Agenda item

To consider the attached report.

The Joint Assembly RECOMMENDED that the Executive Board:

(a)        Notes the scheme progress being made in terms of planning approval, land procurement and stakeholder engagement.

(b)        Approves construction of phase one of the scheme, subject to gaining planning permission.

(c)        Delegates powers to approve the construction contract and selection of contractor for phase one to the Cambridgeshire County Council’s Executive Director of Economy, Transport and Environment, in consultation with the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Executive Board.

(d)        Supports the continuation of land negotiations.

The Joint Assembly considered a report which provided an update on the Chisholm Trail cycling scheme.

Mike Davies, Team Leader (Cycling Projects) at Cambridgeshire County Council, presented the report and reminded the Assembly of the following principles of the route:

·         it was a direct and pleasant route with improved journey ambience;

·         it linked to key destinations and trip generators;

·         it was inclusive, supporting people with disabilities;

·         it was safe and avoided traffic;

·         it provided seamless links to green spaces;

·         it supported multi-modality.

Mr Davies added that the key principle behind this scheme, and the City Deal programme as a whole, was to make active modes safe, convenient and the logical choice over private car, highlighting the wider benefits as being improved public health, assisting to address congestion, better air quality and more reliable journeys.

Question by Sir John Sulston

Sir John Sulston, representing Cambridge Past, Present and Future, reported that his organisation had consistently supported the idea of the Chisholm Trail since its original conception for an off-road cycleway connecting the main railway station with the Science Park. 

He reported that Cambridge Past, Present and Future had been in discussion with officers and their consultants over the alignment of possible routes where the trail would pass the grade I Leper Chapel and the Chapel Meadows, which were a city wildlife site.  As a result, the original site of the underpass beneath Newmarket Road had been moved approximately 60 metres closer to Coldham's Brook so that it no longer exited directly opposite the Chapel.  With sympathetic landscaping, which was still to be agreed, he reported that Cambridge Past, Present and Future was comfortable with the proposed route as well as the vehicle and disabled access off Newmarket Road.  It was also comfortable with the alignment of the trail along the eastern boundary of the Meadows, along the woodland edge of the Brook.

It was noted that Cambridge Past, Present and Future saw the trail as a opportunity to enhance the public awareness and visibility of the Chapel, and improve public access.  He was keen to progress negotiations with officers for landscaping and to agree the terms and conditions for the construction of the trail.  Sir John therefore asked when the County Council expected to allocate a landscape architect to the project with whom to finalise the landscaping details.

Mike Davies took this opportunity to thank Cambridge Past, Present and Future for its support and confirmed that discussions were still ongoing with the organisation regarding the development of the scheme.  He reported that once planning consent had been obtained a lot of the details could then be finalised, stating that discussions with Cambridge Past, Present and Future would continue.  It was noted that landscape experts were already part of the project team.

Claire Ruskin queried reference in the report under 'reasons for recommendation' to the scheme offering a high cost/benefit.  It was noted that this should had read high benefit-cost ratio and was one of the contributing factors to recommending approval of the scheme's delivery.

Helen Valentine requested that Angia Ruskin Univeristy be included in the plan of trip generators as part of this scheme.  Mr Davies confirmed that the Univeristy would be included.

Councillor Tim Bick said that it was very gratifying to see progress being made, together with the valuable support and collaboration with Cambridge Past, Present and Future.  He referred to a new element of the scheme that had arisen, however, in respect of phase 2 of its development.  It was noted that the current plan was still to deliver routes on the east and west side of the rail line from Coldham’s Lane to link up to Cambridge railway station, which required the use of Network Rail land associated with Ridgeons and the City Depot site.  Councillor Bick noted, with disappointment, that the project team was effectively constrained by the pace of developments and negotiations with Network Rail in terms of its potential future aspirations for its land, which would possibly be retained for rail purposes such as overnight storage of crossrail rolling stock.  Councillor Bick asked for some clarity as to the length of time officers expected to wait for confirmation from Network Rail until they considered investigating an alternative way of delivering phase 2 of the scheme. 

Councillor Bick was also surprised to see a proposal in the report for a bridge starting or ending at the Ridgeons development, when officers in the past had recommended that this was not possible due to there not being enough room. 

Mr Davies reported that discussions had been held with Network Rail for some time regarding the land associated with phase 2 of the scheme.  This issue was taking considerable time to resolve with Network Rail and he did not think it was 100% likely that the land needed from Network Rail to progress with the scheme as originally planned would be obtained.  He reported that this had resulted in officers considering the options available, with the proposed bridge set out in the report being an alternative option at this stage.  Officers currently working on the project, having undertaken high-level analysis, felt that there was room for a bridge in this location but Mr Davies emphasised that detailed studies had not yet been commissioned. 

It was noted that officers would seek some clarity from Network Rail as to when a final decision on this issue was likely to be forthcoming.

Councillor Dave Baigent referred to Plan 3 of the report which indicated the footprint for a possible bridge location.  He was concerned that local residents would feel threatened by such a vague approach as it was unclear from the footprint whether the bridge would encroach on the gardens of properties already in that area.  He questioned whether the map should be slightly more precise in that respect.

Mr Davies said that this aspect of the scheme was at a very early stage.  The proposed footprint for a bridge had been deliberately drawn up in this way as officers were not sure yet specifically where a bridge would be located in this area.  He emphasised that this issue would need to go out to public consultation, but was of the opinion that it would have a minimal impact with both sides of the proposed bridge being part of new developments, rather than existing houses and gardens.

Helen Valentine asked whether the land currently owned by Network Rail could be obtained through a Compulsory Purchase Order.  Mr Davies confirmed that, theoretically, it could although it would be necessary to demonstrate that there were not any alternative options.  He felt that the scheme would have a weak argument in that respect.

Councillor Bick acknowledged the point regarding the two ends of the bridge being located in new developments, therefore not impacting existing houses and gardens, but put forward a further concern that the bridge could potentially use up valuable land needed to deliver much needed housing in the city.  He did not want to see any delays in the delivery of these new homes as a result of this part of the scheme and found it difficult to understand how this could all be delivered together, without knowing Network Rail's decision and knowing with some certainty whether the bridge would be necessary. 

Mr Davies reminded the Assembly that, ultimately, the Board would be asked for permission to consult on options for a new bridge if this was felt to be a useful way of completing all of the links in phase 2 of the scheme’s development. 

Councillor Hickford agreed to convey the concerns raised at this meeting to the Executive Board at its meeting on 10 November 2016.

The Joint Assembly RECOMMENDED that the Executive Board:

(a)        Notes the scheme progress being made in terms of planning approval, land procurement and stakeholder engagement.

(b)        Approves construction of phase one of the scheme, subject to gaining planning permission.

(c)        Delegates powers to approve the construction contract and selection of contractor for phase one to the Cambridgeshire County Council’s Executive Director of Economy, Transport and Environment, in consultation with the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Executive Board.

(d)        Supports the continuation of land negotiations.