Agenda item

Opportunities for public realm and green landscaping enhancement within City Deal delivery

To receive a presentation from Glen Richardson, Urban Design and Conservation Manager at Cambridge City Council and Andrew Cameron, Director of Urban Design at WSP consultants.

Decision:

The Joint Assembly:

 

(1)        NOTED the presentation.

 

(2)        AGREED that officers be requested to identify what could be included in an Environmental Design Guide for City Deal transport infrastructure schemes, setting out what such a guide could consist of together with the estimated cost and officer time associated with developing the document.

Minutes:

Councillor Tim Bick, Chairman, invited three members of the public who had given notice of questions or statements in relation to this agenda item to put forward their questions or statements.  Questions or statements were therefore made as follows:

 

Question by Mike Sargeant

 

Mr Sargeant expressed concerns about the consultation process, principally in respect of the Milton Road scheme, and the perception that the proposals in the draft options report would be ‘railroaded’ through regardless of responses made by members of the public as part of the consultation.  He asked what reassurance he and residents could be given that ideas and concerns would be listened to and that this consultation would be a meaningful exercise. 

 

He also highlighted that one of the biggest issues for local people in respect of the Milton Road scheme was the potential loss of trees and grass verges and the road becoming an urban motorway.  He asked why these issues had not been included in the consultation documentation, despite being raised at a previous meeting of the Joint Assembly, and sought reassurance that keeping a green, residential character to Milton Road was a priority. 

 

Question by Wendy Blythe

 

Wendy Blythe asked how the loss of grass verges, trees, gardens and nature posed by arterial road schemes would be assessed, making the point that verges soaked up surface water and trees were a buffer against noise and pollution. 

 

She said that a large number of respondents to the call for evidence sessions had argued that bus lanes were an engineering solution to what was in fact a traffic management problem and would simply generate more road capacity.  She therefore asked whether, given that the argument for bus lanes, in her view, was not yet proven, the wishes of residents who wanted to keep their trees and gardens would be ignored. 

 

Wendy Blythe also asked how the public health implications were being assessed, in terms of the psychological impact of these transport schemes on communities and on individuals.  She reflected on Milton Road currently having attractive trees and verges along the route and asked what environmental standards a world famous heritage city with attractive approach roads should be aspiring to.  She added that simply providing landscaping options to mitigate major damage would not be good enough.

 

Statement by Nichola Harrison

 

Nichola Harrison highlighted widespread public concern that the bus priority measures for Milton Road, Histon Road and Madingley Road would cause severe damage to the green environment and community life of these residential neighbourhoods.  She said that the City Deal was a fantastic opportunity to improve Greater Cambridge’s inadequate transport system, but at present she felt that there was a real danger that its engineering schemes would fail to achieve public support.  Nichola Harrison therefore proposed that the City Deal should employ landscaping and public realm experts, including Council officers and external experts, to produce an Environmental Design Code.  This would ensure that consideration of the local environment was not simply an optional extra but was at the centre of proposals for radial routes and, in due course, elsewhere inside and outside the city.  She added that the Design Code should be introduced not simply to protect the existing environment, but to improve it.

 

Councillor Bick stated that answers to the questions would be provided as part of the subsequent discussion.

 

Glen Richardson, Urban Design and Conservation Manager at Cambridge City Council, and Andrew Cameron, Director of Urban Design at WSP Parsons Brinckerhoff consultancy, provided the Joint Assembly with a presentation on opportunities for public realm and green landscaping enhancement within City Deal delivery.

 

The following points were noted in respect of creating streets and how space could be allocated:

 

·         streets were persistent, hardly ever changed in their nature and held urban areas together, creating a sense of community;

·         street layout and dimensions remained constant over many centuries, with buildings changing rather than the streets they were built around;

·         roads facilitated movement and divided communities, whereas streets defined a place and helped create communities.  It was therefore streets rather than roads that the City Deal should be aiming to provide in residential areas.

 

Numerous visual examples, both national and international, were shown which provided before and after perspectives of where trees, greenery and sustainable urban drainage systems had been incorporated as part of street improvements.  This included indications of rationalisation of space, areas showing plenty of room for movement for all users, the greening of major arterial routes and ease of pedestrian movement.

 

Visual examples were also shown of successful models of sharing space on streets in terms of motorised vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians and highway features that were not ‘over-engineered’.  These included pedestrian first crossing points, gateways, courtesy crossings, pedestrian orientated design, two-way cycle paths, segregated cycle paths and median zones.

 

In terms of addressing use of the street and adding trees and greenery, a number of scenarios were given of the different options available using a 20 metre right of way as an example.  Scenarios included:

 

·         ‘do-maximum’ consisting of pedestrian access, cycleways bus lanes, and motor vehicle access all with two-way access with no trees or greenery;

·         the addition of trees on one side, with reduced width cycle lanes to compensate;

·         trees on both sides of the street with bus access only in one direction;

·         a tree-lined street with two-way cycle lane segregated from the street, with bus access only in one direction;

·         shared footpath and cycleway, reduced width running lanes and a median strip.

 

Specific examples were also presented of how trees and greenery could be introduced into the urban street setting, with photographs of a street where this had taken place in Cambridge being shown.

 

It was reported that precedents elsewhere showed that it was possible to achieve the infrastructure to support more sustainable modes of travel and deliver a high quality of public realm.  However, ultimately there would be choices to be made in order to strike the right balance of infrastructure and the amount and type of public realm in terms of soft and hard landscaping.  Detailed investigation of constraints, such as services for example, and the development of design options to integrate soft and hard landscaping would be an important stage of future work.  It was also emphasised that the options, as much as possible, needed to respond to the context of where they were being introduced.

 

In closing, Mr Richardson and Mr Cameron said that the City Deal provided a great opportunity to improve mobility along key routes and in city centre locations for pedestrians, cyclists and bus users.  However, this had to be balanced with the human desire to create attractive places and streets that would enhance the experience for residents and visitors in Cambridge.

 

Councillor Bick thanked Mr Richardson and Mr Cameron for a very informative presentation, further to which discussion ensued and the following points were noted:

 

·         there were studies that suggested a wide range of benefits from the inclusion of trees and greenery in streets, including a natural slowing down of traffic, more pride and identity with an area and improvements in property value, retail base, mental health, air quality and surface water drainage;

·         one of the examples shown in the presentation outlined a scheme where cyclepaths had been set out in parallel streets to those of other road users and a question was raised as to how that could apply in Cambridge.  It was noted that the examples shown were context specific and such a proposal would need to be considered alongside the wider Transport Strategy and other related policies;

·         a question was asked regarding the use of tidal bus routes.  Mr Cameron explained that there were some issues in using tidal bus routes in both directions, such as the additional signage and markings that would be required and the necessity to have bus stops on both sides of the street.  These requirements would be detrimental to the quality of space, so the use of tidal bus routes would need to be properly investigated in that context;

·         conflict between different users and cycle parking in the city centre were two issues that would need to be addressed;

·         the presentation provided a very positive overview of what could be achieved with schemes such as Histon Road and Milton Road and would probably go a long way in allaying the public’s concerns;

·         there had to be compromise in developing these transport infrastructure schemes, but it was important that the compromise was right.  Each user group would have different views as to what the priority should be for a scheme and that was where balance and compromise played an important part.

 

Referring to Nichola Harrison’s statement, Councillor Bridget Smith supported her proposal for the production of an Environment Design Code.  Graham Hughes, Executive Director of Economy, Transport and Environment at Cambridgeshire County Council, suggested that a Design Guide setting out parameters may be more appropriate and useful for Members of the Joint Assembly and Executive Board as a basis for their decision-making as schemes were developed.  The Joint Assembly therefore requested that officers be asked to identify what could be included in an Environmental Design Guide for City Deal transport infrastructure schemes, setting out what such a guide could consist of together with the estimated cost and officer time associated with developing the document.

 

In answer to Mike Sargeant’s question, Mr Hughes said that all responses received as part of any consultation process would be seriously considered.  The schemes currently out for consultation at Madingley Road, Histon Road and Milton Road were at the first, conceptual stage of consultation, but any responses to those consultations would be fully considered and subsequently reported back to the Joint Assembly and Executive Board.  Further consultations consisting of more detailed proposals for each scheme would then take place at a later stage. 

 

Councillor Bick reflected on the significant criticism the City Deal had received in respect of the number of consultations it was undertaking, so made the point that they would not take place if City Deal partners were not serious about wanting to hear people’s views. 

 

In terms of Mr Sargeant’s question about maintaining Milton Road’s green and residential character, Mr Hughes reiterated the point made earlier about compromise but said that one of the main objectives would be to improve the environment of the street.  The specifics of a scheme at Milton Road were currently not available as the consultation only set out two conceptual options at extreme ends of the spectrum.  A later stage of the process would provide a more detailed scheme, setting out priorities, and it would be at that stage that the real impact of the scheme could be assessed and options, including those associated with public realm, properly considered.

 

Answering the question by Wendy Blythe, Mr Hughes said that it was difficult to say how the loss of grass verges, trees, gardens and nature posed by arterial road schemes could be assessed at this stage.  Once the views of the public and stakeholders had been received as part of the consultation process officers would look at how best those issues could be addressed.  It would be at this stage where judgements and decisions on compromises would need to be made.  In terms of the question regarding public health implications, it would not be possible to assess them at this stage as there was not yet a specific scheme proposed.  The business case for any transport infrastructure scheme would assess relative merits of the scheme, including health and environmental issues.

 

The Joint Assembly:

 

(1)        NOTED the presentation.

 

(2)        AGREED that officers be requested to identify what could be included in an Environmental Design Guide for City Deal transport infrastructure schemes, setting out what such a guide could consist of together with the estimated cost and officer time associated with developing the document.