Agenda item

To receive any questions from members of the public.  The standard protocol to be observed by public speakers is attached

Questions were asked and answered as follows:

Question by Jim Chisholm

Mr Chisholm set out the health benefits of walking and cycling and stated that they had not been included as part of the report or appendices published with the agenda for this meeting in respect of the prioritised infrastructure investment programme.  He therefore asked:

“Why were these benefits from such active travel not included in the assessment?”

Graham Hughes, Cambridgeshire County Council’s Executive Director of Economy, Transport and Environment, agreed that the health benefits of activities such as walking and cycling were well recognised and important.  He explained, however, that the purpose of the appraisal for the prioritised infrastructure investment programme was to focus on the economic dimension of the schemes as the City Deal was primarily about growing the local economy.  He emphasised that this approach in no way took away from those schemes any of the health benefits Mr Chisholm had referred to.

Question by Jim Chisholm

Mr Chisholm referred to the Chisholm Trail appearing high on the list of prioritised schemes.  Reflecting on the original Chisholm Trail, which took cattle to slaughter in Chicago, he understood that it was proposed for a different name to be used when submitting applications for funding.  Mr Chisholm therefore asked:

“Is there an agreement of the proposed formal name to be used, even if it fails to roll off the tongue in the same way as ‘Chisholm Trail’?”

Mr Hughes answered the question and recognised that there was a need to think of a more strategic sounding name for the scheme, especially since it involved bidding for money from the Government.  The revised name would need to reflect the characteristics of the scheme as well as making it clear what the scheme was seeking to deliver.

Question by Julian Huppert MP 

Julian Huppert, Member of Parliament for Cambridge, welcomed the City Deal as a huge opportunity but was particularly interested to know how the Joint Assembly and Executive Board would make sure it protected the character of Cambridge as well as support the sense of community that made Cambridge what it was.

He made specific reference to a scheme at Milton Road that had been included in the prioritised infrastructure investment programme and highlighted some sensitivities regarding historical proposals to cut down trees for the introduction of a dual-carriageway. Julian Huppert MP asked what assurances could be given for any proposals put forward to ensure that the tree-lined boulevard aspect of Milton Road would be kept in place.  He was also keen to ensure that any proposals did not sever communities, acknowledging how important it was to retain community interaction.

Mr Hughes responded by saying that the character of the area would be recognised and taken into account in the development of any proposals relating to the prioritised infrastructure schemes .  No proposals had currently been developed, but it was the intention, subject to the views of the Assembly and Executive Board, to take forward a process in relation to developing proposals for schemes that would be very consultative.  This would provide elected members and local communities with opportunities to engage with the development of proposals as they emerged.