Agenda, decisions and draft minutes

There were no declarations of interest.

A full version of Appendix 2 (Joint Local Impact Report produced by Cambridgeshire County Council, Huntingdonshire District Council, South Cambridgeshire District Council and Cambridge City Council) is attached to the electronic version of this agenda, and can be viewed by visiting www.scambs.gov.uk and then following the links from ‘Your Council’.

The Strategic Planning and Transportation Portfolio Holder

i.         noted the Highways England responses to previous comments made by the Council to the draft scheme, provided in the Consultation Report (part of Highways England’s Development Consent Order (DCO) application), provided in Appendix 1 to the report from the Planning and New Communities Director;

ii.        Approved the Joint Local Impact Report (in Appendix 2)to be submitted to the DCO Examination;

iii.       Approved the Written Representation (in Appendix 3) to be submitted to the DCO Examination;

iv.      Delegated authority to the Planning and New Communities Director to make further technical amendments in consultation with the Strategic Planning and Transportation Portfolio Holder; and

v.       Delegated authority to the Planning and New Communities Director to prepare a Statement of Common Ground, in consultation with the Strategic Planning and Transportation Portfolio Holder.

The Strategic Planning and Transportation Portfolio Holder considered a report asking him to endorse the draft  response to the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) in relation to Highways England’s (formerly known as the Highways Agency) Development Consent Order (DCO) application for the A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme.

Councillor Aidan Van de Weyer was unable to attend the meeting. However, he submitted the following two points to the Portfolio Holder for his consideration.

“1. [Non-Motorised User] NMU path specifications

The application does not seem to include full specifications for the NMU routes, in terms of the width, finish, separation distance or junction design. As we say in our draft response, Box 15.1 of the ES gives some indications of this. The widths mentioned seem to be an adequate minimum and a verge to separate the NMU route is welcomed. However, it is hard to make an assessment of the attractiveness, and therefore of the effectiveness, of the routes without more details.

It is very disappointing that the paths over the two existing bridges will be below three metres.

2.   Bar Hill Junction

The arrangements at the junction between the service road and the link road to the A1050 on the north side of the Bar Hill junction are much better, in particular with the introduction of signalised crossings. However, they could be improved in two ways:

(a)        There are two NMU crossings on arms of the signalised junction. Each of them has a central island as the crossings will always be done in two stages. This islands look like standard small fenced ones that only have space for a couple of bicycles that are required to make two very sharp turn. These island reservations should be make much larger so that

(i)         several bicycles can be accommodated including non-standard ones like cargo bikes, tricycles and bicycles with trailers

(ii)        bicycles do not have to make sharp turns

(b)        The NMU route to the north from this junction hugs the link road Longstanton. This means that NMUs will have to climb and descend the embankment for no reason whatsoever. There is plenty of room within the red line to place the NMU path at the bottom of the embankment. This would greatly improve the attractiveness of the route.”         

Those present welcomed the contribution made by Councillor Van de Weyer, and used his comments as a basis for commenting on the A14 proposals in general. The Portfolio Holder asked officers to clarify a number of issues with Highways England and, in particular, its rationale for not routing the cycle path along the bottom of the embankment, and the capacity of the refuge island to accommodate cycles.

Councillor Hazel Smith asked about noise mitigation measures where the A14 passed the Blackwell Travellers site. The Principal Planning Policy Officer highlighted proposals for a noise barrier and the use of a low noise road surface. Councillor Smith acknowledged this but pointed out that the additional lanes would take the A14 closer to the Travellers site and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 2.

The Portfolio Holder will maintain, for agreement at each meeting, a Work Programme  identifying all matters relevant to the Portfolio which it is believed are likely to be the subject of consideration and / or decision by the Portfolio Holder, or recommendation to, or referral by, the Portfolio Holder to Cabinet, Council, or any other constituent part of the Council.   The Programme will be updated as necessary.  The Portfolio Holder will be responsible for the content and accuracy of the Work Programme.

Currently, no Work Programme exists for this Portfolio. The Portfolio Holder is invited to indicate those issues that might form a future Work Programme, and whether or not he would like to establish a schedule of meetings.

There was currently no work programme. A work programme would be drawn up if and when one was deemed necessary.

The Strategic Planning and Transportation Portfolio Holder did not fix a date for the next meeting.