Agenda, decisions and minutes

Venue: Guildhall, Cambridge City Council

Contact: Graham Watts  03450 450 500 Email: democratic.services@scambs.gov.uk

Items
No. Item

1.

Apologies for absence

To receive any apologies for absence.

Minutes:

No apologies for absence were received.

 

Councillor Tim Bick, Chairman, took this opportunity to welcome Dr John Wells to his first meeting of the Joint Assembly following his co-option by the Executive Board on 3 December 2015.  Dr Wells was a University of Cambridge nomination and represented the Cancer Research UK Cambridge Institute.

2.

Minutes of the previous meeting pdf icon PDF 209 KB

To confirm the minutes of the previous meeting held on 13 November 2015 as a correct record.

Minutes:

The minutes of the previous meeting held on 13 November 2015 were confirmed and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

 

Further to minute number 9 of the previous meeting, it was noted that the base number of existing apprentices was confirmed as being 300 new starts in 2014/15.

 

Councillor Tim Bick, Chairman, provided an update on the outcome of the Executive Board’s consideration of the Joint Assembly’s recommendations following its last meeting.  The following points were noted:

 

·         the recommendation to delay the consultation process in respect of the Western Orbital corridor scheme was not supported;

·         the recommendation to include schemes on city centre bus and coach capacity management and a Huntingdon Road Park and Ride were supported;

·         the recommendation to remove the word ‘Station’ from the Newmarket Road to Cambridge Science Park Station bus priority scheme was not supported.

 

3.

Declarations of interest

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

Minutes:

Councillor Tim Bick, Chairman, declared a non-pecuniary interest in minute number 6 as he had a personal relationship with Nichola Harrison, who had registered to speak as a member of the public.

4.

Questions by members of the public pdf icon PDF 41 KB

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

Minutes:

Councillor Tim Bick, Chairman, reported that a number of people had registered to speak in relation to specific items on the agenda for this meeting.  He therefore proposed that those questions be put at the relevant item.

 

A question from Edward Leigh had been received which did not relate to an item on the agenda for this meeting.  The question was asked and answered as follows:

 

Mr Leigh listed six major developments in the region over the past two years, which he said would add to the considerable load on the strategic highways and railways.  He also referred to the approximate 25 million vehicles that travelled annually past Cambridge on the A14, the 22 million on the M11, the 17 million on the A11 and the 9 million on the A505, as well as the fact that Cambridge railway station saw nearly 11 million passengers per year.  Mr Leigh said that most of the urgent upgrades to the region’s road infrastructure involved Highways England and that there was huge untapped potential in the existing rail network.  He therefore asked why so few of these schemes featured in the Transport Strategy for Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire.  Mr Leigh was of the opinion that feasibility studies and business cases should progress with schemes so that Highways England and Network Rail could programme schemes in sooner rather than later.  He also questioned engagement between City Deal partners and Highways England or Network Rail and asked whether any consideration would be given to asking the Department for Transport to appoint Highways England and Network Rail as formal partners in the City Deal, with representation on the Executive Board. 

 

Jeremy Smith, Head of Transport and Infrastructure Policy and Funding at Cambridgeshire County Council, acknowledged the importance of the issues raised by Mr Leigh but reminded him that the transport infrastructure schemes included as part of the City Deal programme were on many of the networks included in the Long Term Transport Strategy for Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire.  Mr Smith also reported that he and other officers from the County Council worked closely with strategic partners such as Network Rail and Highways England, although he emphasised that it was not up to the County Council or any other City Deal partner to produce business cases for schemes on Highways England’s networks.  It was also noted that Network Rail had a significant improvement agenda of its own progressing and delivering improvements on other routes feeding into Cambridge.  Mr Smith closed by reassuring Mr Leigh that lots of the issues he had raised were already in the County Council’s strategy document.

 

Councillor Bick, in referring to engagement between officers from the partner Councils and strategic partners such as Highways England and Network Rail, said that it would be useful to understand the type of engagement that took place and cited an ‘engagement map’ as an example of something that could be produced.  Mr Smith agreed to circulate a document to Members of the Joint Assembly to meet with  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

5.

Petitions

To consider any petitions received since the last meeting.

Minutes:

No petitions had been received.

6.

Opportunities for public realm and green landscaping enhancement within City Deal delivery

To receive a presentation from Glen Richardson, Urban Design and Conservation Manager at Cambridge City Council and Andrew Cameron, Director of Urban Design at WSP consultants.

Decision:

The Joint Assembly:

 

(1)        NOTED the presentation.

 

(2)        AGREED that officers be requested to identify what could be included in an Environmental Design Guide for City Deal transport infrastructure schemes, setting out what such a guide could consist of together with the estimated cost and officer time associated with developing the document.

Minutes:

Councillor Tim Bick, Chairman, invited three members of the public who had given notice of questions or statements in relation to this agenda item to put forward their questions or statements.  Questions or statements were therefore made as follows:

 

Question by Mike Sargeant

 

Mr Sargeant expressed concerns about the consultation process, principally in respect of the Milton Road scheme, and the perception that the proposals in the draft options report would be ‘railroaded’ through regardless of responses made by members of the public as part of the consultation.  He asked what reassurance he and residents could be given that ideas and concerns would be listened to and that this consultation would be a meaningful exercise. 

 

He also highlighted that one of the biggest issues for local people in respect of the Milton Road scheme was the potential loss of trees and grass verges and the road becoming an urban motorway.  He asked why these issues had not been included in the consultation documentation, despite being raised at a previous meeting of the Joint Assembly, and sought reassurance that keeping a green, residential character to Milton Road was a priority. 

 

Question by Wendy Blythe

 

Wendy Blythe asked how the loss of grass verges, trees, gardens and nature posed by arterial road schemes would be assessed, making the point that verges soaked up surface water and trees were a buffer against noise and pollution. 

 

She said that a large number of respondents to the call for evidence sessions had argued that bus lanes were an engineering solution to what was in fact a traffic management problem and would simply generate more road capacity.  She therefore asked whether, given that the argument for bus lanes, in her view, was not yet proven, the wishes of residents who wanted to keep their trees and gardens would be ignored. 

 

Wendy Blythe also asked how the public health implications were being assessed, in terms of the psychological impact of these transport schemes on communities and on individuals.  She reflected on Milton Road currently having attractive trees and verges along the route and asked what environmental standards a world famous heritage city with attractive approach roads should be aspiring to.  She added that simply providing landscaping options to mitigate major damage would not be good enough.

 

Statement by Nichola Harrison

 

Nichola Harrison highlighted widespread public concern that the bus priority measures for Milton Road, Histon Road and Madingley Road would cause severe damage to the green environment and community life of these residential neighbourhoods.  She said that the City Deal was a fantastic opportunity to improve Greater Cambridge’s inadequate transport system, but at present she felt that there was a real danger that its engineering schemes would fail to achieve public support.  Nichola Harrison therefore proposed that the City Deal should employ landscaping and public realm experts, including Council officers and external experts, to produce an Environmental Design Code.  This would ensure that consideration of the local environment was not simply an optional extra but was at  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

7.

Tackling congestion: call for evidence pdf icon PDF 223 KB

To consider a report by Graham Hughes, Executive Director (Cambridgeshire County Council), scheduled for consideration by the Executive Board on 15 January 2016.

Additional documents:

Decision:

The Joint Assembly recommended to the Executive Board that it:

 

(1)        NOTES the summary of evidence received and the emerging key themes.

 

(2)        AGREES the criteria for assessment of the ideas and proposals submitted to reduce congestion by reducing traffic volumes, managing traffic differently or managing access as part of the Cambridge Access Study, including any further ideas submitted by 31 December 2015, subject to the inclusion of an additional criterion to assess environmental impact and design.

 

(3)        NOTES that the work referred to in resolution (2) above will be brought back to the Executive Board on 16 June 2016, including an assessment of impacts of potential City centre measures on other elements of the City Deal programme.

 

(4)        AGREES that where proposals relate to additional infrastructure that would be better considered as part of either an existing or future corridor study (i.e. one of the tranche 1 or prospective future City Deal schemes), that those proposals are taken forward through those routes rather than through the Cambridge Access Study.

Minutes:

Councillor Tim Bick, Chairman, invited three members of the public who had given notice of questions in relation to this agenda item to put forward their questions.  Questions were therefore asked as follows:

 

Question by Penny Heath

 

Penny Heath referred to paragraph 16 of the report for this item, which listed the criteria following the call for evidence sessions on tackling congestion in Cambridge.  She asked why no criterion for environmental impact had been included, which should cover issues such as impact on pollution, character, conservation and landscape of the City. 

 

Question by Lynn Hieatt

 

Lynn Hieatt asked what steps the Joint Assembly was now taking to prepare for a public debate and meaningful consultation on any proposed parking controls or congestion-charging schemes in Cambridge.  Furthermore, she asked what timeframe residents could expect for these ideas to be researched and developed into proposals and put into public discussions about the future of congestion in the City and their neighbourhoods.

 

Question by Robin Pellew

 

Robin Pellew said that the call for evidence had been a thoroughly worthwhile exercise in bringing together a wide diversity of skills and expertise, but said that its value depended on the next step of how this body of information and experience was to be used.  He added that there was now a widely held expectation that the City Deal would build on this foundation by pursuing some of the main proposals throughout the appointment of consultants to take them forward to the stage where they could be subject to the detailed scrutiny of public consultation.  Mr Pellew therefore asked what assurance the Joint Assembly or County Council could give that sufficient funding would be made available to enable the more promising proposals to be advanced.

 

Mr Pellew also referred to what he perceived as being a lack of synchronisation with the various public consultations, referring to consultations currently ongoing in respect of the A428 corridor, Histon Road and Milton Road.  The options presented by the City Deal were all based on the assumption that bus lanes were the answer to the peak-hour congestion at these pinch-points, however, the call for evidence showed that there were genuine alternatives.  He therefore asked how any new measures for alleviating congestion emerging from the call for evidence would feed into the examination of the options for these arterial roads.

 

Councillor Bick stated that answers to the questions would be provided as part of the subsequent discussion.

 

Consideration was given to a report which provided an initial summary of submissions received in response to the tackling congestion call for evidence sessions that had recently been held and sought agreement to the means of assessment of the submissions received through the Cambridge Access Study or, where more relevant, through individual City Deal schemes.  Jeremy Smith, Head of Transport and Infrastructure Policy and Funding at Cambridgeshire County Council, presented the report and informed the Joint Assembly that 77 responses to the sessions had been received to date.  The main areas of focus had  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

8.

Workstream update pdf icon PDF 80 KB

To consider a report by Tanya Sheridan, City Deal Programme Director, scheduled for consideration by the Executive Board on 15 January 2016.

Decision:

The Joint Assembly NOTED the workstream update.

Minutes:

Tanya Sheridan, City Deal Programme Director, presented the progress report which set out updates on each workstream of the City Deal. 

 

It was noted that interviews were currently underway for the Strategic Communications Manager vacancy.

 

The Joint Assembly NOTED the workstream update.

9.

Greater Cambridge City Deal Forward Plan pdf icon PDF 24 KB

To consider the City Deal Executive Board’s Forward Plan, as attached.  Changes made to the Forward Plan are purposely highlighted in the document using ‘tracked changes’.

Decision:

The Joint Assembly NOTED the revised Greater Cambridge City Deal Forward Plan, which included the Histon Road and Milton Road transport infrastructure schemes and Cambridge Access Study items listed for the meeting of the Executive Board on 16 June 2016 rather than 22 July 2016.

Minutes:

The Joint Assembly NOTED the revised Greater Cambridge City Deal Forward Plan, which included the Histon Road and Milton Road transport infrastructure schemes and Cambridge Access Study items listed for the meeting of the Executive Board on 16 June 2016 rather than 22 July 2016.