Agenda, decisions and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Mark Robertson, Helen Valentine and Councillor David Baigent.

There were no declarations of interest.

The Assembly are invited to agree the minutes of the last meeting held on 1 December 2016.

The minutes of the meeting held on Thursday 1 December 2016 were agreed as a correct record, subject to the following amendment:

·         Agenda Item 8 M11 Junction 11: Bus only slip roads:

o   ‘AstraZeneca already had 2000 employees located on the site…’ would be amended to ‘AstraZeneca would have 2000 employees located at the site’.

The Chairman reported that a significant number of questions had been submitted by members of the public. Questions that did not relate to an item on the agenda but had been ruled in by the Chair would be taken under agenda item 4 with others being addressed at the relevant agenda item. Due to there being multiple questions which related to the same issues, the Chairman decided that questions would be grouped by issue and a collective response given for each group of questions. He expressed regret that due to the volume of questions, speakers whose questions had been grouped were requested to ask their questions in one minute each just for this meeting.

The following questions by Carolyn Postgate, Alistair Burford, Stephen Coats and Chris Pratten were grouped together:

Question by Carolyn Postgate

At the Joint Assembly meeting on 29 September 2016, you committed to making a decision on your preferred Park & Ride locations, 1, 2, 3 and Scotland Farm. You asked the officers to produce a side-by-side analysis of the sites so that you could make an informed decision. My questions are:

a.    When Andy Williams of AstraZeneca asked for a simple side-by-side analysis, why did the officers not disclose to the Assembly the Atkins Report on Park & Ride locations dated September 2015?

b.    Has the Assembly had sight of the Atkins Report before now?

c.    Given the strength of feeling against site 3 on 29 September, does the Assembly have the courage to recommend that site 3 should be excluded from further consideration?

Question by Alistair Burford

a.    Given that the officers state that the Atkins report ‘informed the consultation’ that was carried out in late 2015, why was site 3, Crome Lea Farm not disclosed as part of the public consultation?

b.    Does the Assembly think that if the Crome Lea had been clearly identified at the public consultation that the objections to the site would have been far greater?

c.    I have concerns about the report that was sent to me. I have made further Freedom of Information requests in an attempt to retrieve the original version and the revised version of the report, but my requests have not been successful. Could officers explain why the reports have been withheld?

d.    As the consultation excluded some vital information about the location of site three, does the Assembly agree that the consultation conducted in November 2015 was flawed and failed to meet the principles of a fair and transparent consultation?

Question by Stephen Coates

Mr Coates expressed disagreement with a time limit of one minute to ask a question, stating that this limited the community’s right to speak. The Chairman pointed out that he had used Chairman’s discretion to allow public questions which did not relate to items on the Joint Assembly meeting’s agenda, but on reflection thought it might be best to focus on questions related directly to the agenda for future meetings. The Chairman pointed out that he tried to be inclusive and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

The following petition has been received:

Your proposal to close key roads to private vehicles in Cambridge at peak hours will have a seriously negative impact on residents, businesses and commuters in the city and surrounding area.

We oppose these proposals because they will:

·         have an arbitrary and unfair impact on some people because of where they live or work; 

·         displace traffic from some roads onto others, resulting in longer and more time-consuming journeys

·         threaten the livelihood of businesses by limiting customer access and deliveries during normal business hours

·         increase fuel use, resulting in higher cost to the motorist and more air pollution and carbon emissions

·         seek to force travellers to use public transport without adequate steps to improve its affordability and accessibility.

·         We believe that you should invite responses not only to your preferred solution to the congestion problem, but to the range of possible alternatives, equally and objectively presented.

4,057 people have signed online (see: http://www.stopcambridgeroadclosures.co.uk/)

 and 712 people have signed a paper copy agreeing with the following statement:

"I call for a halt to the City Deal's plan for road closures in Cambridge, and for the opening up of a wider, fairer consultation that includes all options to tackle congestion."

The Joint Assembly NOTED the petitions received from Stop Cambridge Road Closures, the North Newnham Residents Association and Keep Cambridge Open for Business.

Petitions were presented on the proposals for Peak Congestion Control Points that had formed part of the Cambridge access consultation by Stop Cambridge Road Closures and Keep Cambridge Open for Business. These were to be considered further under agenda item 7, where the Cambridge Access proposals would be discussed. The Chairman decided that Patrick von Heimendahl’s question on small business representation, asked when he presented the latter petition, should receive a written answer.

The Joint Assembly also received and noted a petition from the North Newnham Residents Association against Adams Road as part of the proposed Cambourne to Cambridge bus route. The Joint Assembly NOTED the petition and that it would consider a further report on the Cambourne to Cambridge proposals inJuly 2017.

The Joint Assembly NOTED the City Deal Forward Plan.

Question from Robin Heydon

We are concerned that the forward plan shows a March agenda item for the City Deal design guide but we have not seen any consultation on this document or any process for commenting on it. Could you inform the public how they should comment on this document such that the comments can be considered before the March meetings.

The City Deal Programme Director explained that there had not been a public consultation as the Environmental Design Guidance just captured existing key local policies and guidance, rather than setting any new ones. She assured Mr Heydon that reference would be made to the Department for Transport guidance on cycle infrastructure.

The City Deal Programme Director presented the City Deal Forward Plan, which the Joint Assembly NOTED.

The Joint Assembly RECOMMENDED that the Executive Board:

a)    Agrees that :

                      i.        Officers should work up and assess options for a package of physical demand management measures.[i] (please see footnote i at the end of this decision notice)

                     ii.        Officers should assess existing data and evidence of desired access between destinations to create an overview of measures that will increase access while reducing congestion.

                    iii.        Physical demand measures should make the best use of the limited road space and capacity in Cambridge, in order to improve bus reliability, cycling and walking, particularly within the designated Air Quality Management Area.

                   iv.        No further work is undertaken on the package of six peak-time congestion control points consulted upon.

b)    Agrees that officers should continue to work up and assess options for the other seven elements of the eight-point plan consulted on, including:

                      i.        A Workplace Parking Levy: Co-design a workplace parking levy (WPL) scheme with employers with more detail available for Board and public review later in 2017:

1.To work with individual employers and groups of employers during 2017 on the details of the scheme.

2.To determine the local transport priorities that will receive the revenue raised, building on employer evidence of transport needs and coordinated with Council infrastructure planners.

3.To be coordinated with and if feasible form a part of the City Deal and the Local Enterprise Partnership’s broader engagement with the business community.

4.The roll-out to include practical support for employers looking to manage their parking demand in advance of the levy coming into effect.

5.It is recommended that as far as possible, the Cambridge WPL should resemble the Nottingham template. However, there will need to be agreement on how to charge, the price, its geographical extent, exemptions and how it will be administered and enforced.

                     ii.        On-Street Parking Controls: Note that the Cambridge City Joint Area Committee (CJAC) is considering whether to recommend changes to parking policy in Cambridge and subject to business case, the City Deal would fund consultation on new residents’ parking zones and the costs of implementation. Although the Assembly NOTED this potential action, it DID NOT SUPPORT IT. The Assembly considered this should not go ahead until there was mitigating alternatives in place to counter the potential displacement of vehicles.

                    iii.        Improved Public Space and Air Quality: Agrees that officers should:

1.Assess the possibility of establishing a Clean Air Zone and the potential for the introduction of a pollution charge in central Cambridge within the existing Air Quality Management Area. Key criteria for assessing this should be its impacts on: health; the local environment, including air quality and public realm; bus reliability and cycling; business and the economy; deliverability and value for money.

2.Ensure that initiatives to improve city centre access should continue to consider opportunities for improving the city centre experience and economy and that this should be coordinated with other work across the Partnership that has similar objectives, including planning policy.

                   iv.        Better  ...  view the full decision text for item 7.

Hilary Holden (City Access Programme) presented the report which set out the results from the consultation on Tackling Peak-Time Congestion in Cambridge, which were informing the work of the City Access project team and influencing the emerging work programme. The purpose of the report was to agree next steps on the city access work following the consultation, in line with the project objectives and scope agreed in January and June 2016.

The following public questions were addressed under this agenda item:

Question from Dr Joanna Gomula

Dr Gomula was not present at the meeting.

Question from Cathy Mitchell

Ms Mitchell was not present at the meeting.

Question from Aylmer Johnson

It is encouraging to see that the Council’s City Deal includes plans for orbital bus routes, which will greatly improve the city’s public transport network. However the main benefit will only be realised if the existing radial routes are made straighter and if ‘oyster’ cards are introduced to allow all passengers to change buses easily.

In response to this question, Mr Johnson was informed that:

·         The City Deal Executive Board had considered options for further investment in smart technologies in July 2016 and work to look at barriers to integrated ticket purchasing  had been commissioned. An initial report was expected in February 2017.

·         Improving bus and cycling infrastructure on radial routes was a key part of the overall transport programme and part of the proposed delivery plan for better buses.

Question from Robin Pellew on behalf of Cambridge Past, Present and Future

Will the City Deal Assembly recommend that the Executive Board should instruct officers to work up the measures in the proposed Access and Congestion package as proposed in agenda item 7, whilst at the same time ask the Board to elaborate what this pollution charge comprises and how it would be applied?

In response to this question, Mr Pellew was informed that:

·         Officers were recommending that physical demand measures be looked at further, with work continuing on this.

·         A congestion charge was not being recommended as a priority, given question marks around its deliverability.

·         It was pointed out that there was no congestion charge in any city outside London.

·         A pollution charge also had a deliverability risk and required the sign off of the Secretary of State for Transport. It was highlighted that a pollution charge was not the only way to deliver a clean air zone. The report recommended work on the feasibility of a clean air zone, in the light of consultation feedback that tackling congestion also provided an opportunity to address air quality issues.

Question from Robin Heydon

Doesn’t the Hills Road cycle scheme prove that when high quality cycling facilities are provided that they will be used? When will the City Deal extend these benefits to other main roads, and reallocate road space on other main roads for people walking and cycling?

In response to his question, Mr Heydon was informed that:

·         These benefits would be sought to be extended to other main roads  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

The Joint Assembly RECOMMENDED that the Executive Board:

a)    Notes and endorses the codification of the principles used in the City Deal for change control and issue management.

b)    Agrees the proposed approach for reporting issues and change control.

The City Deal Programme Director presented the report which set out the approach to change control and issue management across the City Deal programme.

The Joint Assembly RECOMMENDED that the Executive Board:

a)    Notes and endorses the codification of the principles used in the City Deal for change control and issue management.

b)    Agrees the proposed approach for reporting issues and change control.

The Joint Assembly NOTED the City Deal progress report.

The City Deal Programme Director presented the City Deal progress report.

Councillor Susan van de Ven was invited to speak in relation to this item. Councillor van de Ven informed the Joint Assembly that in relation to the Cambridge to Royston cycle scheme, the Local Enterprise Partnership Board supported multi-agency funding of the route to complete the scheme from Melbourn to Royston. Councillor van de Ven was bringing this to the Joint Assembly’s attention as the Executive Board would be asked to join the Local Enterprise Partnership to fund the Melbourn to Royston link, at its meeting on 25 January 2017.

The Joint Assembly NOTED the City Deal progress report and Councillor van de Ven’s update.

The Joint Assembly NOTED the financial position for the period ending 31 December 2016.

Consideration was given to the Greater Cambridge City Deal’s financial monitoring position for the period ending 31 December 2016. The Finance Director’s delegated powers had been used to authorise costs of procuring the services of an Interim Chief Executive. Cllr Bick stated that he disagreed with the way the procurement of the Interim Chief Executive had been handled; he felt that it had been known about before the last Joint Assembly meeting and the Joint Assembly should have been made aware earlier.

The Joint Assembly NOTED the financial position for the period ending 31 December 2016.

The next meeting will be held on 1 March 2016 at 2pm in the Kreis Viersen Room at Shire Hall.

The date of the next meeting, to be held on 1 March 2016 at 2pm, was noted.