Agenda item

To consider the attached report.

The Executive Board:

 

(a)        NOTED the findings in the initial consultation report.

 

(b)        AGREED to take forward the initial ideas in the ‘Do Something’ option for further design work including the Union Lane closure and Elizabeth Way roundabout ideas and ‘floating bus stops’, where highway space permitted, but excluding the ideas for banned turns at the Gilbert Road, Arbury Road and King’s Hedges Road junctions.

 

(c)        AGREED to consider major changes to the highway layout at the Mitcham’s Corner junction for implementation as part of the ongoing tranche 2 prioritisation work.

 

(d)        NOTED the further technical work that would be undertaken over the summer period.

 

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

 

(f)         DELEGATED 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 a further consultation for a preferred option scheme design, as detailed in section 43 of the report.

 

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

 

(h)        INSTRUCTED officers to ensure that the preferred option design for consultation includes details of proposed landscape areas and tree planting as set out in the report.

 

(i)         NOTED the important role of the Local Liaison Forum in involving local Councillors and stakeholder groups in the development of the detailed layout plans for consultation.

 

The presentation of the report and some public questions considered as part of the item on Histon Road at minute number 10, also related to this item.

 

Councillor Lewis Herbert, Chairman of the Executive Board, opened the item by inviting those members of the public who had given notice to put forward questions to the Board.  Questions were grouped together based on their subject and were therefore asked and answered, as follows:

 

Question by Sheila Butcher

 

Sheila Butcher could not understand why this road would be dug up, with beautiful and mature trees and grass verges removed, to make way for bus lanes that would stay empty for most of the day.  She asked why all the other options for tackling congestion had not been tried first.

 

Bob Menzies, Director of Strategy and Development at Cambridgeshire County Council, acknowledged that this question was similar to that of Mr Nisbet’s in the previous item, and said that no decisions would be made to implement works or dig up roads until after peak congestion control points had been put in place. 

 

Question by Peter Fenton

 

Peter Fenton referred to proposed city-wide measures designed to reduce the flow of traffic into and out of Cambridge.  In the light of these measures and the imminent North Cambridge railway station, he asked whether the Board thought that the proposals for Milton Road had become obsolete even before they had started.  He added that all of the traffic flow projections were already out of date and suggested it would be better to shelve the project and wait to see how the other measures worked.

 

Mr Menzies acknowledged that further modelling would be required, but confirmed that this would be carried out prior to the public consultation, with any changes to the proposals as a result being made publicly available.

 

Question by Glyn Burton

 

Glyn Burton was concerned of the impact that a new banned turn proposed for outbound vehicles in respect of Elizabeth Way would cause for people living in the area, together with any rat-running that she felt would occur as a result.  She asked for assurance that this new option would receive full and fair public consultation before any decisions were taken.

 

Mr Menzies emphasised that this had been identified as something to explore further and was not being proposed as part of the scheme at this stage. 

 

Question by Duncan Astill

 

Duncan Astill said that 90% of traffic turned left at the roundabout down Elizabeth Way and then queued both at the Chesterton Road roundabout and the Newmarket Road roundabout.  He therefore asked why they were not being considered as part of any scheme of improvements.

 

Question by John Latham

 

John Latham said that the consultation revealed a majority in favour of retaining the Milton Road, Highworth Avenue and Elizabeth Way roundabout and that residents’ associations and other groups had made detailed suggestions about retaining the roundabout whilst improving its configuration to include new lane markings, peripheral cycleways and peak hour traffic signal controls.  He could not see any evidence that these ideas had been investigated and asked why this had not been included in the report.

 

Councillor Kevin Price, local ward Member from Cambridge City Council, referred to a revised set of recommendations that he had proposed at the Joint Assembly meeting on 2 June 2016 which he felt better reflected the needs of local residents, including mature tree planting and improvements to the existing public realm to be included along the full length of the road.  He drew the Board’s attention to the fact that residents of East Chesterton currently had only three exits in view of the fact that the area was bordered by the river, the A14 and the railway line and said that the proposed closure of Union Lane meant reducing this number of exit points to two. 

 

Councillor Mike Sargeant, local ward Member from Cambridge City Council, said that that the inclusion of two bus lanes at the Elizabeth Way junction did not seem appropriate.  He was also of the view that it was extremely important to incorporate two-way cycleways at Gilbert Road and Arbury Road.  He was concerned about the amount of money spent on cycling as part of the City Deal when improvements to Mitcham’s Corner had not been included in the Tranche 1 programme.

 

Stuart Walmsley, Head of Major Infrastructure Delivery at Cambridgeshire County Council, said that this junction was particularly complex and emphasised that further modelling work would be taking place.  He added that consideration needed to be given about what mitigation measures could be put in place to address traffic displacement.

 

Mr Walmsley reported that alternative measures had been considered, but the junction was important in order for the bus priority aspect of the scheme to work, taking into account the safety of cyclists as well.

 

Councillor Herbert highlighted opportunities for public input as being a common theme as part of questions from local Members and members of the public and asked how far the Local Liaison Forums would go to ensure that people had an opportunity to look into the detail of some of the comments they were making.  Mr Walmsley said that he fully expected Local Liaison Forums to provide opportunities for issues such as those raised as part of this item to be considered and discussed in more detail.  

 

Councillor Jocelyn Scutt, local ward Member from Cambridgeshire County Council, referred to paragraph 4 of an addendum report that had been published in respect of this item which read:

 

‘If the Executive Board approves the report recommendations for preferred options as the basis for further detailed design work, this will fix the carriageway layout …’

 

Councillor Scutt said that residents had strongly objected to the term ‘this will fix the carriageway layout’ and called for the Board to redact this wording from the report. 

 

Councillor Herbert felt that this, and landscaping in general, would be considered by the Local Liaison Forum.  The Executive Board, however, agreed to the redaction of the words ‘this will fix the carriageway layout’ from the report.

 

Question by John Beasley

 

John Beasley made reference to the Department for Transport Design Manual for roads and bridges document TD 27/05 which stated that the lane width required for urban, all-purpose roads and connector roads should be 3.65 metres.  He therefore asked whether, for safety reasons, the City Deal team would consider either revising the lane widths to 3.65 metres throughout and changing the four-lane section to three lanes, or restricting the width of vehicles allowed to travel along Milton Road.

 

Question by John Cornish

 

John Cornish referred to the pavement on the north/west side of Milton Road between Mitcham’s Corner and Arbury Road, which was generally over four metres wide and mixed use.  He therefore sought reassurance that there would be a commitment by the project team to keep the pavement and off-road cycleway as a minimum four metres wide for the stretch from Mitcham’s Corner through to Arbury Road.

 

Mr Walmsley confirmed that the design standards highlighted by Mr Beasley actually related to trunk roads, whereas Milton Road was a local road.  In that respect the scheme had to be developed and designed in accordance with the network available to it.  In terms of Mr Cornish’s question, it was noted that this would feature as part of the next stage of the process and would be an issue for discussion by the Local Liaison Forum at the relevant time. 

 

Question by Jane Wheatley

 

Jane Wheatley expressed her concerns about access to the shops on Milton Road coming up to the Arbury Road junction, which currently enjoyed two laybys directly outside of the shops, a small amount of forecourt parking and two laybys opposite.  Diagrams in the interim report showed bus lanes on both sides of Milton Road and no street parking, thus severely limiting access to the shops.  She therefore asked what measures the City Deal would put in place to ensure the safety of these small businesses and protect the community and passing trade that they served.

 

Question by Maureen Mace

 

Maureen Mace was concerned that there were significant differences between the diagram for the ‘do something’ option included in the questionnaire sent out to residents in comparison to the version included in the interim report submitted to the Joint Assembly on 2 June 2016.  This included additional bus lanes from Hurst Park Avenue to Arbury Road, areas for potential parking instead of trees and the removal of all of the trees from the whole length of the eastern side of the road.  She said that it could not be assumed that the public would know what the new proposal consisted of, especially since not everyone had access to a computer or found it easy to view or download large amounts of data.  Maureen Mace therefore asked whether hard copies of the interim report, including the updated diagram for Milton Road, had been lodged in the Central Library and the Milton Road Library. 

 

Question by Yu Lee Paul

 

Yu Lee Paul had some concerns about the proposals for Milton Road.  She said the road was a tree lined avenue of huge importance not just to local residents but to visitors and the nature and heritage of Cambridge.  As such as city should thought that the City Deal should be looking to improve upon, not take away from, the greenery it already had.

 

Yu Lee Paul referred to the Urban Design Guide which stated that the choice and use of materials and trees must not be considered as an ‘add on’ or last minute thought.  She said that residents would not be prepared to settle for having trees and verges ‘where possible’, as an afterthought.  She therefore asked for a commitment that at least one metre’s width of trees and verges along both sides of Milton Road could be maintained and that any trees removed were replaced with mature, flowering trees.

 

Mr Walmsley was aware of the economic viability of the businesses located along Milton Road but highlighted the effectiveness of passing trade by cyclists and pedestrians as well as cars.  He confirmed that some of the laybys would have to be removed in order to accommodate the different modes of transport required as part of the scheme, with the specific details yet to be worked up. 

 

Mr Walmsley also made the point that lot of the issues discussed at this meeting would be picked up at a later stage of the process as proposals developed, with the Local Liaison Forum assisting with that aspect of the project.  Mr Menzies reiterated that specific plans for the scheme had yet to be developed and Appendix 5 to the report reflected a piece of work undertaken by consultants as an initial options study. 

 

Councillor Herbert, in response to the question by Maurine Mace, asked officers to ensure that the necessary documents were made available in local libraries. 

 

Mr Walmsley, in response to the question by Yu Lee Paul, said that a commitment to maintain at least one metre’s width of trees and verges along both sides of Milton Road would be too constraining and that this may not be the best solution for the scheme.  He said that this might be achievable in parts of the road, but said it was too early to make any such commitments and limit the options available at this stage.

 

Councillor Herbert agreed with Yu Lee Paul that these elements of the scheme were not introduced as afterthoughts, making the point that the Local Liaison Forum would be an essential way of ensuring that they continued to be discussed and taken into consideration.

 

Mr Menzies highlighted that public speakers at this meeting had requested different things in relation to this scheme and the scheme at Histon Road, all of which were impossible to be delivered together due to them conflicting or contradicting one another.  He therefore made the point that compromises would need to be made as part of developing these schemes.

 

Question by Michael Page

 

Michael Page supported Councillor Kevin Price’s amendment that he had put forward at the meeting of the Joint Assembly and felt that the process between the initial consultation and the decision-making at this meeting was so curtailed that he feared it would be brought further into disrepute in the eyes of the public.  He asked whether a mechanism to review the success of schemes at Histon Road and Milton Road would be undertaken before any design work took place.

 

Mr Menzies confirmed that a review had already been undertaken as part of floating bus stops, the results of which would be available shortly.

 

Question by Richard Taylor

 

Richard Taylor said that it appeared officers were seeking the Board’s approval of the principle of the layout of the traffic lanes shown in the ‘do something’ option for Milton Road, but not the layout of the planting, parking, cycleways and pavements.  If the Board intended to support the officer recommendations he suggested amending the wording in-line with officers’ intent and to clarify which elements of the ‘do something’ plans the Board was endorsing.  He also asked for clarity around which version of the ‘do something’ option would be put out to public consultation due to different versions having been published following the Board’s decision in November 2015 and the document that appeared in the interim options report on the City Deal website in May 2016.

 

Mr Menzies said that the Addendum recently published in support of the original report included in the agenda pack for this meeting sought to clarify this point.

 

Question by Miriam Kubica

 

Miriam Kubica asked for assurance that Highworth Avenue would remain as a no through road for vehicular traffic. 

 

Mr Walmsley confirmed that Highworth Avenue would remain as a no through road for vehicular traffic.

 

Councillor Roger Hickford, Chairman of the Joint Assembly, reported that the Assembly had considered this item at its meeting on 2 June 2016.  As reported in the previous item, Members of the Joint Assembly were content with the further consultation that would take place in respect of this scheme.  An amendment to the officer recommendations had been debated, which the proposer felt better reflected local resident’s needs.  The amendment was lost and the Joint Assembly therefore supported the officer recommendations, with 6 votes in favour compared to 3 against.

 

In line with the previous item, Councillor Ian Bates proposed two additional paragraphs to the officer recommendations, as follows:

 

‘(h)       the Executive Board instructs officers to ensure that the preferred option design for consultation includes details of proposed landscape areas and tree planting as set out in the report.’

 

‘(i)        the Executive Board notes the important role of the Local Liaison Forum in involving local Councillors and stakeholder groups in the development of the detailed layout plans for consultation.’

 

The Executive Board unanimously:

 

(a)        NOTED the findings in the initial consultation report.

 

(b)        AGREED to take forward the initial ideas in the ‘Do Something’ option for further design work including the Union Lane closure and Elizabeth Way roundabout ideas and ‘floating bus stops’, where highway space permitted, but excluding the ideas for banned turns at the Gilbert Road, Arbury Road and King’s Hedges Road junctions.

 

(c)        AGREED to consider major changes to the highway layout at the Mitcham’s Corner junction for implementation as part of the ongoing tranche 2 prioritisation work.

 

(d)        NOTED the further technical work that would be undertaken over the summer period.

 

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

 

(f)        DELEGATED 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 a further consultation for a preferred option scheme design, as detailed in section 43 of the report.

 

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

 

(h)        INSTRUCTED officers to ensure that the preferred option design for consultation includes details of proposed landscape areas and tree planting as set out in the report.

 

(i)         NOTED the important role of the Local Liaison Forum in involving local Councillors and stakeholder groups in the development of the detailed layout plans for consultation.