STATUS: APPLICATION OPEN
CLOSING DATE: 30th OCTOBER 2026
CONSULTATION PAGES: RESPOND DIRECTLY HERE
Florence Park Road: https://letstalk.oxfordshire.gov.uk/oxford_florencepark_parking2026
Headington West: https://letstalk.oxfordshire.gov.uk/oxford_headingtonwest_parking2026
——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-
Oxfordshire Liveable Streets has submitted responses to Oxfordshire County Council’s consultation on CPZ changes to Headington West and Florence Park. Both responses are published below for public visibility. In both responses we called for more public cycle parking for visitors and iterated the need for a kerbside strategy, to coordinate and prioritise the competing demands on kerbside space.
——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-
OLS RESPONSE TO FLORENCE PARK CPZ
We support all of the proposed changes except for the removal of double yellow lines across driveway accesses on Florence Park Rd, which we object to.
No rationale for the removal of DYLs across the driveway accesses on Florence Park Rd is provided. Elsewhere in the city, it is common for DYLs to extend across driveway accesses - for example on Morrell Avenue - and our concern is that removal of the DYLs will make it harder to enforce against use of the verge for parking.
The new sections of double yellow line restrictions on Campbell Rd and Littlehay Rd are important for safety. The removal of parking at the western end of Church Cowley Rd will assist the unobstructed flow of traffic, but also opens up the opportunity for the creation of cycle lanes. This falls in the scope of Action 6 in the Central Oxfordshire Travel Plan: "Remove on-street public parking where necessary on corridors identified in the strategy as either being active travel Primary Routes or situated on core bus routes."
It is good to see micromobility bays going in in preparation for expansion of the cycle hire scheme, but it would have been good if the consultation had included a map of the area showing the location of the proposed and existing bays, as it is hard to assess them in isolation. If the existing bays at the western end of Cornwallis Rd and near the shops on Florence Park Rd are being retained, the coverage appears to be just adequate. Even the laxest guidance suggests homes be no more than 300m from a bay, and that is barely being met.
It is too late to add these now - it would have been good to have had stakeholder involvement earlier - but we would suggest a micromobility bay at the bend in Campbell Rd that is proposed to get DYLs, since that wouldn't block visibility around the corner, and bays on Littlehay Rd and/or near the junction of Rymers Lane and Lytton Rd.
The addition of cycle parking at the Community Centre and at Flo's in the Park is welcome. But we would like to have seen additonal cycle parking:
at the southern end of Rymer's Lane, next to the proposed micromobility bay, for visitors to the Templars Shopping Park, since cycling into the car park to access the cycle parking there requires going through an extremely hostile main road junction and many people won't do that, especially with children.
on Hendred St, for the terrace houses with front yards that are too small to comfortably fit both bins and cycle parking.
More generally, there should be public cycle parking on all residential streets, for visitors. Appendix 5 in the Local Transport and Connectivity Plan says: "There should also be visitor cycle parking for people visiting residences." This is particularly important where homes have no front gardens, or ones too small to fit both bins and cycle storage, and where older blocks of flats (built before cycle parking was required) lack off-street cycle parking.
OLS RESPONSE TO HEADINGTON WEST CPZ - PROPOSED PARKING RESTRICTION AMENDMENT
We support all of these schemes except Grays Rd (2), which we object to on safety grounds. We also have concerns about the cycle parking in Grays Rd (1) and the proposals for Cheney Lane.
The proposed new car parking bay at the northern end of Grays Rd is too close to the junction with Headington Rd (side service road) - it is also on the inside of a bend in the street. If larger SUVs or vans were parked there it would create a hazard by blocking visibility. A safer use of this space would be for a micromobility bay. And the cycle parking being put in on Grays Rd should be on the other side of the street, for best access to the shops.
There is a long stretch of Cheney Lane with no footway, and putting one in should be the highest priority use for the space recovered by removing the unrestricted parking. So we think this stretch should be changed to double yellow line "no waiting at any time" restrictions. See the response by Headington Liveable Streets for more detailed suggestions.
The "no loading restrictions" and repainting of "SCHOOL KEEP CLEAR" markings on Cheney Lane, Franklin Rd and Headley Way, outside Cheney, Headington Rye and St Josephs schools, are most welcome. These will not solve the school-run parking problems, but will help with them by making enforcement against dangerous parking more effective.
It is great to see micromobility bays going in in preparation for expansion of the cycle hire scheme, but it would have been helpful if the consultation had included a map of the area showing the location of the proposed and existing micromobility bays, as it is hard to assess the proposed bays in isolation. The proposed bays seem a bit patchy in coverage, however, with some holes. The laxest guidance we can find suggests all homes should be within 300 metres of a bay, but that doesn't seem to be met.
It is too late to add these now - it would have been good if stakeholders had been involved earlier in site selection - but we would suggest bays half-way along Staunton or Sandfield Rds, at the northern end of Franklin Rd, at the northern end of Grays Rd, at the eastern end of Cheney Lane, at the southern end of Stapleton Rd, and somewhere in the Demesne Furze area. The eastern end of Cheney Lane is the most obvious omission, as hire scooters or bikes would be used by visitors to the park and visitors to the school, and perhaps by some school staff. Micromobility parking within the school itself would be useful, but wouldn't help visitors to the park. (This analysis assumes on-site micromobility parking will be provided by Brookes University, the John Radcliffe hospital, and Oxford University's Old Rd Campus, otherwise more and larger micromobility bays will be needed in the streets near those.)
It is good to see new cycle parking bays proposed, but these all appear to be at "destinations". At least some public cycle parking should be provided on all residential streets, noting that Appendix 5 in the Local Transport and Connectivity Plan says: "There should also be visitor cycle parking for people visiting residences." This is particularly important where homes have no front gardens, or ones too small to fit both bins and cycle storage, and where older blocks of flats (built before cycle parking was required) lack off-street cycle parking.
——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-