Agenda, decisions and minutes

Greater Cambridge Partnership Executive Board - Wednesday, 25 January 2017 4.00 p.m.

Venue: The Council Chamber, South Cambridgeshire Hall, Cambourne

Contact: Democratic Services  03450 450 500 Email:

No. Item


Apologies for Absence


There were no apologies for absence. The University of Cambridge provided the following comment on its absence at the Board meeting and its plans to appoint a new Executive Board member:

“The University is committed to its partnership with the City Deal and looks forward to continuing to bring its contribution and expertise to secure the right infrastructure improvements for Greater Cambridge. The University is currently searching for the most appropriate representative to sit on the City Deal Executive Board in place of Professor Slater. As this process is ongoing, there will be no University representative on the City Deal Board meeting on 25th January”.


Declarations of Interest


There were no declarations of interest.


Minutes of the Previous Meeting pdf icon PDF 197 KB

The Executive Board are invited to agree the minutes of the previous meeting held on 8 December 2016.


The minutes of the meeting held on 8 December 2016 were agreed as a correct record.


Questions from Members of the Public pdf icon PDF 360 KB

Additional documents:


The Chairman clarified the Executive Board’s Standing Orders regarding public questions since these had been modified by the three City Deal partner councils. The changes had been made to improve the handling of public questions. The key things to be aware of were:

·         That public questions needed to be received by 10am three working days before the relevant meeting.

·         There was a suggested limit of 300 words to a question.

·         Questions should relate to items on the agenda for discussion although the Chairman had discretion to accept questions that did not relate to agenda items.

The Chairman pointed out that he had exercised his discretion at this meeting to accept several questions that did not relate to agenda items, as did the Joint Assembly Chairman at the meeting which took place on 18th January 2017. Flexibility had also been shown on word limit as this was the first meeting since the changes had been made. The Chairman stated that the Standing Orders would be applied more rigorously for future meetings. Chairman’s discretion would continue to be used to allow questions relating to items that were not on the agenda and that were not programmed for future agendas, that were considered of particular importance to address. This sought to fairly balance the public’s right to participate with the need to carry out business efficiently and effectively. He also said he had offered to meet people from Coton who had asked specific questions, to hear their concerns.


The Chairman set out the order of public questions, with questions addressing the same issues being grouped together and a collective response given. Other questions would be taken under the relevant agenda item.


Councillor Susan van de Ven was invited to speak and addressed the Executive Board with the following statement:


“The A10 Cambridge-Royston cycle scheme is continuing to attract match funding opportunities. As you know, the scheme has already received several lots of Department for Transport Cycling Ambition match funding, totalling £2.5 million, plus one lot of City Deal funding, totalling £550K.

AstraZeneca, whose employees living along the A10 will use the cycle path to get to work in Cambridge, has committed two years’ worth of funding to maintain the path over and above what Cambridgeshire County Council can afford, in order to ensure a high standard.

A grant from the Department for Transport Local Sustainable Transport Fund to carry out a Personalized Travel Planning exercise has already evidenced modal shift away from single car use.
All of this match funding has enabled most of what is a shovel-ready scheme to be delivered quickly. The City Deal-funded segment will be completed in February and a local business has offered to host and provide refreshments for the grand opening in March.
In order to complete the scheme we must find a way of funding the Melbourn-Royston missing link, which traverses the Hertfordshire border. The Greater Cambridgeshire/Greater Peterborough Local Enterprise Partnership, which includes North Hertfordshire in its economic zone, discussed the case for funding  ...  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:

 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 City Deal Executive Board  NOTED the petitions received by the City Deal Joint Assembly.


Councillor Hickford fed back that the Joint Assembly had received and considered petitions against Peak Congestion Control Points and against Adams Road forming part of the Cambourne to Cambridge bus route. The City Deal Executive Board  NOTED the petitions received by the City Deal Joint Assembly.


Forward Plan pdf icon PDF 94 KB


The Executive Board NOTED the City Deal Forward Plan and asked that the following items be added:

·         To the June 2017 agenda – progress implementing the Mouchel report.

·         To the July or September 2017 agenda – Cambridge City Access..


The City Deal Programme Director presented the City Deal Forward Plan, which the  Executive Board NOTED. The Board asked that the following items be added to the Forward Plan:

·         To the June 2017 agenda – progress implementing the Mouchel report.

·         To the July or September 2017 agenda – Cambridge City Access.


It was noted that the three City Deal partner councils would be looking at the new homes bonus, which would impact on City Deal budgets.


In response to clarification being sought by the Vice-Chairman, the Executive Board was informed that:

·         Rural transport hubs would be put forward for a decision in March 2017.

·         Cambourne to Cambridge would come forward in July 2017.

·         Follow up conversations were taking place with Highways England regarding the Western Orbital.


Reports and recommendations from the Joint Assembly

Councillor Roger Hickford, Chairman of the Greater Cambridge City Deal Joint Assembly provided an update following the Joint Assembly meeting which had taken place on 25th January 2017.


Councillor Hickford advised that the way in which petitions were dealt with be reviewed as it was difficult for the Joint Assembly to respond. Councillor Hickford felt that petitioners were looking for a response from the Executive Board. The Chairman of the Executive Board agreed that this would be looked into.


Councillor Hickford provided a written update following the Joint Assembly, copies of which were submitted to Board members at the meeting.


City Access Congestion Reduction Proposals: Consultations Responses and Next Steps pdf icon PDF 1 MB

Additional documents:


The City Deal Executive Board:

a)            AGREED that:

              i.                Officers should work up and assess options for a package of physical demand management measures.

             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)            AGREED 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: NOTED that the Cambridge City Joint Area Committee (CJAC) recommended changes to parking policy in Cambridge. The Executive Board REQUESTED that officers bring forward a report on complementary measures to be implemented at the same time as changes to on street parking controls.

            iii.                Improved Public Space and Air Quality: AGREED 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 Bus Services and Expanded Park & Ride: AGREED  that officers should continue work to identify how to reduce bus delays on key bus routes by engaging bus operators and finalising the Bus Network Review.

            v.                Better Pedestrian and Cycling Infrastructure: AGREED that officers should continue  ...  view the full decision text for item 7.


Hilary Holden, City Access Programme, delivered a presentation to introduce the report which informed the Executive Board of 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.

Councillor Roger Hickford updated the Executive Board on the Joint Assembly’s views of the recommendations set out in the report:

·         There had been much debate by Joint Assembly members regarding omitting the word ‘physical’ from recommendation (a)(i) regarding physical demand management measures. A vote was taken on this, which was split six against and six in favour of removing the word ‘physical’. As the vote was split, the word ‘physical’ was not removed from the recommendation.

·         The Joint Assembly felt that there should be more evidence-based assessments by officers. Officers had agreed that there was more than enough data for them to assess and evidence desired access between destinations to create an overview of measures that would increase access while reducing congestion. This was incorporated by the Joint Assembly into a new recommendation (a)(ii).

·         There was concern from some Joint Assembly members that the workplace parking levy would be seen as another tax, urging care regarding what funds raised would be used for.

·         Regarding on-street parking controls, there was almost unanimous agreement that this should not proceed until there were mitigating alternatives in place for those currently driving into the city and parking. There was concern that rather than reducing vehicles in the city, this would lead to the dispersal of vehicles further out to avoid paying the high parking charges in the city. Councillor Hickford advised that the park and ride parking charge be removed as a key mitigation.

·         It was pointed out and noted by the Joint Assembly that smart technology consistently appeared at the bottom of lists and objectives, implying that it was an after thought and not as important as other measures. The Joint Assembly was a robust supporter of smart technology and requested as much emphasis as possible be put on this.

·         Councillor Hickford pointed out the Joint Assembly’s addition to recommendation (c)(iv) of ‘…and those impacted if changes are not made’, which was to emphasise that ‘doing nothing’ would have adverse consequences and that, in considering the consequences of actions, it was also important to look at the impacts of inaction.

Councillor Tim Bick was invited to speak and addressed the Board with the following points:

·         Councillor Bick asked the Board to envisage a scenario of bus services increasing by 50% with new services to the villages in and out of the city, bus fares being halved and the park and ride parking charge being removed. Councillor Bick advised that the only way of achieving this was with peak time congestion charging, the benefits of which he advised could be great if implemented with the revenue generated being used to fund better public transport and cycling infrastructure and to subsidise bus travel. He felt that no  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.


Change Control and Issue Management pdf icon PDF 151 KB


The City Deal Executive Board:

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

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


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


The City Deal Executive Board:

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

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


Progress Report pdf icon PDF 359 KB


The Executive Board NOTED the City Deal progress report.


Question from Richard Taylor

Richard Taylor read out his pre-submitted question regarding this agenda item:


“When the board next considers plans for Milton Road will it receive a report:
Collating the results of responses to the initial public consultation which ran until February 2016.

·         Identifying who attended the private workshop events, and the basis on which they were invited.

·         Addressing the 200 responses from 300 families to a Milton Road Primary School consultation on the Milton Road plans, and if the school representative reflected the views expressed when participating in the private workshops.

·         Clarifying if the report on private workshops stating: “The majority of attendees were keen to retain as much green verge and as many trees as possible”, is referring to the retention of the existing trees and verges?

I was surprised the public consultation responses do not appear to have been used to inform the private workshop events or the local liaison forum meetings. I would like to take this opportunity to stress to the Board that while the Milton Road Local Liaison Forum meetings took place in public they largely spent their time discussing arrangements for workshop sessions which then took place behind closed doors with selected invitees.

When the board next considers Milton Road will it formally endorse the letter dated 14 September 2016 from the board chair to the LLF and Assembly chairs?

Could a Local Liaison Forum (or Cambridge City Council North Area Committee) meeting be held between publication of the next City Deal Board report on Milton Rd and its consideration by the board so recommendations get discussed locally, by the area’s councillors, before decisions are made? Such a meeting could include a detailed public presentation of, and opportunity for the public to ask questions on, the LLF endorsed “Do Optimum” plan.”


In response to this question the following points were made:

·         A report would be presented to the Board in March 2017 looking at the outcomes of workshops and setting delivery priorities.

·         Milton Road Primary School’s views were taken into account in a report presented to the Board in June 2016 that summarised responses to the consultation on the Milton Road scheme in January and February 2016.

·         A local liaison forum (LLF) meeting was being arranged by the LLF Chair for 8 February 2017.

·         Whilst it was agreed that there should be openness and transparency, it was not felt necessary to hold local community workshops in the public gaze as this may stifle people’s contribution to these. The Executive Board Chairman paid tribute to the local work that had been done.


The Vice Chairman asked for an update on progress regarding the letter written to Heidi Allen MP regarding Foxton. The Board was informed that a letter in response had been received from Heidi Allen who was arranging a meeting with senior Network Rail staff. A further update was requested for the March 2017 meeting.


The Vice Chairman requested an update on progress regarding a letter sent to Highways England regarding the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.


Finance Monitoring pdf icon PDF 262 KB


The Executive Board NOTED the financial position for the period ending 31 December 2016.


The Executive Board NOTED the financial position for the period ending 31 December 2016.


Date of the Next Meeting

The next meeting will be held on 8 March 2017 at 4pm in the Council Chamber at Shire Hall.


The date of the next meeting, to be held on 8 March 2017 at 4pm, was noted.