Agenda item

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

Councillor Tim Bick, Chairman, reported that a 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 relate to any items on the agenda for this meeting and were therefore asked and answered at this stage of proceedings, as follows:

Question by Dr Anthony Eva

Dr Eva asked the Joint Assembly to:

• ensure that transport infrastructure plans were rigorously tested against required CO2e emission reduction targets for 2030 and beyond, and, in particular;
• look in more detail as to whether planning assumptions about the Cambridge City transportation mix in 2031 were compatible with required CO2e emission reductions through 2030 and beyond.

Councillor Tim Bick, Chairman, stated that the City Deal’s strategy in terms of transport related schemes sought to promote walking, cycling and public transport as much as possible. He agreed with the sentiments of the question in terms of the fuel used for public service vehicles.

Bob Menzies, Director of Strategy and Development (Cambridgeshire County Council) agreed that this was an important issue and stated that the assessment of carbon emissions was a valid point.  He confirmed that lots of work was ongoing with the introduction of cleaner buses in Cambridgeshire, an initiative that was seeing vast improvements in CO2e emissions.

In terms of planning assumptions, it was noted that a report on demand management measures in the city centre was scheduled to be considered by the Executive Board in June 2016 and would include reference to this issue.

Question by Councillor Markus Gehring

Councillor Gehring asked the Joint Assembly why demand management measures suggested at the call for evidence sessions could not be included as part of the ongoing consultation processes for specific transport infrastructure schemes, where they could be of some use. 

He also raised concerns regarding the quality of the diagrams included in the consultation document for the Western Orbital corridor scheme.  This followed the publication of the results for the Madingley Road corridor scheme, which he felt had not excluded the least favourite options. 

Mr Menzies said that the call for evidence was part of a high level consultation on demand management.  He reminded those present that the City Deal Executive Board had agreed at the outset of confirming the Tranche 1 programme that it wanted to engage with people on transport infrastructure schemes.  Schemes were therefore being consulted upon at early conceptual stages to enable people to put forward their views very early on in the process.  Preferred routes could then be established, taking into account the outcomes of the initial consultation process and more detailed work which could then commence.

In terms of demand management, Mr Menzies emphasised that nothing put forward as part of the call for evidence sessions had been ruled out and that all options were being considered.  He reminded Members of the Assembly, however, that some further work would need to be undertaken to better understand the consequences of implementing some of the options.

Question by Jim Chisholm

Mr Chisholm referred to the call for evidence sessions and transport infrastructure schemes in general and asked whether it would be better to spend a smaller sum on leading edge technology, which could provide a proven benefit, rather than on schemes that were likely to encourage more cars into the city.

Tanya Sheridan, City Deal Programme Director, gave an assurance that everything submitted as part of the call for evidence would be looked at, with the outcomes reported to the Executive Board in June 2016. 

Mr Menzies confirmed that the call for evidence and demand management outcomes would be delivered in parallel, where necessary.

Question by Mike Sargeant

Mr Sargeant asked whether Members of the Joint Assembly would join him on a visit to Milton Road to see the issues that had arisen from residents as a result of the Milton Road transport infrastructure scheme consultation.  He reported that particular concerns to residents were:

• loss of the residential nature of the road, including trees and verges;
• rat running through the area due to prevention of turns.

Councillor Bick invited Mr Sargeant to put forward his invitation to Members of the Joint Assembly outside of the meeting.