Today following further information from Chipping Norton News I was able to cross reference the legislation with a consultation that was limited to residents of the village. No attempt was made to consult those who were neighbouring villages that would be affected by the change, the consultation was initially in 2024, not taking into account the changes in the last two years the agreement to install these measures and not consult again in 2026 means the consideration of the new builds, the lack of lighting in the area to install the hump, any increase in patrons to the Chequers and the Church were not taking into account when making the decision. The new hump doesn't comply with the agreement made to ensure the hump is low, with long gradual sides. Instead this ramp is high and not very wide. It appears to be the 'standard' of 75mm is applied in Oxfordshire, and residents that did consult didn't agree to 'standard'. The Equality Act prohibits this development without an Equality Assessment and no response was noted from the ambulance operators in line with legislation.

Email to councillors;

Dear Sirs,

I've just received my Motability vehicle and was warned as part of my handover that due to the electric rear ramp and low clearance, I should avoid certain road humps where possible.

When the B4450 reopened on 26th February, I expected to see the 20 essential, resident-reported potholes to have been repaired. However, all these potholes were ignored to install traffic calming measures, including a high-sided, aggressive road hump to the north exiting the village. The potholes have been a real issue in the village, with Gigaclear's repairs sinking, causing a rumble strip. The Chequers' success following the appearance on Clarkson's Farm means that patrons park illegally around every corner and double park outside the church, making it impossible to do more than 10 mph through the village.

To the south of the village, 29 patches were made very recently, stopping at the 20mph sign and extending down to the Lynham turning. These essential repairs were made after I relayed 17 reports on the same hazardous corner, which was having its patching washed out by the run-off from the new development uphill.

As a Kingham resident, the B4450 is essential to link my village to our nearest town of Chipping Norton, and my son is a regular attender of the RAFAC group by the fire station. As a single parent with a significant disability, I do not feel I was represented as per the Road Humps Legislation 1999, at any meeting about the changes to the road.

Consultation was held. However, it was not advertised outside of Churchill and started back in 2024. In two years, a lot has changed, with a new development, the increase in parking issues, and church patrons parking in the same spot opposite the Sarsden turning.

I've done a Freedom of Information request, spoken to local newspapers, and started a petition.

4,000 people viewed the petition, with nearly 50 signing up with their address and full name in 24 hours. The residents at the public meeting stated that they would agree to a road hump, BUT only if it was not steep with sharp sides, which would prevent those with low clearance from traversing it. Clearly, this has not occurred, and residents that use this essential route are angry that they were not heard or represented correctly in respect of the law. In addition my Gemini cross-referenced the 1999 law and highlighted that Regulation 5 requires adequate street lighting, however, this spot historically required me to use my main beams due to the absence of street lights in this area. In addition Regulation 4 states that ALL road users should have been considered, I note no consideration of disabled persons, no response from the ambulance and fire departments and only the Oxford Bus Company who asked for the plan to be changed. There's also no equality impact assessment publicly available.

Can I ask for you to intervene and help to resolve this by asking for an internal review of this matter , as disabled people using wheelchair accessible vehicles were clearly not represented, nor those guests with high-value, low-clearance vehicles?

Sources of information:
https://churchillandsarsden-pc.gov.uk/notices/proposals-for-traffic-calming-in-churchill/
https://mycouncil.oxfordshire.gov.uk/documents/s75911/CMDTMT25042025R06%20-%20Churchill%20Speed%20Limit%20Calming.pdf
https://c.org/4VzXkNJsdq (change petition)