Agenda, decisions and minutes

To elect a Chairman of the Greater Cambridge City Deal Joint Assembly for 2016/17.

Councillor Roger Hickford was ELECTED as Chairman of the Greater Cambridge City Deal Joint Assembly.

Councillor Roger Hickford was ELECTED as Chairman of the Greater Cambridge City Deal Joint Assembly.

To elect a Vice-Chairman of the Greater Cambridge City Deal Joint Assembly for 2016/17.

Councillor Kevin Price was ELECTED as Vice-Chairman of the Greater Cambridge City Deal Joint Assembly.

Councillor Kevin Price was ELECTED as Vice-Chairman of the Greater Cambridge City Deal Joint Assembly.

To receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Dave Baigent, Anne Constantine and Sir Michael Marshall.

It was noted that Councillor Tim Wotherspoon had been appointed as a Member of the Joint Assembly by South Cambridgeshire District Council, in place of Councillor Nick Wright.

To confirm the minutes of the previous meeting held on 12 February 2016 as a correct record.

The minutes of the previous meeting held on 12 February 2016 were confirmed and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

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

Councillor Kevin Price declared a non-pecuniary interest in item 10 as he was a resident in relatively close proximity to Milton Road.

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

Councillor Roger Hickford, Chairman, reported that a significant 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.

The following questions did not necessarily relate to any items on the agenda for this meeting and were therefore asked and answered at this stage of proceedings, as follows:

Question by Mary Pountain

In view of the late publication of consultation responses, some of which not being published until the evening of 31 May 2016, Mary Pountain was concerned that this was not a democratic process with there not being enough time allowed for proper reflection on the schemes, particularly in view of the Executive Board meeting having been brought forward by a week.  She therefore asked whether the Joint Assembly would recommend the postponing of the Executive Board meeting to allow sufficient time for the Joint Assembly Members, and members of the public, to assimilate all the information and review the impact of each scheme when combined with the other City Deal proposals.

Bob Menzies, Director of Strategy and Development at Cambridgeshire County Council, said that officers supporting the City Deal programme were committed to openness and the democratic process, together with making sure as much information as possible was in the public domain.  He stated that the consultation report was published five clear working days in advance of the meeting, as required, but that some of the information contained within background reports had not been available for technical reasons.

Question by Wendy Blythe

Wendy Blythe reported that Cambridge communities were finding it difficult to maintain faith in the process, especially in view of the publication of late information and the officer responsible for community engagement being seen to limit attendance at the recent Histon Road and Milton Road briefing.  In respect of the proposed Local Liaison Forum, she asked how Forum stakeholders would be identified, on what basis objectives would be set and what success would look like.

Mr Menzies reported that Local Liaison Forums would involve all local Councillors from the County Council, City Council and District Council where appropriate and that it would be up to them to decide which stakeholders they wished to invite.  The Forum itself would set its own terms of reference, setting out its objectives.  In terms of what success would look like he highlighted that Local Liaison Forums were not decision-making bodies.  He therefore added that success would be judged by the end product of the scheme.

Question by Roxanne de Beaux

Roxanne de Beaux asked whether the Joint Assembly would recommend to the Executive Board that the designs for Milton Road should include dedicated, segregated and sufficiently wide space for people who walked, together with separate, dedicated and sufficiently wide space for people who would be cycling.  She also asked whether the Assembly would remove the recommendation that floating-bus stops were not considered. 

Stuart Walmsley, Head of Major Infrastructure Delivery at Cambridgeshire  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

To consider the following petitions received since the previous meeting of the Joint Assembly:

-       ‘Save the trees and verges on Milton Road’ – Charles Nisbet, Chairman of the Milton Road Residents’ Association

-       ‘Milton Road segregated cycleways’ – Hester Wells

-       ‘Petition to oppose the Histon Road schemes’ – Philippe and Christine Lafon

Three petitions had been received, as follows:

‘Save the trees and verges on Milton Road’

Charles Nisbet, Chairman of the Milton Road Residents’ Association, presented the petition and reported concerns of local residents who he said were horrified at the prospect of the Milton Road avenue being turned into an urban highway and losing the trees and greenery associated with the road.

He highlighted some of the benefits of grass verges, vegetation and trees at the roadside, which included drainage and the impact on people’s health and wellbeing and said that such greenery should be at the forefront of developments.

Mr Nisbet reported that the paper version of the petition totalled 1250 signatures, with a further 1201 signatures received online.

The Joint Assembly NOTED the petition, in view of the issues raised relating to an item due for consideration later at this meeting.

‘Milton Road segregated cycleways’

Roxanne de Beaux, on behalf of Hester Wells, presented the petition which requested that Milton Road improvements under the City Deal should include high-quality cycleways, physically separated from both motor traffic and pedestrians. 

She said that poor facilities would simply not get used, wasting time, money and missing an opportunity to get new people cycling in an environment in which they felt safe.  She highlighted a guide produced by Camcycle entitled ‘Making Space for Cycling’ which had been endorsed by national bodies and set out principles of good cycle infrastructure. 

Ms de Beaux reported that 640 verified signatures had been received in support of the petition and asked the Joint Assembly what measures were being taken to ensure the proposed cycleways were of sufficient quality to increase cycling modal share on the route.

The Joint Assembly NOTED the petition, in view of the issues raised relating to an item due for consideration later at this meeting.

‘Petition to oppose the Histon Road schemes’

The lead petitioner was not in attendance to present this petition, but it was noted that the petition contained 755 signatures.

To consider the attached report.

The Joint Assembly RECOMMENDED that the Executive Board:

(a)        Notes the call for evidence analysis and the Cambridge Access Study Long List and Short List reports and outcomes.

(b)        Agrees the policy approach for a congestion reduction package, incorporating:

-       better bus services and expanded usage of Park and Rides;

-       better pedestrian and cycling infrastructure;

-       better streetscape and public realm;

-       peak congestion control points in the weekday morning and evening peak periods;

-       a workplace parking levy;

-       on-street parking controls (including residents’ parking)

-       smart technology;

-       travel planning.

(c)        Notes the consultation and engagement principles attached to the report at Appendix D and agrees the principles of the engagement process on the proposed congestion reduction package, to commence in July 2016.

(d)        Endorses the proposal for a trial implementation of peak congestion control points, possibly on a phased basis in late 2017 using an experimental Traffic Regulation Order, with consultation on the Order held during the experimental period.

Councillor Roger Hickford, Chairman, opened the item by inviting those members of the public who had given notice to put forward questions to the Joint Assembly.  Questions were therefore asked and answered, as follows:

Question by Edward Leigh

Edward Leigh asked the Joint Assembly whether it would defer consideration of the Access Study options long list until it had been satisfactorily completed and its conclusions validated by a multidisciplinary panel.  He also asked whether the Assembly would defer consideration of plans for new bus lanes on any city road until the following had been completed:

-       trialling and evaluation of city centre access measures;

-       installation, programming and evaluation of smart traffic management;

-       determination of minimum space requirements for cycling infrastructure;

-       proper modelling, trialling and evaluation of inbound flow control, in conjunction with city centre access restrictions;

-       modelling of bus lanes using a baseline determined by all of the above.

Mr Leigh also asked whether the Joint Assembly would consider using the City Deal to set up a council-owned bus company.

Bob Menzies, Director of Strategy and Development at Cambridgeshire County Council, acknowledged that further work was required but thought that the scheme had reached a point where it could be shared with the public, which was what the Executive Board was being recommended to do.  He was keen for the work undertaken to date to be put in the public domain in order that it could be developed further through public consultation. 

In terms of baselines, Mr Menzies reflected on schemes from around the world that had addressed congestion which shared the common theme of constraining car use and investing in public transport infrastructure.  He emphasised that both aspects were vital and confirmed that this was what the City Deal programme was seeking to achieve.

Mr Menzies reported that very few municipal bus companies were in existence as they had struggled to compete in the market with private providers.  He made the point that municipal bus companies could not be favoured by local authorities and that strict tendering rules would still apply and have to be followed when awarding contracts for services.

Question by Councillor Markus Gehring

Councillor Gehring made the point that many residents were concerned with eliminating one option at this stage as an effective way of reducing core traffic.  He therefore did not understand why congestion charging was off the table without proper evidence.  He added that raw data had not been published and said that the evidence was not there in order to evaluate all of the options.

The Joint Assembly noted Councillor Gehring’s points.

Question by Robin Pellew

Robin Pellew asked why the public was being denied a choice between alterative packages and questioned why one approach was being employed, discarding alternatives.  He challenged the assumption within the report that one approach was better than another and referred to a peak hour charge which he felt could be more effective and generate more income.

Mr Pellew reiterated that members of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

To consider the attached report.

The Joint Assembly RECOMMENDED that the Executive Board:

(a)        Notes the findings in the initial consultation report;

(b)        Agrees to take forward, for further design work, the initial ideas included in the ‘Do Maximum’ option, excluding the idea of banning the right turn into Warwick Road and the idea of ‘floating’ bus stops, to develop two preferred design options, one including and one excluding the changes at the Victoria Road junction.

(c)        Notes the further technical work that would be undertaken over the summer period to develop a preferred option layout for further consultation;

(d)        Supports the development of traffic management measures to mitigate displaced traffic and parking for the purposes of further consultation.

(e)        Delegates authority to the Executive Director of Economy, Transport and Environment at Cambridgeshire County Council, in consultation with the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Executive Board, to approve further consultation for a preferred option scheme.

(f)        Notes the procurement plan for project delivery, the revised project programme and the consultation plan set out in the report.

Councillor Roger Hickford, Chairman, opened the item by inviting those members of the public who had given notice to put forward questions to the Joint Assembly.  Questions were therefore asked and answered, as follows:

Question by Councillor Jocelyne Scutt

Councillor Jocelyne Scutt reported that residents of Histon Road and Milton Road, as well as residents on surrounding streets and roads, were significantly concerned about  the impact to their comfort, safety and environment as a result of plans for improved transport along these roads.  She asked the Joint Assembly to confirm that it would only endorse projects for Histon Road and Milton Road that incorporated an intrinsic and essential part of landscaping and public realm and that it would advance to the Executive Board no projects for these roads which did not accept this as a fundamental part.

Stuart Walmsley, Head of Major Infrastructure Delivery at Cambridgeshire County Council, confirmed that the intention was to ensure that all works were done in such a way that they enhanced, and sought to improve, the public realm to the highest possible standards.

Question by Michael Bond

Michael Bond referred to the inbound bus stop at Union Lane as the biggest single cause of rush hour delay on Milton Road and asked why the City Deal team had not made moving it to the other side of the junction to sit at the end of the bus lane an option.  He asked for this solution to be recommended in order that access to Union Lane could remain open for the residents of Chesterton. 

Mr Walmsley acknowledged the problem and suggestion, confirming that this would be looked at as part of the next stage of design for the scheme.

Question by Lynn Hieatt

Lynn Hieatt was of the opinion that the success of the safety, functionality and aesthetic design in schemes already in place, with Hills Road and Huntingdon Road given as examples, should be assessed before moving onto new parts of the city.  She asked whether the Joint Assembly would recommend to the Board that such a review be carried out, with input from residents’ associations, heritage groups, architects and highways engineers before any plans were made for Cambridge’s other approach roads.

Bob Menzies, Director of Strategy and Development at Cambridgeshire County Council, said that there had been big increases in cycle use on both roads and recognised that some of the work previously undertaken had not been as successful as it could have been with regards to landscaping, specifically in respect of vehicle overruns.  He fully expected this to be taken into account as part of the design process for this scheme.

Question by Mike Sargeant

Mike Sargeant asked that the Joint Assembly and Executive Board resolved to complete the design phase for Mitcham’s Corner this summer and ensure that Tranche 1 of the City Deal programme at least addressed the issues around cycling and pedestrians at Mitcham’s Corner so that it encouraged cycling and walking on Milton Road.  He also asked  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

To consider the attached report.

The Joint Assembly RECOMMENDED that the Executive Board:

(a)        Notes the findings in the initial consultation report.

(b)        Agrees to take forward the initial ideas in the ‘Do Something’ option for further design work including the Union Lane closure and Elizabeth Way roundabout ideas and ‘floating bus stops’, where highway space permitted, but excluding the ideas for banned turns at the Gilbert Road, Arbury Road and King’s Hedges Road junctions.

(c)        Agrees to consider major changes to the highway layout at the Mitcham’s Corner junction for implementation as part of the ongoing tranche 2 prioritisation work.

(d)        Notes the further technical work that would be undertaken over the summer period;

(e)        Supports the development of traffic management measures to mitigate displaced traffic and parking for the purposes of further consultation.

(f)        Delegates authority to the Executive Director of Economy, Transport and Environment at Cambridgeshire County Council, in consultation with the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Executive Board, to approve a further consultation for a preferred option scheme design, as detailed in section 43 of the report.

(g)        Notes the procurement plan for project delivery, the revised project programme and the consultation plan set out in the report.

This item was considered as part of the item on Histon Road at minute number 9, which included a number of public questions, consideration of the report and receipt of an officer presentation.

The officer recommendation in the report was noted as follows:

That the Executive Board:

(a)        notes the findings in the initial consultation report;

(b)        agrees to take forward the initial ideas in the ‘Do Something’ option for further design work including the Union Lane closure and Elizabeth Way roundabout ideas and ‘floating bus stops’, where highway space permitted, but excluding the ideas for banned turns at the Gilbert Road, Arbury Road and King’s Hedges Road junctions;

(c)        agrees to consider major changes to the highway layout at the Mitcham’s Corner junction for implementation as part of the ongoing tranche 2 prioritisation work;

(d)        notes the further technical work that would be undertaken over the summer period;

(e)        supports the development of traffic management measures to mitigate displaced traffic and parking for the purposes of further consultation;

(f)        delegates authority to the Executive Director of Economy, Transport and Environment at Cambridgeshire County Council, in consultation with the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Executive Board, to approve a further consultation for a preferred option scheme design, as detailed in section 43 of the report;

(g)        notes the procurement plan for project delivery, the revised project programme and the consultation plan set out in the report.

Councillor Kevin Price proposed an amendment, which took into account the many responses he had received by residents affected in the city, and thought that it reflected a better way forward than that proposed in the report and addendum.  Councillor Price therefore proposed that the Executive Board be recommended to:

(a)        note the findings in the initial consultation report and welcome the many detailed and high quality responses from residents and other stakeholder groups which have been used to shape the next stages of consultation;

(b)        take forward the initial ideas in the ‘Do Something’ option for further design work including ‘floating’ bus stops (where highway space permits) but excluding the ideas for banned turns at the Gilbert Road, Arbury Road and King’s Hedges Road junctions.  This includes:

(i)         a single bus lane for the length of Milton Road in the direction of travel leading up to junctions;

(ii)        segregated cycle lanes on each side of the road with additional on-pavement two directional cycling on the west side of Milton Road from Arbury Road to Gilbert Road;

(iii)       mature tree planting and green landscaping within the highway throughout the route;

(iv)       further investigation of options for Highworth Avenue roundabout ideas to evidence the benefits of any scheme and address the concerns of residents.

(c)        agree to consider major changes to the highway layout at the Mitcham’s Corner junction for implementation as part of the ongoing tranche 2 prioritisation work;

(d)        note the further technical work that would be undertaken over the summer period;

(e)        support the development of traffic management measures to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

To consider the attached report.

The Joint Assembly RECOMMENDED that the Executive Board:

(a)        Notes the results and key issues arising from the public consultation.

(b)        Increases the funding allocated to the schemes due to the expansion of scope.

(c)        Continues localised discussions over trees, hedges and boundaries.

(d)        Gives approval to implement all five schemes, subject to a few minor changes and areas where some further consultation is required, as pert the summary table set out in the report.

(e)        Delegates approval of detailed final scheme layouts to the Executive Director of Economy, Transport and Environment at Cambridgeshire County Council, in consultation with the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Executive Board.

The Joint Assembly considered a report which summarised the results of public recommendations and proposed next steps in respect of cross city cycling improvement schemes.

Mike Davies, Team Leader (Cycling Projects) at Cambridgeshire County Council, provided the Joint Assembly with a brief presentation, setting out details of the following cycling improvement schemes:

·         Fulbourn Road and Cherry Hinton eastern access;

·         Hills Road and Addenbrooke’s corridor;

·         links to east Cambridge and national cycle route 11;

·         Arbury Road;

·         links to Cambridge North Station and the Science Park.

The presentation included photographs and plans associated with each scheme.

Councillor Noel Kavanagh referred to paragraph 15 of the report and a survey that had been undertaken, seeking clarity as to how that was carried out.  Mr Davies confirmed that a combination of surveys had been undertaken to gather this data and that they would continue to be held in order to establish how people were accessing the city.

The Joint Assembly unanimously RECOMMENDED that the Executive Board:

(a)        Notes the results and key issues arising from the public consultation.

(b)        Increases the funding allocated to the schemes due to the expansion of scope.

(c)        Continues localised discussions over trees, hedges and boundaries.

(d)        Gives approval to implement all five schemes, subject to a few minor changes and areas where some further consultation is required, as pert the summary table set out in the report.

(e)        Delegates approval of detailed final scheme layouts to the Executive Director of Economy, Transport and Environment at Cambridgeshire County Council, in consultation with the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Executive Board.

To consider the attached report.

The Joint Assembly RECOMMENDED that the Executive Board:

(a)        Notes the work completed to date to provide a cycle link from Cambridge to Melbourn.

(b)        Approves the use of £550,000 of City Deal funding to complete the link.

The Joint Assembly considered a report which set out how a significant and valuable part of the Cambridge to Royston cycleway route, namely Cambridge to Melbourn, could be completed, resulting in major economic benefits being realised in the short term.

Mike Davies, Team Leader (Cycling Projects) at Cambridgeshire County Council, provided the Joint Assembly with a brief presentation which provided photographs of how the route was expected to look upon completion of the scheme, together with maps and plans showing the route itself, as well as a plan of a proposed bridge over the A505.  He highlighted that the bridge would be funded via a regional growth bid through the Local Enterprise Partnership.

Councillor Maurice Leeke said that this was a very valuable link and that any support that this Assembly could give to the Local Enterprise Partnership in respect of funding the bridge, which he felt was crucial, would be very appropriate. 

Councillor Noel Kavanagh fully endorsed this expenditure and paid tribute to County Councillor Susan Van De Ven who had championed this scheme for a number of years.  He said that this scheme would result in a huge return for people living in settlements along the route.

The Joint Assembly unanimously RECOMMENDED that the Executive Board:

(a)        Notes the work completed to date to provide a cycle link from Cambridge to Melbourn.

(b)        Approves the use of £550,000 of City Deal funding to complete the link.

To consider the attached report.

The Joint Assembly RECOMMENDED that the Executive Board:

(a)        Requests the improvement of the City Deal Urban and Environmental Design Guidance document.

(b)        Requires that the document is proactively used and reference by project managers during the development of relevant City Deal transport projects.

(c)        Requests that the document is updated periodically to reflect any significant changes in highway and planning design policy.

(d)        Requests officers to investigate the process of all future City Deal schemes being considered by the Cambridgeshire Quality Design Panel.

(e)        Requests officers to investigate the introduction of a facility that invites members of the public to provide photographs of aspirational ideas and ideas to be avoided for a website-based montage.

Councillor Roger Hickford, Chairman, opened the item by inviting those members of the public who had given notice to put forward questions to the Joint Assembly.  Questions were therefore asked and answered, as follows:

Question by Jean Glasberg

Jean Glasberg asked whether the City Deal would be conducting a skills analysis to ensure that the teams who would deliver this programme had the full range of competencies necessary to deliver good placemaking and sustainable development, as well as functional transport infrastructure.

Bob Menzies, Director of Strategy and Development at Cambridgeshire County Council, said that the City Deal partnership had a range of skills available within all three partner Councils and that consultants could also be appointed as and when required.

Question by Penny Heath

Penny Heath asked why the City Deal did not set up a Design Panel, like the Design and Conservation Panel such as that used by the City Council’s planning department and in line with principles of Cambridgeshire Quality Charter for Growth.  She was also concerned that the document did not include enough reference to Cambridge’s heritage.

Mr Menzies reported that Cambridge’s historic environment sites were clearly covered by other policy documents at the County Council.  In respect of the City Council’s Design Panel, he explained that City Deal highways projects came under a different legislative framework to that of the planning application process.

Question by Nichola Harrison

Nichola Harrison did not think that the proposed Design Guidance document did enough to protect and enhance Cambridge’s environment and community life, stating that it needed to develop as a locally relevant, flexible and practical tool.  She felt that this could be achieved through a website where people could upload photographs and discuss design issues.  She therefore asked the Joint Assembly to recommend to the Executive Board that it adopts a method, perhaps a website, which got the public involved in developing the document as a tool that inspired very high design standards in all City Deal schemes.

Councillor Hickford made the point that this issue was likely to be debated as part of consideration of the item.

Glen Richardson, Urban Design and Conservation Manager at Cambridge City Council, and Andrew Cameron, Director or Urban Design at WSP consultants, presented a report which set out the principles to be followed and guidance that should be taken into account during the development of City Deal transport infrastructure projects on the major roads into Cambridge and city centre access routes.  A copy of the proposed guidance document was appended to the report which officers took Members through as part of a presentation.

The Joint Assembly was asked to recommend that the Executive Board:

(a)        endorses the City Deal Urban and Environmental Design Guidance document;

(b)        requires that the document is proactively used and referenced by project managers during the development of relevant City Deal transport projects;

(c)        requests that the document is updated periodically to reflect any significant changes in highway and planning design policy.

Councillor Bridget Smith was very  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.

To consider the attached report.

The Joint Assembly NOTED the City Deal progress report.

The Joint Assembly considered the City Deal progress report. 

Tanya Sheridan, City Deal Programme Director, presented the report and highlighted the programme plan that was now in place for the infrastructure programme.  She also highlighted that the City Deal website was in the process of being improved, encouraging all Members of the Joint Assembly to use it. 

It was noted that the Local Development Plan examination had recommenced.

The Joint Assembly NOTED the City Deal progress report.

To consider the Forward Plan for the City Deal Executive Board.  The document is purposely marked with tracked changes to reflect updates since the last meeting.

The Joint Assembly NOTED the City Deal Forward Plan.

The Joint Assembly NOTED the City Deal Forward Plan.