Agenda, decisions and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Dave Baigent (Cambridge City Council), Councillor Francis Burkitt (South Cambridgeshire District Council), Anne Constantine (Cambridge Regional College) and Jane Ramsey (Cambridge University Hospitals).

To confirm the minutes of the previous meeting held on 3 June 2015 as a correct record.

The minutes of the previous meeting held on 3 June 2015 were confirmed and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

To receive any declarations of interest from Members of the Joint Assembly.

No declarations of interest were made.

To receive any questions from members of the public.  The standard protocol to be observed by public speakers is attached.

The Chairman reported that a number of public questions had been received which related to items on the agenda for this meeting.  He intended to accept those questions as part of considering the respective item.  One question not related to any items on the agenda had been received and was asked and answered as follows:

Question by Stephen Lunn

Mr Lunn made a statement explaining that East Anglia Haulage was an employer of a significant number of local people at Madingley Mulch and that he was somewhat surprised and disappointed that he had not been contacted by anyone in authority connected with the Cambridge City Deal concerning the proposed option for a new Park and Ride site east of the Madingley Mulch roundabout.  He highlighted that local press items had triggered concerns from his employees as to what the potential implications were for his business in the future and thus its continued employment.  Whilst appreciating that the drawings published had been referred to as being indicative at this stage, he said that not only did the drawings for the site and option 1 (c) in general have dramatic implications for future passing trade, but they also appeared to include his site as part of the proposed Park and Ride development.

Mr Lunn therefore asked the following question:

“Does the proposed Park and Ride development footprint east of the Madingley Mulch roundabout include our site, or only the land to the north of the current A1303?”

Stuart Walmsley, Head of Major Infrastructure Delivery at Cambridgeshire County Council, responded by saying that the Council had spoken to colleagues at East Anglia Haulage in relation to this issue.  He confirmed that all ownerships in the area were being looked at as part of developing the options but that nothing at this stage had been determined.  Landowners and businesses in the area would be consulted prior to any decisions being taken, to gain a better understanding of the issues and opportunities in relation to the route.  Mr Walmsley confirmed that an initial consultation process had been approved which would be taking place in the Autumn.  It was noted that a meeting had been subsequently arranged to meet with representatives of East Anglia Haulage on-site on 4 August 2015.

To receive any petitions for consideration by the Joint Assembly.

No petitions for consideration by the Joint Assembly had been received.

To consider the attached report by Graham Hughes, Executive Director (Cambridgeshire County Council).

The Joint Assembly RECOMMENDED that the Executive Board:

(a)        Approves the proposed route option for the Chisholm Trail for the purposes of public consultation.

(b)        Gives approval to proceed to consultation on the route in the Autumn 2015.

The Joint Assembly considered a report which summarised a recommended route for the Chisholm Trail proposed to be taken forward to public consultation.

Mike Davies, Team Leader of Cycling Projects at Cambridgeshire County Council, presented the report and highlighted the following benefits of the recommended route for the Chisholm Trail:

·         a safer, direct and more convenient largely off-road route for cycling and walking;

·         improved access to green spaces, employment areas, retail sites and residential centres;

·         links into a network of existing cycle routes;

·         minimal impact on other motor traffic journey times;

·         enhancement of the environment, streetscape and air quality;

·         provision of a link from the main Cambridge railway station to the new railway station at Chesterton;

·         the creation of more capacity for sustainable trips along the rail corridor;

·         links to strategic priorities for City Deal cross-city cycle improvements.

The Chairman took this opportunity to invite receipt of public questions and statements, as follows:

Statement by Jim Chisholm

Mr Chisholm explained that a number of European cities had tackled car congestion by providing better cycling facilities and better public transport and that Leicester, Nottingham and Coventry were examples of cities in England where car dominated structures were being removed. 

In relation to economic benefit, he said that some people feared that improved cycling facilities would solely allow individuals to cross town quicker and provided very little economic benefit.  He was of the view, however, that as a result of route improvements there had been huge increases in cycling into Cambridge from villages in the past ten years and it was getting new people to cycle that would provide economic benefits.  Mr Chisholm suggested that the recommended route should be seen as a route that would give many less confident riders, who currently drove to work, a pleasant, relaxing, healthy, more reliable and probably even quicker trip by cycle or on foot, therefore achieving those economic benefits by reducing congestion.  He added that many of the sections of the new route could be provided without any heavy engineering.

Mr Chisholm closed by saying that it was not necessary to force people out of their cars to reduce congestion, and that simply providing good alternatives for those willing to change would make a difference.

The Joint Assembly noted the statement.

Question by Chris Smith

Mr Smith said that the route was built over Fen Ditton Meadows, across the curtilage of the Leper Chapel, a Grade 1 listed building, over Coldham’s Common, a county wildlife site, and through other public and open green space, with no adverse effects noted in the report.  He therefore asked what the adverse effects of this scheme were believed to be prior to its adoption by this group, including those on the rights of commoners and landscape.

In terms of the cost benefit ratio, Mr Smith said that with a ratio of 35:1 and a cost of around £12.5 million including the Fen Ditton bridge, this would indicate implied benefits of approximately £420 million.  Given the route was perhaps  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6a

To consider the attached report by Graham Hughes, Executive Director (Cambridgeshire County Council).

The Joint Assembly RECOMMENDED that the Executive Board:

(a)        Approves the choice of the proposed priority strategic cross-city cycle schemes as set out in the report.

(b)        Approves the public consultation on the schemes, as set out in the report.

(c)        Agrees to receive a report on the consultation results of each scheme and endorse the findings.

Consideration was given to a report which summarised the strategic approach and key principles for developing the cross-city cycle improvements in Cambridge and set out some early work that had been undertaken, informed by stakeholder engagement, on the routes which would benefit most.

Mike Davies, Team Leader of Cycling Projects, presented the report and highlighted that the proposed priority cross-city cycle schemes represented strategic links to both radial and orbital cycle routes, especially those to employment or development sites.  He referred Members to Appendices 2 and 3 of the report which set out a scoring methodology and a list of scored schemes, respectively.  Plan 1 attached to the report also illustrated the proposed location of City Deal cross-city schemes.  It was noted that the chosen schemes were the result of the outcomes of a stakeholder workshop held on 7 March 2015.

The Chairman took this opportunity to invite receipt of public questions and statements, as follows:

Statement by Roxanne De Beaux

Roxanne De Beaux represented the Cambridge Cycling Campaign which welcomed the proposed cross-city cycling routes and strongly supported the proposed improvements to the nominated corridors.  She said that these were clearly areas where improvements were required and the Campaign was confident that high quality improvements to these corridors would achieve the desired modal shifts and reduce congestion.

Regarding the Hills Road and Addenbrooke’s corridor, Ms De Beaux said that nothing short of a separate light phase would improve the safety for the most vulnerable.  She added that the advance lights would not add significant improvement to the existing situation where cyclists, through their sheer number, already dominated this intersection and prevented any more than a few cars from getting through at a time.  There was also a high risk of collision in this area so the Campaign recommended that a better solution with separate light signals and safer cycling infrastructure should be included.

The Campaign supported proposed improvements to links to East Cambridge and the National Cycle Network 11, however, it felt that there should be proposals for further assessment and suggested investigating use of Section 106 funding from the Ice Rink and Marshall’s developments.

Ms De Beaux emphasised the terrible infrastructure for cycles on Arbury Road and said the Campaign agreed that this route must be improved due to the lack of alternative routes.  The Campaign was also pleased to see the links to the North Cambridge Station and looked forward to seeing further details of this.  It did, however, recommend a scheme to improve the Trumpington Road and Lensfield Road double roundabout which was an appalling junction where many accidents had occurred and had not been included on the list of schemes.

In closing Ms De Beaux said that the Cambridge Cycling Campaign was very pleased with the proposals presented and the improvements that they would provide for cycling in Cambridge.

The Joint Assembly noted the statement.

Statement by Councillor Peter Sarris

Councillor Peter Sarris of Cambridge City Council, representing the East Chesterton Ward, wanted to make  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6b

To consider the attached report by Graham Hughes, Executive Director (Cambridgeshire County Council).

The Joint Assembly RECOMMENDED that the Executive Board approves the establishment of a Smarter Cambridgeshire work stream for Greater Cambridge, as outlined in Appendices A and B of the report, to be overseen within the City Deal governance arrangements.

The Joint Assembly considered a report which set out a proposal for a ‘smart cities’ approach within the City Deal programme to help support the delivery of improved transport, skills and housing and unlock further sustainable economic growth within Greater Cambridge.

Andrew Limb, Head of Corporate Strategy at Cambridge City Council, presented the report and referred to Connecting Cambridgeshire, a multi-agency programme established to address digital connectivity infrastructure shortfall and support better exploitation of digital technology across all sectors.  The Connecting Cambridgeshire programme included a number of work streams and one of those strands included the investigation of ‘smart’ technologies and its relevance for Cambridgeshire and, specifically, the City Deal programme. 

The Executive Board allocated £20,000 for two years to develop a smart cities work stream with a view to seeking bids for external funding.  A ‘smart cities’ workshop was held early this year with a number of local expert speakers and City Deal Joint Assembly and Executive Board representatives, where it was requested that a ‘Smarter Cambridgeshire’ proposal be developed.  Proposals had therefore been worked up and the initial objectives of the Smarter Cambridgeshire project, through to 2016, would be to:

·         generate an outline ‘smart architecture’ blueprint which would facilitate the delivery of a ‘test bed/demonstrator’ programme;

·         establish and deliver an initial one year test bed/demonstrator programme of work packages which implemented small scale ‘smart’ solutions, with a focus to transport related opportunities;

·         establish and participate in a wider forum for collaboration with and information exchange between complementary work programmes and other initiatives across the wider Cambridge research and development communities to develop and showcase the smart credentials and profile of the area;

·         investigate Government, EU and other funding opportunities and co-ordinate funding bids to develop the Smarter Cambridgeshire programme in both the short and medium term;

·         investigate and develop collaboration opportunities with other nearby cities, including Peterborough and Milton Keynes;

·         develop a longer term smart cities approach which reflects the level of ambition for Greater Cambridge.  This would complement and influence the emerging City Deal programme to ensure that smart characteristics were incorporated within the overall approach to housing, transport and skills as part of the delivery of the City Deal.

The following points were noted during discussion:

·         £20,000 seemed quite a small investment considering the proposed objectives.  It was noted that the key behind this work stream was to unlock further funding, working alongside and complementing the Connecting Cambridgeshire programme and organisations such as Cambridge Network.  Members of the Assembly were reminded that a significant amount of external funding was available to support the objectives of this project;

·         it was positive that the aspiration of the project was wider than the Greater Cambridge area, as people commuted into and visited the area from places further afield;

·         a question was raised as to examples of good practice from other smart cities.  Dan Clarke, from the Connecting Cambridgeshire team, reported that Birmingham, Bristol, Glasgow and Milton Keynes had all demonstrated good practice and confirmed that he had already been  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6c

To consider the Greater Cambridge City Deal Work Programme and schedule of meetings.  The forward plan for the Greater Cambridge City Deal Executive Board is attached and future meetings of the Greater Cambridge City Deal Joint Assembly are schedule to be held as follows:

25 August 2015 – 2pm (Cambridge)

16 September 2015 – 10am (Cambourne)

7 October 2015 – 2pm (Cambridge)

13 November 2015 – 2pm (Cambourne)

The Joint Assembly NOTED the City Deal work programme.

In view of the cancellation of the City Deal Executive Board meeting originally scheduled to be held on 9 September 2015, it was AGREED that the Joint Assembly meeting scheduled to be held on 25 August 2015 would also be cancelled.

The Joint Assembly NOTED its schedule of meetings for the remainder of 2015, with dates for meetings in 2016 to be confirmed in due course.