Agenda item

To consider the attached report.

The Joint Assembly RECOMMENDED that the Executive Board:

 

(a)        Notes the findings in the initial consultation report;

 

(b)        Agrees 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)        Notes the further technical work that would be undertaken over the summer period to develop a preferred option layout for further consultation;

 

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

 

(e)        Delegates 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)        Notes the procurement plan for project delivery, the revised project programme and the consultation plan set out in the report.

Councillor Roger Hickford, Chairman, opened the item by inviting those members of the public who had given notice to put forward questions to the Joint Assembly.  Questions were therefore asked and answered, as follows:

 

Question by Councillor Jocelyne Scutt

 

Councillor Jocelyne Scutt reported that residents of Histon Road and Milton Road, as well as residents on surrounding streets and roads, were significantly concerned about  the impact to their comfort, safety and environment as a result of plans for improved transport along these roads.  She asked the Joint Assembly to confirm that it would only endorse projects for Histon Road and Milton Road that incorporated an intrinsic and essential part of landscaping and public realm and that it would advance to the Executive Board no projects for these roads which did not accept this as a fundamental part.

 

Stuart Walmsley, Head of Major Infrastructure Delivery at Cambridgeshire County Council, confirmed that the intention was to ensure that all works were done in such a way that they enhanced, and sought to improve, the public realm to the highest possible standards.

 

Question by Michael Bond

 

Michael Bond referred to the inbound bus stop at Union Lane as the biggest single cause of rush hour delay on Milton Road and asked why the City Deal team had not made moving it to the other side of the junction to sit at the end of the bus lane an option.  He asked for this solution to be recommended in order that access to Union Lane could remain open for the residents of Chesterton. 

 

Mr Walmsley acknowledged the problem and suggestion, confirming that this would be looked at as part of the next stage of design for the scheme.

 

Question by Lynn Hieatt

 

Lynn Hieatt was of the opinion that the success of the safety, functionality and aesthetic design in schemes already in place, with Hills Road and Huntingdon Road given as examples, should be assessed before moving onto new parts of the city.  She asked whether the Joint Assembly would recommend to the Board that such a review be carried out, with input from residents’ associations, heritage groups, architects and highways engineers before any plans were made for Cambridge’s other approach roads.

 

Bob Menzies, Director of Strategy and Development at Cambridgeshire County Council, said that there had been big increases in cycle use on both roads and recognised that some of the work previously undertaken had not been as successful as it could have been with regards to landscaping, specifically in respect of vehicle overruns.  He fully expected this to be taken into account as part of the design process for this scheme.

 

Question by Mike Sargeant

 

Mike Sargeant asked that the Joint Assembly and Executive Board resolved to complete the design phase for Mitcham’s Corner this summer and ensure that Tranche 1 of the City Deal programme at least addressed the issues around cycling and pedestrians at Mitcham’s Corner so that it encouraged cycling and walking on Milton Road.  He also asked that major changes to the highway layout at Mitcham’s Corner be completed, including a bus interchange and removal of the gyratory system at the earliest possible point in Tranche 2.

 

He also asked about democratic representation and the role of the Local Liaison Forum in view of the Executive Director of Economy, Transport and Environment at Cambridgeshire County Council being recommended to be given delegated authority to approve a further consultation for a preferred option scheme design.

 

In terms of Mitcham’s Corner, Mr Walmsley reported that this had not featured in Tranche 1 of the City Deal programme as a priority, however, the Executive Board had agreed to undertake initial work on it during Tranche 1.  This work had therefore been taking place and was currently underway with colleagues from the City Council from a public realm perspective.  This dialogue would continue, but he confirmed that this aspect of the scheme would be included alongside other schemes considered as priorities for inclusion in Tranche 2 of the programme.

 

With regards to the role of the Local Liaison Forum and delegated powers given to the Executive Director, Mr Walmsley said that the Board would be asked to set perimeters for preferred options, the details of which would then be worked up and developed into proposals for consultation.  The Executive Director, as part of that process, would liaise with the Board and feed in any comments from the Local Liaison Forum.

 

Question by Erica McDonald

 

Erica McDonald said that the City Deal proposals looked at traffic along a north-east and south-west alignment which divided the community around Milton Road.  She therefore asked what the City Deal would do to reduce the dividing effect on the community by providing crossing points along pedestrian and cycle desire-lanes, rather than just at road junctions.

 

Mr Walmsley reported that officers, at this stage, were not proposing additional crossing points, but acknowledged that they had not yet been ruled out either.  This would be considered as the scheme developed.  He emphasised that there was a balance to be struck between local need, safety and the public realm.

 

Question by Maureen Mace

 

Maureen Mace asked why the City Deal was proposing a solution that would significantly and negatively impact the existing street scene with ‘the removal of a large number of highway trees’ with opportunities only for ‘new highway tree planting and other green landscaping areas throughout the route, albeit not always on both sides of the road’.  She asked for a commitment to have a minimum 1 metre width along the entire length of the road within an avenue of trees and green verges on both sides of the road, which she felt was entirely possible considering the road’s width. 

 

Mr Walmsley said that as well as local needs, safety needs and the issue of public realm, there was also a strategic need for this scheme, emphasising the importance that the balance in this respect was right.  He added that the details of the scheme had not yet been devised, so it was too early in the process to make such a commitment.

 

Question by Michael Page

 

Michael Page referred to the ‘do something’ option in the report which showed a four-lane carriageway with bus lanes on both sides requiring the removal of 16 mature trees.  He felt that there was insufficient space to accommodate cycle paths and footpaths with proper segregation together with two bus lanes, without compromising the safety of pedestrians and cyclists.  He therefore urged the Joint Assembly to recommend that this section of the plan was not taken forward and be returned to officers for revision.

 

Mr Page also asked that a recommendation be put forward to the Executive Board in respect of the Hills Road and Lensfield Road junction that this part of the plan was not taken forward and be returned to officers, who be asked to produce a roundabout design that could be consulted upon.

 

Councillor Hickford made the point that this issue was likely to be debated as part of consideration of the item.

 

Question by Luke Tunmer

 

Luke Tunmer was concerned that the proposals for closing major roads to general traffic at peak periods was going to significantly change the locations and extent of congestion points in the city.  He therefore asked Joint Assembly Members their opinion as to what the imperative was that was driving decisions to proceed with the Histon Road and Milton Road schemes ahead of any congestion point trials and decisions relating to the City Centre Access Study.

 

Councillor Hickford made the point that this issue was likely to be debated as part of consideration of the item.

 

Question by Richard Taylor

 

Richard Taylor referred to a briefing on the Milton Road scheme where officers explained the intent of their recommendations, particularly in respect of the ‘do something’ option, and asked for further clarity as to what the Assembly was being asked to support.

 

He wanted to see the Joint Assembly recommend pavements and cycleways segregated from motor traffic by trees along the full length of Milton Road in order to make cycling a safer and more attractive option.  He also thought that the Assembly could usefully rule out the introduction of parking on Milton Road between Arbury and King’s Hedges Road as he was of the view that parking and its associated buffer zone was not a good use of valuable road space.

 

Councillor Hickford made the point that this issue was likely to be covered in the officer presentation and debated as part of consideration of the item.

 

Question by Councillor Ysanne Austin

 

Councillor Ysanne Austin was concerned that the officers’ report did not offer any modelling of the impact of citywide traffic reduction measures and the impact on Milton Road.  She asked whether this work could be carried out and the evidence considered prior to committing to build new bus lanes on Milton Road.

 

Mr Menzies confirmed that this detailed modelling and design work would take place as part of the next stage of the process, over the next few months.

 

Question by Alastair Boyles

 

Alastair Boyles highlighted that the New Local Plan recognised Mitcham’s Corner as an Opportunity Area and set out the objective to reduce the effect of traffic on the area and, ultimately, remove the gyratory system in favour of a simpler intersection.  He therefore asked what measures the City and County Councils, and the City Deal partnership, were taking to ensure that the City Deal proposals for Milton Road would further this objective to reduce the effects of traffic and the gyratory road system that had blighted this part of Cambridge for decades.

 

Mr Menzies reiterated that one of the City Deal objectives was to improve bus and cycleway provision.  He reported that there was much more work that needed to be done before bringing anything forward for consideration in relation to Mitcham’s Corner but anticipated its inclusion in Tranche 2 of the City Deal programme. 

 

Question by John Beasley

 

John Beasley said that the City Deal proposals for Milton Road featured traffic lanes of 3 meters in width, which he said was contrary to Highways Agency guidelines of 2005 for this type of road.  This being the case, Mr Beasley asked whether officers could state if, for safety reasons, the City Deal team was recommending restricting gross vehicle widths along Milton Road.

 

Mr Walmsley said that many of the streets in Cambridge were only 6 metres in width so a sequence of works was having to be managed within that context.  He added that it would therefore not be possible to maintain levels of width throughout when restricted in this way.

 

The Chairman thanked members of the public for their questions and invited officers to present the report.

 

Mr Walmsley, in presenting the report, also provided the Joint Assembly with a presentation on the Histon Road and Milton Road transport infrastructure schemes.  A number of key points were noted, including the following:

 

·         objectives for the Histon Road and Milton Road schemes consisted of:

-       comprehensive priority for buses in both directions wherever practical

-       additional capacity for sustainable trips to employment and education sites

-       increased bus patronage and new services

-       safer and more convenient routes for cycling and walking, segregated where practical and possible

-       maintain or reduce the general traffic levels

-       enhance the environment, streetscape and air quality

·         the following process would be followed for delivery of the two schemes:

-       consultation on initial ideas

-       assessment of consultation

-       further testing of initial ideas and any new ideas

-       recommendation of preferred options to the Executive Board.  It was noted that this was the stage in the process that both schemes were currently at

-       further development of preferred options

-       consultation on detail of preferred options

-       report consultation responses to the Executive Board

-       detailed development and design

-       statutory approvals, including consultation

-       seek approval from the Executive Board to build scheme

-       build scheme

·         key issues resulting from the consultation on initial ideas included the following:

-       concerns over the impact of banned turns and restricted access in respect of Victoria Road, Warwick Road, Gilbert Road, Arbury Road, Union Lane and King’s Hedges Road

-       concerns over increased traffic lanes, impact on green landscaping and difficulty in crossing wider roads

-       concerns that ideas for cycling improvements did not suit all cyclists;

-       impact of junction changes in respect of Union Lane, Elizabeth Way and Victoria Road

-       role of Mitcham’s Corner in the Milton Road project

·         the following outcomes for Histon Road were heavily influenced by views received from residents living on and near both routes:

-       limited level of improvement achieved by both options with ‘do maximum’ option considered to achieve more

-       more support for than opposition to Victoria Road junction ideas

-       more support for than opposition to parking removal

-       strong support for need for streetscape enhancement

·         the following outcomes for Milton Road were heavily influenced by views received from residents living on and near both routes:

-       limited level of improvement achieved by both options

-       more opposition than support for key junction changes

-       more support than opposition for parking removal

-       strong support for need for streetscape enhancement

·         post consultation work would consist of:

-       a review of tidal flow bus lanes not seen to add value and have significant impact on street scene

-       bus journey time modelling to assess the benefits of bus lane options

-       assessment of changes in traffic flow resulting from possible junction changes and various impacts across the northern city road network

-       review of options to change road layout at Mitcham’s Corner junction, with further traffic modelling in hand for favoured options

 

Mr Walmsley made specific reference to the issue of floating bus stops and highlighted that the narrow nature of Histon Road provided less opportunities to consistently introduce them.   

 

Members were referred to an addendum that had been circulated that took into account the results of additional data which had very recently become available and changed recommendation (b) as set out in the original report.  Mr Walmsley therefore recommended that the Joint Assembly supported the recommendations contained within the report and addendum, in that the Executive Board:

 

(a)        notes the findings in the initial consultation report;

(b)        agrees 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)        notes the further technical work that would be undertaken over the summer period to develop a preferred option layout for further consultation;

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

(e)        delegates 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)        notes the procurement plan for project delivery, the revised project programme and the consultation plan set out in the report.

 

Councillor Bridget Smith praised the comments and questions raised by members of the public and said that they were the best people to provide the Assembly with advice.  She did not believe that delegating authority was democratic and felt that people should be able to comment further on the scheme’s development in the public domain in a forum such as this Assembly.   She was also very concerned by  Local Liaison Forums and emphasised the importance of their meetings being held in public.  Councillor Smith proposed an amendment to recommendation (e) which read:

 

‘agrees that a preferred option scheme design for Histon Road and Milton Road returns to the Joint Assembly for further consideration and recommendation to the Executive Board, if necessary.’

 

Councillor Maurice Leeke seconded the amendment.

 

Mr Menzies clarified that meetings of the Local Liaison Forum were open to the public, the difference being that the Forum itself decided upon who, as key stakeholders, became members of the Forum.  In terms of the amendment, he felt that the process was too far down the line having already gone out to consultation and that this additional step would add approximately six weeks to the process.

 

Claire Ruskin made the point that previous consultation documents had been shared with Joint Assembly Members via email prior to publication in draft form, and that the same process could be followed for these schemes.  Councillor Smith argued that this was not open and transparent.

 

Councillor Maurice Leeke said that more emphasis was being placed on spending the City Deal money quickly as opposed to spending it well.  He was of the opinion that the Executive Board should be looking at the best possible solutions for the longer term rather than doing something quickly just in order to spend the money.

 

Mr Walmsley accepted that the City Deal partnership was working to a tight programme but highlighted that extensive consultation would take place on each scheme associated with the programme, making the point that comments and views had already been taken into account and resulted in changes being made to schemes.

 

Andy Williams drew Members’ attention to Mr Walmsley’s presentation in terms of where the scheme was in the current process compared to the stages it still had to progress through, highlighting that there was still lots of opportunities for consultation on these schemes.

 

Voting on the amendment, with 3 votes in favour, 6 votes against and 1 abstention, the amendment was lost.

 

Councillor Kevin Price proposed an amendment, which took into account the many responses he had received by residents affected in the city, and thought that it reflected a better way forward than that proposed in the report and addendum.  Councillor Price therefore proposed that the Executive Board be recommended to:

 

(a)        note the findings in the initial consultation report and welcome the many detailed and high quality responses from residents and other stakeholder groups which have been used to shape the next stage of consultation;

(b)        note the initial ideas included in the ‘Do Maximum’ options, excluding the idea of banning the right turn into Warwick Road and the idea of floating bus stops but reconsider the ‘Do Minimum’ option and other ideas, specifically:

(i)         that the restricted capacity along the northern section of the Histon Road route precludes the proposal for an inbound bus lane and that smart traffic management and bus priority signalling should be the preferred option;

(ii)        raised cycle lanes either side of Histon Road along the northern section of the route up to the Rackham Close junction and advisory cycle lanes either side of Histon Road along the southern section of the route;

(iii)       mature tree planting and green landscaping on grass verges along the carriageway reflecting the existing public amenity, in particular along the northern section of the route;

(iv)       further investigation of the proposed permanent closure of the Victoria Road junction to vehicles, other than buses and cycles, turning left into Victoria Road from Histon Road and turning right out of Victoria Road onto Histon Road given the intention expressed in the initial consultation to address peak time congestion and recognising the need for access by other vehicles outside peak hours;

(v)        further investigation of proposals to permanently remove on-street parking along the outbound southern section of the route given the intention expressed in the initial consultation to address peak-time congestion and recognising the needs of residents;

(c)        support the development of traffic management measures to mitigate displaced traffic and parking for the purposes of further consultation;

(d)        note the further technical work that would be undertaken over the summer period and request the Executive Director of Economy, Transport and Environment at Cambridgeshire County Council to develop a detailed preferred option design, traffic and parking mitigation measure proposals and initial business case for the purposes of further consultation, and bring them to the City Deal Joint Assembly and Executive Board;

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

 

In responding to the amendment, Mr Menzies highlighted that it actually took a step back in the process by not identifying a preferred option.  In addition, with no notice of the amendment and in view of its relative length and complexity,  it was difficult for officers and Members of the Joint Assembly to properly assess the implications.  Councillor Price therefore agreed to withdraw the amendment, with the points it raised being noted by the Assembly.

 

Councillor Tim Bick questioned how these schemes differed to a County Council scheme introduced at Hills Road where bus lanes were seen as being a lot less important on a route that was just as busy as Hilton Road and Milton Road and asked why bus lanes were a requirement for these schemes when they were not required for Hills Road.  He also made the point that infrastructure investment may be the answer, but that lots of people thought that should be a last resort if outcomes could be achieved using a lighter touch.  Councillor Bick was disappointed that an integrated approach with other City Deal schemes had not been achieved by this stage of the programme.

 

Mr Menzies responded by saying that there may be options as part of the A1307 scheme to extend bus provision onto Hills Road, but in respect of the Histon Road and Milton Road schemes he said that there was no alternative for people travelling along those corridors, whereas there where alternatives in the use of Hills Road as a route in and out of the city.

 

Councillor Bridget Smith referred to Appendix 3 in terms of what success would look like, specifically regarding journey times, and was surprised to see that these schemes sought to reduce journey times by only three minutes.  She said that this made very little impact and questioned whether the investment was worthwhile.  Andy Williams agreed with this view and expected a significantly higher reduction in journey times.

 

Mr Walmsley was of the opinion that the investment was worth it and that a reduced journey time of three minutes on busy corridors such as Hilton  Road or Milton Road  was very positive, making the point that large bypass schemes had been approved on the basis of achieving a lower reduction in journey times.  Mr Menzies added that the benefit calculation took into account the number of people affected, and on corridors such as Histon Road and Milton Road the three minutes would be saved by a large number of people, which would make a significant difference.

 

Voting on the recommendations contained in the report and addendum, with 6 votes in favour and 4 votes against, the Joint Assembly RECOMMENDED that the Executive Board:

 

(a)        Notes the findings in the initial consultation report;

 

(b)        Agrees 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)        Notes the further technical work that would be undertaken over the summer period to develop a preferred option layout for further consultation;

 

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

 

(e)        Delegates 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)        Notes the procurement plan for project delivery, the revised project programme and the consultation plan set out in the report.