City Conservation Area Consultation Response

Oxford Central

(City & University)

Conservation Area

Draft Character Appraisal

Comments from Cyclox, Cycling UK

 

  • Cyclox’s interest is in ensuring that more people are enabled to cycle, safely, conveniently, and may securely park a bike at the end of a journey stage.
  • Cyclox and Cycling UK comments are added in red, under quoted sections in black.
  • The Character Appraisal is important in this context particularly if its thrust continues to erode facilities for cycling.

 

From the Consultation Document Draft 3.0

To be of use as an informative document it follows that it needs to be more than descriptive. It needs to enable an assessment of proposals by being a tool for assessment. It needs also to be aware of wider transport needs which are far from being met, regarding cycling. It appears to be the case that provisions for cycling are being downgraded or removed, referring to cycle-specific coloured surfaces and signage (e.g. missing street level signage in St Ebbes/Queen Street.

 

The major change has to be the reduction in motor traffic. By the end of the life time of the local plan, 2036, transport (as well as buildings) will be zero carbon. Cycling and walking will have to be the priority transport mode for the city, electric vehicles are not the solution as still create congestion if not air pollution. New public spaces need to be created in particular in St Giles and Broad St.

 

We would also like to point out that the report still talks about the retail area being the

northern part of the city centre, whereas the whole retail focus has shifted to the west

end, the Westgate Centre. This will have profound effects on how Queen Street and

Cornmarket St are used in the future, in particular as access routes for people

walking and cycling.

 

We can’t understand why all of the Science Area apart from the University Museum

is excluded from the central conservation area. It is just as important as anywhere

else, both for the built environment and for travel and movement, especially cycling.

Is it that it is not romantically “pretty” enough?

 

 

0.0 Foreword

 

This page uses an image of Broad Street, with cyclists. The traffic limited area of the street (in theory) is effectively a shared surface owing to its signage and width.

 

Shared surfaces are not appropriate for cycling and we argue for segregated facilities on main axes.

 

The recent National Infrastructure Commission’s study: ‘Running out of road, investing in cycling in Cambridge, Milton Keynes and Oxford’ makes this statement:

“Badly-designed schemes, including in Oxford and Cambridge, promote conflict by, for instance, painting a line on a pavement and calling it a cycle lane; or by using “shared space” at busy locations, which is opposed by the UK’s main cycling and pedestrian groups25 and should be avoided”. [1]

The street is a key component of the character of Oxford. The varied users of the street also have a major impact on the street scene. Cyclox supports the Public Realm proposals, by Phil Jones Associates and ITP planning, for a lessening of motor traffic, redistribution of bus routes and coherent, segregated provisions for cycling across the centre.

From the NIC report: –

Oxford is already a city of cycling and public transport, not cars

  1. Oxford has Britain’s second-highest cycling levels, … Between 7am and 7pm an average of 860 bikes an hour, 14 a minute, cross Magdalen Bridge. Over the 24 hours, bicycles make up 46 per cent of all vehicles on this bridge, with cars and taxis comprising 36 per cent.45 In the city as a whole, 17 per cent of people cycle to work, about six times the UK average; for work journeys entirely within Oxford, it is 25 per cent.46 According to the council, only 32 per cent of work journeys in Oxford are made by private motor vehicle.47 The rest are made by bike, bus and on foot.[2]

However, and significantly for this Conservation Area document, the NIC report goes on to explain: –

But the road network does not reflect how Oxford actually travels

  1. Despite the huge numbers of cyclists using them, Oxford’s main roads and junctions are still laid out almost entirely for the benefit of the motor vehicle. They look little or no different from the roads of a typical British city where almost nobody cycles. One council officer, though quite pro-cycling, still spoke of providing cycle facilities where they could be “fitted in” to the roads. In places such as Magdalen Bridge, given the balance of usage, the approach should be to “fit in” cars around bikes and pedestrians.

Cyclox suggests that the main routes in the Central Conservation Area and the road junctions be redesigned to accommodate facilities that are safe and coherent for cycling.

 

Currently the situation at Carfax is threatening to both pedestrians and to people cycling. It is a barrier for some cyclists[3].

(Reference photograph with 1.0, Introductory Summary, overleaf)

 

 

This NIC statement of the urgent need for cycling ‘to be designed for’, to avoid further motor vehicle growth and a consequent erosion of the quality of the Central Conservation Area: –

Without change, Oxford will be unable to cope

  1. Over the next 13 years, there are to be 85,000 new jobs and 100,000 new homes in the county.38 24,300 of the jobs and 28,000 of the homes will be in the city of Oxford itself39 and most of the others will be nearby. The county council estimates that this could result in a 25% increase in journeys within the city boundary, and 13,000 more car commuter trips each day.40 [4]

Cyclox supports the Introduction summary comment:

 

“In all of this, the City Council recognizes that above all else the city centre is a living,

evolving place and community, not an historic monument. That spirit underlies this

project.”[5]

 

The Character Zones diagram, p12, notes the great cost of traffic to the Zone’s Character: –

 

Character zones

Oxford Central Conservation Area

Principal streets:

The principle north-south and east-west movement

routes reflect the gates in the Medieval walls, which –

despite pedestrianisation of the Cornmarket and Queen

Street – still funnel traffic into the historic core at Carfax,

at great cost to the Conservation Area. Broad Street is

equally historic and important in today’s city.

 

There is an absence of conclusion to this comment which we do not accept.

What steps are being taken, with the support of this Consultation, to ameliorate this position?

 

 

P13, 1.4 tells the reader that:

  • Recommendations and advice to conserve and enhance these

characteristics [to follow in the second stage later in 2018].

 

This is not acceptable.

There may be degrees of disagreement as to what constructions are better or worse, but this could be acceptable. There are likely to be many different views as to what actions would be allowed in development within the area.

 

 

 

Part 3: Map, P14, (N.B. This is an extremely useful facility.)

In selecting Landmark Buildings and Scheduled Monuments the streets at St Aldates/Folly Bridge/Abingdon Road, also Turn Again Lane, are recorded. There is no obvious visual indication on these streets’ status to present day visitors and residents.

 

Streets and their horizontal surface make-up a major part of the conservation area experience and more consideration is needed to traffic, transport and the image projected. Currently the city’s streets appear to be treated with a late 1960s’, car is king, mindset. This is not good enough at any level.

 

Section 2

Technical Advice Document

 

2.3, Terminology (p22)

 

Active frontage” needs to be more closely defined. Should the activity be, say, every 5m of frontage? i.e. average sized frontage. Obviously much of Westgate fails on this measure.

And should frontage activity be defined to reflect the building plan and be usable?

Cases:

Case 1: The ‘new’ apartment buildings at the end of Brook Street (west) were approved, if ‘active frontages’ faced Brook St. Doorways were built but the doors were sealed in place. The plans didn’t change to reflect a door. Planning demand was evaded and the street impoverished thus.

Case 2:  Westgate developers ‘evaded’ the demand for active frontage by asserting that their buildings were, in fact, no more inactive than most building frontages nearby (I paraphrase).

Case 3:  Museum Road, Oxford,

The 1980: Keble College Extension, has similar ‘residential accommodation’ to the historic ‘domestic’ buildings of Dt John’s on the right. The Keble building is inactive in terms of use (even if there is a degree of sculpting which could be described as being active).

 

The lesson to be learned for the Appraisal Draft, need to be defined with great care and specific statements rather than loosely-defined terms such as ‘Active frontage’.

 

The West End Area Action Plan 2, 2008, section B3.1, p23, includes a useful model for defining active frontage. It has detailed descriptions, Table B3, (right):

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.3, Public realm P22, continued.

 

“The publicly-accessible space between buildings – streets,

squares, quaysides, paths, parks and gardens – and the

elements that make them up, such as pavement, signage,

seating and planting.”

 

We concur that the public realm of the streets etc is of key importance and ‘look forward’ to this point being developed further….

 

3.0

A brief description of the conservation area

 

3.1 Designation history

3.1.1 Background

“Thomas Sharp, in his report to the City Council published in 1948 as “Oxford

Replanned”, set out and defined Oxford’s special physical and architectural

character and stressed its virtues and problems in the twentieth century context.”

 

Cyclox observes however, that the Thomas Sharp text referred to is prejudiced about cycling. Cyclox contends that this prejudice pertains in planning and architecture and even traffic engineering.

 

 

 

 

and P92,

 

 

The last quoted line has overtones which are maintained to today:

Cyclox suggest that the Draft Character Appraisal clearly embraces cycling as an important travel mode.

A specific section on cycling, safe cycling provisions, changes to priorities and junctions and the continual problem of cycle parking are of key importance.

 

 

 

5.1, What is special about the conservation area?

 

Green Oxford. Oxford is a green city. The core contains an exceptional amount

of green space. The flood plains of the Cherwell and the Thames encircle the city

centre, a bucolic foil to its architectural splendours and a wonderful public resource.

College lawns and gardens are glimpsed throughout its streets but remain private.

The glorious relationship between greenery and buildings is fundamental to the

conservation area’s unique character.

 

The ramifications of this section might suggest that additional greenery in public space is not desirable. I would criticise the continued absence of greenery in the form of trees in Cornmarket and Queen Street. (See also later comment on Theme 27: views in the conservation area, (p91)

 

 

5.2, Themes (p49) and (p55)

 

 

 

N.B. The intrusive refuse container (p49) and the Double Yellow Lines (pp49 & p55 and others).

The issue of waste storage and handling requires more thought.  The option of in-ground, cassette-storage should be investigated. This would achieve more acceptable and harmonious street scene.

 

The Double Yellow Lines are unnecessarily intrusive and could be done-away-with by implementation of a city-wide ‘Restrictive Parking Zone’ declaration. This sign is used, for instance, in New Inn Hall Street.

 

Mention of Yellow Lines is also not mentioned in the section on ‘Pavements and Street Materials’ in Theme 16, page 141.

 

 

5.0, Figure: Historic urban characterization (p50)

 

Please Note,

The Key to this map is not legible. The Colour hues are too-close together and indistinguishable on the map.

 

5.0, Page 62

 

 

NB this analysis of street materials excludes Rose Place which is worthy of consideration, especially the east end to the Catholic Chaplaincy.

 

The case of Merton St is notable for the intrusive Double Yellow Lines, commented on previously. The new DYLs marked in Rose Place seem most intrusive and inappropriate.

 

Yellow lines: intrusive, ineffective, unnecessary if the Central Conservation Area was made into a Restricted Parking Zone.

 

 

 

 

5.2.5, County Town, (p67) Fig 32.

The frontage presented to Thames Street by these houses makes a negative contribution to that street.

 

Thames Street loses much potential quality by the failure of this architecture.

 

Please see the comment on ‘Active Frontages’; Section 2

2.3, Terminology (this document page 5)

 

 

 

 

5.0, Theme 12: commerce and retail (p68) Fig 35.

 Westgate Centre. The external facades of the new Centre provide an unnecessarily blank and unacceptable, inactive façade and an unacceptable contribution to the city and the Central Conservation Area.

 

Internally its qualities are of some interest.

 

The ‘Turn Again Lane’ extension pictured in Figure 35 is ‘provided’, in part, to enable cross-Mall transport for cycling. But, the connection to Norfolk Street at the west side is kerbed. An evasion of the facility promised.

 

The Draft Technical Advice Note must not, surely, unwittingly or otherwise, effectively give a stamp of acceptance without a critical review of this development’s failings, both in planning and architectural design.

 

 

 

5.0, Theme 27: views in the conservation area (p91)

 

Vistas to focal points: for example, Tom Tower is the focal point of the north-south axis of Oxford, clearly visible for the length of Cornmarket Street and St Aldate’s.

 

We object to the continued absence of greenery in the form of trees in Cornmarket and Queen Street. The views to Tom Tower would not be blocked. Public comment has previously called for trees in these ‘hard’ streets.

 

 

9.0

Character Zone 1: the principal streets

 

9.1 Overview of character and significance

 

The report ignores horizontal surfaces, the streets, and the mass of tarmac. In

particular there are two potentially beautiful public spaces, St Giles and Broad St,

both of which are plagued by car parking. We don’t accept that the car parking in St

Giles is not ‘inherently harmful’. Both these locations could fine public spaces that are

free of motor traffic, but accessible for people walking and cycling. They could be fine

spaces with trees, grass, water features, places to sit.

 

 

9.3 History (page 92)

Commercial renewal

  • Whilst in these areas there has been only limited redevelopment in the last two

hundred years, much of Magdalen Street, Cornmarket Street and Queen Street

have been renewed with commercial development, often combining medieval

plots.

  • More recently, pedestrianisation has been introduced to sustain the vitality of the retail core, effectively creating new public spaces.

 

Cyclox objects to this ‘pedestrianisation’ descriptor.

  • The language is imprecise.
  • It is an unhelpful descriptor at a time when major changes are adumbrated for active travel (cycling) in Oxford.

 

The signage for these streets is pictured here:

Motorcycles and motor vehicles are banned at any time, except for ‘disabled’ vehicles.

Loading is allowed 6.00pm to 10.00am.

Cycling is restricted from 10.00 to 6.00pm.

There is no parking allowed at any time.

 

The recent National Infrastructure Commission’s study: ‘Running out of road, investing in cycling in Cambridge, Milton Keynes and Oxford’ (and the ‘Phil Jones’ Public Realm Strategy) call for cycling to be permitted 24 hours per day on these key cardinal routes.

 

 

Public space, 9.4,

Character (p120)

 

Theme 9: public space 61

Central Oxford has no formal public spaces, but this character zone contains significant places for markets and public gathering, some historic and others recently reinforced by pedestrianisation:

This description is inaccurate:

  • The analysis excludes Bonn Square, designed to be a public space.
    • Bonn Square is however mentioned in ‘Public Spaces’, page 140.
  • The imprecise usage of ‘pedestrianisation’ is repeated three times.
    • As previously explained, cycling is allowed in these streets to varying extents and there are current proposals to enable cycling in all these streets.
    • A more accurate descriptor could be ‘motor traffic free’.

The report ignores horizontal surfaces, the streets, and the mass of tarmac. In particular there are two potentially beautiful public spaces, St Giles and Broad St, both of which are plagued by car parking. We don’t accept that the car parking in St Giles is not ‘inherently harmful’. Both these locations could fine public spaces that are free of motor traffic, but accessible for people walking and cycling. They could be fine spaces with trees, grass, water features, places to sit.

 

 

Pavements and street materials (p121)

 

Street materials

Theme 16: materials 74

  • The majority of street surfaces in this zone are new but in most cases this is not

detrimental to its character. Shared and pedestrian surfaces in Queen Street

and Cornmarket Street are not wearing well, and mismatched patch repairs are

unattractive.

 

  • The usage of ‘Shared and pedestrian’ is an improvement. However, Cyclox requests that the presence (and desirability) of cycling is present in all relevant places, such as here, in the document.
    • As previously explained, cycling is allowed in these streets to varying extents and there are current proposals to enable cycling in all these streets.

 

 

9.4.8 Movement and activity (p130)

 

Theme 24: tranquility_86

As the streets comprising this character zone still constitute the main movement

routes to Oxford city centre, as well as the core streets of the commercial heart

itself, they are characterized by high levels of activity. In places this is harmful to the

conservation area’s character and appearance:

Cyclox is concerned that cycling as a mode, needing coherent and safe provision, is not mentioned. We wish to see the NIC report and also the PJA’ ‘Public Realm Strategy’[6] documents referred to. And furthermore, that a ‘conservation area consideration is specifically addressed to the mode of cycling, to avoid, as the NIC report criticises, ‘fitting-in’:

But the road network does not reflect how Oxford actually travels

  1. Despite the huge numbers of cyclists using them, Oxford’s main roads and junctions are still laid out almost entirely for the benefit of the motor vehicle. They look little or no different from the roads of a typical British city where almost nobody cycles. One council officer, though quite pro-cycling, still spoke of providing cycle facilities where they could be “fitted in” to the roads. In places such as Magdalen Bridge, given the balance of usage, the approach should be to “fit in” cars around bikes and pedestrians.[7]

Cyclox objects to the absence of mention of the mode of cycling in the sections on ‘Traffic’ and.

‘Pedestrians’

 

Cyclox objects to further unqualified use of ‘pedestrianise’ (and pedestrianize (sic)) two times, and ‘pedestrianisation’ two times.

 

 

 

10.0

Character Zone 2:

the medieval town

10.1 Overview of character and significance

  • Limitations on vehicle use in streets, in particular Holywell Street, which has

reduced the harmful impact of vehicles on setting and character.

Cyclox is most concerned about the statement which implicitly excludes one of the proposals for bus re-introduction in the current PJA’ Public Realm Study[8].

 

Amongst the variety of reasons for the PJA’ proposals are those of improving the context of Oxfords’ historic buildings from dense (bus) traffic and also to enable provision for an increased modal-shift towards cycling.

 

 

 

Pavements and street materials, (p141)

Street materials

Theme 16: materials

  • Several of the streets in the zone have long sections of characteristic granite sett

gutters.

 

The case of Merton St is notable (but not alone) for the intrusive Double Yellow Lines unsympathetically painted onto the granite setts, as commented on previously (page 9).

 

The new DYLs marked in Rose Place are intrusive and inappropriate (see page 9).

 

Magpie Lane has one of the more egregious examples of unsympathetic use of Double Yellow Lines.

 

 

 

10.4.8 Movement and activity, (page 150)

Theme 24: tranquility 86

The zone includes the commercial core of Oxford where the activity levels are high.

Since the zone is characterised by its narrow streets and alleyways, its activity is

largely limited to that of pedestrians.

 

Traffic

  • Traffic within the zone is limited to New Road, Castle Road and Longwall Street.

Activity is moderate.

 

Cycling

  • Low level of cycle activity due to the narrowness of the streets.

 

This analysis is flawed, incorrect. Longwall Street carries a significant level of cycle traffic, especially when the University of Oxford is ‘up’.

 

The narrowness of a street section is unlikely to have any major impact on its level of cycle traffic.

 

  • This whole section on ‘Tranquility’ is naïve and ill-informed.
  • The City has paid for ‘Space Syntax’ analyses in the past and such a method explains the presence or not of ‘traffic’.

 

 

11.4.8 Movement and activity, (page 170)

Theme 24: tranquillity_86

Traffic

  • The setting of several colleges is harmed by the volume of traffic … …

 

Cycling

  • The main entrance to a college often attracts clusters of parked bicycles on

the street – this gives the street an attractive sense of activity and is one of

the characteristic sights of Oxford, but large numbers are an impediment to

pedestrians on narrow pavements e.g. on Turl Street.

 

Cyclox would point out that motor vehicles are frequently found parked in Turl Street. Were cycle parking provision made on the street then narrow pavements could be kept clear of cycles.

 

 

12.4.2 Streets and townscape, (page 179)

 

The University zone includes some of the finest townscape in the conservation

area, no more so than the magnificent cluster between St Mary’s on the High Street

and the Sheldonian and Clarendon Building on Broad Street.

 

Public spaces

Theme 9: public space_61

  • Most of the few public spaces in city centre surround University buildings, often

with high quality paving and attractive public realm.

  • Pedestrianisation of Radcliffe Square and streets around it is has made this area

one the most important public spaces in the city.

 

Radcliffe Square has cycle access, it is thus not ‘pedestrianised’.

Similarly, Catte St has cycle access throughout

 

Cycle Parking,

  • The Railings around the Radcliffe Camera present a major opportunity for secure cycle parking.
  • There is, otherwise, a dearth of secure public cycle parking and many college walls and fences could be perfect locations for such provision. There are numerous devices that can sympathetically provide security.
    • A key example is the provision of ‘rings’ on the walls of Oxford Town Hall, St Aldates.

 

  • Cyclox suggests that greater use of such provision for secure cycle parking is made throughout the University’ and College’s building facades to public space.

 

 

12.4.8 Movement and activity (page 190)

Theme 24: tranquillity_86

 

Traffic

  • The setting of the Ashmolean, and to a lesser extent St Cross Law Library, is

harmed by the weight of traffic.

  • Fortunately the central core is pedestrianised.

 

  • Cyclox is concerned that cycling as a mode, needing coherent and safe provision, is not mentioned and the use of ‘pedestrianised’ is not acceptable.
  • We wish to see the NIC report and also the PJA’ ‘Public Realm Strategy’[9] documents referred to whereas only the PJA report is referred to.
  • And furthermore, that a ‘conservation area consideration is specifically addressed to the mode of cycling, to avoid, as the NIC report criticises, ‘fitting-in’[10]:

 

13.4.8 Movement and activity

Theme 24: tranquillity_86

Traffic

… …

  • Little Clarendon Street is one-way but has a regular stream of traffic moving

along it. Other streets, such as the mews, are quieter access roads.

 

  • Little Clarendon Street is one-way only for motor traffic.
  • It has a contraflow cycling provision.

 

Pedestrians and cycling

  • There is a regular flow of pedestrians along most of the streets, although

Wellington Square and Blackhall Road are noticeably quieter.

  • There are numerous parked cycles but these are mostly in dedicated racks and

do not impact on the pedestrian realm.

  • Cyclox is concerned that cycling as a mode, needing coherent and safe provision, is not mentioned. The exclusion is of great concern to us.
  • The recognition that dedicated cycle parking provision is implicitly good is welcome observation.
  • This observation should be made into a principle for the document.

 

15.0 Character Zone 7: the flood plain, (page 238)

15.5.2 Landscape

 

Paths

  • Tarmac is not consistent with this character and is limited to Thames-side paths

in the more urban area west of Folly Bridge, … … This reflects the

higher level of cycle and foot traffic along this route in and out of the city centre.

 

  • Cyclox would observe that a high level of cycle traffic exists to the east of Folly Bridge, along the Isis.
  • The path surface should be tarmac not loose gravel, reflecting the level of cycle-use and occasional very heavy foot and cycle-use during river races.

 

 

15.5.8 Movement and activity, (Page 248)

Theme 24: tranquillity_86

 

Traffic

  • Folly Bridge remains the principal access point into the city centre from the

south and the weight and noise of traffic here degrades the character and

experience of this part of the conservation area.

  • On the eastern edge, traffic is mostly funnelled along St Cross Road, which is a

fairly busy through-route to North Oxford. …

 

  • Cycling on Folly Bridge is very poorly provided for.
  • We wish to see the NIC report and also the PJA’ ‘Public Realm Strategy’[11] documents referred to. And furthermore, that a ‘conservation area consideration is specifically addressed to the mode of cycling, to avoid, as the NIC report criticises, ‘fitting-in’[12]:

 

Pedestrians and cycling

  • Access throughout the rest of the character area is mostly pedestrian, with

occasional provision for access by service and maintenance vehicles.

  • Bicycles are restricted through most of these areas and are not permitted in the

University Parks or Christ Church Meadow.

  • The important cycle path at the south east end of University Parks, connecting South Parks Road to Ferry Road (Marston), is busy and should be recognised.

 

 

 

16.0 Background and methodology

16.2.4 Interfaces

 

Advice and guidance

… …

Oxford City Centre Movement and Public Realm Strategy, Phil Jones Associates

2018, https://www.oxford.gov.uk/news/article/636/options_for_new_oxford_

transport_arrangements_unveiled

 

  • This mention of the Movement and Public Realm Strategy is welcomed.
  • The focus on coherent cycling provision is an important feature of that strategy and implies that the Conservation Area Draft should include a significantly more positive response for cycling.

 

 

17.0 Statement of Community Engagement, (page 258)

 

17.3 Second stakeholder workshop

This will take place in the Autumn of 2018 and will focus on management

recommendations and design advice.

17.4 Second stage public consultation

Consultation on the second version of the document, including management

recommendations and design advice will run at the end of 2018.

 

Cyclox was not invited (may not have been invited) to the Stakeholder workshop and wishes to be invited to subsequent events.

 

On behalf of Cyclox, and Cycling UK, 22 October 2018

Graham Paul Smith

Infrastructure Group

Cyclox Committee

[1] https://www.nic.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Running-out-of-Road-June-2018.pdf, p13, #30.

[2] https://www.nic.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Running-out-of-Road-June-2018.pdf, p17, #47

[3] Personal conversation at a meeting with ‘Low Carbon South Oxford’

[4] https://www.nic.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Running-out-of-Road-June-2018.pdf, p16, #40.

[5] Oxford Central Conservation Area Appraisal DRAFT 3.0, p10, #1.2,

 

[6] Oxford City Centre Movement and Public Realm Strategy, Phil Jones Associates

  1. https://www.oxford.gov.uk/news/article/636/options_for_new_oxford_

transport_arrangements_unveiled,

[7] https://www.nic.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Running-out-of-Road-June-2018.pdf, page 17.

[8] https://www.oxford.gov.uk/news/article/636/options_for_new_oxford_

transport_arrangements_unveiled

[9] https://www.oxford.gov.uk/news/article/636/options_for_new_oxford_

transport_arrangements_unveiled

[10] https://www.nic.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Running-out-of-Road-June-2018.pdf, page 17.

[11] https://www.oxford.gov.uk/news/article/636/options_for_new_oxford_

transport_arrangements_unveiled

[12] https://www.nic.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Running-out-of-Road-June-2018.pdf, page 17.