object to narrowing roundabout as it is needed for HGV turning and movement.

Route 9: Grimsbury

9.1 Object to any loss of capacity or L/R turn lanes at Merton St.

Route 10: Overthorpe Road to Town Centre (from Nethercote)

Object to any loss of capacity/ loss of L/R turn lanes or narrowing of junctions at Merton St and Bridge St. Proposal. put in a foot, cycle bridge over the Bridge St. junction on one side. take out pedestrians from the road crossing and improve traffic flow on this, arguably the busiest cross road in Banbury. By removing pedestrians and cyclists from this junction you would avoid any conflict and provide free movement. Object to any loss of hatching marking on carriageway for safety/separation. Object to model filter/LTN bollards 10a If not applicable why include it? it's not on the map.

101 Object to model filter/LTN/bollards. This road has very high path on one side, have you visited the site?

10.2 Object to model filter/LTN/bollards. You propose one way? You don't say which way?

10.3 Agree. The desire line for pedestrians has moved since the new bowling alley and shop was built.

10.4 How will you impliment a cycle way in the narrow George St from High St to Broad St? its too narrow for a 3 mtr segregated cyclepath and room for busses?

10.5 Object instead of loss of carriageway use the bus lane for cyclists as well. They then have priority at Lower Cherwell St as busses do now. Object to removal of R. turn lane at junction of Lower Cherwell St. use bus lane for cycles and or use wide path.

10.6 Q what is a "future redesigned Cherwell St" etc.? You do not show. How can we make a judgement on part of a scheme not worked up to design stage?

10.7 Agree to a pedestrian/cyclist bridge over the Bridge St. junction. This will take out any conflict at the cross road and improve traffic flow N/S/E/W. The Rail Bridge is problematic and expensive, wait until the electrification of the Chiltern Line when the bridge will have to be replaced/lifted to accommodate.

10.8 Implement/build a pedestrian cycle bridge.

10.9 Object to any loss of carriageway capacity or loss of any L/R turn lanes. This is a Highways England Route for HGVs to and from the M40. It is the main route for all service busses in Banbury, It is the main route for intercity and tourist coaches. any loss of capacity for vehicles will have a knock on effect throughout N. East Oxfordshire.

10.10 No comment

10.11 Object to any loss of residents parking or narrowing of the carriageway.

10.12 Object to narrowing the carriageway. object to loss of residents parking.

10.13 Agree to use of verge for widening of path. object to loss of carriageway in future design/implementation.

10.14 Agree

10.15 Agree (Typo, do you mean dropped curbs not dropped cars?

10.16 Object to any loss of carriageway or L/R turn lanes at roundabout, HGV turning space needed.

10.17 See answer to 10.16

10.18 Object to narrowing the carriageway. Cycle bridge too expensive for the amount of cyclists using this route due to sparse population and steepness of hill, Object.

10.19 Q. How many cyclists do you think will use this? Cost effective?

Route 11: St John's Road to Lambs Crescent

Object to loss of on street parking for residents. This will be a major factor if implemented.

11.1 Object to loss of residents parking.

11.2 No comment.

11.3 Object to use of bollards

11.4 Agree to widen paths "where possible" object to loss of carriageway and parking. If not possible without loss of carriageway Object to all.

11. 5 Careful consideration needed with residents views and wishes.

11.6 Careful consideration needed to cut congestion for all road users.

Route 12: Salt Way

This is a ecologically sensitive area. Iron Age road. It needs to be kept rural in its design.

12.1 Careful consideration concerning suitable materials to be used for surfacing. Harsh St. lighting would be inappropriate.

12.2. Some vehicles may need access for maintenance. a local volunteer group maintain and improve the Salt way. You will need to consult them : S.W.A.G.

12.3 Agree

Route 13: Railway Station to Bodicote

Object to loss of residential car parking. There is a wide grass verge and existing path along this route, use it. The original plan spoke of 20mph limit at Bodicote. Q who will enforce?

13.1 Widen path through development opportunities. Object to loss of carriageway as it is currently used for HGVs.

13.2 Agree if land owners can be persuaded?

13.3 Agree.

13.4 Agree to shared pedestrian/cycleway on wide verge. Object to short of long term loss of residential parking.

13.5 What are "Gates" do not understand? Use plain English not jargon or technical terms.

13.6 No comment on roundabout. People will not walk or cycle down and up the slope, they will walk and cycle across the bridge.

13.7 See 13.6

13.8 Agree to widen path. Object to loss of carrageway.

13.9 Agree.

Route 14: Wildmere Industrial Estate to Bridge Street

This route could form one of the best destination walking routes to/from the Railway Station to leisure destinations such as The Mill Arts Centre, Tooleys Boat Yard, Museum, Canal, River, Castle Quay and The Light Cinema Complex, Spiceball Country Park. It will need landscaping and improved paths and lighting through Bridge Street Park. OCC need to work with the landowner. Object to the use of coloured tarmac unsightly in a country park, ecologically sensitive area and part of a conservation area. It should carry on into Station Approach to link with Rail Stn. Agree.

Route 15: Easington 

The document speaks of access to the main Secondary schools (BGN, Academy and Space School ) from Cherwell Hieghts, in fact it is used by students from all parts of Banbury with heavy foot fall on its entire length from Bloxham Rd to Bodicote inc C. Heights to Springfield Ave. the paths are in poor repair for the hugh volume of children who have to use it. it has wide grass verges that could be utilised to widen the paths. Careful consideration need to take place as Blessed George Napier has many large school busses accessing it with pupils twice a day. Object to model filters/LTNs and bollards in this area. Need to consider both Stagecoach service and Voluntary Bus service that need access from Timms Est (Sycamore Drive) to Oxford Rd (Horton View). Object to a bus gate. This is the main desire line/route for 3/4 of the secondary school pupils in Banbury and I am amazed at your lack of ambition in improving the pedestrian element of your LCWalkingIP . It tells me you are only interested in stopping the car and promoting cycling. This area should form the core of the Walking to School strategy.

15.1 Agree

15.2 Object. This is the main N/South route through Banbury and any narrowing of the carriageway or removal of hatching would impede traffic and school busses. Agree to improved crossing without loss of carriageway.

15.3 Agree

15.4 This is a nebulous promise, not a concrete proposal

Route 16: Bankside to Salt Way

This will need working with the landowner of the Park. This route is very steep at the Bankside section and may be unsuitable for cycling. The more crossings on the Oxford Road will inevitably lead to more rat running on Bankside and Easington. Agree in principle.

Route 17 Longelandes Road to Warwick Road

Please use Nursery Lane and not Nursery Drive. it's an existing green route in every sense of the word Object to using Nursery Drive. Object to loss of residents parking on Nursery Drive. Object to narrowing of Nursery Drive. 
17.1 No comment 
17.2 Agree if using grass verge. 
17.3 Agree 
17.4 Object to the use of Nursery Drive. 
17.5 Agree, use Nursery Lane. it is already a green route for cyclists and pedestrians. it also has a link to Southam Rd that you haven't utilised or probably even know about. This could be an added bonus linking to shops and supermarket (Waitrose). 
17.6 Object to modal filters/LTN/Bollard etc. this is next to the Fire Stn (OCC will impede its own Fire and rescue Service so object it self!). It is also next to Thames Valley Police HQ for Cherwell and West Oxfordshire and would impede their vehicles. Stupid idea.

Route 18: Canal Towpath

The document is very light in detail. 
Phase 1. There is plenty of S106 money to provide access from Bankside to Banbury but no lift bridges in operation. Pedestrians have to walk to Grants Lock half way to King Sutton Bridge to get from the west side to the tow path. How are you going to implement this route? 
Phase 2. There is a desire line from the Rail Stn to Banbury Town Centre and it is via a muddy slope at Station Approach, that should be your priority on this section. You speak of "public realm enhancement" around Tooley Boatyard and an impediment being "large iron gates"! This is a private working boatyard and business, the gates are to stop people having access to dangerous machinery or stealing materials. It is a working environment that would be considered too dangerous for the public, it leads not to another path but the canal itself! Walkers can't walk it, cyclists can't cycle it and disabled "Wheelers" as you call them would drown! There is no crossing point. This proves that the consultants, as in much of this document, have no local knowledge.