Agenda item

The Chairman reported that a significant number of questions had been submitted by members of the public. Questions that did not relate to an item on the agenda but had been ruled in by the Chair would be taken under agenda item 4 with others being addressed at the relevant agenda item. Due to there being multiple questions which related to the same issues, the Chairman decided that questions would be grouped by issue and a collective response given for each group of questions. He expressed regret that due to the volume of questions, speakers whose questions had been grouped were requested to ask their questions in one minute each just for this meeting.

The following questions by Carolyn Postgate, Alistair Burford, Stephen Coats and Chris Pratten were grouped together:

Question by Carolyn Postgate

At the Joint Assembly meeting on 29 September 2016, you committed to making a decision on your preferred Park & Ride locations, 1, 2, 3 and Scotland Farm. You asked the officers to produce a side-by-side analysis of the sites so that you could make an informed decision. My questions are:

a.    When Andy Williams of AstraZeneca asked for a simple side-by-side analysis, why did the officers not disclose to the Assembly the Atkins Report on Park & Ride locations dated September 2015?

b.    Has the Assembly had sight of the Atkins Report before now?

c.    Given the strength of feeling against site 3 on 29 September, does the Assembly have the courage to recommend that site 3 should be excluded from further consideration?

Question by Alistair Burford

a.    Given that the officers state that the Atkins report ‘informed the consultation’ that was carried out in late 2015, why was site 3, Crome Lea Farm not disclosed as part of the public consultation?

b.    Does the Assembly think that if the Crome Lea had been clearly identified at the public consultation that the objections to the site would have been far greater?

c.    I have concerns about the report that was sent to me. I have made further Freedom of Information requests in an attempt to retrieve the original version and the revised version of the report, but my requests have not been successful. Could officers explain why the reports have been withheld?

d.    As the consultation excluded some vital information about the location of site three, does the Assembly agree that the consultation conducted in November 2015 was flawed and failed to meet the principles of a fair and transparent consultation?

Question by Stephen Coates

Mr Coates expressed disagreement with a time limit of one minute to ask a question, stating that this limited the community’s right to speak. The Chairman pointed out that he had used Chairman’s discretion to allow public questions which did not relate to items on the Joint Assembly meeting’s agenda, but on reflection thought it might be best to focus on questions related directly to the agenda for future meetings. The Chairman pointed out that he tried to be inclusive and assured Mr Coates that a written answer would be provided to the question he had submitted in advance of the meeting.

Question by Rita Lang on behalf of Chris Pratten

Will the Assembly recommend that officers be asked to immediately produce and publish a list of all documents and reports produced by Atkins and other consultants regarding the Cambourne to Cambridge transport corridor.

In response to these questions, Bob Menzies (Cambridgeshire County Council) explained that the Autumn 2015 consultation had been carried out on the concept of a Park and Ride site at or near the Madingley Mulch roundabout, rather than on specific sites for it. The Atkins report would be made available on the City Deal website; its purpose was to assess the feasibility of providing Park and Ride Capacity at or near Madingley Mulch roundabout. The Chairman stated that Mr Burford would receive a written answer to his question.

The following questions by Allan Treacy, Amanda Fuller and Roger Tomlinson were grouped together:

Question by Allan Treacy

With the topographical study on the Madingley Rise onroad busway option having been completed, why has the feasibility study not yet been completed and by what date will it be available?

Question by Amanda Fuller

Given that Option 3/3A for the West Cambridge busway was opposed by the majority of people in the consultation, given that the economic case for this option has more holes in it than a crocheted blanket, given that this option will be hugely environmentally destructive, given that this option represents very poor value for money and given that a Park & Ride on Madingley Hill can only be described as a blot on the landscape, does the Joint Assembly endorse the Executive Board's decision to choose this as the preferred option over the more cost effective and environmentally sensitive on-road scheme proposed by the Local Liaison Forum?

Question by Roger Tomlinson

Can the Joint Assembly members confirm that they have read the “Strategic Economic Appraisal" and understood it? Assuming the answer is yes, what is their view of them being supplied seriously misleading and inaccurate and incomplete information? And what action do they propose in relation to the officers who supplied it? Will the Joint Assembly insist that officers go back and re-develop the economic case on the correct basis?

In response to these questions, Bob Menzies explained that the Executive Board on 13 October 2016 had asked officers to assess the possibility of a two way busway and two car lanes on the A1303 Madingley Rise, as suggested by members of the Local Liaison Forum. The topographical study had been completed and the feasibility study was being undertaken to assess whether this was possible and its impacts. The Board had also asked officers to work up route options for a segregated bus-only road, which would come back to the Joint Assembly and Executive Board in July 2017.

The Chairman stated that a written answer would be provided to Mr Treacey’s question. He then explained that Antony Carpen’s question had been ruled in as it related to communications, an item that was not on the forward agenda for the Joint Assembly.

Question by Antony Carpen

Please can members, in particular the representatives from Cambridge Regional College and Anglia Ruskin University, update the Assembly on what actions they've taken to ensure they are systematically engaging with and getting ideas from young people - in particular in the run up to tranche two of funding.

The City Deal Programme Director responded to this question, thanking members of the public who had submitted responses to the City Deal’s communications review. She explained that the use of social media by the City Deal had increased with the intention of reaching younger people, however it was recognised that more could be done. She had met with Anglia Ruskin (ARU) and Cambridge Regional College (CRC), both of whom were engaging with their students’ unions on the City Deal and intended to continue to do so. Cycling was of most interest to ARU and apprenticeships to some CRC students. The Joint Assembly Chairman also responded by reminding Mr Carpen that he had trialled starting Joint Assembly meetings at 4pm rather than 2pm so that more members of the public might be able to attent more readily, but that had not had the effect that had been hoped.

Assurance was sought from the Chairman that when written answers were circulated to members of the public, that these would also be circulated to Joint Assembly members. The Chairman confirmed that as this was usual practice, Joint Assembly members would receive the written answers.