Venue: Council Chamber - South Cambs Hall. View directions
Contact: Democratic Services 03450 450 500 Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
There were no apologies for absence.
Declarations of Interest
Christopher Walkinshaw declared a non-pecuniary interest in relation to agenda item 10 as he was employed by Marshalls of Cambridge on Cambridge Road.
Andy Williams declared a non-pecuniary interest in relation to agenda item 9 (West of Cambridge Package (M11/Junction 11 Park and Ride)) as AstraZeneca would be moving to the Biomedical Campus.
Joint Assembly Membership
Councillor Dave Baigent was welcomed back as a member of the Joint Assembly. The Chairman noted that Councillor Baigent had replaced Councillor Kevin Price as a City Council representative on the Joint Assembly and, on behalf of the Joint Assembly, recorded thanks to Councillor Price for his contributions to the work of the GCP as a member of the Joint Assembly.
It was noted that Dr Wells would be continuing as a member of the Joint Assembly.
One public question had been received. Councillor Dr. Jocelynne Scutt was invited to ask her question which related to agenda item 11 (Place Based Public Engagement Strategy). The question and a summary of the response is provided at Appendix A to the minutes.
No petitions had been received.
A428 Cambourne to Cambridge Public Transport Scheme
This item has been deferred until the November meeting of the Joint Assembly and the Executive Board in December, to allow the completion of detailed technical work by the Combined Authority’s consultants. This is aimed at ensuring the scheme meets alignment requirements with the CAM network proposals and other criteria such as cost, deliverability and timing.
This item had been deferred until the November 2018 meeting of the Joint Assembly to allow the completion of detailed technical work by the Combined Authority’s consultants. This was aimed at ensuring the scheme met alignment requirements with the Cambridge Area Metro (CAM) network proposals and other criteria such as cost, deliverability and timing.
The Chairman reported apologies from the Chair of the Cambridge South East Transport Study Local Liaison Forum (LLF) who was unable to attend the meeting, but had asked for a statement to be read out on his behalf. It was noted that the LLF had met on 12 September 2018 and received a presentation on the paper being discussed by the Joint Assembly and Executive Board. The LLF had:
· Noted the outcomes of the consultation held early in 2018; and
· Broadly supported the further work proposed in relation to Strategy 1, but there had been some support for continuing to consider light rail and it had been noted that if Strategy 1 proved to be impractical, Strategies 2 and 3 remained on the table.
The GCP Transport Director presented the report which set out the GCP’s vision and objectives for public transport, the Cambridge South East Transport Study business case development work and the results of the public consultation undertaken at the end of 2017.
The GCP’s Transport Portfolio Holder informed the Joint Assembly that the LLF meetings which he had attended had expressed their general support for the proposals.
Regarding Haverhill to Linton, the Joint Assembly was made aware that West Suffolk aspired to enhance its highways capacity in that area, which did not align with the aspirations of the GCP to reduce congestion in Cambridge while highways enhancement would facilitate congestion reaching Cambridge more quickly. The GCP was working with West Suffolk on this.
The Joint Assembly discussed the report and made the following points:
· Councillor Williams pointed out the need to serve the key employment areas. He felt that Strategy 1 did not serve the Babraham Research Campus and stopped short of Granta Park. The proposed routing for Strategy 1 needed to set out how it would serve these sites to ensure the vision and objectives for public transport were achieved.
· Councillor Massey queried the safety considerations of segregated routes.
· Andy Williams suggested that the relationship between the Sanger Institute, Babraham Research Campus and Granta Park needed to be understood. He also queried how far the existing Babraham park and ride site would impact on the business case for having a transport scheme further out of the city.
· Christopher Walkinshaw observed that the report did not set out the need for the capacity for the mass transit scheme. He urged that this be picked up.
The proposals also needed to bear in mind the wider area and national highway network given that not everyone travelling from Haverhill wanted to come into Cambridge.
· Helen Valentine suggested that the overall benefit of the proposals had been underestimated. Cambridge South Station had not been taken into account and, if delivered, would increase the benefits significantly.
· Councillor Bick supported the positive direction of the proposals and welcomed the opportunity to tackle the environmental challenges and to enhance and improve the environment. He commented on the need to serve the key residential centres outside the city, such as Sawston, Stapleford and ... view the full minutes text for item 8.
The Joint Assembly considered the report which provided an update on the progress with the West of Cambridge package. It was noted that significant enhancement of park and ride capacity would still be needed in this location even if improvements were made to parking facilities at Foxton and Whittlesford.
The Joint Assembly was updated on work undertaken with the Combined Authority to ensure alignment of proposals and to avoid duplication. The report reflected and acknowledged the Combined Authority’s view that park and ride should be temporary in nature as other planned enhancements would in future remove the need for park and ride. It was hoped that park and ride could be enhanced by extending the existing park and ride site at Trumpington, or through provision of a new site to the west of the M11. The agreement of the Executive Board would be sought to go out to public consultation on the best location for the park and ride facility. It would also be necessary to consider the need for further interventions along Trumpington Road to enhance bus reliability into the city centre. This would support extending park and ride provision.
In discussing the report, Joint Assembly members made the following points:
· Councillor Williams queried why detailed origin and destination data on existing users of Trumpington park and ride was not in the report. This data was needed in order to support the assumptions being made.
· The Combined Authority’s desire for park and ride sites to be temporary in nature was acknowledged by Councillor Williams, however he pointed out that the sites would need to go through the planning process and this would require them to have proper road surfaces, lighting, drainage and facilities.
· Councillor Williams pointed out that Whittlesford was on the Liverpool Street line, which was not the best line for getting into London. In response, the Chairperson informed the Joint Assembly that the West Anglia Taskforce was working towards four tracking a short section of the Liverpool Street line to enhance capacity, which would enable better access to London.
· Councillor Williams commented that Whittlesford station might be attractive to people using Stansted Airport and suggested that if there was a park and ride facility at Whittlesford, people using the airport might park at the park and ride site as this was cheaper than parking at the airport.
· Councillor Williams expressed concern that parking for users of Cambridge South Station was not mentioned in the report. It was important to bear in mind that many people travelled from villages such as Fulbourn to Cambridge North Station as they found this more convenient than using Cambridge Station. The same would happen when Cambridge South Station opened. As Cambridge South Station would be served by the busway and rapid transit system, people would also use this station to access Cambridge City.
· Councillor Sollom echoed Councillor Williams’ earlier comments regarding the apparent lack of data analysis and the need to see quantification of the statements made in the report. ... view the full minutes text for item 9.
The GCP Transport Director presented the report which set out the emerging recommendations for the better public transport project for Waterbeach to the Science Park and East Cambridge corridors. These corridors had been identified by the Executive Board as a priority project for developing public transport, walking and cycling improvements that were linked to the development of proposals for a regional rapid mass transit solution.
The Joint Assembly discussed the report and commented as follows:
· Christopher Walkinshaw urged that consideration be given to those accessing Cambridge from outside the GCP area.
· Andy Williams strongly endorsed the suggestion to look at the areas which had not yet been looked at. There had been a lot of focus on the west and south west but there was a need to consider the east, south east and the north of the area. The Transport Director assured the Joint Assembly that the boundary issue was recognised and this emphasised the need to work closely with the Combined Authority.
· Councillor Williams pointed out that the boundary on the east side of the GCP’s area was very close to the city. Places on the east of the boundary such as Bottisham were as close to the city as places on the west such as Bourn, but were not covered by the GCP. He commented on the need for closer working with East Cambridgeshire District Council, pointing out that housing development in the District would generate commuter trips into Cambridge from the east side of the GCP’s boundary. The GCP had very limited input into these developments. There was a need to liaise with both East Cambridgeshire and Forest Heath District Councils to ensure a more joined up transport strategy.
· The Chairperson commented that according to the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Independent Economic Review (CPIER) report, East Cambridgeshire had demonstrated the fastest recent growth in Cambridgeshire.
· Councillor Wilson urged the GCP to take into account and engage with the communities along the A10. She referred to Cottenham, Willingham and Rampton in particular as they would be contributing to the congestion in the absence of any improvements to local public transport in this area. She pointed out that along this route many people had no alternatives than to use cars.
· Councillor Kavanagh commented that the report did not refer to the planned greenways route from Waterbeach to Cambridge which could accommodate cyclists.
· Councillor Bates requested that Joint Assembly Members be provided with links to existing reports about the work that had been undertaken on the A10 linking Kings Lynn to Cambridge and Ely to Cambridge. It was suggested that Joint Assembly Members should also be provided with a link to the report submitted to the County Council’s Economy and Environment Committee on the Waterbeach planning application.
In summing up the debate, the Chairperson referred to the general support expressed by the Joint Assembly for the emerging recommendations in the report. Members had however commented on the need for closer working with East Cambridgeshire District Council in the light of ... view the full minutes text for item 10.
The GCP Communications Manager presented a report which provided an update on proposals to refresh and improve the GCP’s Communications and Engagement Strategy. This built on experience to date, external reviews, including that carried out by The Consultation Institute, stakeholder feedback and in analysing the geography of multiple additional transport schemes. It proposed moving to a place based engagement model.
Joint Assembly members made the following comments:
· Councillor Massey expressed support for the proposals. She welcomed the use of social media and encouraged the use of better and more informative posters.
· Councillor Wilson informed the Joint Assembly that some communities, such as Cottenham for example, had no understanding of what the GCP schemes meant for their community. She pointed out that there had been engagement on rural travel hubs with Oakington residents but not with Cottenham residents. More engagement was needed with feeder villages such as Cottenham.
· Councillor Bick supported the proposals in the report but urged that engagement should not just tell communities what was happening; their input was needed to inform proposals. The Joint Assembly needed the views of the broader community to inform its discussions.
· Councillor Sollom pointed out the importance of community generated proposals and emphasised that communities needed to be brought along with the GCP.
· Councillor Topping pointed out the importance of keeping the public engaged in the work of the GCP.
· Helen Valentine, while agreeing with the proposals, raised concern about whether area meetings considering multiple topics at a meeting would get to the same level of detail that LLFs had and which had been beneficial to GCP projects to date. She also referred to the proposal on page 77 for LLF reports to be submitted to the Executive Board alongside Joint Assembly feedback and raised concern that input from LLFs might skip the Joint Assembly and go straight to the Executive Board. She felt it was important that the Joint Assembly was informed by the views of the LLFs when considering proposals.
· Jo Sainsbury supported the direction of the draft engagement calendar but raised concern that most consultation appeared to focus on transport. Communities also needed to be engaged in the wider aspects of the work of the GCP such as housing and skills.
· Councillor Wotherspoon highlighted the concern that LLFs had not had enough time to consider papers before Joint Assembly and Executive Board meetings. He supported them having more time to consider and discuss proposals and to form a community response to these.
The Communications Manager responded to the points raised by the Joint Assembly:
· With regard to the comments on lack of engagement with Cottenham, confirmed that she would make contact with Cottenham Parish Council.
· She clarified that the intention was not to bypass the Joint Assembly and take reports straight to the Executive Board, rather that a more formal report setting out LLF feedback would be submitted to the Board.
· The GCP did not want to lose local knowledge and local detail. Workshops on the detail of the schemes ... view the full minutes text for item 11.
County Councillor Susan van de Ven was invited to speak as local member on the A10 Melbourn to Royston cycle link. She updated the Joint Assembly on the progress made on the A10 cycle link, 75% of which was complete. The final segment to be completed would connect Melbourn to Royston. This would require a bridge with footings in two different counties. Hertfordshire County Council had funded a feasibility study and North Hertfordshire District Council had committed £55,000 towards funding the final section of the route. Big businesses were also contributing financially to this. The current position was very positive and Councillor van de Ven hoped that the GCP could push for the final stretch of the cycle route to be completed. The Chairman thanked Councillor van de Ven for her update.
The GCP’s Head of Strategy and Programme presented the report which updated the Joint Assembly on progress across the GCP programme.
In response to a question asked at the last meeting. The Joint Assembly was informed that smart panels had been situated in the following locations:
· The West Cambridge site (two panels)
· Shire Hall
· Cowley Road
· South Cambridgeshire Hall, Cambourne
· Anglia Ruskin University.
It was also intended to provide a smart panel at Cambridge North Station and discussions were taking place with the station’s operator about this.
Responding to a second question asked at the last meeting, the Joint Assembly was informed that data was not collected on the average age of apprentices. Information was collected by age ranges; 16-18, 19-24 and over 25s. In the previous financial year, 46.6% of apprentices were in the over 25s age category; 29% were in the 19-24 category and 24% were aged 16-18. It was noted that the GCP should be in a position to appoint an apprenticeships service provider in November 2018.
Joint Assembly members made the following comments:
· Councillor Massey informed officers that she had tried to use a wayfinder outside Cambridge Station but had been unable to find an option to change the language from English and had found that the map did not work. The direction sign was inaccurate and could mislead those that were not familiar with Cambridge. She referred to directional stones on the pavement in Peterborough and wondered if this was an option for Cambridge.
· Councillor Topping requested that further information be provided in the Transport Delivery Overview on the more immediate projects rather than detail about projects due in 2023.
· Regarding the Transport Delivery Overview, Heather Richards suggested it would be useful to see the projected design, construction and completion periods of the projects. This would enable the Joint Assembly to talk about the potential impact of projects and to enable a better view of the bigger picture.
· Councillor Bick queried what else was happening on skills in addition to the apprenticeships tender. In response to this the Joint Assembly was informed that the GCP was considering what else could be done on skills with the budget available, in addition to the ... view the full minutes text for item 12.
Date of Next Meeting
To note that the next meeting will take place at 2pm on Thursday 15th November 2018.
The Joint Assembly noted the next meeting would take place at 2.00 pm on Thursday 15 November 2018. It was anticipated that there could be considerable public interest in the items on the agenda and with that in mind it was agreed that the meeting would be held at South Cambridgeshire Hall in Cambourne.