Agenda item

To consider a report by Graham Hughes, Executive Director (Cambridgeshire County Council).

The Executive Board:

(a) APPROVED the process and timescales for agreeing the Tranche 2 prioritised infrastructure investment programme.

(b) APPROVED preparatory work to support and inform Tranche 2 decisions, including scheme assessment and interim work for the Local Plans regarding Cambridge Northern Fringe East, and APPROVED funding from the prioritised ‘Tranche 2 programme development’ budget to cover one third of the cost of the Cambridge Northern East Fringe work (estimated at £70,000) as part of the pipeline work.

(c) AGREED to make the following amendments to the list of schemes set out in paragraph 8 of the report:

· the inclusion of a scheme which comprises city centre bus and coach capacity management;

· the addition of a Huntingdon Road Park and Ride scheme.

(d) REQUESTED that officers investigate options for match-funding in respect of Tranche 2 schemes.

The Executive Board considered a report which outlined the proposed process and timescale for making decisions on priority schemes for tranche 2 of the Greater Cambridge City Deal infrastructure programme.

Stuart Walmsley, Cambridgeshire County Council’s Head of Major Infrastructure Delivery, presented the report and reminded the Executive Board that it had agreed to prioritise £180 million worth of projects in tranche 1 of the City Deal programme for the £100 million of grant funding available over that five year period. The schemes that remained from the indicative City Deal programme that were not prioritised for investment in tranche 1 were set out in the report at paragraph 8. It was emphasised that in addition to these schemes other proposals or schemes may come forward from the work underway on the Cambridge Access Study or from the Smart Cities project.

A proposed approach and timeline for the tranche 2 programme prioritisation was set out in table 1 of the report.

Councillor Tim Bick, Chairman of the Joint Assembly, reported that the Assembly had considered this report at its meeting on 13 November 2015.

He highlighted that County Councillor Susan van de Ven provided the Assembly with a statement on progress with the Cambridge to Royston A10 cycle scheme. She had reported that the southern part of the route between Royston and Meldreth remained unfunded and sought inclusion of this as a scheme within tranche 2 of the City Deal programme.

Councillor Bick reported that the Joint Assembly had recommended the addition of the following two schemes to the list of schemes set out in the report for assessment as part of tranche 2:

· a city centre bus and coach capacity management scheme;

· a Huntingdon Park and Ride site.

The Assembly had also proposed the deletion of the word ‘Station’ in respect of the Newmarket Road to Cambridge Science Park Station scheme included within the report, so that it was not limited to the new railway station.

Councillor Lewis Herbert, Chairman of the Executive Board, asked whether city centre bus and coach capacity management would be included in the Cambridge Access Study. Mr Walmsley confirmed that this issue would be incorporated as part of the wider capacity study of the city centre.

Discussion ensued on the proposal to remove the word ‘Station’ from the Newmarket to Cambridge Science Park Station scheme. The Board agreed that the word ‘Station’ should be retained as removing it would give the wrong impression as to what the scheme sought to achieve.

Councillor Steve Count, Leader of Cambridgeshire County Council, referred to the County Council’s local highways improvement fund which was a fund that the County Council allocated on a match-fund basis and he cited this as a good example of how match-funding could work. Councillor Count asked whether there were any opportunities for a similar arrangement to be put in place for tranche 2 of the City Deal programme. Graham Hughes, Executive Director of Economy, Transport and Environment at Cambridgeshire County Council, agreed that the local highways improvement fund had been successful but explained that the scale of the schemes delivered through that funding mechanism had been quite small in comparison to the schemes proposed as part of the City Deal. However, he supported the principle and said it would be worth investigating opportunities for match-funding in this way for City Deal schemes.