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:

Questions by members of the public were asked and answered as follows:

 

Question from Stephen Coates

Stephen Coates read out his pre-submitted questions:

·         Why did the City Deal Board state that Cambridge University has never supported a busway across the West Fields when its agents Carter Jonas are stating that development of the land North of Barton Road could provide land and funding for such a busway?

·         When the Board issued its response to Save the West Fields’ question on governance on 9 November 2016, why did you amend the statement of Cambridge University to exclude these key words which were said on October 13th  (even though it was described as University statement by Nigel Slater read out by the Chair at the Board meeting on 13 October 2016)?

·         In view of the fact Cambridge University and Colleges have now offered to part pay for the A428 busway by developing West Fields with housing, how can you argue they have not influenced a route over the West Fields since their consultation submission in November 2015?

·         Is it correct that Corpus Christi College, a member of the NBRLOG has offered Dumpling Farm as a site for a park and ride cycle facility, again offering an incentive for a location of the Orbital route East of the M11?

·         Can you say whether the City Deal as a body has ever threatened either an individual, a business or an organisation with legal action or taken legal action against any person, business or organisation? If so, who is responsible for authorising such action and what has the cost to date been for legal advice and intervention resulting from such action and what has the cost to date been, for legal advice and intervention resulting from such actions? If legal threats or action have been entered into by the City Deal as a body, are they prepared to make the details public?

 

Professor Nigel Slater explained that, as set out in its original response to the City Deal consultation on A428 Cambourne to Cambridge bus route submitted in November 2015, the University supported enabling further public transport accessibility to the West Cambridge Site, which is a major employment site, and which has submitted a planning application for further academic and commercial research developments.

 

Tanya Sheridan, City Deal Programme Director, explained that no such legal action had been taken, as the “City Deal” was a joint committee and not an organisation in its own right. Were there any consideration of legal action it would be that taken by one or more of the partner councils.

 

Stephen Coates stated that he did not consider that his questions had been answered. Councillor Lewis Herbert explained that he had been offered Stephen Coates a meeting and this offer still stood.

 

Question from Robin Pellew of Cambridgeshire Past, Present and Future

Robin Pellew read out his pre-submitted questions:

·         What arrangements are the City Deal and the County Council putting in place with the operators to create Enhanced Partnerships?

·         Does the County Council have plans to control bus services post-devolution under a franchise model?

·         Will the City Deal instruct the County Council to carry out an envisioning exercise, including operators and passengers, to determine with a better bus service might comprise?

 

Bob Menzies, Director of Strategy and Development at Cambridgeshire County Council, explained that the situation was uncertain as the Buses Bill was still progressing through Parliament and was likely to be subject to further changes. Any decision regarding the implementation of a franchise model would be made by the Combined Authority, for both Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, and not the County Council. Councillor Francis Burkitt expressed his support for working more closely with private bus operators. It was noted that any planned improvement of the bus service would have to be part of wider strategy.

 

Question from Penny Heath (on behalf of Edward Leigh)

Penny Heath read out the following questions that had been pre-submitted by Edward Leigh:

·         Does the Board recognise the need to invest more in communications to mitigate the risks of failing to engage with stakeholders and the wider population?

·         The Communications team are currently updating the marketing and communications strategy. Is the Board satisfied that it is adequately resourced?

·         Is the Board satisfied that the Communications team has access to the right expertise, outside the councils where necessary?

In particular, does the Board recognise that:

·         Poorly-designed consultation questionnaires limit the value of the data collected, and can miss important opportunities?

·         Designing questionnaires that are engaging, balanced and meaningful is a specialist skill, which (on past evidence) needs to be bought in from outside the councils?

P.S. When may I expect to receive answers to my questions submitted to the Executive Board on 1 September and 10 November?

 

Councillor Lewis Herbert stated that considerable progress had been made with regard to strengthening the City Deal communications team. A dedicated Communications Manager had been appointed and a digital media officer had been recruited jointly with the City Council. Greater use was being made of social media, including the live tweeting of meetings. A communications survey was currently accessible via the website. Local communities affected by the proposed scheme were also being engaged via the Local Liaison Forums and workshops.

 

It was noted that officers had met with Edward Leigh and answered the questions he submitted on 1 September and 10 November, and this would be supplemented in writing.

 

Question from Wendy Blythe

Wendy Blythe read out a statement expressing concerns about the design and implementation of Phase 1 of the Hills Road Cycleway improvement scheme delivered recently through Cycle City Ambition Grant (CCAG) and the City Deal cross-city cycling Hills Road to Addenbrooke’s scheme. Concerns included:

·         CCAG scheme was over budget and took longer than anticipated.

·         The safety for cyclists on the CCAG scheme.

·         Lack of drainage on CCAG scheme.

·         The group reviewing the CCAG scheme will not meet until February, whilst the plans for the Hills Road to Addenbrooke’s scheme will be displayed in January and are due to start in February.

·         Need for experts in landscape design to be involved in the Hills Road to Addenbrooke’s scheme.

·         Need for an independent review of the CCAG scheme.

 

Bob Menzies, Director of Strategy and Development at Cambridgeshire County Council, explained that the Arbury Road scheme, which was very similar to the Hills Road scheme, had been under budget and only a week later than scheduled. Extensive evaluation and monitoring was taking place as part of the Department for Transport Cycle City Ambition programme.

 

It was noted that the member led review was due to report back to the County Council’s Economy and Environment Committee in March 2017. Councillor Lewis Herbert stated that he would meet with officers to discuss the timetable and to ensure that lessons learnt from the CCAG schemes would inform the Hills Road to Addenbrooke’s scheme.

Supporting documents: