Issue - meetings

To receive any questions from members of the public.  The standard protocol to be observed by public speakers is attached.

Questions by members of the public were asked and answered as follows:

Question by Charles Nisbet

Charles Nisbet asked for assurance that the Greater Cambridge City Deal had the legal authority to spend any part of its funding on providing trees to replace those that it intended to remove from Milton Road or Histon Road.

Graham Hughes, Executive Director of Economy, Transport and Environment at Cambridgeshire County Council, confirmed that the City Deal Executive Board did have the legal authority to spend part of its funding on replacing trees as part of a transport infrastructure scheme.  The County Council, as highways authority, had delegated its powers to the City Deal Executive Board in respect of City Deal transport infrastructure schemes and Mr Hughes confirmed that landscaping would form an integral part of these schemes and that the Board would be approving such details.

Question by Dr James Smith

Dr Smith asked what health impact assessment of the City Deal transport projects and proposals had been undertaken to date and what, if any, further health impact assessment was expected.

Mr Hughes confirmed that health impacts had been considered at a strategic level as part of the Strategic Environmental Assessment of the third Cambridgeshire Local Transport Plan, from which the City Deal schemes were drawn.  Further detailed assessments of individual schemes would be undertaken as part of the statutory processes that governed the delivery of major transport infrastructure schemes.

Councillor Lewis Herbert, Chairman of the Executive Board, reflected on air pollution in the city and highlighted that partners would continue to investigate solutions and any funding that may be available to help address the issue.  He added that this would include working with bus and taxi operators.

Councillor Ian Bates reminded the Board that public health was a County Council responsibility and an integral part of the work that Cambridgeshire County Council was doing across the county.

Question by Antony Carpen

Antony Carpen asked why the Executive Board’s risk management framework had not been signed off under the Shadow Assembly and Board, or at the first meetings of both bodies. 

Tanya Sheridan, City Deal Programme Director, gave an assurance that risk had been managed since the inception of the City Deal Programme.  She said that the fact that there had not been a single consolidated Risk Management Framework specifically for the City Deal up to now should not be taken as a reflection that the discipline of risk management had not been taking place.  This had been guided by the principle enshrined in the Executive Board’s Terms of Reference that the processes of the lead Council for a certain function should be followed for that specific function. 

Now that the Programme was moving into a delivery phase it was right that clearer political oversight was brought into the process and the proposed Risk Management Framework scheduled for consideration at this meeting at a later item sought to facilitate this.

Antony Carpen also asked what assessment Cambridge University and its colleges had made  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4

To receive any questions from members of the public.  The standard protocol to be observed by public speakers is attached.

Question by Claire Tripp

Claire Tripp attended the meeting to represent the partners of the Biomedical Campus Delivery Group and asked the following question:

“The Cambridge Biomedical Campus partners understand the need for the 8 Point Plan and are supportive of the need to address the transport challenges. However, what are City Deal’s main strategic objectives over a 10-15-year timeframe?”

The background to the question was that partners were putting a lot of work into a new Campus Master Plan and an associated Campus Transport Strategy.  Claire Tripp said it would be useful to gain at least a broad understanding of what the transport, and to a lesser extent housing, landscape may be like in 2025-30.

Tanya Sheridan, City Deal Programme Director, responded by reiterating the City Deal’s objectives which were to:

·         enable a new wave of innovation-led growth that would facilitate the continued growth of the Cambridge phenomenon;

·         invest in infrastructure, housing and skills to support local plans;

·         improve connectivity, including connectivity between new homes and jobs sites;

·         create conditions for continued economic growth and jobs growth;

·         maintain a good quality of life and to enable South Cambridgeshire to continue to be a desirable place in which to live;

·         ensure sustainable transport networks.

Councillor Tim Bick requested that any further detail in response to this question be shared. Assurance was provided that further detail would be made available on the City Deal website.

Question by Erik de Visser

Mr de Visser asked whether the City Deal was a sham and sought assurance that officers would listen to the Local Liaison Forums when, in his view, they had not taken proper notice so far to any of the responses to the public consultation.

Tanya Sheridan provided an assurance that consultation responses were carefully analysed in order to understand the public’s views on proposed options.

Councillor Roger Hickford, Chairman of the Joint Assembly, provided assurance that the City Deal was not a sham, adding that he had attended the Milton Road and Histon Road Local Liaison Forum meetings and thought they had been very useful. He reiterated and emphasised to the public that their views were being listened to.

Question from Antony Carpen

Antony Carpen asked what specific plans Cambridge Regional College and Anglia Ruskin University had for hosting outreach events on the City Deal for their students.

Having spoken to Helen Valentine at Anglia Ruskin University, Tanya Sheridan responded with the following points:

·         the University was very positive about engaging with students and staff, especially in areas such as cycling improvements and Smart Cambridge which were likely to be of particular interest to its students;

·         posters and leaflets were regularly disseminated in order to advertise consultations;

·         the bus stop panel continued to advertise relevant consultations including advertising tackling peak time congestion from the end of August to October;

·         a consultation event for the Chisholm Trail was held at Anglia Ruskin University as it was a location near the proposed route.

It was noted that the City Deal had held  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4