Agenda item

A14 Improvements: Response to Highways Agency Consultation

Decision:

Cabinet AGREED:

 

(a)        the response to the A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon Improvement Scheme set out in paragraphs 15-17, 20-22, 26-28, 32, 34, 38-39, 41 and 43-47 of the report, subject to a number of amendments as reflected in the minutes.

 

(b)        that delegated authority be given to the Director of Planning and New Communities in consultation with the Leader and Portfolio Holder for Northstowe, to finalise the response to the Highways Agency in line with the amendments agreed and comments raised at the meeting, as reflected in the minutes.

Minutes:

Cabinet considered a report which provided Members with an opportunity to agree the Council’s response to the Highways Agency Development Consent Order Pre-Application Statutory Consultation on the A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon Improvement Scheme.

 

In presenting the report, Councillor Wotherspoon, Portfolio Holder for Northstowe, referred to paragraph 8 which set out a brief summary of the history of the A14 improvement scheme.  Members were reminded that the project had been classified by the Planning Act 2008 as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project which would require a Development Consent Order application, anticipated in autumn 2014.  There would be an opportunity for the Council to comment on the application at the pre-examination stage and it was anticipated that construction of the scheme would commence in late 2016, taking three to four years to complete.

 

Councillor Wotherspoon informed Cabinet that the proposed improvement scheme remained similar to that of the version subject to consultation in 2013 but some key differences, including the removal of tolling, were listed in paragraph 12 of the report. 

 

In terms of modelling, Councillor Wotherspoon reported that the core transport modelling used to test the impacts of the proposed scheme took account of developments defined as ‘near certain’ or ‘more than likely’ according to Department of Transport guidelines.  This meant that only the first 1,500 dwellings featured in phase one of the Northstowe development had been included in the modelling, and other emerging developments such as those included in the Submission Local Plan had not been included in this forecast.  The Council’s draft response insisted that the A14 improvement scheme should support the delivery of Northstowe.  It reminded the Highways Agency that by the time the A14 improvement scheme was under construction, phase two of Northstowe would also be underway so it was important that the A14 was constructed to accommodate it.  In addition, the draft response stated that traffic modelling should include the developments identified in the Submission Local Plan at Bourn Airfield, Cambourne West and Waterbeach, with the design and implementation of the proposed scheme being coordinated with these planned developments.

 

An email was circulated at the meeting from Councillor Francis Burkitt, suggesting some amendments to the Council’s draft response, namely in relation to non-motorised user provision.  Cabinet agreed with the principle of Councillor Burkitt’s email regarding his request for the scheme to include a high standard of non-motorised user provision, particularly relating to minimum widths for cycleways, physical separations and hard surfacing.  It was agreed that these points would be strengthened in the Council’s final response to the consultation, although Members noted that hard surfacing would not always be appropriate, for example, in areas where there were countryside bridleways. 

 

Councillor Burkitt also referred to the A1307 Huntingdon Road immediately southwest of the Girton Interchange, highlighting that it would not be safe or easy for pedestrians or cyclists to cross it at this point.  He questioned whether the Highways Agency could address this problem with the introduction of a pedestrian and cycleway across the Huntingdon Road.  It was reported that a toucan crossing was due to be installed in very close proximity to this location as part of a separate scheme relating to the Cambridge North West development.  The need for the two schemes to be coordinated was highlighted. 

 

Councillor Aiden van de Weyer presented a briefing note which included path specifications for non-motorised users, specific proposals relating to the Bar Hill junction, proposals for local road roundabouts and information on Dry Drayton bridge, together with examples of good practice relating to the location and design of non-motorised user routes.  He felt that the Highways Agency was missing the opportunity to implement an exemplary project of non-motorised user provision, particularly in view of South Cambridgeshire having the highest cycling rate of any other rural district in the country by a very high margin.  Councillor Van de Weyer wanted to see the scheme encourage cycling and other modes of sustainable transport, which should not only comply to national standards but exceed them and be right for the local context.  He added that the Council in its response should be pressing for provision of the highest quality in this respect.  Cabinet agreed to strengthen the wording of the Council’s response in terms of the highest quality of provision for non-motorised users in light of Councillor Van de Weyer’s comments.

 

The following further points were made by Cabinet and other Members of the Council in attendance:

 

·         the draft response in paragraph 16 of the report indicated that the Council supported the detrunking of the route between Fen Drayton and the A1.  This would leave the County Council with full maintenance responsibilities for the detrunked road thereby imposing an extra cost to the authority, when it was felt that this cost should be met by the Highways Agency.  It was noted that the County Council had supported this aspect of the improvement scheme, which Cabinet Members could not understand.  It was agreed that the words “and detrunking of the route between Fen Drayton and the A1” be removed from the Council’s response to the consultation at paragraph 16 of the report;

·         in terms of standards and quality of non-motorised user provision, the Council had to be cautious when specifically requesting minimum standards and should be looking for the best possible standards in each respective case;

·         the Jane Coston Cycle Bridge in Milton and the Guided Bus Way were cited as examples of excellent practice for non-motorised user provision;

·         if sub-standard provision was put in place for non-motorised users, people would simply not use it;

·         from the perspective of non-motorised users, the proposed route at Bar Hill did not make much sense and could result in main roads being used instead.  It was important to keep non-motorised users off the main roads as part of the improvement scheme, so their design was very important and would need to take account of where users were likely to be travelling from and to; 

·         it was very disappointing that only the first phase of Northstowe had been included in the modelling for the improvement scheme.  The second phase at Northstowe would be in the process of being constructed at the same time as the A14 was being developed, so it was unrealistic not to consider this as part of the modelling.  Cabinet agreed that this message needed to be made very clear in the Council’s response;

·         the mitigation for villages and wildlife in this revised improvement scheme was much better than in the previous version;

·         a condition should be put in place as robustly as possible to ensure that borrow pits were returned to agricultural use.

 

Cabinet AGREED:

 

(a)        the response to the A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon Improvement Scheme set out in paragraphs 15-17, 20-22, 26-28, 32, 34, 38-39, 41 and 43-47 of the report, subject to a number of amendments as reflected in the minutes.

 

(b)        that delegated authority be given to the Director of Planning and New Communities in consultation with the Leader and Portfolio Holder for Northstowe, to finalise the response to the Highways Agency in line with the amendments agreed and comments raised at the meeting, as reflected in the minutes.

Supporting documents: