Agenda, decisions and minutes

An apology for absence was received from Mark Robertson.

An apology for late arrival was received from Councillor Ian Bates.

An apology for absence was received from Mark Robertson.

An apology for late arrival was received from Councillor Ian Bates.

The Chairman welcomed Christopher Walkinshaw, of Cambridge Ahead, to the meeting.  Mr Walkinshaw had been appointed in place of Sir Michael  Marshall, who had stepped down from the Joint Assembly, as a representative of the business community. On behalf of the Joint Assembly, the Chairman thanked Sir Michael for his contributions to the Greater Cambridge.

The Joint Assembly noted that Claire Ruskin had been appointed on an interim basis to the Executive Board and accordingly there was a vacancy on the Joint Assembly.  The Executive Board had supported a proposal for Claire Ruskin to identify someone from the business community to fill the vacancy on an interim basis.

The Chairperson welcomed Christopher Walkinshaw, of Cambridge Ahead, to his first meeting of the Joint Assembly.  Sir Michael Marshall had stepped down from the Joint Assembly and Mr Walkinshaw had been appointed in place of Sir Michael as a representative of the business community.

The Chairperson, on behalf of the Joint Assembly, placed on record his thanks to Sir Michael for his contributions to the Greater Cambridge Partnership during his period of service as a member of the Joint Assembly.

The Chairperson further reported that Claire Ruskin had been appointed on an interim basis to the Executive Board and that there was accordingly a vacancy on the Joint Assembly.  The Executive Board had supported a proposal for Claire Ruskin to identify someone from the business community to fill the vacancy on an interim basis.

No interests were declared.

No interests were declared.

To confirm as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting held on 18 January 2018.

The minutes of the meeting held on 18 January 2018 were approved as a correct record, subject to amendment of minute 10 (Rural Travel Hubs) to capture comments made at the meeting that there did not appear to be sufficient confidence to develop  permanent design solutions at the pilot sites, given the proposal for construction at those sites to initially be more temporary in nature and to reflect reservations expressed as to whether it was prudent to invest funding in sites if they were only temporary.   

The minutes of the meeting held on 18 January 2018 were approved as a correct record, subject to amendment of minute 10 (Rural Travel Hubs) to capture comments made at the meeting that there did not appear to be sufficient confidence to develop permanent design solutions at the pilot sites, given the proposal for construction at those sites to be initially more temporary in nature, and to reservations expressed about whether it was prudent to invest significant funding in sites if they were only temporary.    

Nine public questions had been received, all of which had been accepted for the meeting. 

Eight questions related to agenda item 7 (Histon Road, Bus, Cycling and Walking Improvements Final Concept) and seven of those were dealt with at that item.  One questioner was unable to attend the meeting and would receive a written response.

One question related to agenda item 8 (Western Orbital: Progress on Additional Park and Ride Capacity and Submission to Highways England on Girton Interchange and M11 Smart Motorway) and was dealt with in conjunction with that item.

Nine public questions had been received, all of which had been accepted for the meeting. 

Eight questions related to agenda item 7 (Histon Road, Bus, Cycling and Walking Improvements Final Concept) and seven of those were dealt with at that item.  One questioner was unable to attend the meeting and would receive a written response.

One question related to agenda item 8 (Western Orbital: Progress on Additional Park and Ride Capacity and Submission to Highways England on Girton Interchange and M11 Smart Motorway) and was dealt with in conjunction with that item.

The Chairman notified the Joint Assembly of a petition received to “reject the Cambridge Mass Transit Options Report as flawed and incomplete”.  The petition contained more than 50 signatures but had not reached the required 500 signatures to present it formally to the Joint Assembly.

The Chairperson notified the Joint Assembly of a petition received to “reject the Cambridge Mass Transit Options Report as flawed and incomplete”.  The petition contained more than 50 signatures but had not reached the required 500 signatures to present it formally to the Joint Assembly.

The Joint Assembly considered the report which set out the preliminary concept design for Histon Road. There was broad support for the proposals in the paper and

Assembly members were pleased to note the intention to provide as much priority as possible for pedestrians and cyclists.  However Joint Assembly members felt that the Assembly should have had the benefit of the input from the Local Liaison Forum

( LLF), noting that the report was not due to be considered by the LLF until the following week.  Whilst acknowledging that the scheduling had been agreed in consultation with the LLF Chair, the Joint  Assembly asked that consideration should be given to scheduling LLFs in advance of the Joint Assembly to enable it to hear the views of LLFs.

 Joint Assembly members generally welcomed the expectation that the bus lane would improve future inbound bus journey times by up to 2.5 minutes in peak times, enhancing reliability of service, although a challenge was made as to whether that level of time reduction merited the extent of investment.  Concerns around the impact on businesses, together with the interaction between deliveries and cycle lanes were noted and acknowledged by the Joint Assembly.

Overall, the Joint Assembly indicated a guarded welcome for the proposals presented.

The Chairperson invited Lillian Rundblad, Chair of the Histon Road Residents’ Association and Deputy Chair of the Local Liaison Forum (LLF) to ask the two questions in her name and three questions on behalf of other residents.  He then invited Matthew Danish of Camcycle and Michael Page to ask their questions.  A further question had been received from the Windsor Road Residents’ Association and, as the questioners were not present, the Chairperson noted that a written response would be sent.  Details of all questions and a summary of the answers given, are set out in Appendix A to these minutes.

The GCP Director of Transport presented the report which set out the preliminary concept design for Histon Road.  The design met the original objectives of the scheme and also took into account the considerable public engagement that had taken place since the consultation on the previous options. Approval was sought to consult on the proposed design in the spring of 2018 and, following analysis of the consultation, it was proposed to bring the final preliminary design back for consideration by the Joint Assembly and Executive Board in late 2018.  The Director of Transport drew attention to on-going dialogue with the LLF and noted that further engagement would take place in order that feedback could be provided to the GCP Executive Board on 21 March 2018.

During discussion on the report:-

·         Helen Valentine noted that the costs of the project appeared to have escalated significantly.  In response, the Director of Transport acknowledged that whilst the original estimate had been too low, the revised cost estimate also reflected the new scheme priorities.

·         Councillor Noel Kavanagh asked what measures would be taken to restrict deliveries, given that delivery vehicles prevented the free flow of traffic.  He also echoed the point raised by one of the questioners around the need for pedestrians to have priority at side roads.  The Director of Transport responded that delivery restrictions would need to be controlled by properly enforced traffic regulation orders.  Additionally, he reported that the intention remained to provide pedestrian priority at side roads where visibility and other safety issues allowed.

·         Councillor Bridget Smith indicated her broad support for the proposals but had a number of concerns including the impact on businesses; the need for additional cycle parking; the objective to “maintain or reduce general traffic levels”, given the original aim to reduce traffic levels by 10-15%; the small reduction in journey time of 2.5 minutes that the bus lane was expected to achieve and whether this  outcome was worth the investment proposed and the apparent wide cost benefit ratio range indicated in paragraph 3.15.  In response, the Director of Transport indicated that further work to mitigate the impact of parking was ongoing; it was aimed to introduce cycle parking where appropriate; there was no one initiative that was a magic bullet to reduce traffic levels and congestion, but the scheme aimed to promote public transport, walking and cycling as an alternative by demonstrating to people  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

The Joint Assembly considered the report which outlined the development of the Western Orbital scheme and set out issues for public consultation in summer 2018 on a new Park and Ride (P&R) site at Junction 11 of the M11 and associated public transport/vehicular priority measures. The report also set out proposals to ask the GCP Executive Board to delegate to the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Chairman, a submission to Government for the inclusion of Girton Interchange and M11 smart motorway in the Highways England’s  second Roads Investment Strategy (RIS2).

The Joint Assembly discussed the extent to which the GCP’s approach to park and ride schemes was strategic.  There was some concern expressed that the Mayor did not appear to be supportive of park and ride but the Joint Assembly was advised that the CAM metro proposal considered by the Combined Authority had expressly provided for park and ride sites. Some reservations were expressed about the impact of the proposed park and ride site on  local villages.

The Joint Assembly provided positive challenge around the need more clearly to articulate the park and ride strategy and to provide a greater level of detail around the proposals prior to public consultation. Some Members expressed the view that the proposals should come back to the Joint Assembly prior to public consultation.   The GCP Transport Director indicated that he would reflect on the comments of the Joint Assembly,  including the need for outline proposals

The Joint Assembly acknowledged that the smart motorway proposal was only an interim solution but was supportive of continuing to lobby Highways England regarding the upgrade, acknowledging the scope to improve resilience, safety and junction performance. Additionally, Joint Assembly Members welcomed the proposals for seeking to increase capacity at the Girton Interchange to address current traffic congestion issues and support the delivery of improved public transport services and agreed that officers should continue to work with Highways England to develop the case for inclusion of Girton Interchange in  RIS2.

The Chairperson invited Mal Schofield to ask his question which related to this item and had been submitted in line with the provisions of Standing Orders.  Details of the question and a summary of the answer are set out in Appendix A to the minutes.

The Director of Transport presented the report which outlined proposals for the development of the Western Orbital scheme and set out issues for public consultation in summer 2018 on a new Park and Ride (P&R) site at Junction 11 of the M11 and associated public transport/vehicular priority measures. The report also outlined proposals to ask the GCP Executive Board to delegate to the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Chairperson, a submission to Government for the inclusion of Girton Interchange and M11 smart motorway in the Highways England’s second Roads Investment Strategy (RIS2).

The Joint Assembly discussed the report and made the following points:-

·         Councillor John Williams was concerned that the GCP was taking a piecemeal, rather than strategic, approach to its development of P&R schemes and felt that they needed to be considered in the round and taking account of the interactions between the sites and the CAM metro proposals.  He also commented that the Mayor did not appear to be supportive of P&R and sought an assurance that such proposals would be aligned to the CAM metro plans and would be a feature of the Local Transport Plan. 

·         Councillor Grenville Chamberlain commented on the need to give more weight to supporting the development of the Girton interchange, noting that the many of the traffic problems in the west of Cambridge and on the A428 were caused by inability of traffic heading to the M11 to join directly and having to go down Madingley Hill. He understood that the MP for South Cambridgeshire had been supporting the development of interim proposals to address capacity issues.

·         Andy Williams was of the view that the smart motorway option would not make a difference in terms of sustainable transport.  He also commented on the need to understand how the CAM metro proposal would integrate with other public transport plans.  With regard to potential take up of P&R, he did not believe that commuters would not use P&R facilities, but had been put off using the current facilities by the parking charge and lack of capacity at the Trumpington site.  There did appear to be a demand for P&R capacity at Hauxton and Whittlesford.

·         Councillor Dave Baigent stated that the views expressed by the Mayor to the Combined Authority Overview and Scrutiny Committee suggested that he was not supportive of P&R options.

·         Councillor Tim Bick also believed that the Western Orbital would not constitute sustainable transport solution.  Use of the hard shoulder as an additional lane on the M11 motorway could not, in his view, be regarded as more than an interim solution.  He was interested to know how the Western Orbital would connect with CAM metro as it was not  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

The Joint Assembly received a report inviting comment on the progress to date of the City Access programme and any views on the options for achieving modal shift through demand management.  The Joint Assembly welcomed the fact that the City Access strategy had been further informed by the early findings of “Our Big Conversation”.

Members of the Joint Assembly felt that it was important that the “carrot” element of the proposals (ie: introducing an attractive system of public transport that encouraged behaviour change and modal shift) was introduced before any “stick” (demand management measures), and it was also felt that if demand management worked properly, then it would pay for the public transport network that was needed.  The Joint Assembly agreed that it would be important to be clear about what an attractive, integrated public transport network would look like and to have a blend of demand management measures.   Assembly Members also highlighted the need for increased capacity for cycle parking to be further investigated. 

Joint Assembly Members agreed that it was extremely important to address air quality and pollution issues to improve public health outcomes and a proposal to consider air quality in specific areas was put forward.  There was also general support for measures to encourage the shift to less polluting vehicles.

The Joint Assembly noted that there was currently no budget provision for any demand management measures given that the proposals were still at discussion stage.  Joint Assembly members acknowledged that demand management measures invariably attracted a divergence of views and was reminded that South Cambridgeshire District Council in January 2017 had indicated its opposition to the principle of congestion charging. Some Assembly Members emphasised the importance of designing an attractive and accessible public transport system that encouraged behaviour change and modal shift.  The Joint Assembly recognised that the proposals had been under discussion for some time and reflected on how best it might be able to support officers to progress the programme to achieve the objectives of reducing congestion and improving air quality.

The Joint Assembly indicated general support for further work to be progressed on the City Access programme, as indicated in the report, but felt that it was important that the public consultation should not take place during the summer holidays.

The Director of Transport introduced a report which invited the Joint Assembly to comment on the progress to date of the City Access programme and to provide views on the options for achieving modal shift through demand management.  In so doing, the Director first  gave a short presentation, highlighting, in particular, current mode split and air quality.

The Joint Assembly discussed the report and comments, including the following, were made:-

·         Councillor Noel Kavanagh highlighted the public health impact of air pollution and advocated the investigation of air pollution exclusion zones outside schools as part of the package of measures. He noted that a YouGov survey indicated that 60% of parents had indicated support for introduction of such an exclusion zone.  Additionally he commented on the impact of the peak time  “school run” on all routes.

·         Councillor Grenville Chamberlain referred to an FIA study on demand management and highlighted a number of relevant points including the need:-

o   to explore all other options for improving mobility before considering road charging;

o   to understand the rationale and scope of a charging scheme;

o   to estimate the impact on a range of scenarios, including congestion, accidents, energy consumption, carbon footprint, air quality and  modal split; 

o   to target options for income redistribution and to  make maximum use of technology available; and

o   to undertake a market oriented, rather than politically driven, approach to designing the scheme.

He felt that the charging would only be publicly acceptable if it was seen to deliver a solution to a problem.  Demand management measures needed to be equitable to all users and provide safe, secure and reliable alternatives which got people to their destinations rapidly but public transport had to be affordable and assist a reduction in pollution.  The scope for introducing restrictions on older, more polluting, vehicles entering the city could be considered as part of any demand management measures . 

·         Dr John Wells noted that there was no reference in the report to P&R and felt that it should be considered as part of access management design since P&R provided the interchange point for longer commutes.  Additionally, he highlighted the need to put attractive transport alternatives in place before any charges were introduced. He noted that the estimated costs of service enhancements outlined in paragraph 6.14 was £20m per annum, however a report later in the agenda seemed to suggest that the income from the demand management aspect of the city access project would not be generated until 2020.  Given that there did not appear to be any funding provision made to subsidise public transport improvements in the interim, Dr Wells sought clarification regarding the budgetary position.

·         Helen Valentine observed that there was only a passing reference to the Workplace Parking Levy in the report and questioned whether this potential initiative had been dropped.  She also commented that the lack of cycle parking was a key constraint in promoting cycling and suggested that it might be appropriate to commission research on cycle parking.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

The Joint Assembly discussed and noted the Quarterly Progress Report, including Budget Setting for 2018/19

Members of the Joint Assembly asked for updates at future meetings on the Housing Development Agency and Smart Places.  Additionally there was a request for future reports on delivery of affordable homes to include a break down of types of homes completed and tenure. 

The Joint Assembly received an update on the Independent Economic Assessment Panel with particular reference to the need to increase the budget for Government appointed consultants to work with the GCP for the next 18 months on the evidence to be part of the Outline Evaluation Plans for each Locality Framework, as outlined in part 1 of the progress report since the last report. 

The Joint Assembly requested that the GCP Risk Register be added to the progress report in future.

The Joint Assembly received and noted the Quarterly Progress Report, including Budget Setting for 2018/19.

In introducing the report, the Strategic Programme and Commissioning Manger drew particular attention to:-

(a)  The GCP Budget Setting report, as set out in Appendix 1; and

(b)  The update provided on the Independent Economic Assessment Panel, as set out in Appendix 2.

During discussion on the report:-

·         Councillor Tim Bick referred to his understanding that the Housing Development Agency (HDA) was currently only executing housing development schemes on behalf of one of the three partners within the Greater Cambridge Partnership, rather than all three partners as originally intended.  He commented that the GCP had previously agreed to provide funding to the HDA and indicated that he would welcome submission of a report on the operation of the HDA to the Joint Assembly.

·         Councillor John Williams  spoke on affordable housing and highlighted research which indicated that over a third of households in Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire had less than £30k per annum gross income and could only afford a 1 bedroom property in the private rental market. He noted that no breakdown was given in the report of the types of homes being provided; the extent to which these were affordable social homes and how the new build programme was addressing housing needs in the area.

·         Councillor Bridget Smith:-

o   commented on the strong performance in respect of apprenticeships in Greater Cambridge, bucking national trends, but noted that the skills working group felt it was important to look at other skills work and asked whether there would an opportunity to review the budget for skills.  The Sanger Institute had highlighted the need to address the skills gap in the area, which was expected to increase owing to the impact of Brexit, and Councillor Smith felt that the GCP, working with the LEP, could make a contribution to addressing the skills gap and to generating the workforce locally;

o   requested that the Joint Assembly receive an update on the “Smart Places” workstream; and

o   asked for an explanation of the significant increase in the costs relating to the Independent Economic Assessment Panel.

·         Councillor Noel Kavanagh was pleased to note the good progress achieved by the cycling project team and commended them on their performance. 

Responding to the points raised in discussion, the Strategic Programme and Commissioning Manager:-

·         Agreed to bring a report on the current position with the HDA to the Joint Assembly. In so doing, she noted that the GCP had provided seed funding of £200k to support the start up of the HDA, the last payment of which had just been released.

·         Indicated that future reports on delivery of affordable homes would include a break down of types of homes completed and tenure.

·         Explained the current position with the skills budget, particularly in respect of work on apprenticeships, but noted that there should be an opportunity for the working group to work up a case for inclusion of additional funding in the Future Investment  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

The Joint Assembly received a report setting out the draft Future Investment Strategy (FIS), together with the focus and rationale for the projects and schemes that were at its core.  With respect to consultation on the FIS, Assembly members were not minded to support linking consultation on the FIS to a further conversation on demand management options.  Instead, the Joint Assembly felt that demand management merited a separate consultation exercise.  Moreover, reservations were expressed at the option within the report to use  a relatively “light touch” on line approach to consultation on the FIS.

The Joint Assembly received a report setting out the draft Future Investment Strategy (FIS), together with the focus and rationale for the projects and schemes that were at its core.

In introducing the report, the Chief Executive:-

·         Noted the importance of the FIS in demonstrating to Government that the GCP’s future investment plans were robust and evidence based and gave Government the confidence and evidence needed to release further tranches of grant funding.  

·         Commented that the report reflected the work undertaken by Portfolio Holder  Working Groups over the last six months to review how the FIS could address the challenges posed by an expanding population; fast growing economy and lack of affordable housing.

·         Acknowledged that, to date, the GCP had primarily focused on investment for transport infrastructure, but indicated that there was now an opportunity to rebalance the GCP’s investment focus by supporting the further growth of the economy and acceleration of housing delivery.

·         Indicated that, when considering how best resources could be used to achieve the strategic aims of the GCP, the FIS could act as a catalyst for the GCP to use its resources more flexibly.

·         Drew particular attention to paragraph 8 of the report which set out initial thinking around the process for FIS prioritisation and noted that officers would report back at the next meeting on progress with developing criteria to prioritise schemes and projects.

·         Sought the Joint Assembly’s views on whether the consultation on the FIS should be linked to a further conversation on the Demand Management options process, with a view to providing a link between the FIS and the potential to raise additional investment to fund public transport.

During discussion on the report:-

·         Councillor John Williams pointed out that Newmarket Road was missing from the diagram at Annex 2 to the report.  In response, it was noted that it was included on the most recent version of the diagram.

·         Councillor Tim Bick was not supportive of combining consultation on the FIS with that on demand management options.  He felt that, in view of the uniqueness and importance of the project, the demand management options should be subject of a separate consultation.

·         Councillor Bridget Smith noted that paragraph 18.3 suggested an option for a “light touch online approach” to consultation on the FIS and referred to difficulties which had arisen on previous projects where the level of consultation had not been adequate.  She believed that there should be an appropriate level of engagement in respect of the FIS and cautioned against taking a “light touch” approach.

The Chief Executive thanked the Joint Assembly for their comments which she would take on board.

The Joint Assembly generally supported the proposals in the report to be submitted to the Executive Board, with their views to be incorporated into the Chairperson’s report to the Board.

To note that the next meeting will take place on Thursday 14 June 2018 at 2pm in the Guildhall, Cambridge.

The Joint Assembly noted that the next meeting will take place on Thursday 14 June 2018 at 2.00pm in the Guildhall, Cambridge.

The Joint Assembly noted that the next meeting will take place on Thursday 14 June 2018 at 2.00pm in the Guildhall, Cambridge.