Agenda item

To consider the attached report.

The Joint Assembly RECOMMENDED that the Executive Board:

a)    Note the prioritisation of delivery of the Milton Road project ahead of the Histon Road scheme;

b)    Note the Milton Road Local Liaison Forum resolutions set out in Appendix B and agree the responses set out therein;

c)    Agree the ‘Final Concept’ design shown in Appendix D as a basis for detailed design work and the preparation of an interim business case to facilitate further public and statutory consultation;

d)    Note that wherever highway space permits, opportunities to adopt further aspects of the ‘Do Optimum’ design will be taken as part of the detailed design process;

e)    Support further engagement with the Milton Road LLF to help inform the detailed design process;

f)     Support discussions with relevant property owners to explore interest in a joint funding approach to potential streetscape and public realm improvements on land outside the public highway outside local shops along Milton Road;

g)    Note the revised project timelines shown in Appendix H and the next steps in project delivery set out in the report; and

h)    Supplement development of this scheme with further consideration of means of achieving modal shift to public transport.

The Joint Assembly considered a report to be presented to the next Executive Board meeting on future delivery priorities and project timelines for the Milton Road and Histon Road projects.

At this stage in the proceedings the Chairperson invited members of the public to ask questions relating to this item, which had been submitted in line with the provisions of Standing Orders.  He explained that a response to the questions asked would be covered in the officer presentation on the report.  Details of the questions and answers are set out in Appendix A to the minutes.

CouncillorJocelynne Scutt, Chairperson of the Milton Road LLF, attended the meeting and presented feedback on the Forum’s views on these proposals.  Having reflected on the outcomes of a number of workshops, the LLF had prepared 12 resolutions, many of which related directly to the ‘Do Optimum’ alternative design, whilst others focused on measures to tackle congestion and delays in Cambridge.  Details of the resolutions and officer comments were set out in Appendix B to the report.  Referring to the recommendations being presented to the Executive Board, Councillor Scutt welcomed the fact that the LLF’s alternative design had been used as the basis for the final concept design, but highlighted the fact that the bus lane proposals contained in the final concept remained the sticking point with residents.  She also raised outstanding concerns about the siting of trees and cyclist safety.  She welcomed confirmation from officers that there would be further engagement on these issues. 

With reference to recommendation (c) in the report to the Executive Board, Councillor Scutt referred to an alternative recommendation suggested by the Milton Road Alliance; which if agreed by the Executive Board would be supported the LLF.  However, she suggested an alternative amendment to this recommendation by adding the words ‘Bearing in mind resolution (d)’ to the beginning.  She also suggested the deletion of the word ‘process’ from the end of resolutions (d) and (e).  In response to a question, Councillor Scutt clarified that she had not been formally delegated to propose these amendments on behalf of the LLF, but was making these suggestions as its Chairman.

The Joint Assembly noted that the Milton Road and Histon Road schemes supported the priority of achieving efficient and reliable movement between key existing and future housing and employment sites.  The projects would support the delivery of new housing at Northstowe, Waterbeach and on the northern fringe of Cambridge and would provide improved links with employment sites, such as the Science Park and Cambridge North Station, benefitting residents, commuters and businesses.  The projects aimed to provide enhanced infrastructure for busses, to improve service reliability and journey times and encourage greater patronage.  They also aimed to enhance the quality and safety of cycling and walking facilities, whilst also enhancing the quality of the streetscape and public realm areas.  To avoid creating undue pressure on the road network in Cambridge, it was proposed that the projects would be constructed consecutively rather that concurrently.  While both schemes were high priority, the Milton Road scheme had a stronger case for early delivery and would be delivered ahead of Histon Road.  A detailed report on the delivery of the Histon Road project would be presented to the November Executive Board meeting.

The Joint Assembly noted that the Executive Board was being asked to approve a ‘final concept’ design for Milton Road, which would be used as a basis for detailed design work and the preparation of an interim business case to facilitate further public and statutory consultation.  Details of the proposals were contained in the report.  In relation to the LLF’s resolutions, the Interim Transport Director explained that officers had worked on the assumption that they should be adopted unless they conflicted with or compromised significantly individual project objectives, design guidance and standards, or road safety needs.

The Joint Assembly was invited to consider and comment upon the recommendations being presented to the Executive Board, taking into account feedback from the LLF, public questions and officer responses.  The main points of discussion are summarised below:

·         Councillor Bick indicated that he found it difficult to be enthusiastic about the scheme, which, compared with the original aims,  provided a limited set of improvements.  These focused on getting the most out of the existing highway; apart from proposals relating to pedestrians and cycling.  He was concerned that the information in the report did not include a direct comparison of the impact on journey times in the original ‘do optimum’ design and what was now proposed.  He had asked officers for this information and had been advised that in terms of variations in performance on journey times, when comparing the ‘final concept’ with ‘do optimum’ ranging variations in performance were between 25% to 80%; although it was acknowledged these figures contained some imperfections.  Councillor Bick was of the opinion that potential improvements would not be sufficient to change the nature of people’s choice.  He feared that at some future point the GCP would have to look again at ways of adding additional space to the highway, or would be back looking at demand management measures, which should have been looked at as part of this whole exercise in the first place.  He also worried that the proposals were not sufficiently future proofed.  He congratulated residents for being extremely effective in forcing some sanity in plans for achieving the most out of the existing highway and stressed his concerns were about the strategic transport objectives.  In response the Interim Transport Director acknowledged that it was difficult to compare proposals but pointed out this was because the objectives had changed.

·         Councillor Bridget Smith congratulated officers for the clear improvement in the quality of reports, but urged them to ensure tables and plans were legible.  She also congratulated the residents for their sterling work and appreciated the huge effort by officers to please most of the people, most of the time.  She recalled that in the past the main focus had been modal shift, but now this was being referred to as a measure and asked how we were going to set the baseline for improvements to, evaluation and monitoring of modal shift; given this was a key measure of success of all the infrastructure work being done by the GCP.  Councillor Smith also asked how this project would be progressed in the absence of a design guide, specific to the GCP.  She recalled that a number of drafts had been prepared, but had yet to be formally approved.  She stressed this was critical to the progress of this and other projects.  In response the Interim Transport Director acknowledged the problem with legibility of plans and tables and undertook to address this.  In relation to the comments made about a design guide, he reported that a Special Planning Document was being prepared by Stephen Kelly and a design guide would come out of that work.  In response to a further question from Councillor Smith he explained that the timescale for this had yet to be confirmed.  With regard to monitoring modal shift, it was noted that the existing model would be used to measure this.

·         Councillor John Williams acknowledged that the proposals had tackled the aim of enhancing the quality and safety of cycling and walking facilities, with the exception of plans for Micham’s Corner. where the designs showed cyclists passing parked cars on the off side, which was not something he could support.   He suggested that unfortunately the proposals did little to meet the aim of improving infrastructure and improve bus service reliability and journey times and encourage greater patronage.  Potential improvements were marginal and it was unlikely the proposals would deliver the improvements to bus journey times we were looking for.  He referred to comments from the Mayor of Liverpool, who had challenged the conventional view that bus lanes in themselves improved bus reliability and suggested bus lanes could in certain circumstances contribute to delays.  He indicated he would abstain from voting on this item as he felt the proposals did not meet the key objectives.

·         Sir Michael Marshall commented that the outcome of the survey would usefully demonstrate where people were going, from and to and why.  On behalf of residents he hoped that they would be given really good access to their houses, have good access onto the road and be able to turn easily.  He was of the opinion that we should wait to receive strategic proposals from the Combined Authority before progressing too far.

·         Councillor Dave Baigent reported that having attended the LLF meeting earlier that week, he sensed a significant change in attitude from that expressed at earlier meetings.  He suggested this was as a result of extensive consultation and engagement and congratulated all concerned.  In addition, Councillor Baigent highlighted the importance of cyclist and pedestrian safety, which was a key aim of the GCP, and commended the fact that the proposed improvements went a considerable way to achieving this. 

·         Councillor Kevin Cuffley expressed the view that this was an excellent report and commended the work of officers, the LLF and local residents in working together. He welcomed plans for this engagement to continue as the project progressed.

·         Claire Ruskin commented that this was a very gentle outcome, good for residents and those who came into Cambridge by bus, bicycle or walking. However she questioned whether the proposals would make any difference to plans to unlock Cambridge for growth.  It was very easy for residents of Cambridge and those living close by to cycle or walk, but this was not the case for those living further afield.  She required something more ambitious to be proposed, designed specifically to drive a modal shift, before she could be persuaded to spend valuable tax revenues on this. 

·         Andy Williams also welcomed the work done by officers and the LLF and commented on the concept of compromise, balancing the needs of residents, politicians and business.  Evidence to date suggested plans for ongoing engagement with the LLF would resolve remaining issues about bus lane length.  He stated that a key factor for his staff was reliability and suggested that they didn’t care if a journey took 20 or 25 minutes, but wanted to be able to rely on a bus to turn up and be confident it would get them where they wanted to go on time. 

·         Helen Valentine echoed comments from others about good engagement, compromise and reliability.  Her main concern was that a lot of money would be spent to achieve very minor, perhaps negligible improvements.  While she was happy to support moving to the next stage, she stressed that before taking a final decision on the scheme, she would need to be convinced this represented value for money.

·         Councillor Noel Kavanagh stated he would be interested to see what the effects of Cambridge North Station had on local traffic.  The number of bicycles parked at the station was, he suggested, a clear indication of the number of people using cycles to get around.  The planned improvements represented excellent news for the cycling community.  He acknowledged people’s concerns, but felt the proposals represented a good way forward in light of the fact we faced an increasing population and new companies moving to the area and he looked forward to seeing the final proposals.

The Joint Assembly considered the officer recommendations being presented to the Executive Board.  In relation to her comments on the need for a design guide, Councillor Bridget Smith proposed the addition of an additional recommendation as set out below:

(h)        Support the completion, approval and adoption of the GCP design guide in order to provide a framework for detailed scheme design.

The proposal was seconded by Councillor John Williams.  On being put to the vote, there was an equality of votes, with six votes in favour and six against.  The Chairperson used his casting vole to oppose the amendment, which was duly declared lost by 7 votes to 6, with two abstentions.

Councillor Tim Bick proposed an amendment by way of adding an additional recommendation, as set out below:

(h)        Supplement development of this scheme with further consideration of means of achieving modal shift to public transport.

The amendment was seconded and on being put to the vote was declared carried with 9 votes in favour, 0 against and 4 abstentions.

With 11 votes in favour and 3 abstentions, the Joint Assembly agreed to RECOMMEND that the Executive Board:

a)    Note the prioritisation of delivery of the Milton Road project ahead of the Histon Road scheme;

b)    Note the Milton Road Local Liaison Forum resolutions set out in Appendix B and agree the responses set out therein;

c)    Agree the ‘Final Concept’ design shown in Appendix D as a basis for detailed design work and the preparation of an interim business case to facilitate further public and statutory consultation;

d)    Note that wherever highway space permits, opportunities to adopt further aspects of the ‘Do Optimum’ design will be taken as part of the detailed design process;

e)    Support further engagement with the Milton Road LLF to help inform the detailed design process;

f)     Support discussions with relevant property owners to explore interest in a joint funding approach to potential streetscape and public realm improvements on land outside the public highway outside local shops along Milton Road;

g)    Note the revised project timelines shown in Appendix H and the next steps in project delivery set out in the report; and

h)    Supplement development of this scheme with further consideration of means of achieving modal shift to public transport.