Agenda item

Public questions

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

Minutes:

Questions were asked and answered as follows:

 

Question by Antony Carpen

 

Mr Carpen asked:

 

“What conversations will the Executive be having with the Haverhill Rail Campaign and Suffolk and Essex County Councils regarding their highly advanced proposals to re-link Haverhill to Cambridge and further link it to Colchester and Chelmsford, making a possibility of direct rail services between two ARU campuses a possibility?”

 

Graham Hughes, Executive Director of Economy, Transport and Environment at Cambridgeshire County Council, highlighted that one of the potential schemes around the A1307 involved linking towards Haverhill, as he had outlined at the meeting of the Joint Assembly on 12 January 2015, and all options along the corridor would be explored as part of the scheme.  He added that this particular issue had been looked at over a number of years and some difficult practical issues to overcome had already been identified, but that discussions would continue to be held on this matter.

 

Question by Antony Carpen

 

Mr Carpen asked:

 

“I have not seen any publicity around explaining to people what this Board or the Assembly is – feedback on social media hasn’t been positive and has reflected lack of communications and democratic legitimacy.  Any comments?”

 

Councillor Lewis Herbert, Chairman, outlined that meetings of the Shadow Board had been held in public in the lead-up to this first meeting of the Executive Board which, together with meetings of the Joint Assembly, would also be held in the public domain. 

 

It was also noted that a microsite was in the process of being developed for the Greater Cambridge City Deal and that this would be launched very shortly at www.greatercambridgecitydeal.co.uk

 

Councillor Steve Count, Leader of Cambridgeshire County Council, felt that the Executive Board and wider governance arrangements around the City Deal did have democratic accountability embedded within them.  He had been democratically elected as a Councillor, as the other Council representatives had been, who had subsequently been appointed onto the Board at meetings of Full Council by their respective authorities.  He argued that it was not clear how much more democratically accountable the body could be expected to be.

 

Councillor Count was also disappointed that people had not picked up on information about the Greater Cambridge City Deal.  A range of stakeholder events had been held, numerous press releases had been issued and articles had been included in Council magazines on the subject of the City Deal.  He added, however, that more people should be encouraged to engage.

 

Question by Antony Carpen

 

Mr Carpen asked:

 

“Are the Greater Cambridge City Deal Executive Board and Joint Assembly suitable for residents to hold Cambridge University and its member colleges accountable to the people of Cambridge and not just its members?  What would Cambridge University’s decisions be like if within its core values it held itself responsible for all of the people of Cambridge and not just its members?

 

Professor Jeremy Sanders, Pro-Vice Chancellor for Institutional Affairs at the University of Cambridge, outlined that the mission of the University was to contribute to society through the pursuit of education, learning and research at the highest international levels of excellence.  He added that, in pursuing that mission, the University directly made major contributions to the economy, social fabric and culture of the Greater Cambridge area as well as attracting other vital employers and activities. 

 

Professor Sanders highlighted, however, that the University was an independent, self-governing charity and was not democratically accountable through the City Deal Executive Board, which was why as the University’s representative on the Board he would be unable to vote on the Board’s spending decisions.  The University’s nominees on the Joint Assembly represented three other important but distinct and independent constituencies in the local area.  These were Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge Regional College and the hospitals, who spoke for themselves and not necessarily for the University of Cambridge.

 

Question by Richard Taylor

 

Mr Taylor asked:

 

“What is the potential scope of the scheme described as: ‘on-line bus priority measures between the Milton Interchange and Mitcham’s Corner?”

 

Mr Hughes explained that there was no particular scope for this project at this stage and it was only a concept.  If the Executive Board agreed that this concept was an important scheme, further feasibility work would take place and the options relating to the scheme would be reported back for consideration to the Joint Assembly and Executive Board.  Should the Board decide that none of the options were worth pursuing, the scheme would simply fall out of the prioritised programme. 

 

Mr Taylor referred to the local Member of Parliament who was campaigning against cutting down trees on Milton Road to potentially make way for a dual-carriageway.  Mr Hughes outlined that there were no plans for a dual-carriageway.  A scheme for the road had been proposed approximately 15 years ago, but the scheme included as part of the City Deal was not looking to re-visit that proposal.  He emphasised that the scheme would seek to focus on the effective and efficient flow of public transport in and out of the city rather than providing more facilities for private car users.

 

The Chairman took this opportunity to emphasise that a full public consultation process would be held on all schemes going forward.

Supporting documents: