Agenda item

To consider the attached report.

The Joint Assembly RECOMMEND that the Executive Board:

a)    Note the progress to date on the scheme development;

b)    Agree a short list of Park and Ride (P&R) sites for further development work, excluding the site at Crome Lea Farm,  to enable a decision to be made at the September Board for a preferred site or sites to be consulted on;

c)    Agree if further work is to be undertaken in respect of an Option 6 alignment; and

d)    Agree the next steps/ timetable detailed in the report.

The Joint Assembly considered a report to be presented to the next Executive Board meeting on progress with the A428/A1303 Better Bus Journeys Scheme which was key to meeting the GCP objectives supporting economic growth and the submitted Local Plans.  It was noted that the report included an assessment of all potential park and ride sites along the Cambourne to Cambridge corridor.  Based on the outcome of this review, the Executive Board was being asked to identify a short list of sites for further development work.

Helen Bradbury, Chairperson of the A428 LLF, attended the meeting and presented feedback on the Forum’s views on these proposals.  She reported that the LLF had invited Mayor James Palmer to a meeting on Monday evening to discuss where the Cambourne to Cambridge Busway Scheme played into his plans for the future.  Following his speech the LLF was concerned that it was unclear how the A428 proposals sat within the strategic vision and with that in mind had made a number of comments and resolutions which are summarised below:

·         The GCP was requested to defer decisions on the A428 Busway until such time as the high level mass transit study, as proposed by the GCP and the feasibility studies and light rail options as proposed by the Combined Authority had been completed and published, with adequate time being allowed for the public to review and comment on these documents.  To proceed as before regardless of these developments would be on the basis of insufficient evidence and a lack of knowledge of alternative options that could be brought forward and would demonstrate a lack of co-ordination in terms of transport strategy.  To proceed otherwise may lead to something incompatible, irreversible and having cost the taxpayer dear.

·         With reference to plans to future proof schemes for possible implementation of a form of future mass rapid transit, the GCP was asked to clarify the size and extent of infrastructure that would be required to keep communities safe.  The LLF did not consider Option 3a to be suitable for rapid mass transit given its proximity to communities, the infrastructure that would be required to keep those communities safe and its impact on sensitive Green Belt areas.  The LLF asked that consideration was given instead to developing a more suitable alignment

·         The LLF was of the opinion that the Cambourne to Cambridge busway project should constitute no more than a low intervention solution, along the lines of LLF option 6, including smart transport measures.  This would allow those living West of Cambridge to access the City quickly and reliably, yet would be far less expensive and offer greater flexibility if /when rapid mass transit decisions were made.  Improvement would be immediate, inexpensive and potentially reversible.

·         The LLF wished GCP to note its serous concerns about the Consultant’s scoring in Table 15 of the report and suggested that the scoring of options 1, 3a and 6 were heavily skewed in favour of option 3a.  The scoring process had been hugely disappointing in the end.  The LLF had collaborated in the process, but this outcome showed a basic disregard for its views; in particular the September 2016 assessments.  The consultants had stated they would issue a rebuttal, but that was not what the LLF wanted.  Instead it wanted to continue to collaborate and arrive at a solution based on the criteria set in the first place.

·         The LLF also had concerns about the way park and ride sites had been selected, specifically why the top three highest scoring sites were not included in the shortlist.  As this would have been the most logical outcome, LLF asked why two sites at Madingley Mulch had been included retrospectively, including again Crome Lea.  As for the new proposal under the water tower [Madingley Road West], the LLF would like to draw the Joint Assembly’s attention to the fact that this would be visible from three counties, one as far as 12 miles away.

·         The LLF reiterated its view that it would like to see the GCP consider again investigating inbound flow control.  A resolution to this effect had been passed at the meeting in March, but to date no response had been received.  In addition the LLF would very much like a reply to its letter to the GCP dated 3^rd July which expressed concerns about the way the workshops had been organised.

At this stage in the proceedings the Chairperson invited Carolyn Postgate to ask her question on this item, which had been submitted in line with the provisions of Standing Orders.  He explained that a response to the question would be covered in the officer presentation on the report.  Details of the question and answer are set out in Appendix A to the minutes.

The Interim Transport Director in introducing the report clarified that it restated the position reached at the last Executive Board meeting, where it had been agreed to look at other park and ride sites.  The consultant had advised looking at a range of possible sites in three zones, which is why additional sites were considered.  What the report had done was look at the sites purely from an environmental element.  Following the Executive Board’s decision on a short list, further work would be done on these sites, bringing transport back into the equation.  The outcome of this work would be brought to the September meeting round. 

In relation to the LLF’s suggestion that the consultant had skewed the scores, the Interim Transport Director did not accept this assertion.  In doing so he drew attention to the fact that what was being put forward for the Executive Board to agree had not ruled option 6 out, but instead asked for further work to be done.  Many of the concerns raised would be addressed as part of the September report, which would include far more information than currently available.  In response to comments made about the LLF’s views on scoring not being available it was noted that this had been included in the background papers.  The Interim Transport Director pointed out that the LLF’s resolutions emerged from a meeting earlier that week so it had not been possible to respond to them in the report which had already been published.  This information would be incorporated into the September report.  Referring to the outstanding response to the 3^rd July letter, he explained that this was awaiting the outcome of a more general review of improving engagement with LLFs.

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

·         Councillor Granville Chamberlain spoke in support of the comments of the Chairperson of the LLF.  The LLF had done an excellent job and had undertaken a good degree of technical work and that technical work deserved detailed consideration by officers.  He drew attention to the flexible approach taken to the Milton Road proposals referred to earlier in the meeting, that he would like to see applied to the A428 project.  Councillor Chamberlain was concerned to hear that the consultant proposed to issue a rebuttal and suggested this was unhelpful.  He stated that we would see in the fullness of time, the need for an off road transport corridor.  Whether this was for busses or trams was irrelevant at this time, but it was important that the corridor served the communities along its path and didn’t seek to damage them.  Councillor Chamberlain also drew attention to the impact of work on the Girton interchange and pointed out that as further development came on stream, queues would only get longer.  The likelihood was that a demand for an off road solution would quickly build and his view was that this would need to run alongside the route of the A428 in order to minimise the impact on the environment.  He hoped that every effort would be made to encourage Highways England to bring forward the Girton interchange developments as that was a critical factor that impacted on the rest of Cambridge.

·         Councillor John Williams supported plans to proceed with further work but the consideration of the next steps should be based on a level playing field and include all relevant evidence.  He doubted whether we would be in a position to do this by September.  The outcome of the planned rapid mass transit options study was relevant and ought to be taken into account.  Councillor Williams also questioned whether full account had been taken of the potential impact on Sites of Special Scientific Interest. 

·         Councillor Bridget Smith highlighted the excellent work done by the A428 LLF which was working very well these days and echoed the concerns expressed by others about the consultant’s comments about rebuttal.  She also expressed concern about the inclusion of Crome Lea in the proposed shortlist and urged members to consider whether they would ever be in a positon to support this option.  Money should not be spent working up detailed options that would never be approved.  She recalled an earlier decision to reduce the size of the site to minimise the negative impact on Coton and drew attention to a requirement for all sites to be future proofed and capable of expansion.  She asked where was the scope to expand a site that had already been reduced because expansion was deemed to be environmentally unacceptable.  Councillor Smith also highlighted the suggestion that it was premature to be taking these decisions pending the outcome of work on strategic rapid mass transport options and asked how we could possible take these decisions without knowing the outcome of this work.

·         Sir Michael Marshall asked whether consideration had been given to applying for Highways Agency funding for by-passes in respect of the A14 interchange.  He added that if the Government could be persuaded to progress this it would go some way to alleviating congestion problems.  The Interim Chief Executive reassured members that officers were working very closely with Highways England on options for improving Girton and she and the Chairperson of the Board had met with the Agency’s Chief Executive and kicked off some work with a view to bringing back some recommendations to the November round of meetings.  At the same time additional work was being done to see if there were any short term measures that could be taken to improve the situation. 

·         Andy Williams indicated he didn’t like the prospect of waiting and having seen the costings for the A14 interchange and while he was happy to lobby the Government to progress this, early progress was unlikely.  He was supportive of comments made about Crome Lea and referring to earlier discussions about this option, confirmed he would not be willing to vote for this as the preferred site irrespective of the outcome of any further work.

·         Councillor Tim Bick recalled he shared concerns about the Crome Lea site when it was last discussed and was very nervous about what the choice of Crome Lea would mean environmentally.  He asked officers to confirm why it was considered appropriate to keep in two sites around Madingley Mulch and what we would potentially be missing if we axed one of those now.  With reference to suggested delay of the project, Councillor Bick indicated he was not supportive of this, while he appreciated the benefits of partnership working and liaison with the Combined Authority, his perception of the Mayor’s involvement in this was he was not setting good foundations for partnership working and playing politics with this from outside the process was not helpful.  In response to the question the Interim Transport Director stated that while he understood what was being said, he felt officers had been working with the LLF and the report had been prepared to respond to questions the LLF had raised, which had included queries about looking at Crome Lea in more detail.  He added nothing was being set in tablets of stone at this stage.  The September report would consider the shortlisted sites in more detail and select a site [or sites] and route [or routes] that would be the subject of detailed consultation.

The Joint Assembly considered the officer recommendations being presented to the Executive Board. 

Councillor Bridget Smith moved an amendment to insert the words ‘excluding the site at Crome Lea Farm’ after ‘development work’ in the first line of recommendation (b).  The amendment was duly seconded by Andy Williams and on being put to the vote was declared carried, with 9 votes in favour, 1 against and 4 abstentions.

Councillor Smith moved a further amendment to amend recommendation (d) to read as follows:

Agree the next steps whilst amending the timetable to take account of the Greater Cambridge Partnership/Combined Authority study on Rapid Mass Transport.

The amendment was duly seconded and on being put to the vote was declared lost with 3 votes in favour and 11 against.

With 13 votes in favour and 1 abstention, the Joint Assembly agreed to RECOMMEND that the Executive Board:

a)    Note the progress to date on the scheme development;

b)    Agree a short list of Park and Ride (P&R) sites for further development work, excluding the site at Crome Lea Farm,  to enable a decision to be made at the September Board for a preferred site or sites to be consulted on;

c)    Agree if further work is to be undertaken in respect of an Option 6 alignment; and

d)    Agree the next steps/ timetable detailed in the report.