Agenda item

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

The following questions were asked, the answers to which the Chairman felt would be provided as part of debating item 7(c) at this meeting:

Question by Jim Chisholm

Mr Chisholm made the following points in presenting his question:

·         on 2 March 2015 an Office of the Duty Prime Minister press release cited research showing that if this country had levels of cycling similar to Denmark it could save the NHS £17 billion within 20 years, reduce road deaths by 30%, increase mobility of the nation’s poorest families by 25% and increase retail sales by a quarter;

·         travel for Cambridgeshire surveys showed that the average length of cycle commutes was nearly six kilometres;

·         the 2011 census stated that 10% of commuting trips in South Cambridgeshire were by cycle, with 2,400 over 5 kilometres and 650 more than 10 kilometres;

·         cycle trips across the boundary from South Cambridgeshire to the city had increased by 89% in the last nine years, whereas numbers of car trips were relatively stable;

·         over half the benefits of new cycle schemes under Cycle Ambitions Grants were from improved health, which had big economic benefits;

·         36% of households in the lowest quintile income group in East Anglia had no access to a van or car.

Mr Chisholm asked what the Joint Assembly, and the general public, could do to ensure that the Board was better aware of this and similar information.

Question by Gareth Bevans

Mr Bevans asked whether the Joint Assembly could include the following legacy, financial and social impacts as part of its consideration of longer distance foot and cycle paths in the Greater Cambridge area:

• the social and health benefits of providing safe access to the countryside for city dwellers as well as those living along these corridors; 

• the enhanced social wellbeing created by enabling and encouraging families and friends of all ages who were dispersed along these corridors to affordably, safely and routinely use these paths to interact with each other;

• the opportunity cost of inactivity on an individual’s personal health, and the associated savings to health services should road users be given a walking or cycling alternative;

• the economic and strategic benefits of completing the links between the Research Parks south of the City at Hinxton, Little Chesterford, Great Abington, Babraham and Addenbrooke’s, and also of linking them to the residential areas south of the city;

• increased opportunities for tourists to extend their stay in Cambridge and explore and experience the surrounding countryside, towns, villages and attractions;

• present and future road congestion, particularly given the housing planned for Uttlesford and settlements to the South of Cambridge;

• the pay back period achieved on the road maintenance budget of road users who had switched transport modes to cycling and walking.

Question by Susan van de Ven

Susan van de Ven spoke as the County Councillor for Melbourn, Foxton, Shepreth and Meldreth, which made up a large chunk of the Cambridge to Royston corridor and part of an intensely interconnected cluster of employment centres and residential areas.  Royston was across the county border but was still part of the Local Enterprise Partnership and was integral to the Greater Cambridge phenomenon that existed along the A10, both on account of its housing building plans and also its industrial park and multiple employment opportunities. 

Councillor van de Ven also chaired the A10 Corridor Cycling Campaign, whose members lived between Royston and Cambridge and worked at places such as Melbourn Science Park, Johnson Matthey and the Cambridge Biomedical Campus.  The Cycling Campaign presented the Joint Assembly with a letter of support that had been signed by 66 employment centres in the A10 Corridor.  It emphasised the high value placed on the prospect of a safe cycling network along the A10, as a means of travelling to work.  She added that distances were modest and achievable, business car park spaces were running out and congestion rendered car journey times at peak hours unreliable. 

Councillor van de Ven said that the City Deal was built around the principle of unlocking further funding, and so the announcement on 2 March 2015 of Cycling Ambition Grant funding was a case in point.  Subject to agreement by a County Council Committee next week, Councillor van de Ven reported that this would help fund a cycle route between Cambridge and Foxton.  The unfunded half of the Cambridge to Royston cycle link was the southern half from Foxton Level Crossing to Royston.  This was a highly deliverable segment of the overall scheme, with land ownership issues resolved, path design completed and local consultation on details carried out.  The A10 Campaign had facilitated regular interaction with Council colleagues in Hertfordshire and it had also been talking to the Local Enterprise Partnerships.

Councillor van de Ven closed by saying that, while it was disappointing that none of the rural cycle schemes were included in the Executive Board’s tranche one priority list, the job now was to find ways of supporting their progression and realisation.