Agenda item

Questions by members of the public

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

Minutes:

The following questions by members of the public, together with responses from Members of the Board or officers, were noted:

 

1)         Question by Nichola Harrison

 

Nichola Harrison asked whether the Executive Board would arrange for a public consultation in respect of the Environmental Design Guide for the City Deal and, if not, an explanation of the reasons why.

 

Councillor Ian Bates, representing Cambridgeshire County Council, made the point that national and local guidelines already existed for this important issue, which would be built upon in producing the City Deal’s Design Guide.  Nichola Harrison, in response, said that the public wanted to see a comprehensive and cohesive local guidance document and that they deserved to have an input into its development. 

 

It was noted that a report on the City Deal’s Environmental Design Guide would be submitted to the Joint Assembly and subsequently the Executive Board in due course.

 

2)         Questions by Robin Heydon

 

Robin Heydon set out the Cambridge Cycling Campaign’s support for the Chisholm Trail and sought for the route to be officially named as the Chisholm Trail, with necessary street signage along the route being included such that the name could be placed onto maps as a proper road name.  He also outlined concerns that, whilst some fairly reasonable schemes were being proposed for the bits between the junctions, there were no good proposals being suggested for the junctions themselves.  Mr Heydon said that the Campaign would like to propose a different approach to junction design to that of the consultants and asked whether current traffic volumes and movements for cars, bicycles and people walking at junctions within Cambridge could be published. 

 

Mr Heydon also asked when an open debate would commence about the benefits of traffic demand management through fiscal mechanisms.  He was of the opinion that the revenue raised could help subsidise bus and rail services and vastly improve conditions for people walking and cycling in Cambridge.

 

Graham Hughes, Executive Director of Economy, Transport and Environment at Cambridgeshire County Council, said that the Council often did share the data it collected and that he would be happy to share any data as and when it became available.  He made the point, however, that the Council did not gather data on all junctions in Cambridge.

 

In terms of cross-city cycling and the inadequacy of junctions, Mr Hughes reminded Mr Heydon that the needs of all users had to be balanced within the resources available, but said that City Deal partners were trying to get that as right as they could. 

 

Councillor Lewis Herbert, Chairman of the Executive Board, reminded Mr Heydon that a report on the City Centre Access Study, which would pick up issues such as traffic demand management, was scheduled to be submitted for consideration by the Board at its meeting in June.

 

Officers agreed to provide a written response to Mr Heydon’s question regarding the name of the route for inclusion with the minutes for this meeting.  The officer response is set out below:

 

“The County Council has confirmed that an appropriate name for the route would be ‘The Chisholm Trail’, given the longstanding commitment to its delivery by Jim Chisholm.”

 

3)         Question by Nick Burfield

 

Nick Burfield had circulated a letter on behalf of Paul Donno, Chairman of the Haverhill Chamber of Commerce, in respect of the A1307 Haverhill to Cambridge scheme.  The letter set out a number of concerns it had in respect of the consultant’s report, such as:

 

·         the report totally discounting any growth planned in Haverhill until 2031;

·         under-predicting current A1307 use and no growth in future traffic flows on the road;

·         vastly reduced benefit cost ratio of dualling the A1307 Haverhill to Cambridge due to poor and incorrect data input into the model.

 

He therefore asked what the Board and City Deal partners would do to correct the report evidence to ensure correct conclusions and help mitigate the negative impact the report currently had on the Haverhill Chamber-led national campaign to fully dual the A1307.

 

Councillor Herbert said that some of the issues raised by the question would be addressed prior to the commencement of the initial consultation in respect of this scheme.

 

Mr Hughes responded by clarifying that the model had taken account of growth but the way the model had been used in the context of the wider scheme was the reasoning behind the way in which the findings were set out in the consultant’s report.  He confirmed that officers would be happy to investigate this issue further and emphasised that the A1307 needed addressing.

 

Councillor Bates reflected on a recent meeting he and other City Deal partners had held with representatives of the Chamber of Commerce.  He thanked Mr Burfield for a useful meeting which provided positive challenges from the Chamber and business community, resulting in positive outcomes, and was keen for this relationship to continue in the development of the scheme.

 

4)         Questions by Hans Hagen and Claire Tripp

 

Hans Hagen provided a letter on behalf of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus in respect of the M11 Junction 11 slip road, setting out statistical information on the anticipated growth in employee numbers in 2017/18.  Principally, employee numbers at a number of key sites were expected to increase substantially over the next year and the numbers of patients and visitors travelling through the site throughout the day would increase not only as a result of the move of Papworth Hospital and AstraZeneca but also because of the expansion of health and research services by all Cambridge Biomedical Campus partners.  His letter addressed some objections to the proposed slip road at the meeting of the Joint Assembly on 12 February 2016 and made the point that this was the only City Deal project seeking to address this significant problem in a timely fashion.  He informed the Executive Board that Cambridge Biomedical Campus partners would be prepared to run any project to assist with this scheme and asked that the proposals be put forward.

 

Claire Tripp presented statistical information in relation to the new Papworth Hospital due to open in 2018 on the Cambridge Biomedical Campus.  She said that the majority of staff working at Papworth lived to the North West and South West of the Campus who would have significant time added to their journeys as a result of the move due to congestion.  A number of staff had indicated that they would use other forms of travel to improve their journey to work, which included the Madingley Road Park and Ride.  Claire Tripp also made the point that, in addition to staff transferring to the new Hospital, so too would approximately 70,000 outpatients and 25,000 inpatients in 2018, with patients and their visitors requiring access to the site.

 

Mr Hughes responded by saying that the recommendation in the report scheduled for consideration later at this meeting was to progress with the scheme.  He highlighted, however, that Highways England would need to give its consent to any scheme as it owned the road, and also made the point that there was currently no indication that any buses would use the route if it was built.  Mr Hughes reminded the Board that the proposal for this slip road was for a public transport only route, with any proposal to extend this to use by all traffic being highly unlikely to be supported by Highways England.  

 

5)         Question by Barbara Taylor

 

Barbara Taylor reflected on the recent consultation which called for suggestions to address congestion in Cambridge.  She felt this was noticeable for the absence of any proposals to reduce the impact of the City Centre as the primary bottleneck preventing free movement of traffic across the centre of the City.  She asked whether the Executive Board would stop work on any other measures until it had addressed this crucial contributory element to congestion in Cambridge.

 

Councillor Herbert said that the Executive Board’s position was that it believed in citywide measures and projects on specific routes to tackle congestion in Cambridge, which would be delivered through specific transport infrastructure improvement schemes on key routes in and around the city as well as the inclusion of additional traffic management measures.  He said that the City Centre Access Study would be submitted to the Joint Assembly and Executive Board at their June meetings which would provide more information on some of the ideas put forward as part of the call for evidence. 

 

6)         Questions by Michael Bond

 

Michael Bond referred to the recent meeting of the Executive Board which launched the consultation on the Western Orbital scheme, saying it left him with the impression that it appeared to be an ill-thought through measure that lacked any rationale for linking to the destinations commuters actually wanted to reach.  He asked whether the Executive Board would arrange for proper consideration of this proposal in its strategic context that actively involved residents as well as commercial, academic and single-issue groups.

 

Mr Bond also referred to previous consultations on the A14 and proposals put forward by Old Chesterton Residents’ Association to eliminate local traffic from the A14 by creating a local feeder road around the north and east of the city.  He saw this as a complimentary proposal to a properly defined Western Orbital road and asked the Board to make it part of wider consultation he had asked for.

 

Mr Hughes responded by saying that the eastern relief road was a very different issue to that of the Western Orbital, with one of the main purposes of the Western Orbital being to ensure that people did not have to go through the City centre to get to the other side of Cambridge.  He reminded the Board that there would be a huge amount of consultation on the scheme as it developed, with significant local consultation planned as part of each City Deal transport infrastructure improvement scheme.

 

7)         Question by Richard Taylor

 

Richard Taylor noted that the three partner Councils had agreed to delegate powers to the Executive Board to the extent that the Board required them to in order to pursue its objectives and that Cambridgeshire County Council was in the process of clarifying which powers it considered had been delegated to the Board.  He asked whether the Executive Board expected similar clarity over which powers Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council had delegated.  Mr Taylor suggested that further clarity be given as to which powers the Executive Board considered that it held and which powers it intended to exercise in relation to particular schemes and circumstances, citing tree felling as an example of where it was currently unclear which authority or body had ultimate decision-making power.

 

Mr Hughes said that a clear list of delegations would be published on the City Deal website.  He explained that the delegated powers behind tree felling and tree protection were quite complicated and was unable at 24 hour’s notice to provide a comprehensive response, but agreed to respond to Mr Taylor on the issue directly as well as include this in the list of delegations to be published on the website.

 

8)         Questions by Robin Pellew

 

Robin Pellew was unable to attend the meeting, but his below questions and points were noted:

 

·         Cambridge Past, Present and Future remained supportive of the Chisholm Trail.  It sought clarification from the Executive Board that the final decision on the exact route for the section between Newmarket Road and River Cam crossing would not be made until the impact assessments had been completed both for the curtilage of the Grade 1 Leper Chapel and for the ecology of the Leper Chapel Meadows;

·         Cambridge Past, Present and Future was relived to hear that the City Deal had excluded any plans, concepts or options for a new cross-country bus lane over the Gog Magog Downs.  He therefore asked for reassurance that all further consultancy contracts for transport and engineering projects would include an environmental brief, based on the environmental design guidelines that were currently being prepared.

 

Members of the Board noted the issues raised in the questions, both of which would be considered as separate items later at this meeting.

 

9)         Questions by Lynn Hieatt

 

Lynn Hieatt asked for publication of the briefing documents that were sent to the consultants for each of the City Deal reports commissioned to date. 

 

She also asked about the County Council’s recent decision to delegate more powers to the Executive Board and asked when more details around these delegations and the safeguards referred to as part of that decision would be made available. 

 

Councillor Herbert said that a written response to this question would be provided to Lynn Hieatt, setting out the details of the Executive Board’s delegated powers.

 

10)       Question by Councillor Tony Orgee

 

Councillor Tony Orgee, elected Member of both Cambridgeshire County Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council, asked what impact on congestion in respect of the A1307 the following high-level proposals were expected to have:

 

·         a Park and Ride site in the general area of Fourwentways;

·         an off-line rapid transit route between the general area of Fourwentways and the southern side of Cambridge;

·         a rapid transit route running south of the built-up area of Cambridge between the Babraham Park and Ride site and the Addenbrooke’s Biomedical Campus.

 

Mr Hughes reminded Members of the Board that this was a very early stage of this particular transport infrastructure improvement scheme with potential options having been identified as concepts which, if accepted, would go forward as part of an initial public consultation.  It was difficult to say absolutely what the impact would be as the details surrounding the scheme still needed to be determined, which would take account of the significant public consultation programmed to be undertaken as part of the scheme’s development.

 

Councillor Herbert reiterated the conceptual nature of the scheme at this stage, but noted the significant points that Councillor Orgee had made.

 

11)       Question by Angela Chadwyck-Healey

 

Angela Chadwyck-Healey asked for clarification of the expenditure table at Appendix A in the budget report with regard to the ‘Madingley Road bus priority’ project and an explanation as to why the expenditure had been categorised in this way when a decision on the specific route had not yet been made.  She also asked whether the City Deal Executive Board was committed to consultation with the public on the options relating to the scheme, requesting that the consultant’s reports and outline business cases, as set out in the report regarding the item on the A428/A1303, could be finalised and published on the City Deal website by 1 July 2016 to allow residents to provide any comments.

 

Tanya Sheridan, City Deal Programme Director, explained that the titles for projects used in the budget report were historical and emphasised that all options were still very much open for consideration.  The cost of schemes was only indicative at this stage but funding had to be allocated.  This allocation would be reviewed and amended as the scheme developed, in line with whatever scheme was eventually adopted.

 

12)       Question by Wendy Blythe

 

Wendy Blythe asked why not one of the many residents’ groups in Cambridge had been invited to the Local Liaison Forum meeting due to be held in the coming week to discuss the recent A428 bus lane consultations.  She noted that Parish Councils and other local politicians had been invited but felt that residents too should be able to have their say and highlighted that the up-coming meeting clashed with a long-scheduled annual forum meeting of city Residents’ Association groups with the City Council.  Wendy Blythe therefore asked that the invitation to this meeting be broadened and the meeting rescheduled.

 

Mr Hughes explained that the County Council had used Local Liaison Forums on a number of transport infrastructure schemes in the past, with the point of them being to act as a forum for issues to be raised as and when they occurred for local Councillors and key stakeholders, offering an opportunity for informal dialogue with officers.  It was noted that the proposal for the Local Liaison Forums was that elected Members should decide which stakeholders to invite for subsequent meetings rather than officers determine attendance.

 

Councillor Herbert said that future meetings would seek to avoid any such clashes with meetings of stakeholder groups, such as Residents’ Associations. 

 

Councillor Bates reminded the Executive Board that Highways England also used Local Liaison Forums in this manner and were not solely established by the County Council.

 

13)       Question by Councillor Susan van de Ven

 

Councillor Susan van de Ven, elected Member of Cambridgeshire County Council, provided the Executive Board with an update on the A10 cycle scheme.  She reported that the Melbourn to Royston segment of the A10 cycle scheme remained unfunded and reflected on the significant work that companies such as AstraZeneca were doing to encourage model shift and promote cycling.  Councillor van de Ven asked the Executive Board to consider including this segment of the scheme in tranche one of the City Deal programme.

 

Councillor Herbert reported that he had met with Councillor van de Ven and Councillor Francis Burkitt on this issue and had agreed that a report would be submitted to the Executive Board in June 2016.

Supporting documents: