News RSS Feed


Unanimous vote: District backs link road project


TRAFFIC in Witney will only get worse without the controversial £15m Cogges Link Road, the leader of West Oxfordshire District Council said as the authority backed the scheme.

The lowlands planning sub-committee voted unanimously on Monday to give its support to Oxfordshire County Council, which has gone out to consultation on the scheme, and is expected to decide in February next year.

Latest figures from members of the public are more than 1,200 objections and 170 in support.

District councillors are, however, telling the county to ensure there are flood alleviation measures in place on the River Windrush floodplain, plus noise reduction surfacing and tree planting to protect Cogges estate residents from noise nuisance.

Since the road scheme was first on the drawing board almost 20 years ago, it has been part of the district council’s Local Plan policy.

It should have been built earlier, after receiving planning permission in 1997, but was delayed through lack of funding.

Warwick Robinson, cabinet member for strategic planning, said: “I came here 28 years ago, and in all that time, Bridge Street remains the only route to get through the town.

“Providing relief is fundamental.

“The alternative, of depending on junctions off the A40, will just stack back traffic.”

Council leader, Barry Norton, added: “We do not know what lies in the future, but if there is further development in the north and east of Witney, the town’s traffic problems would only get worse without the Cogges Link Road.”

A protest campaign against the road is being spearheaded by the Campaign to Protect Rural England, which favours an alternative and less-costly scheme of a four-way junction on the A40 at Shores Green. Witney spokesman, David Condon, said after the meeting he was not surprised by district councillors giving their backing.

Comments(14)

David Condon says...
3:25pm Tue 16 Dec 08

"David Condon, said after the meeting he was not surprised by district councillors giving their backing."

Absolutely correct, and it shows just what the people of Witney are up against.
Two Councillors spoke about their considerable concerns about the issue of flooding, and yet they voted FOR the road.

You really do have to ask yourself, what IS going on in those comfortable Council chambers?




nickwilcock says...
5:05pm Tue 16 Dec 08

Just who do these so-called District Councillors think they are representing? There is widespread opposition to the Cogges by-pass, yet they simply won't listen to the volume of concern - they have a 'nanny knows best' attitude, it seems to me.
The Shores Green alternative is less environmentally damaging, less expensive and widely supported.
All this Cogges Bypass would achieve is gridlock at the Thorney Leys / Station Lane / Ducklington Lane junction, with queueing on the A415 becoming even worse than ever. And very probably on the A40 as well.


firstwitney says...
5:48pm Tue 16 Dec 08

Thank goodness for the common sense of the WODC.

bobby lashley says...
12:03pm Wed 17 Dec 08

As usual the council has the ear of the people. A deaf one at that.
Shores green and the same at currbridge is the only real viable option.If the budget is £15 million then that wont be enough for the CLR anyway.

nickwilcock says...
10:22am Thu 18 Dec 08

Do the traffic figures used in the report take into account all the extra vehicles which will now use Lidl?

Somehow I doubt it.

The congestion in Station Lane would only worsen further with both Lidl and the ill-conceived Cogges Bypass.

Shores Green is now even more relevant than ever - a road junction which actually would 'link' Cogges to the west!


firstwitney says...
11:17am Thu 18 Dec 08

The advocates of the Shores Green proposal have much questioned the traffic projections when the CLR is built.Is it not time they produced their own computer modelling showing the effect on the traffic in Bridge Street if the SG proposal was provided? It's no good asserting the virtues of this scheme without backing it with solid evidence so lets hear from you.

Eric Porter says...
11:42am Thu 18 Dec 08

I don't see that the SG option would help Bridge St as much as CPRE claim, how many people coming in on the A4095 will go along Jubilee Way then turn left ?
Most are surely more likely to go along the CLR but even then, many will still take the old route via Woodstock Rd and Broad Hill.
My biggest concern regarding CLR is what happens at the other end ? traffic congestion could end up simply being moved to another part of town.
Incidentally, where do CPRE get their figures ?

David Condon says...
2:44pm Thu 18 Dec 08

The following link will take you to the OCC's planning documentation.

All the SG traffic figures are taken from these documents.

Scroll down to heading 'Environment Statement', then download No 4 'Traffic Model Forecasting Report', then download pages 43-51. Then have a look at the similar traffic reductions given by both SG and CLR in Bridge Street. Then look at the massive increase in traffic volumes at Station Lane/Witan Way.

CPRE don't need to do their own traffic modelling, it's all been done and it's there for all to see.



http://www.oxfordshi
re.gov.uk/wps/portal
/publicsite/councils
ervices?WCM_GLOBAL_C
ONTEXT=http://apps.o
xfordshire.gov.uk/wp
s/wcm/connect/Intern
et%2FCouncil+service
s%2FRoads+and+transp
ort%2FMajor+projects
%2FRT+-+MP+-+Cogges+
Link




David Condon says...
4:31pm Thu 18 Dec 08

If the above link doesn't work, try this -
Go to - www.oxfordshire.gov.
uk
Click - Roads & Transport (on left)

Click - Major Projects(centre page)

Scroll down to- Future Projects

Click-Proposals for Cogges Link Road

Scroll down to-Environment Statement

firstwitney says...
6:06pm Thu 18 Dec 08

Thankyou Mr for your help.I did manage to find it from your first post---understanding it all is another matter but I have said before on this site that I am not a traffic engineer/planner.
However the conclusions do seem to confirm my opinions expressed previously that the SG scheme would be ineffective in reducing the traffic flow in Bridge Street and this objective must be the foremost priority.Please do try to see it from the point of view of people using and living in Bridge Street,Woodstock Road ,Newland and Westend.I think they have suffered long enough.

firstwitney says...
6:28pm Thu 18 Dec 08

Mr Condon,I do apologise for missing out your name from my last post.No disrespect was intended I assure you.

David Condon says...
6:50pm Thu 18 Dec 08

No problem, apology accepted!

It is not until the whole traffic report is read and understood that it becomes obvious how biased the conclusion is. Believe me, we have read and re-read every page of all of these reports. We have analysed all the traffic figures and were staggered at what we found.

If you want to have a copy of our findings so you can check our figures please contact me. You may be suprised. Send an email to cogges@witneyfirst.c
om and mark it for my attention.

yentiw says...
1:43pm Fri 19 Dec 08

Absolutely laughable! Democracy, what a joke. This will come back to haunt each and every one of them. The traffic chaos at the Station Lane imo, what with Lidl approval, will become an immense nightmare.
Witney, once famous for blankets alone, will now become known as the last town with free parking but nobody bothers to come because of the gridlock and flooding. Pah!

yentiw says...
1:55pm Fri 19 Dec 08

Just a thought. Imagine for a moment, like the two councillors, you are in a position to place a vote, and you have voiced real concern about possible flooding, so basically you are 'against' what was being laid in front of you, what on earth would make you vote 'in favour'?

Think about it.


Most popular


Local Information

Enter your postcode, town or place name

House prices »   Schools »   Crime »   Hospitals »

Local Businesses