Agenda, decisions and minutes

Individual reports, and additional documents (not necessarily part of the agenda reports pack), can be viewed by scrolling down this web page and following the appropriate links.

Venue: The Meadows Community Centre, Cambridge

Contact: Graham Watts  03450 450 500 Email: democratic.services@scambs.gov.uk

Items
No. Item

1.

Election of Chairman

To elect a Chairman of the Greater Cambridge City Deal Executive Board for 2016/17.

Decision:

Councillor Lewis Herbert was ELECTED as Chairman of the Greater Cambridge City Deal Executive Board.

 

Minutes:

Councillor Lewis Herbert was ELECTED as Chairman of the Greater Cambridge City Deal Executive Board.

 

2.

Election of Vice-Chairman

To elect a Vice-Chairman of the Greater Cambridge City Deal Executive Board for 2016/17.

Decision:

Councillor Francis Burkitt was ELECTED as Vice-Chairman of the Greater Cambridge City Deal Executive Board.

Minutes:

Councillor Francis Burkitt was ELECTED as Vice-Chairman of the Greater Cambridge City Deal Executive Board.

3.

Apologies for absence

To receive any apologies for absence.

Minutes:

There were no apologies for absence.

 

The following membership changes to the Executive Board were reported:

 

·         John Bridge OBE had resigned from the Board, with Mark Reeve in attendance at the meeting as his substitute.  The Local Enterprise Partnership would be considering a permanent replacement for Mr Bridge in due course;

·         Councillor Ian Bates had been appointed to the Board by Cambridgeshire County Council, in place of Councillor Steve Count.

 

4.

Minutes of the previous meeting pdf icon PDF 246 KB

To confirm the minutes of the previous meeting held on 3 March 2016 as a correct record.

Minutes:

The minutes of the previous meeting held on 3 March 2016 were confirmed and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

5.

Declarations of interest

To receive any declarations of interest by Members of the Executive Board.

Minutes:

No declarations of interest were received.

6.

Questions by Members of the public pdf icon PDF 174 KB

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

Minutes:

Councillor Lewis Herbert, Chairman of the Executive Board, reported that a significant number of people had registered to speak in relation to specific items on the agenda for this meeting.  He therefore proposed that those questions be put at the relevant item.

 

The following questions did not necessarily relate to any items on the agenda for this meeting or it was the preference of the speaker to ask the question at this stage of proceedings.  Questions were therefore asked and answered at this stage of the meeting, as follows:

 

Question by Dorcus Fowler

 

Dorcus Fowler said that enhancing Park and Ride was acknowledged as an important element under the Greater Cambridge City Deal and added that if the aim was to accommodate additional commuter numbers by making the best use of existing sites, as well as creating new ones, it was obvious to her that there was potential in the North Cambridge Station site.  As a transport hub, with provision for more than the current 400 parking spaces, she said it could in effect serve as a Park and Ride and also help to ease congestion caused by school traffic.  She asked whether any further work would be done on exploiting the North Cambridge Station site to its full potential.

 

Bob Menzies, Director of Strategy and Development at Cambridgeshire County Council, confirmed that the site was being developed as a transport hub, which included a high level of cycle parking.  He said that the number of car parking spaces at the site would not be increasing and that it was not the right site for a Park and Ride facility, in view of it being too close to the city centre and there being other Park and Ride sites in the area.  Mr Menzies said that the prospect of a further Park and Ride site as part of the A10 scheme was being investigated. 

 

Question by Stephen Brown

 

Stephen Brown explained that the timing of meetings of the Executive Board and Joint Assembly, being during working hours, effectively meant that the working population was being excluded and that this limited those able to attend.  He asked whether it was fair and democratic to hold these meetings at times when a large section of the population would be excluded from attending. 

 

Councillor Herbert acknowledged that this was not something that had recently been considered.  He agreed, in principle, that the Board could benefit from evening meetings and confirmed that he and the Board would take this issue away for further consideration.

 

Question by Robin Heydon

 

Robin Heydon referred to the minutes of a previous meeting in answer to a question he had asked about world-class cycling infrastructure.  The commitment given to him at that meeting in answer to the question, he felt, was not supported in the Urban and Environmental Design Guidance document scheduled for consideration later at this meeting.  He referred specifically to the width of cycle lanes and asked the Board to reject the Design Guidance document.  Mr Heydon  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

7.

Petitions

To consider the following petitions received since the previous meeting of the Joint Assembly:

 

-       ‘Save the trees and verges on Milton Road’ – Charles Nisbet, Chairman of the Milton Road Residents’ Association

 

-       ‘Milton Road segregated cycleways’ – Hester Wells

 

-       ‘Petition to oppose the Histon Road schemes’ – Philippe and Christine Lafon

Minutes:

Three petitions had been received, as follows:

 

‘Save the trees and verges on Milton Road’

 

Charles Nisbet, Chairman of the Milton Road Residents’ Association, presented the petition and reported concerns of local residents who he said were horrified at the prospect of the Milton Road avenue being turned into an urban highway and losing the trees and greenery associated with the road.

 

He highlighted some of the benefits of grass verges, vegetation and trees at the roadside, which included drainage and the impact on people’s health and wellbeing and said that such greenery should be at the forefront of developments.

 

Mr Nisbett reported that the paper version of the petition totalled 1250 signatures, with a further 1201 signatures received online.

 

The Executive Board NOTED the petition, in view of the issues raised relating to an item due for consideration later at this meeting.

 

‘Milton Road segregated cycleways’

 

Roxanne de Beaux, on behalf of Hester Wells, presented the petition which requested that Milton Road improvements under the City Deal should include high-quality cycleways, physically separated from both motor traffic and pedestrians. 

 

She said that poor facilities would simply not get used, wasting time, money and missing an opportunity to get new people cycling in an environment in which they felt safe.  She highlighted a guide produced by Camcycle entitled ‘Making Space for Cycling’ which had been endorsed by national bodies and set out principles of good cycle infrastructure. 

 

Ms de Beaux reported that 640 verified signatures had been received in support of the petition and asked the Executive Board what measures were being taken to ensure the proposed cycleways were of sufficient quality to increase cycling modal share on the route.

 

The Executive Board NOTED the petition, in view of the issues raised relating to an item due for consideration later at this meeting.

 

‘Petition to oppose the Histon Road schemes’

 

The lead petitioner was not in attendance to present this petition, but it was noted that the petition contained 755 signatures.

8.

Reports and recommendations from the Joint Assembly

To receive any reports or recommendations following the meeting of the Joint Assembly held on 2 June 2016.

Minutes:

Councillor Lewis Herbert, Chairman of the Executive Board, welcomed Councillor Roger Hickford to his first meeting of the Board in his capacity as Chairman of the Joint Assembly.

 

Councillor Hickford confirmed that he would provide a report on the Joint Assembly’s recommendations further to its meeting on 2 June 2016 at the relevant item on the agenda for this meeting.

9.

Cambridge Access and Capacity Study pdf icon PDF 1 MB

To consider the attached report.

Decision:

The Executive Board:

 

(a)        NOTED the call for evidence analysis and the Cambridge Access Study Long List and Short List reports and outcomes.

 

(b)        AGREED the policy approach for a congestion reduction package, incorporating:

 

-       better bus services and expanded usage of Park and Rides;

-       better pedestrian and cycling infrastructure;

-       better streetscape and public realm;

-       peak congestion control points in the weekday morning and evening peak periods;

-       a workplace parking levy;

-       on-street parking controls (including residents’ parking)

-       smart technology;

-       travel planning.

 

(c)        NOTED the consultation and engagement principles attached to the report at Appendix D and agrees the principles of the engagement process on the proposed congestion reduction package, to commence in July 2016.

 

(d)        ENDORSED the proposal for a trial implementation of peak congestion control points, possibly on a phased basis in late 2017 using an experimental Traffic Regulation Order, with consultation on the Order held during the experimental period.

 

Minutes:

Councillor Lewis Herbert, Chairman of the Executive Board, opened the item by inviting those members of the public who had given notice to put forward questions to the Board.  Questions were grouped together based on their subject and were therefore asked and answered, as follows:

 

Question by Robin Pellew

 

Robin Pellew asked whether it was fair that the people of Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire should be denied the opportunity to have their say in the choice of alternative packages to reduce congestion.  In particular, he reflected on a congestion charge package which he said had been rejected largely on the grounds of fairness and equality so asked, on behalf of Cambridge Past, Present and Future:

 

·         whether it was fair that the proposed peak hour control points would leave some people’s commuting journey completely unaffected whilst others would have their lives turned upside-down;

·         whether it was fair that people, particularly in rural areas of South Cambridgeshire, would be forced to put up with a lousy bus service when the funding that could substantially improve the service was denied them;

·         whether it was fair that people living in the vicinity of these control points would be subject to displaced traffic on quiet resident streets and rat-runs.

 

Question by Barbara Taylor

 

Barbara Taylor referred to the vast sum of £40 million to £44 million that could potentially be gained from congestion charging and be used to subsidise public buses, including Park and Ride facilities, by extending the hours and frequency of bus services.  She therefore asked why a congestion charge was being dismissed without going to public consultation.

 

Question by Charles Nisbet

 

Charles Nisbet was of the opinion that the Council’s traffic officers were determined to press ahead with destructive works, such as schemes identified at Histon Road, Milton Road and Cambourne to Cambridge.  He said that anti-congestion measures proposed for other parts of Cambridge would undoubtedly also have a beneficial impact in the Histon Road, Milton Road and Madingley Road areas so questioned the need to rush into irreversible and intensely unpopular engineering works without waiting to see if they were actually needed.

 

He therefore asked whether the Board would set these plans aside at least until the outcome of the traffic reduction measures proposed elsewhere had been studied and evaluated.

 

Councillor Herbert, in response to all three questions, said that comments had been received as part of the call for evidence sessions which had been assessed in accordance with the agreed criteria.  In collating the responses in line with the criteria, officers had put forward recommended options that best met the City Deal objectives.  He made the point that advocates for congestion charging would be able to make their views known as part of the public consultation, which would be taken into account when assessing the responses and outcomes of the consultation.  Councillor Herbert confirmed that the debate at this meeting would focus on what the Board felt the best option would be to consult upon to address congestion in Cambridge,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

10.

Histon Road bus priority, walking and cycling measures: report on initial consultation and selection of a preferred route pdf icon PDF 840 KB

To consider the attached report.

Additional documents:

Decision:

The Executive Board:

 

(a)        NOTED the findings in the initial consultation report.

 

(b)        AGREED to take forward for further design work the initial ideas included in the ‘Do Maximum’ option, excluding the idea of banning the right turn into Warwick Road and the idea of ‘floating’ bus stops, to develop two preferred design options, one including and one excluding the changes at the Victoria Road junction’.

 

(c)        NOTED the further technical work that would be undertaken over the summer period to develop a preferred option layout for further consultation.

 

(d)        SUPPORTED the development of traffic management measures to mitigate displaced traffic and parking for the purposes of further consultation.

 

(e)        DELEGATED authority to the Executive Director of Economy, Transport and Environment at Cambridgeshire County Council, in consultation with the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Executive Board, to approve further consultation for a preferred option scheme.

 

(f)         NOTED the procurement plan for project delivery, the revised project programme and the consultation plan set out in the report.

 

(g)        INSTRUCTED officers to ensure that the preferred option design for consultation includes details of proposed landscape areas and tree planting as set out in the report.

 

(h)        NOTED the important role of the Local Liaison Forum in involving local Councillors and stakeholder groups in the development of the detailed layout plans for consultation.

 

Minutes:

Councillor Lewis Herbert, Chairman of the Executive Board, opened the item by inviting those members of the public or local Members who had given notice to put forward questions to the Board.  Questions were grouped together based on their subject and were therefore asked and answered, as follows:

 

Question by Edward Leigh

 

Edward Leigh reflected on recent references to a report by Greener Journeys which claimed that experience from schemes around the country showed that bus lanes may reduce bus travel times by seven to nine minutes along a 10km congested route and also improve their reliability.  He said that this equated to an average saving of less than one minute per kilometre of bus lane and asked whether that really represented value for money or constituted a step change in the attractiveness of bus travel.  He also referred to conclusions from a Transport Research Laboratory paper in support of bus lanes that bus journey times had been decreased by two minutes, but that no consistent results regarding patronage were obtained.  Another quote, from Mott MacDonald’s report said that, after bus lanes were suspended in Liverpool for nine months, evidence showed that these bus lanes were generally only providing minor benefits to bus journey times and that whilst reliability was adversely affected in some cases, more significant bus delay and unreliability was typically the result of other factors.  Mr Leigh said that for better bus journeys, once the city had been de-congested, two areas would need addressing.  These were access to bus services and ease of interchanging.  He therefore asked the Board whether it would reject the officer recommendation to rush ahead with bus lane schemes for Histon Road and Milton Road.

 

Question by Councillor Damian Tunnicliffe

 

Councillor Damian Tunnicliffe asked how it was possible, since the impact of the proposed congestion package had not yet been assessed in respect of the impact on journey times for these streets, to conclude that these schemes were essential.

 

Question by Lynn Hieatt

 

Lynn Hieatt felt that people’s views were not being listened to and that the research and work done by residents and experts over the past years, for free and in their own time, in proposing workable, sustainable and more imaginative alternatives to bus lanes had been largely ignored.  She said that people again wanted to know why all the other, better, ideas for spending tranche one money were being overlooked in favour of bus lanes.

 

Bob Menzies, Director of Strategy and Development at Cambridgeshire County Council, in response to these questions, said that the most important factor influencing patronage of buses was that buses themselves were stuck in traffic.  Unless buses were freed up from congestion people would not use them as they were unreliable.  Mr Menzies cited the guided busway as a good example of where bus lanes could be effective, reporting that it continued to be reliable and had met all of its targets in respect of patronage.  He added that evidence was very strong to support the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

11.

Milton Road bus priority, walking and cycling measures: report on initial consultation and selection of a preferred route pdf icon PDF 957 KB

To consider the attached report.

Decision:

The Executive Board:

 

(a)        NOTED the findings in the initial consultation report.

 

(b)        AGREED to take forward the initial ideas in the ‘Do Something’ option for further design work including the Union Lane closure and Elizabeth Way roundabout ideas and ‘floating bus stops’, where highway space permitted, but excluding the ideas for banned turns at the Gilbert Road, Arbury Road and King’s Hedges Road junctions.

 

(c)        AGREED to consider major changes to the highway layout at the Mitcham’s Corner junction for implementation as part of the ongoing tranche 2 prioritisation work.

 

(d)        NOTED the further technical work that would be undertaken over the summer period.

 

(e)        SUPPORTED the development of traffic management measures to mitigate displaced traffic and parking for the purposes of further consultation.

 

(f)         DELEGATED authority to the Executive Director of Economy, Transport and Environment at Cambridgeshire County Council, in consultation with the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Executive Board, to approve a further consultation for a preferred option scheme design, as detailed in section 43 of the report.

 

(g)        NOTED the procurement plan for project delivery, the revised project programme and the consultation plan set out in the report.

 

(h)        INSTRUCTED officers to ensure that the preferred option design for consultation includes details of proposed landscape areas and tree planting as set out in the report.

 

(i)         NOTED the important role of the Local Liaison Forum in involving local Councillors and stakeholder groups in the development of the detailed layout plans for consultation.

 

Minutes:

The presentation of the report and some public questions considered as part of the item on Histon Road at minute number 10, also related to this item.

 

Councillor Lewis Herbert, Chairman of the Executive Board, opened the item by inviting those members of the public who had given notice to put forward questions to the Board.  Questions were grouped together based on their subject and were therefore asked and answered, as follows:

 

Question by Sheila Butcher

 

Sheila Butcher could not understand why this road would be dug up, with beautiful and mature trees and grass verges removed, to make way for bus lanes that would stay empty for most of the day.  She asked why all the other options for tackling congestion had not been tried first.

 

Bob Menzies, Director of Strategy and Development at Cambridgeshire County Council, acknowledged that this question was similar to that of Mr Nisbet’s in the previous item, and said that no decisions would be made to implement works or dig up roads until after peak congestion control points had been put in place. 

 

Question by Peter Fenton

 

Peter Fenton referred to proposed city-wide measures designed to reduce the flow of traffic into and out of Cambridge.  In the light of these measures and the imminent North Cambridge railway station, he asked whether the Board thought that the proposals for Milton Road had become obsolete even before they had started.  He added that all of the traffic flow projections were already out of date and suggested it would be better to shelve the project and wait to see how the other measures worked.

 

Mr Menzies acknowledged that further modelling would be required, but confirmed that this would be carried out prior to the public consultation, with any changes to the proposals as a result being made publicly available.

 

Question by Glyn Burton

 

Glyn Burton was concerned of the impact that a new banned turn proposed for outbound vehicles in respect of Elizabeth Way would cause for people living in the area, together with any rat-running that she felt would occur as a result.  She asked for assurance that this new option would receive full and fair public consultation before any decisions were taken.

 

Mr Menzies emphasised that this had been identified as something to explore further and was not being proposed as part of the scheme at this stage. 

 

Question by Duncan Astill

 

Duncan Astill said that 90% of traffic turned left at the roundabout down Elizabeth Way and then queued both at the Chesterton Road roundabout and the Newmarket Road roundabout.  He therefore asked why they were not being considered as part of any scheme of improvements.

 

Question by John Latham

 

John Latham said that the consultation revealed a majority in favour of retaining the Milton Road, Highworth Avenue and Elizabeth Way roundabout and that residents’ associations and other groups had made detailed suggestions about retaining the roundabout whilst improving its configuration to include new lane markings, peripheral cycleways and peak hour traffic signal  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

12.

Cross City Cycling pdf icon PDF 544 KB

To consider the attached report.

Decision:

The Executive Board:

 

(a)        NOTED the results and key issues arising from the public consultation.

 

(b)        INCREASED the funding allocated to the schemes due to the expansion of scope.

 

(c)        AGREED to continue localised discussions over trees, hedges and boundaries.

 

(d)        APPROVED implementation of all five schemes, subject to a few minor changes and areas where some further consultation is required, as pert the summary table set out in the report.

 

(e)        DELEGATED approval of detailed final scheme layouts to the Executive Director of Economy, Transport and Environment at Cambridgeshire County Council, in consultation with the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Executive Board.

 

Minutes:

Councillor Lewis Herbert, Chairman of the Executive Board, opened the item by inviting those members of the public or local Members who had given notice to put forward questions to the Board.  Questions were therefore asked and answered, as follows:

 

Question by Councillor John Williams

 

Councillor John Williams welcomed the two cross city cycling schemes that involved the Fulbourn division of the County Council and confirmed that they had widespread support.  However, he said that this did not address the existing poor cycle and pedestrian crossing at Yarrow Road or the substandard shared cycle path from Fulbourn Road to the Capital Park Business Park.  Councillor Williams added that, in order for the Fulbourn Road scheme to be fully utilised and to tackle congestion in the city, it was important that this substandard shared path was also upgraded at the earliest opportunity.  He therefore sought confirmation that this was in hand.

 

Question by Vince Farrar

 

Vince Farrar reported that Fen Ditton Parish Council had been looking at how to extend the cycleway and join it onto other routes, as well as investigating the possibility of widening Ditton Lane for safety reasons.  He asked the Executive Board to consider additional funding to bridge the gap between Horningsea Road and Ditton Road.

 

Stuart Walmsley, Head of Major Infrastructure Delivery at Cambridgeshire County Council, presented the report which summarised the results of public consultation and proposed next steps in respect of cross city cycling improvement schemes, as well as setting out details of the following specific schemes:

 

·         Fulbourn Road and Cherry Hinton eastern access;

·         Hills Road and Addenbrooke’s corridor;

·         links to east Cambridge and national cycle route 11;

·         Arbury Road;

·         links to Cambridge North Station and the Science Park.

 

In response to the questions, Mr Walmsley said that consideration would be given to the continued development of these schemes as part of Tranche 2 of the City Deal programme. 

 

Councillor Roger Hickford, Chairman of the Joint Assembly, reported that the Assembly, having considered this report at its meeting on 2 June 2016, had unanimously supported the officer recommendations.

 

Councillor Ian Bates, representing Cambridgeshire County Council, sought clarification as to why the cost of the scheme had increased from the initial estimate.  Mr Walmsley explained that the original costs had been estimated in June 2015 without any scheme development taken into account, with the proviso that at that time it was a high level estimate.  Now that the scheme had been worked up, the cost of the scheme could be more accurately projected, hence the request for the Board to approve additional funding. 

 

The Executive Board unanimously:

 

(a)        NOTED the results and key issues arising from the public consultation.

 

(b)        INCREASED the funding allocated to the schemes due to the expansion of scope.

 

(c)        AGREED to continue localised discussions over trees, hedges and boundaries.

 

(d)        APPROVED implementation of all five schemes, subject to a few minor changes and areas where some further consultation is required, as pert the summary table set out in the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.

13.

Cambridge to Royston Cycleway pdf icon PDF 633 KB

To consider the attached report.

Decision:

The Executive Board:

 

(a)        NOTED the work completed to date to provide a cycle link from Cambridge to Melbourn.

 

(b)        APPROVED the use of £550,000 of City Deal funding to complete the link.

 

Minutes:

Councillor Lewis Herbert, Chairman of the Executive Board, opened the item by inviting those members of the public or local Members who had given notice to put forward questions to the Board.  Questions were therefore asked and answered, as follows:

 

Statement by Councillor Susan Van de Ven

 

Councillor Susan Van de Ven said that this cycleway was a key link, especially from the perspective of Melbourn Business Park and the aspiration to complete a route from Cambridge to Royston.  She reported that local businesses were working well with communities along the A10 to achieve changes in travel choices, focussed on more sustainable modes of transport, also stating that AstraZeneca had agreed to sponsor the maintenance of the whole route for two years.  She also thanked the Local Enterprise Partnership for its assistance in preparing a bid that would be used to fund the final link to Royston. 

 

Councillor Herbert took this opportunity to pay tribute to the work and commitment demonstrated by Councillor Van de Ven in respect of this route, as well as members of the community who had worked on the project.

 

Question by Tim Bedford

 

Tim Bedford asked whether the project would include the building of the planned traffic island near The Weaver’s Shed, as he felt that this would be essential to people safely crossing the road when coming from Melbourn. 

 

Stuart Walmsley, Head of Major Infrastructure Delivery, confirmed that this was being considered as part of the scheme. 

 

Mr Walmsley presented the report which explained the details of the proposed route and the major economic benefits that could be realised in the short term.

 

Councillor Roger Hickford, Chairman of the Joint Assembly, reported that the Assembly, having considered this report at its meeting on 2 June 2016, had unanimously supported the officer recommendations.

 

The Executive Board:

 

(a)        NOTED the work completed to date to provide a cycle link from Cambridge to Melbourn.

 

(b)        APPROVED the use of £550,000 of City Deal funding to complete the link.

 

14.

City Deal Urban and Environmental Design Guidance pdf icon PDF 125 KB

To consider the attached report.

Additional documents:

Decision:

The Executive Board:

 

a)         REQUESTED the improvement of the City Deal Urban and Environmental Design Guidance document.

 

(b)        REQUIRED that the document is proactively used and reference by project managers during the development of relevant City Deal transport projects.

 

(c)        REQUESTED that the document is updated periodically to reflect any significant changes in highway and planning design policy.

 

(d)        REQUESTED that officers investigate the process of all future City Deal schemes being considered by the Cambridgeshire Quality Design Panel.

 

(e)        REQUESTED that officers investigate the introduction of a facility that invites members of the public to provide photographs of aspirational ideas and ideas to be avoided for a website-based montage.

 

Minutes:

Councillor Lewis Herbert, Chairman of the Executive Board, opened the item by inviting those members of the public who had given notice to put forward questions to the Board.  The following statement was noted:

 

Statement by Lucy Price

 

Lucy Price asked the Executive Board to consider the use of more creative infrastructure to encourage people to walk and cycle through the city, citing examples of schemes already in place.  She felt that low level lighting or safely positioned sculpture or cycle counters could really enhance the space and, more importantly, encourage people to get out of their cars and improve the experience for all travelling through Cambridge.

 

Councillor Roger Hickford, Chairman of the Joint Assembly, reported that the Assembly had considered this report at its meeting on 2 June 2016.  Members of the Joint Assembly had expressed their concerns due to a lack of detail in the document,  a lack of reference to heritage and a general feeling that the document was not aspirational enough.  The Joint Assembly had supported the amendment of recommendation (a) so that it read ‘requests the improvement of the City Deal Urban and Environmental Design Guidance document’ rather than endorsing the document as it stood.  The Assembly also supported the following additional recommendations:

 

‘(d)       The Executive Board requests that officers investigate the process of all future City Deal schemes being considered by the Cambridgeshire Quality Design Panel.’

 

‘(e)       The Executive Board requests that officers investigate the introduction of a facility that invites members of the public to provide photographs of aspirational ideas and ideas to be avoided for a website-based montage.’

 

The Joint Assembly therefore unanimously recommended to the Board approval of the officer recommendations contained within the report, subject to the inclusion of the above amendments.

 

Stuart Walmsley, Director of Major Infrastructure Delivery at Cambridgeshire County Council, in presenting the report said that the document set out the principles to be followed and guidance that should be taken into account during the development of City Deal transport infrastructure projects on the major roads into Cambridge and city centre access routes.  It intended to capture as much good practice as it could and had been commissioned to be a conceptual design document, reflecting characteristics of Cambridge and the objectives of the City Deal programme.

 

During discussion the Board was content with the Joint Assembly’s recommendation, noting however the key role that the Local Liaison Forum would play in terms of understanding local expectations.  Councillor Burkitt welcomed a design guide but said that he would be more interested in what local people had to say about proposals as they were developed, adding that he would rather be guided by them.

 

Councillor Herbert requested that all Members of the Executive Board and Joint Assembly, as part of the further work that would be undertaken to improve the document, be asked their views as to what elements were missing in order that they could help shape the revised version.

 

The Executive Board unanimously:

 

(a)        REQUESTED the improvement of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14.

15.

City Deal progress report pdf icon PDF 315 KB

To consider the attached report.

Additional documents:

Decision:

The Executive Board NOTED the City Deal progress report.

Minutes:

The Executive Board NOTED the City Deal progress report.

16.

City Deal Forward Plan pdf icon PDF 145 KB

To consider the Forward Plan for the City Deal Executive Board.  The document is purposely marked with tracked changes to reflect updates since the last meeting.

Decision:

The Executive Board NOTED the City Deal Forward Plan.

Minutes:

The Executive Board NOTED the City Deal Forward Plan.

 

Contact the Council

TelephoneTelephone

03450 450 500 - General enquiries
Mon - Fri: 8.00am - 5:30pm

Additional numbers
External SCDC services
Emergency out of hours numbers

EmailEmail

scdc@scambs.gov.uk

AddressAddress

South Cambridgeshire Hall
Cambourne Business Park
Cambourne
Cambridge
CB23 6EA

Logo

© 2012 South Cambridgeshire District Council. All rights reserved.