Agenda item

To consider a report by Graham Hughes, Executive Director (Cambridgeshire County Council), scheduled for consideration by the Executive Board on 3 March 2016.

The Joint Assembly NOTED the responses to the consultation on the A428/A1303 bus infrastructure improvement scheme, including the alternative and hybrid options suggested and RECOMMENDED that the Executive Board includes these and other comments received in the ongoing development and assessment appraisal to allow the Board to select a recommended option or options in September 2016.

The Joint Assembly considered a report which summarised the outcome of the consultation on high level options for bus and cycle infrastructure improvements along the Cambourne to Cambridge corridor. 

Stuart Walmsley, Head of Major Infrastructure Delivery at Cambridgeshire County Council, presented the report and highlighted that the public consultation had generated significant public interest including 2193 survey responses, 8 letters and 123 email submissions and key stakeholder representations.  A petition had also been received with over 3600 signatures opposing Option 1 South, with other responses outlining significant support for transport improvement along the corridor.  He referred to background documents set out in the report which contained detailed analysis of the consultation responses and a summary of representations received.

Mr Walmsley said that this had been a very thorough piece of work which had provided significant engagement with members of the public at an early stage of this scheme.  He reflected on the fact that officers had worked very closely with Parish Councils and said that this needed to continue. 

A number of hybrid schemes, made up of aspects of the options originally published with the consultation, and some alternative options had been submitted as part of the process.  A further piece of work would now commence to analyse these hybrid and alternative options from a technical perspective.

Mr Walmsley highlighted concerns expressed in the consultation responses regarding environmental impact and agreed that this was an important issue, adding that officers were exploring an engineering solution conscious of the fact that it was a green corridor.  He said that, as the scheme progressed to the next stage, issues relating to environmental impact would become much clearer, together with ways in which these could be mitigated.  Mr Walmsley emphasised that officers took environmental impact issues very seriously.

Councillor Tim Bick, Chairman, invited Lynn Hieatt to ask a question she had given notice of in relation to this item.  She reflected on numerous complaints and criticisms of the consultation document in terms of perceived bias in the questions, absence of detail and a lack of clear invitation to put forward alternatives.  In the comments and written submissions she said that there were 100 instances of the word 'misleading', 92 instances of the word 'biased' and 42 instances of the word 'flawed' and asked whether she had missed the section in the report that mentioned these perceived flaws.  She added that it would be a positive message from the City Deal, and a step in improving the process in future to everyone's benefit, if some acknowledgement were to be added in the report that things went wrong with this consultation and asked whether this would be the case.

Mr Walmsley reiterated that this was a thorough piece of work which required a lot of engagement with stakeholders, interested parties and members of the public facilitated online and through social media, as well as through traditional means of consultation.  He made the point that a number of alternative options had been submitted as part of the responses received.  Mr Walmsley added that the consultation had provided people with an opportunity to put forward their views on a number of conceptual options, whether that meant supporting one or more of the options presented, amalgamating options into hybrids or putting forward alternative options.  The Executive Board was keen to engage with people at an early stage of the process and Mr Walmsley was of the view that this consultation had worked well in that respect.  Bob Menzies, Director of Strategy and Development at Cambridgeshire County Council, did not agree that the consultation was flawed or biased in any way and referred to lengthy correspondence that had occurred with regards to the points raised in the question.  He reminded the Joint Assembly that this was a consultation where people could put forward their comments or views, not a referendum where people were being asked to vote for a specific option.

Councillor Kevin Price highlighted that the report stated the consultation had been undertaken in accordance with the consultation principles of the Greater Cambridge City Deal partnership.  He questioned the consultation principles and asked whether the City Deal Executive Board had ever formally adopted them.  Mr Menzies reported that the City Deal had adopted Cambridgeshire County Council's protocol, which may have been agreed in the Board's Shadow capacity prior to the formal establishment of the Executive Board.  Councillor Bick suggested including this as an item for the next meeting of the Joint Assembly, with a view to formalising the approach.

Councillor Bridget Smith sought clarification as to whether 'do nothing' could be included as an option in future consultations for transport infrastructure schemes.  She asked this question in view of the fact that Smart City proposals were seeking to reduce congestion which, if effective, could have a significant impact on the rate of congestion in their own right.  Mr Menzies said that the Smart City proposals would be delivered as part of City Deal transport infrastructure schemes and could not be introduced as a single element.  Schemes were seeking to address future use of the network, taking into account the significant anticipated growth in the number of people living and working in the Greater Cambridge area.  He advised, therefore, that doing nothing would be significantly detrimental and delay implementation of a solution to the existing problem and problems that would occur in future years.

Councillor Smith also asked whether the options set out in future consultations could include an assessment of carbon emissions.  Mr Menzies explained that a range of assessments, including that of carbon emissions, would be undertaken to inform the next stage of consultation in developing preferred options for the scheme. 

Councillor Bick took this opportunity to thank all those who contributed to the consultation process.

The Joint Assembly NOTED the responses to the consultation on the A428/A1303 bus infrastructure improvement scheme, including the alternative and hybrid options suggested and RECOMMENDED that the Executive Board includes these and other comments received in the ongoing development and assessment appraisal to allow the Board to select a recommended option or options in September 2016.