Agenda item

To consider the attached report by Graham Hughes, Executive Director (Cambridgeshire County Council).

The Joint Assembly RECOMMENDED that the Executive Board:

(a)        Approves the choice of the proposed priority strategic cross-city cycle schemes as set out in the report.

(b)        Approves the public consultation on the schemes, as set out in the report.

(c)        Agrees to receive a report on the consultation results of each scheme and endorse the findings.

Consideration was given to a report which summarised the strategic approach and key principles for developing the cross-city cycle improvements in Cambridge and set out some early work that had been undertaken, informed by stakeholder engagement, on the routes which would benefit most.

Mike Davies, Team Leader of Cycling Projects, presented the report and highlighted that the proposed priority cross-city cycle schemes represented strategic links to both radial and orbital cycle routes, especially those to employment or development sites.  He referred Members to Appendices 2 and 3 of the report which set out a scoring methodology and a list of scored schemes, respectively.  Plan 1 attached to the report also illustrated the proposed location of City Deal cross-city schemes.  It was noted that the chosen schemes were the result of the outcomes of a stakeholder workshop held on 7 March 2015.

The Chairman took this opportunity to invite receipt of public questions and statements, as follows:

Statement by Roxanne De Beaux

Roxanne De Beaux represented the Cambridge Cycling Campaign which welcomed the proposed cross-city cycling routes and strongly supported the proposed improvements to the nominated corridors.  She said that these were clearly areas where improvements were required and the Campaign was confident that high quality improvements to these corridors would achieve the desired modal shifts and reduce congestion.

Regarding the Hills Road and Addenbrooke’s corridor, Ms De Beaux said that nothing short of a separate light phase would improve the safety for the most vulnerable.  She added that the advance lights would not add significant improvement to the existing situation where cyclists, through their sheer number, already dominated this intersection and prevented any more than a few cars from getting through at a time.  There was also a high risk of collision in this area so the Campaign recommended that a better solution with separate light signals and safer cycling infrastructure should be included.

The Campaign supported proposed improvements to links to East Cambridge and the National Cycle Network 11, however, it felt that there should be proposals for further assessment and suggested investigating use of Section 106 funding from the Ice Rink and Marshall’s developments.

Ms De Beaux emphasised the terrible infrastructure for cycles on Arbury Road and said the Campaign agreed that this route must be improved due to the lack of alternative routes.  The Campaign was also pleased to see the links to the North Cambridge Station and looked forward to seeing further details of this.  It did, however, recommend a scheme to improve the Trumpington Road and Lensfield Road double roundabout which was an appalling junction where many accidents had occurred and had not been included on the list of schemes.

In closing Ms De Beaux said that the Cambridge Cycling Campaign was very pleased with the proposals presented and the improvements that they would provide for cycling in Cambridge.

The Joint Assembly noted the statement.

Statement by Councillor Peter Sarris

Councillor Peter Sarris of Cambridge City Council, representing the East Chesterton Ward, wanted to make it clear that all Ward Councillors from East Chesterton fully were fully supportive of the proposed improvements to link the railway station and science park and emphasised that there was also a great deal of local support for these schemes.  He did make the point, however, that it would be important for officers to be conscious of anxieties by residents regarding access being impeded in the Green End Road area when bringing forward that particular scheme.

The Joint Assembly noted the statement.

The Chairman invited Members of the Joint Assembly to discuss the proposal set out in the report, further to which the following points were noted:

·         reference was made to the omission of schemes in Mill Road that scored highly but had not been included.  It was noted that schemes at Mill Road and Lensfield Road had purposely been omitted as they would potentially be improved as part of the city centre access study.  This piece of work would be submitted to the Joint Assembly and Executive Board for consideration in due course;

·         a comment was made that cycle routes did not often join up with one another.  The improvements within the report were therefore welcomed but a question was asked as to whether these schemes would connect to existing routes.  Stuart Walmsley, Head of Major Infrastructure Delivery at Cambridgeshire County Council, reported that the City Deal provided an opportunity to build more infrastructure around cycling and provide solutions to some long-standing problems.  He referred to the proposed Chisholm Trail as an example of a strategic route that would provide connectivity to other routes in the area as well as link up with other employment sites across the city;

·         in terms of the £900,000 required to improve the Hills Road and Addenbrooke’s corridor, a question was raised as to whether this could be supplemented by Section 106 funding.  It was noted that £900,000 was an early estimate at this stage, but it was noted that Section 106 funding could be available to support this particular scheme;

·         a question was raised regarding the provision of secure cycle parking and whether £25,000 would be enough in view of the number of additional cyclists these schemes, and other City Deal schemes, aspired to produce through model shift.  It was noted that the County and City Councils had been developing and delivering a programme of such improvements for many years and the additional City Deal monies would secure funding for the programme moving forward.  In addition, a point was made that lots of these schemes were aimed at people commuting to work, therefore, provision of parking at employer sites would be equally as important as parking provision at the railway and bus stations and other similar key locations in the city.

The Joint Assembly unanimously RECOMMENDED that the Executive Board:

(a)        Approves the choice of the proposed priority strategic cross-city cycle schemes as set out in the report.

(b)        Approves the public consultation on the schemes, as set out in the report.

(c)        Agrees to receive a report on the consultation results of each scheme and endorse the findings.