Agenda item

 

To consider the attached report.

 

The Executive Board AGREED unanimously to:

 

a)    Note the progress to date on the scheme development and agrees that while the mass transit options appraisal takes place, work must continue in parallel to develop existing proposals to connect people between homes and jobs in Greater Cambridge, while ensuring they are future proofed so that they can be adapted for new solutions as they emerge;

 

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

 

c)    That further work be undertaken in respect of an Option 6 alignment; and

 

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

 

Amendment to officer recommendation shown in italic text.

The Executive Board considered a report on progress with the A428/A1303 Better Bus Journeys Scheme.  The report included an assessment of 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.

 

The Chairperson reported that the Joint Assembly had supported the proposal but had suggested an amendment to recommendation (b), which was agreed with 13 votes in favour and 1 abstention and is show in italics below:

 

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.

 

The Chairperson reported that Councillor Lina Joseph had asked to speak on this item as local Member and invited her comment on the proposals.  Councillor Joseph expressed concerns about the future proofing of the A428 Busway Scheme and made the following statement:

 

Given the preferred 3a route is quite likely to run right along the entire length of both Hardwick and Coton villages, and given such future-proofing seems quite likely to involve buses travelling at 100+ mph, I can only imagine that the infrastructure required to keep our communities safe will be visually very significant indeed. I therefore ask you to release details of what the worst-case scenario could be.

This is a major change from the scheme that has been consulted upon, so any decision that rules out alternatives should not be taken in September.  In any case, no decision should be made until the true facts are known.

 

The Chairperson then invited Helen Bradbury, Chairperson of the A428 LLF, to present feedback on the Forum’s views on these proposals.  She highlighted six issues and associated questions, details of which are summarised below:

 

·         The GCP is requested to defer decisions on the A428 Busway until such time as the both the high level mass transit study and the feasibility study on light rail has been completed and published, with adequate time given to allow the public to review and comment on  these proposals. To proceed as before regardless of these developments would be on the basis of insufficient evidence and lack of knowledge of alternative options that could be brought forward and would demonstrate a lack of co-ordination in terms of transport strategy.  If we proceed otherwise we may end up with something incompatible, irreversible and having cost the taxpayer dear.

 

·         The LLF does not consider option 3a to be a suitable alignment for rapid mass transit given its proximity to rural communities, the amount of 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.  She added this future proofing was a significant departure from the original proposals and something the public had not been consulted on.  The LLF asked the GCP to clarify the size and extent of infrastructure that would be required for option 3a to take an as yet unspecified Rapid      Mass Transit (RMT) scheme in order that the LLF could understand the implications.

 

·         Does the Executive Board agree with the LLF that the option 3a alignment  is potentially unsuitable for an unknown future RMT system and will the Executive Board consider developing a more flexible alignment more likely to link successfully with the wider transport schemes currently under consideration.

 

·         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, and /or 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.  The LLF welcomed GCPs first stage work on option 6 and asked the Executive Board to recommend taking forward option 6 for further assessment.

 

·         The LLF endorsed the technical group’s scoring of options 1, 3a and 6 as a fair and transparent appraisal and had serous concerns about the Consultant’s scoring in Table 15 of the report.  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 wished to continue to collaborate and arrive at a solution based on the criteria set in the first place.  The LLF asked the Executive Board to ask the officers to collaborate again with it to try and produce a consensus position with regard to the scoring of the Multi Criteria Assessment Framework (MCAF) table. 

 

·         The LLF welcomed the GCPs decision to extend the search for suitable park and ride sites and had been given the opportunity to review the terms of reference for the study.  It was concerned that the three highest scoring sites had not been included in the shortlist and that the two sites at Madingley Mulch had been included retrospectively, including Crome Lea again, but not even it’s amended 2016 form.   As for the new proposal under the water tower [Madingley Road West], the LLF would like to draw the Executive Board’s attention to the fact that this would be visible from three counties, one as far as 12 miles away.  The LLF asked the Executive Board to uphold the Joint Assembly’s recommendation to remove Crome Lea from the shortlist.

 

In conclusion, Ms Bradbury reminded the Executive Board that the LLF would like to see the GCP consider again investigating inbound flow control.  A resolution to this effect had been passed at the meeting in LLF meeting in March, but to date no response had been received.

 

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.

 

The Interim Transport Director in introducing the report clarified that the Executive Board had asked officers to look again at potential park and ride sites in October 2016.  At that time, although Crome Lea was not mentioned in name, to all intents and purposes, that was the site that was being debated.  In addition to that, officers were asked to look at Scotland Farm.  When those sites were assessed it was acknowledged that the transport analysis gave insufficient focus to environmental factors.  Given the concerns about environmental impact, it was agreed to look at the sites purely on environmental term, with a view to identifying sites that were least environmentally intrusive.  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, including a full analysis of each site, would be brought to the September meeting round. 

 

Responding to questions from the LLF not already covered, the Interim Transport Director:

 

• Saw no reason to defer a decision on the A428 Busway.  He explained that the proposed comparator study was about modes of transport most appropriate for Greater Cambridge, not alignment.  The Executive Board was not being asked to commit to anything other than the scheme currently under consideration.  The aim was to identify a future proofed transport corridor which could be suitable for a variety of transport modes.

 

• With reference to option 3a’s suitability for RMT, this would be the subject of further consultation and work if RMT turned out to be the preferred option following the comparator study.  The aim was to make sure that the alignment of it was such that it could possibly accommodate RMT, subject to all other consultations.

 

• The selection of sites had taken account of the Consultant’s recommendation that these be spread along the route as opposed to simply focusing on the top three.

   

·         With reference to the recommendation to remove Crome Lea from the shortlist, from a transparency/process point of view, the Interim Director’s recommendation was that the Executive Board should allow Crome Lea to go forward on the basis that this had been one of the sites considered in October 2016.  It would be difficult to justify removing it at this stage when only a partial assessment had been done, looking only at environmental factors.

 

Referring to a number of comments about scoring, the Interim Transport Director explained that at this stage in the process, this was not relevant as the recommendation was to bring the analysis of option 6 up to the same level of detail as the other sites.  This would enable the Executive Board to make an informed decision at the next stage in the process.  

 

The Executive Board was invited to consider and comment on the proposals, taking into account feedback from the Joint Assembly, questions from local Members and the public and officer responses.  The response to questions of clarification and main points of discussion are summarised below:

 

·         In response to a question from Professor Allmendinger, it was agreed that officers should look at rebranding the scheme, removing reference to ‘bus’.  This took account of the earlier decision to investigate strategic transport options and that the mode of transport may, or not be busses.

                                  

·         Councillor Bates sought clarification of the procurement process.  In response the Interim Transport Director explained that due to time constraints, the work would be done by the consultants currently being used. It would however be made very clear to them that the scope was wider than bus and they should also look at all on road and off road options.

 

·         The Chairperson drew attention to the comparison set out in Table 15 [page 153 of the agenda pack] and sought clarification that this was a preliminary assessment and that officers would now work this up in more detail, to the same quality standard used for assessing options 1 and 3a.  He commented that the intention was always that this would be an evidence based process and drew attention to comments from the LLF and Coton Parish Council pressing for a full analysis of option 6.  The Interim Transport Director confirmed that this was the case and the recommendations before the Executive Board sought approval to do this.

 

·         Referring to the table on page 147 of the agenda pack, showing the multi criteria analysis of the park and ride sites, the Chairperson asked if this represented a full environmental assessment.  He also asked if these scores would be the ones that would go forward, or was there more to be done.  In response, the Interim Transport Director stated that this was an initial analysis, which would now be looked at alongside other factors, transport being one.

 

·         The Chairperson referred to the workshop that look place at Cambourne Village College, which was mentioned in the background papers.  He thanked all concerned for giving up their time to participate in this event and asked how the feedback from this exercise would be fed into the process.  In response, the Interim Transport Director explained that the purpose of the workshop was to identify what people felt were the key criteria for determining an appropriate location for a park and ride site.  This information would be taken into account by the consultants in taking forward the options appraisal work.

 

• In introducing the debate, the Chairperson summarised three essential points emerging from the discussion, to pause the whole thing or keep going; if work was to progress should the study of option 6 be taken forward to full quality level; and whether work on the park and ride sites start.

 

• Councillor Herbert confirmed that issues with the study had in part been addressed by commissioning the appraisal of rapid mass transit options, agreed earlier in the meeting.  He referred to the Mayor’s enthusiasm for light rail, but stressed that until the study had been completed, it was not possible to come up with answers as to whether it was deliverable, fundable and how it compared with different options for different routes. To have a county-wide or core light rail system involved a very large sum of funding as well as a need for a lot of risk taking by whoever was going to deliver it.

 

• Councillor Herbert was concerned by the suggestion that work on this or any other scheme should stop given the significant issues to be addressed by the GCP.  He explained that as a Board member he took very seriously the need to come up with solutions that would achieve transport links to the growing communities surrounding Cambridge.  It was also essential to take into account the likely growth in transport if the Oxford Milton Keynes expressway came about.   Also, until the Girton interchange was developed, there was a major blockage caused by the inadequate planning of the A14.

 

• Councillor Bates drew attention to the range of options that would be considered by the planned options appraisal.  He also noted a number of other factors relevant to the A428 transport corridor, including planned work by Highways England between Caxton Gibbet and the Black Cat Roundabout and significant housing development planned across the Bedfordshire border adjacent to St Neots.  With that in mind, he was not in favour of delaying this proposal.

 

• Professor Allmendinger repeated his earlier comment about the importance of distinguishing between transport routes and modes.  He agreed that it was not appropriate to delay.  He had recently discussed this with the Mayor, who had agreed that we should distinguish between the two and not delay the transport routes in a discussion about the modes of transport that might go along those routes.  The Chairperson expressed his support for this view.

 

• With reference to the proposed park and ride sites, the Executive Board acknowledged the comments made by the Interim Transport Director and was supportive of progressing with an appraisal of all shortlisted sites.  Councillor Herbert explained that while he had concerns about the Crome Lea site, from a process point of view it was important to show that the Executive Board had linked any decision not to proceed with this site to clear evidence.

 

• In acknowledging comments and concerns raised the assessment of the option 6 alignment, should this proceed, it would be important to demonstrably show that the final assessment was neutral and independent.

 

In response to feedback from the LLF about deferral, Councilor Herbert moved the following amendment, which was duly seconded and on being put to the vote, approved unanimously:

 

            That the following words be added to the end of recommendation (a):

 

‘and agrees that while the mass transit options appraisal takes place, work must continue in parallel to develop existing proposals to connect people between homes and jobs in Greater Cambridge, while ensuring they are future proofed so that they can be adapted for new solutions as they emerge’.

 

The Executive Board AGREED unanimously to:

 

a)    Note the progress to date on the scheme development and agrees that while the mass transit options appraisal takes place, work must continue in parallel to develop existing proposals to connect people between homes and jobs in Greater Cambridge, while ensuring they are future proofed so that they can be adapted for new solutions as they emerge;

 

b)    Approve a short list of Park and Ride sites for further development work to enable a decision to be made at the September Board for a preferred site or sites to be consulted on;

 

c)    That further work be undertaken in respect of an Option 6 alignment; and

 

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

 

Amendment to officer recommendation shown in italic text.