Agenda item

Western Orbital - options and approval to consult

Meeting of Greater Cambridge Partnership Joint Assembly, Friday, 13 November 2015 2.00 p.m. (Item 6.)

To consider a report by Graham Hughes, Executive Director (Cambridgeshire County Council), scheduled for consideration by the Executive Board on 3 December 2015.

Decision:

The Joint Assembly RECOMMENDED to the Executive Board that it:

(a) Notes the findings from the early Western Orbital technical report.

(b) Approves the development of further work on the scheme.

(d) Amends the public consultation’s timetable so that it commences in the Spring 2016, in order that a draft of the consultation document can be considered by the Joint Assembly and Executive Board at their February and March meetings respectively.

Minutes:

The Joint Assembly considered a report which set out the early development work that had occurred for the Western Orbital project, together with a proposed timetable for further work to link with the emerging A428/A1303 Madingley Road corridor scheme.

Stuart Walmsley, Head of Major Infrastructure Delivery at Cambridgeshire County Council, presented the report and reminded Assembly Members that the Western Orbital had not been included in the list of prioritised schemes for tranche one of the City Deal, but was approved for early development as a tranche two scheme. There were strategic links between the Western Orbital and the A428/A1303 schemes, so there was a case for bringing forward work for the Western Orbital in order that full consideration could be given to the preferred option for each scheme.

Mr Walmsley emphasised that the scheme was at a very early stage in its development and presented a map, set out as Figure 1 in the report, providing the key locations within the Western Orbital study area and outlining the merits of the scheme. The report set out provisional options, including high-level key benefits and early estimated indicative costs. It was noted that the purpose of the project at this stage was to test acceptance of the scheme in terms of viability, deliverability, its business case and whether there were any commercial opportunities. A detailed feasibility assessment would form part of the next stage, including a public consultation on the principles of the scheme and further stakeholder engagement.

The following points were noted during discussion by Members of the Assembly and responses from officers:

· a question was asked about the justification behind the proposal for an additional Park and Ride at Junction 11 of the M11. Mr Walmsley explained that Park and Ride sites had historically been located on the fringes of the City. Development had now consumed some of those sites and an additional Park and Ride site in this location could intercept traffic flow at that point, helping alleviate congestion. He reminded Members, however, that this was an early concept;

· reference was made to the Atkins Western Orbital technical options report and the fact that it set out the need to investigate use of accommodation bridges over the M11. A query was raised as to whether this issue could be resolved prior to commencing with the early stage public consultation, in terms of whether it was feasible. Officers confirmed that this would be addressed prior to the public consultation;

· the problem along this particular route was with the junctions and not specifically the carriageway, which should be made clearer to members of the public as part of the consultation. Mr Walmsley agreed that this was an important point but highlighted that an additional Park and Ride site in this area could also potentially make a huge difference;

· examples were given of pedestrian crossings, traffic lights and other traffic management measures having an impact on congestion along this route, which could potentially be changed or altered to address the problems. A suggestion was made that this should also feature as part of the consultation. Graham Hughes, Executive Director of Economy, Transport and Environment at Cambridgeshire County Council, reminded Members of the Assembly that these measures were effectively a system and that any changes would have repercussions elsewhere within the network. As a result, he said that it was not as simple as making changes to specific traffic management measures as this would not provide a solution to the problem. He agreed to look into how this could be explained in the consultation document. Mr Walmsley gave an assurance that sophisticated modelling had been used in the development of the options, which took into account the impact of making changes to junctions and traffic management systems;

· a study had been carried out with employees based on the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, which indicated how many people were commuting from the postcode areas of CB23 and CB24. It was noted that the results of this study would be shared with officers;

· it was positive that the report made reference to park and cycle, which should be more widely promoted and become a key part of all Park and Ride facilities;

· in view of the fact that the business case supporting the scheme would include or impact the commercial interests of bus operators, it would be interesting for the Joint Assembly to hear from operators to gain more of an understanding of issues from their perspective. Officers confirmed that operators would be a key player in the development of the business case and, subject to operators agreeing to meet with the Joint Assembly, supported the suggestion;

· the plan of working-up this project alongside the A428/A1303 Madingley Road corridor scheme was questioned in terms of how it would work in practice and whether it could potentially delay delivery of the A428/A1303 scheme. Mr Walmsley reported that officers always looked for value for money when assessing schemes and there were opportunities with these projects in respect of coming up with options and proposals to consider. He said that timing would be critical, but it made sense to test both schemes at the same time as this would help with continuity of ideas and proposals that could be worked collectively. The timeline for the Western Orbital scheme had not yet been confirmed but Mr Walmsley confirmed that this would not impact on the delivery of the A428/A1303 Madingley Road corridor scheme;

· all environmental issues should be made clear for future schemes at the earliest opportunity;

· in answer to a question about how growth was measured, it was noted that growth in the context of this scheme referred to traffic flows. Models were used which predicted traffic flow based on a number of aspects, including new development sites and projected population numbers, in order that proposals could take into account future needs;

· reference was made to a planning application which affected a parcel of land that would impact the options set out in the report. A question was therefore asked as to whether this specific planning application had been taken into account and how this would impact delivery of the scheme. It was noted that officers could not pre-empt the outcome of a planning application. Tanya Sheridan, City Deal Programme Director, reported that officers from the three partner Councils were aware of the application and it was being taken into account as the scheme was developed. She noted that the site in question had not been allocated in the draft Local Development Plans and remained unallocated in the proposals to be considered by Cambridge City and South Cambridgeshire District Councils on 30 November 2015;

· in relation to option C in the report and the earlier statement that an additional Park and Ride site could intercept south-bound M11 traffic, it was suggested that a Park and Ride site on Huntingdon Road could also intercept that traffic. Regarding use of Park and Ride sites in general, in terms of promoting their use, it was noted that they needed to be used intuitively by people and as a result the location of such facilities would be key. In terms of intercepting traffic, Mr Walmsley said that the modelling exercise referred to earlier would be critical in properly understanding traffic movements. This would indicate whether a Park and Ride on Huntingdon Road would be necessary and so would be factored into the modelling work.

Members requested a report back to the Joint Assembly prior to the commencement of the early stage public consultation in order that it could consider the content of the consultation documentation and add value to the process. The consultation was originally scheduled to begin in February 2016, which did not fit in with the cycle of Joint Assembly and Executive Board meetings. It was reported that, as this was a tranche 2 scheme, a slight delay in starting the consultation would not cause any problems or delay its delivery, and was not time critical in respect of meeting the 2019 triggers for tranche 1. The Joint Assembly therefore agreed to recommend that a draft of the consultation documentation should be submitted to the February meeting of the Joint Assembly and March meeting of the Executive Board. Members of the Assembly also requested that an update report on investigation into the standalone project regarding Junction 11 of the M11, as agreed by the Executive Board on 1 October 2015, be included as part of the item for those meetings.