Agenda, decisions and minutes

Venue: Council Chamber - South Cambs Hall. View directions

Contact: Democratic Services  03450 450 500 Email: democratic.services@scambs.gov.uk

Items
No. Item

1.

Apologies for absence

Decision:

 

An apology for absence was received from Professor Phil Allmendinger.

Minutes:

An apology for absence was received from Professor Phil Allmendinger, due to illness.

2.

Executive Board membership

Decision:

 

The Executive Board RATIFIED the appointment of Claire Ruskin, CEO of Cambridge Network, as the representative of the business community on the Greater Cambridge Partnership (GCP) Executive Board.

 

The Executive Board additionally noted that Sir Michael Marshall had stood down as a representative on the GCP Joint Assembly and ENDORSED the nomination from Claire Ruskin, as the representative of  the business community, of  Christopher Walkinshaw, a member of Cambridge Ahead, to fill the resultant vacancy on the Joint Assembly. 

 

It was noted that a representative of the business community had yet to be nominated to fill the vacancy on the Joint Assembly caused by Claire Ruskin’s appointment as a member of the Executive Board and ENDORSED the same approach for Claire Ruskin to identify a suitable representative from the business community.

Minutes:

The Chairperson reminded the Executive Board that, at its previous meeting, Mark Reeve had announced that he was standing down as Chair of the Local Enterprise Partnership and that this therefore created a vacancy amongst the Board’s membership.

 

The Executive Board noted that the Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) is currently being reconstituted by the Combined Authority; that the Chief Executive of the Combined Authority had informed the GCP that it would not nominate a LEP representative until this had taken place; and that the Chief Executives of the Combined Authority and Greater Cambridge Partnership (GCP) had agreed that the most sensible approach would be for Claire Ruskin, who is one of the LEP representatives on the Joint Assembly, to cover this role for an interim period as the representative of the business community upon the Executive Board, subject to the Executive Board’s endorsement.

 

Claire Ruskin informed the Executive Board that Sir Michael Marshall had stood down as a LEP representative on the GCP Joint Assembly.  Pending the reconstitution of the LEP and its ability to nominate a new representative, the Board agreed that the most sensible approach was for Claire Ruskin to make the nomination.  She nominated Christopher Walkinshaw, a member of Cambridge Ahead.

 

The Chairperson declared that Christopher Walkinshaw was a personal friend but that this did not create a conflict.  Claire Ruskin said that she had not been aware of this relationship in making her nomination.

 

Claire Ruskin said that she had not yet identified a representative of the business community to fill the vacancy on the Joint Assembly caused by her leaving it.   

 

The Chairperson mentioned that this was the last meeting that Chris Tunstall, Interim Transport Director, would attend.  He introduced Peter Blake as the new Greater Cambridge Partnership Transport Director.  The Chairperson, on behalf of the Executive Board, thanked Chris Tunstall for all his hard work supporting the Board over the past year.

 

The Executive Board AGREED unanimously to:

 

(1)  Endorse the appointment of Claire Ruskin, CEO of Cambridge Network, as the representative of the business community on the Greater Cambridge Partnership (GCP) Executive Board.

 

(2)  Note that Sir Michael Marshall had stood down from the GCP Joint Assembly and endorsethe nomination from Claire Ruskin, as the representative of the business community, of Christopher Walkinshaw, a member of Cambridge Ahead, to fill the resultant vacancy on the Joint Assembly. 

 

(3)  Note the vacancy on the Joint Assembly caused by Claire Ruskin’s appointment as a member of the Executive Board and endorse an approach whereby Claire Ruskin will identify and nominate a representative from the business community to fill the position.

3.

Declarations of Interest

Decision:

 

There were no declarations of interest other than those already recorded on Members’ Declaration of Interest forms.

Minutes:

There were no declarations of interest other than those already recorded on Members’ Declaration of Interest forms.  However, the Chairperson had made an earlier declaration as recorded in minute 2 above.

4.

Minutes of the Previous Meeting pdf icon PDF 386 KB

To authorise the Executive Board to sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 22 November 2017 as a correct record.

 

Additional documents:

Decision:

 

The minutes of the meeting held on 22 November 2017 were confirmed as a correct record for signature by the Chairman, subject to the amendment of minute 10 to include the words “will consider” between the words “December” and “his” in the second sentence of the minute. 

Minutes:

The Executive Board confirmed the minutes of the meeting of the Board held on 22 November 2017 as a correct record for signature by the Chairperson, subject to the amendment of minute 10 to include the words “will consider” between the words “December” and “his” in the second sentence of the minute. 

5.

Questions from Members of the Public pdf icon PDF 106 KB

Additional documents:

Decision:

 

The Executive Board RECEIVED and responded to public questions as part of agenda items 7, 9 and 10.

 

Councillor Tim Bick, a member of the GCP Joint Assembly addressed the Executive and asked a question on agenda item 7. Additionally Councillor Simon Edwards, a member of South Cambridgeshire District Council,  addressed the Executive and asked a question on agenda item 11.

 

Minutes:

Three public questions had been received.  The Executive Board RECEIVED and responded to public questions as part of agenda items 7, 9 and 10. The questions are included as an appendix to these minutes.

 

Additionally Councillor Tim Bick, a member of the GCP Joint Assembly addressed the Executive and asked a question on agenda item 7 and Councillor Simon Edwards, a member of South Cambridgeshire District Council, addressed the Executive and asked a question on agenda item 11.

6.

Overview from the Chairman of the Joint Assembly pdf icon PDF 155 KB

Decision:

 

The Executive Board RECEIVED an overview report on the discussions from the meeting of the Greater Cambridge Partnership Joint Assembly held on Thursday, 18th January 2018.

Minutes:

The Executive Board RECEIVED a report from the Chairperson of the GCP Joint Assembly which gave an overview of discussions from the meeting of the Greater Cambridge Partnership Joint Assembly held on Thursday, 18January 2018.  He particularly noted that the Rural Travel Hubs report was the issue which had most divided opinion at the Joint Assembly’s meeting with strong opinions having been expressed both for and against the approaches being recommended to the Executive Board.  The Joint Assembly had been pleased to hear more about the findings of “Our Big Conversation” and welcomed the opportunity to make decisions in the future based on good evidence.  The recommendation in the Cambridge to Ely A10 report to commend the study to the Combined Authority had been supported by the Assembly but members had not wanted to lose the opportunity to influence modal shift as this was a key part of the GCP’s work.

 

Councillor Bates and Claire Ruskin had been in attendance at the Assembly’s meeting and gave their feedback on the Assembly’s debate.

 

The Chairperson noted that he had detected a strong degree of enthusiasm for the concept of the Cambridgeshire Autonomous Metro (CAM) and, with respect to the Rural Travel Hubs, support for the GCP Executive Board’s “bottom up” approach to developing community led hubs and to initially developing a number of pilot sites.

7.

Rapid Mass Transit Strategic Options Appraisal pdf icon PDF 347 KB

Additional documents:

Decision:

 

The Executive Board AGREED unanimously to:

 

(a)  Welcome the findings of the Cambridgeshire Mass Transit Strategic Options Assessment.

 

(b)  Agree that the findings be commended to the Combined Authority with a view to developing a Strategic Outline Business Case.

 

(c)  Agree that the Greater Cambridge Partnership builds on the Mayor’s plans for the next stage of developing a CAM Metro network by ensuring GCP’s current and future plans for high quality public transport corridors are consistent and readily adaptable with the emerging proposition (subject to the future business case for CAM being agreed by the Combined Authority).

Minutes:

The Chairperson invited Roger Tomlinson to ask his question. Details of the question and a summary of the answer given are set out in Appendix A to the minutes.

 

Councillor Tim Bick, a member of the GCP Joint Assembly addressed the Executive Board under this item. He asked, in view of the Combined Authority’s adoption of a lead role in developing a Cambridgeshire Autonomous Metro (CAM), how in practice the Board proposed to ensure an integrated approach to the development of this and other schemes? He believed that it was right that the CAM concept should be taken further but that it was important that CAM did not become “the only show in town” as it was unlikely that it would be able to deliver the solution for all transport needs in the area. He felt it was vital that local transport strategy did not become dominated by the CAM scheme and commented that Greater Cambridge needed a full integrated public transport system in which CAM was part of the solution, but that there was also a need for an upgraded bus service, a demand management scheme, encouragement for modal shift and a street environment that was conducive to the growth of safe cycling and walking. In his view, it had never been intended that the GCP would just be an infrastructure delivery vehicle, rather that it would develop an integrated system and bring together local interest groups and opinion formers in Greater Cambridge. He also felt that the GCP now had a professional officer team who were taking a more holistic approach to their work. Councillor Bick accordingly asked what approach the Board envisaged taking to ensure an integrated approach, given the role of the Mayor and the Combined Authority?

 

In response to the question, Executive Members made the following points:-

 

·         The comments about the professional team supporting the GCP were welcomed.

·         They agreed that whilst CAM would be an important element in addressing the transport needs in Greater Cambridge, it must not become “the only show in town” and referred to the wider programme of schemes the GCP was considering.

·         They emphasised the importance of all parties, along with the wider community in Greater Cambridge, working together collaboratively. 

·         They suggested that CAM presented an opportunity for a transformational change in the City Centre, but that a duality was needed from GCP so that it delivered whether or not CAM was achieved.

·         Whilst there might be technical issues to address, the biggest obstacle was likely to be funding.

·         It was important that the GCP continued to work on other projects and it would be necessary to link up rail, bus and other options with CAM; to consider measures to reduce the number of vehicles coming into the city; to improve air quality and look at urban design.

·         It will not be possible to operate a CAM scheme that needs a large long term subsidy.

·         Partnership working would be vital in the future. The GCP had a strong record in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

8.

A10 Foxton level Crossing bypass and travel hub pdf icon PDF 870 KB

Additional documents:

Decision:

 

The Executive Board AGREED unanimously to:

 

(1)  Note the assessment work and review of the options presented in this report and Appendix 1.

 

(2)  Approve the development of an ‘Outline business case’ for a preferred option in collaboration with Network Rail.

 

(3)  Explore the opportunity for Foxton Station to act as a Travel Hub with a Park and Ride facility for onward rail trips into Cambridge and Cambridge North stations and the proposed future Cambridge South station.

Minutes:

The GCP Interim Director of Transport presented a report which recommended that the “A10 Foxton level crossing bypass and travel hub” be approved for further development as part of the Future Investment Strategy.  The scheme had been included in the list of priority schemes for support agreed by the GCP in 2015 but with a zero budget, on the assumption that Network Rail would fund it (which they subsequently declined to do). Whilst the original scheme had only considered a level crossing bypass, the revised proposals would also consider a more extensive ‘travel hub’ with the provision of additional parking facilities to complement both the existing Park and Ride and Rural Travel Hub proposals.  The Interim Director of Transport reported that the number of passenger trains using the route was due to increase from four to six trains every hour, with at least two stops per hour at Foxton.  This would increase the closure time at the level crossing.  Discussions had taken place with Network Rail who did not regard the upgrade as a safety issue and had declined to fund the project.  Further discussions with regard to funding would accordingly be needed both with Network Rail and the Department for Transport.

 

During discussion, Executive Board members made comments as follows:-

 

·         Whilst this scheme may have appeared previously to have had a lower priority than some of the other schemes promoted by the GCP, this report made the case for progressing the scheme having regard to the growing volume of traffic on the A10 and the additional number of trains passing through Foxton.  However it was important that the scheme was closely integrated with the travel hub work and the Junction 11 improvements.  Additionally, there was a need for involvement by Network Rail in the scheme, including by way of financial contribution.

·         When the scheme had been reviewed in 2015 there had been an indication that Network Rail were possible funders. The level crossing was acknowledged to be a travel blockage, but there was a serious question as to whether the GCP should be the only body contributing to the funding of such a scheme. The Executive Board accepted that the scheme should go forward to the next stage of consideration, but commented that this should not infer that the GCP was making a firm commitment to the scheme at this stage.  Further discussions were needed with Network Rail with a view to supporting the scheme in the interests of safety.

·         Whilst supporting proceeding to outline business case stage in respect of the project, the need for Network Rail’s involvement and financial support for the project was again reiterated by the Executive Board.  Further discussions were needed between the GCP and Network Rail with regard to securing a financial contribution to the project before the Executive Board would be able to determine whether to commit formally to the scheme.

·         Safety was a major consideration in considering the scheme. In addition to risks associated with the level crossing, reference was made  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

9.

Cambridge to Ely A10 Transport Study pdf icon PDF 552 KB

Additional documents:

Decision:

 

The Executive Board AGREED unanimously to:

 

(1)  Endorse the recommendations set out in the study.

 

(2)  Commend the multi-modal package of measures to the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority for approval and further development.

 

 

Minutes:

The Chairperson invited Maureen Mace to ask her question.  Details of the question and a summary of the answer given are set out in Appendix A to these minutes.

 

The Interim Director of Transport introduced the report which presented the findings of the Ely to Cambridge A10 Transport Study and proposed next steps.

 

During discussion upon the report:-

 

·         With reference to the map on page 186, the Executive Board noted that there was an existing underpass under the A10, close to the existing guided busway, in the vicinity of Cambridge Regional College, not far from Cambridge North Station and the Histon Road improvements, which, could be relevant to the consultation in respect of an off-road route.  In response, the Interim Director of Transport confirmed that the proposals in the report were predicated on the achievement of an integrated approach linking into existing busways and would also be mindful of potential links into CAM in the future.

·         Reference was made to the diagram on page 145, which graphically illustrated the costs and benefits of the five options in the report.

·         The Executive Board stated that it was important to review the whole package of measures, not just modal shift. Whilst the focus for the GCP might be those travelling from the A10 to the Cambridge hubs, which in itself would be a valuable project, there was also a need for measures to address the traffic travelling along the A10 to somewhere beyond the North of Cambridge, and it would therefore be important to work with partners to examine the various options identified in the report.

·         The Executive Board noted that an indication of scheme components was given on page 209 but it was not clear whether these were at 2010 or 2017 prices. In that context and given that certain aspects of the scheme were not within the remit of the GCP, reference was made to the importance of identifying the cost of the various components which it was anticipated would be the responsibility of the GCP.

·         The Portfolio Holder for Transport noted that the study had been discussed by the County Council’s Economy and Environment Committee that morning, and that he supported the earlier comments about the need to break down the various components of the scheme and to identify which body was responsible for each of those components, bearing in mind also that certain aspects of the project fell outside the Greater Cambridge area.

·         The Executive Board asked the Chief Executive to liaise further with the other partners involved in the project with a view to bringing a report back to the Executive Board and Joint Assembly with an indication of the cost of the various parts of the project and which schemes would be the commitment of the GCP. 

 

The Executive Board AGREED unanimously to:

 

(1)  Endorse the recommendations set out in the study.

 

(2)  Commend the multi-modal package of measures to the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority for approval and further development.

 

 

10.

Our Big Conversation pdf icon PDF 285 KB

Additional documents:

Decision:

 

The Executive Board AGREED unanimously to:-

 

(1)  Welcome the broad level of public engagement in Our Big Conversation.

 

(2)  Note initial findings ahead of the final report published as a supplement to the Future Investment Strategy (FIS) reports in March 2018.

Minutes:

The Chairperson invited James Littlewood to ask his question.  Details of the question and a summary of the answer given are set out in Appendix A to these minutes.

 

Mike Soper, Head of Research and Performance at Cambridgeshire County Council, introduced the report which presented the interim findings from the GCP’s autumn 2017 public awareness and engagement programme “Our Big Conversation”.  The exercise had aimed to strengthen the evidence-base needed to inform GCP’s Future Investment Strategy (FIS) by generating public dialogue on the Greater Cambridge growth story; testing emerging GCP proposals with the public and undertaking a comprehensive travel survey to refresh 2011 census data. A copy of the summary report “Our Big Conversation – Key Findings” was circulated at the meeting.

 

During discussion:

 

·         The Chairperson noted that “Our Big Conversation” had generated more than 10,000 individual responses and comments and, as such, was probably one of the most comprehensive engagement exercises of residents in the City and South Cambridgeshire.  The summary report presented the key findings but there was a significant amount of further data available to inform future development of the GCP’s FIS.

·         Attention was drawn to confirmation given at the Joint Assembly that the research was statistically relevant.

·         Reference was made to the further analysis to be undertaken on options to tackle cars coming into the City Centre at peak times and the need to integrate this with the work on ANPR.  The importance of linking the assessment of public views and priorities that had been identified in this study with the data gained from other analysis was highlighted.  Moreover, it was pointed out that that there would be differences of opinion between residents living in the City Centre and those living on the edge of Cambridge in respect of whom the aim was to achieve mode shift. 

·         Reference was made to Theme 8 – The Trouble with Housing – on page 20 of the summary document and interest was expressed in seeing further detail at the appropriate time with regard to the findings relating to housing and how this interfaced with transport.

·         The Executive Board acknowledged that the survey findings represented a rich and valuable evidence base which would be of benefit to other partners such as the Combined Authority, the city and district councils, parish councils and communities generally.  The Chairperson commented that the GCP Communications team would no doubt be reviewing the extent to which the findings were communicated to partners.  However he suggested that the summary report could be sent to City and District Councillors; that perhaps FeCRA could be requested to circulate it to residents’ associations; and that the District Council might be able to assist in distribution to Parish Councils. 

·         The Executive Board concluded by recognising that “Our Big Conversation” had been an excellent exercise which had provided an invaluable quantitative and qualitative research evidence base; and placed on record its thanks to Beth Durham, Niamh Matthews, Mike Soper and all officers involved in the exercise.

 

The Executive Board AGREED  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

11.

Rural Travel Hubs pdf icon PDF 355 KB

Additional documents:

Decision:

 

The Executive Board AGREED unanimously:

 

1.    To note and take into consideration the results of the feasibility report, future parish consultation with residents, local knowledge and planning considerations to approve Oakington and Sawston as pilots to be taken into Phase 2 as part of the Rural Travel Hubs project.

 

2.    That, in respect of Whittlesford:-

(a)  A Master Transport Planning exercise be undertaken at a cost of £50,000 which can be met out of existing funding.

(b)  A contribution of £70,000 be made for the provision of additional cycle parking for 200 bikes.

 

3.    To note that the three villages referred to above will be pilots and based on the evaluation of the success of these pilots, further waves of Rural Travel Hubs could be investigated in the future.

Minutes:

The Chairperson invited Councillor Simon Edwards to ask his question. Councillor Edwards stated that he was addressing the Executive Board in his capacity as a South Cambridgeshire District Councillor for the Cottenham ward, although he was also a member of Oakington and Westwick Parish Council.  He noted that the report at paragraph 2.1 invited the Executive Board to take account of parish consultation with residents and of local knowledge and in that context, rather than asking a question, he wished to use the opportunity to bring Board members up to date with the views of the Parish and local community.  He said that the Parish had been encouraged by the “bottom up” process adopted by the GCP to the potential development of rural travel hubs and had been keen to examine the opportunity presented.    Councillor Edwards reported that a workshop had been hosted locally involving both the Parish Council and the local transport action group in order to try to establish what measures would be acceptable and what would not be acceptable to the Parish and local community in order to guide the GCP.  He said that universal agreement had been achieved between the two parties on a number of measures (including lockable cycle storage; a path and cycleway to Oakington; real time information and wi fi access).  However two key issues had been hotly debated.  In terms of parking, consensus had not been achieved at the workshop and had been further considered at the Parish Council, which had taken the view that it would be willing to accept the level of parking indicated in the report before the Executive Board.  The other key issue agreed by both parties was the need for the Citi 6 bus service to be extended up to the site. He therefore wished the Executive Board to be aware at this stage, that Oakington would not support an option that did not include the Citi 6 bus link.  Finally, Councillor Edwards noted the indication given in the report that the construction at the pilot sites would initially be more temporary in nature and following monitoring, if deemed successful, a more permanent design solution would be developed.  Whilst recognising the merit in opting for a temporary solution pending demonstration of the success of a site, Councillor Edwards urged the Executive Board to make the construction of the pilot sites permanent, prior to bringing any other sites on board.

 

The Chairperson thanked Councillor Edwards for his contribution and commented on the value of adopting the “bottom up” approach and being attuned to community feedback about proposed schemes.  In terms of the specific point raised, he noted that Mike Hill, Director of Health and Environmental Services at South Cambridgeshire District Council, who was present at the meeting, was leading on this aspect and asked him to take the points raised by Councillor Edwards on board. Mr Hill said that he would.

 

The Interim Director of Transport introduced the feasibility report on the development of Rural Travel Hubs in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

12.

Date of Next Meeting

To note that the next meeting will take place on Wednesday 21 March 2018 at 4pm in the Kreis Viersen Room, Shire Hall, Cambridge.

Decision:

 

The Executive Board NOTED that the next meeting will take place on Wednesday 21 March 2018 at 4.00pm in the Kreis Viersen Room, Shire Hall, Cambridge.

Minutes:

The Executive Board NOTED that the next meeting will take place on Wednesday 21 March 2018 at 4.00pm in the Kreis Viersen Room, Shire Hall, Cambridge.

13.

Appendix to Minutes - Public Questions and Answers pdf icon PDF 365 KB