Agenda, decisions and minutes

Greater Cambridge Partnership Executive Board - Friday, 15 January 2016 2.00 p.m.

Venue: Committee Rooms 1 and 2, The Guildhall, Cambridge

Contact: Graham Watts  03450 450 500 Email:

No. Item


Apologies for absence

To receive any apologies for absence.


An apology for absence was received from Councillor Steve Count (Cambridgeshire County Council).  Councillor Ian Bates was in attendance as his substitute.


Minutes of the previous meeting pdf icon PDF 208 KB

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


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


Declarations of interest

To receive any declarations of interest by Members of the Executive Board.


No declarations of interest by Members of the Board were made.


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.


The following questions or statements from members of the public, together with responses by Members of the Board or officers, were noted as follows:


1)         Dorcas Fowler


Dorcas Fowler spoke as a resident of Milton Road and said that the ideas put forward for Milton Road as part of the City Deal scheme were premised on the assumption that large numbers of people in the new developments, such as Waterbeach, would be adding to peak traffic.  She asked what evidence there was of growth of jobs in the City Centre as opposed to the periphery, such as on the Addenbrooke’s site.


Graham Hughes, Executive Director of Economy, Transport and Environment at Cambridgeshire County Council, made the point that people visited Cambridge for a variety of reasons and said that there was significant congestion both in the City Centre and radial routes, meaning that several issues would need addressing to improve access in and out of Cambridge. 


Mr Hughes said that a significant amount of new employment sites were planned as part of Cambridge City and South Cambridgeshire District Councils’ respective Local Development Plans.  Some of these sites were located on the periphery, but it was not always possible for people to travel around Cambridge to access them efficiently, resulting in people travelling through the City itself.  He also referred to the CB1 development at Cambridge Railway Station, which had seen a considerable rise in employment numbers.


Mr Hughes believed that there would be continued employment growth in the Greater Cambridge area, which he said was reflected in the proposals put forward as part of the City Deal package.


2)         Barbara Taylor


Barbara Taylor stated that proposals for structural changes to Milton Road and Histon Road were based on an initial technical study by external consultants and said that they would have been given a brief when they were commissioned by the City Deal Executive Board to undertake the work.  She asked where the brief had been published.


Mr Hughes said that the brief would be made available on the Greater Cambridge City Deal website.


3)         Lynn Hieatt


Lynn Hieatt referred to the Government’s official guidance on transport modelling and appraisal and the emphasis made throughout the City Deal programme that proposals for transport infrastructure must be evidence-based.  She said that, given the proposals for Milton Road, Histon Road and the A428 Madingley Road corridor had at their centre the introduction of separate bus-only lanes, residents were asking for the evidence that these measures were necessary and would work.  She asked for examples of where bus-only lanes had been successful and questioned when and where this evidence would be published.


Mr Hughes reflected on a number of examples he had given in the past in response to other public questions submitted to the Executive Board and Joint Assembly in respect of successful bus lane schemes.  He said that there were plenty of examples from around the world where significant changes to networks had led to a higher quality of service,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.


Reports and recommendations from the Joint Assembly pdf icon PDF 93 KB

Councillor Tim Bick, Chairman of the Joint Assembly, will be in attendance to present the recommendations from the meeting of the Joint Assembly held on 17 December 2015.


The Executive Board SUPPORTED, in principle, the production of an Environmental Design Guide to be used as a statement of environmental principles that should apply to City Deal transport infrastructure schemes.


Councillor Tim Bick, Chairman of the Joint Assembly, presented his report on the recommendations and key issues raised further to the meeting of the Assembly held on 17 December 2015.


Councillor Bick outlined the content of a public question that did not relate to any items on the agenda for the meeting of the Assembly, which focussed on engagement between the City Deal and other key external agencies such as Highways England and Network Rail.  Officers had agreed to provide and circulate an ‘engagement map’, which would assist with understanding the type of engagement that took place with agencies such as these, and on what subjects.


The Joint Assembly had received a presentation from Glenn Richardson, Urban Design and Conservation Manager at Cambridge City Council, and Andrew Cameron, Director of Urban Design at WSP Parsons Brinkerhoff consultancy on opportunities for public realm and landscaping enhancement within the City Deal.  Further to public questions received that related to this item, the Joint Assembly supported the development of an Environment Design Guide for City Deal infrastructure schemes.  It requested that officers be asked 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.  The Executive Board supported this approach as a statement of environmental principles that should apply to City Deal transport infrastructure schemes.


It was agreed that Councillor Bick would introduce his report on the Joint Assembly’s recommendations in relation to the tackling congestion call for evidence item under item 6 at this meeting.


At the request of the Executive Board, Mr Richardson provided Members with a version of the presentation the Joint Assembly had received at its meeting on 17 December 2015.  As part of the presentation, the following points were noted in respect of creating streets and how space could be allocated:


·         streets were persistent, hardly ever changed in their nature and held urban areas together, creating a sense of community;

·         street layout and dimensions remained constant over many centuries, with buildings changing rather than the streets they were built around;

·         roads facilitated movement and divided communities, whereas streets defined a place and helped create communities.  It was therefore streets rather than roads that the City Deal should be aiming to provide in residential areas.


Numerous visual examples, both national and international, were shown which provided before and after perspectives of where trees, greenery and sustainable urban drainage systems had been incorporated as part of street improvements.  This included indications of rationalisation of space, areas showing plenty of room for movement for all users, the greening of major arterial routes and ease of pedestrian movement.


Visual examples were also shown of successful models of sharing space on streets in terms of motorised vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians and highway features that were not ‘over-engineered’.  These included pedestrian first crossing points, gateways, courtesy crossings, pedestrian orientated design, two-way cycle paths, segregated cycle  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.


Tackling congestion: call for evidence pdf icon PDF 224 KB

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

Additional documents:


The Executive Board:


(a)        NOTED the summary of evidence received and the emerging key themes.


(b)        AGREED the criteria for assessment of the ideas and proposals submitted to reduce congestion by reducing traffic volumes, managing traffic differently and 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.


(c)        NOTED that the work referred to in resolution (b) would 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.


(d)        AGREED 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 be taken forward through those routes rather than through the Cambridge Access Study.


(e)        AGREED that the City Deal officer team bring forward plans for an early City-wide and City Centre package of congestion cutting measures informed by the call for evidence, covering each of the elements in table 2 of the report as well as continuing investigation on other options.


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 Executive Board that a further seven responses had been received in addition to the 77 responses set out in the report.  The main areas of focus had been captured in Appendix 1 of the report and were separated into the following categories:


·         demand management and fiscal measures;

·         technology;

·         public transport infrastructure and service improvements;

·         infrastructure improvements for active modes;

·         highway capacity enhancements;

·         behavioural change.


Mr Smith highlighted that officers had not yet had the opportunity to carry out any qualitative analysis of the information at this stage, but reported that all submissions were available for viewing on the Greater Cambridge City Deal website.  The report set out a proposed assessment criteria to be used with regard to the call for evidence submissions and proposals.  This would ensure that analysis supported City Deal objectives and consisted of the following criteria:


·         fairness;

·         effectiveness;

·         value for money;

·         economic impact;

·         dependencies and broader benefits;

·         implementation.


Councillor Lewis Herbert, Chairman of the Executive Board, took this opportunity to thank those who had contributed to the sessions. 


Councillor Ian Bates proposed an amendment to recommendation (b) of the report, to replace the word ‘or’ with ‘and’.  This was unanimously supported.


Councillor Tim Bick, Chairman of the Joint Assembly, presented the Assembly’s recommendations following consideration of the same report at its meeting on 17 December 2015.  He highlighted those issues raised as part of public questions received in respect of the item, as set out in his report, together with a list of comments made by Assembly Members in debating the contents of the officer’s report. 


Councillor Bick reported that officers were asked to clarify whether demand management was part of the strategy for the City Deal, further to which Graham Hughes, Executive Director of Economy, Transport and Environment at Cambridgeshire County Council, had confirmed that demand management had been part of the County Council’s strategies for the last ten years and was part of the current Long-Term Transport Strategy.  At the Assembly meeting he added that it was part of the City Deal strategy and had featured in the original pitches to Government, but also stated that a strategy based solely on demand management or solely on the provision of alternatives would not work and that a successful programme for the City Deal had to consist of both in order to alleviate Cambridge’s congestion problems. 


The Joint Assembly supported the recommendations set out in the report, subject to:


·         the addition of the words ‘subject to the inclusion of an additional criterion to assess environmental impact and design’ to recommendation (b);

·         the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.


Workstream update pdf icon PDF 81 KB

To consider a report by Tanya Sheridan, City Deal Programme Director.


The Executive Board NOTED the update.


The Executive Board considered a report which provided an update on each stream of the Greater Cambridge City Deal.


Tanya Sheridan, City Deal Programme Director, presented the update and reported that Claire Ruskin of the Cambridge Network had offered to attend a future meeting of the Executive Board to provide an update on delivery, to date, of the Cambridge Promotion Agency. 


It was also noted that an appointment was anticipated to be made in the near future to the Communications Manager vacancy.


The Executive Board NOTED the update.


Greater Cambridge City Deal Forward Plan pdf icon PDF 109 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’.


The Executive Board NOTED the City Deal Forward Plan.


The Executive Board NOTED the City Deal Forward Plan.