Agenda item

 

To consider the attached report.

 

The Executive Board AGREED unanimously to:

 

a)    Note the prioritisation of delivery of the Milton Road project ahead of the Histon Road scheme;

 

b)    Note the Milton Road Local Liaison Forum resolutions set out in Appendix B and agree the responses set out therein;

 

c)    Approve the ‘Final Concept’ design shown in Appendix D as a basis for detailed design work and the preparation of an interim business case to facilitate further public and statutory consultation;

 

d)    Note that wherever highway space permits, opportunities to adopt further aspects of the ‘Do Optimum’ design will be taken as part of the detailed design process;

 

e)    Support further engagement with the Milton Road LLF to help inform the detailed design process;

 

f)     Support discussions with relevant property owners to explore interest in a joint funding approach to potential streetscape and public realm improvements on land outside the public highway outside local shops along Milton Road;

 

g)    Note the revised project timelines shown in Appendix H and the next steps in project delivery set out in the report; and

 

h)    Supplement development of this scheme with further consideration of means of achieving modal shift to public transport.

 

Amendment to officer recommendations shown in italic text.

The Executive Board considered a report on future delivery priorities and project timelines for the Milton Road and Histon Road projects.

 

It was noted that the Joint Assembly had agreed to support the recommendations but with the addition of a further recommendation as set out below:

 

h)    Supplement development of this scheme with further consideration of means of achieving modal shift to public transport.

 

This had been passed with nine members voting on favour, none against and four abstentions.

 

The Chairperson invited Councillor Damien Tunnacliffe to read out the following statement from Councillor Ian Manning:

 

I cannot support the Milton Road scheme as presented and neither should the board.

 

The original objections and controversy around the scheme came from the removal of trees.  Despite repeated attempts at clarity we still do not have precise information on what replacement trees we can expect.

 

The consultants have repeatedly failed to model the effect of walking and cycling trips on traffic levels & therefore are unable to take this into account into the design.  The greater Cambridge partnership should not just be going with the UK "industry standard" but should be demanding a higher standard appropriate to Cambridge.

 

The inability to consider Dutch Style roundabouts and lack of imagination around junction design are further reasons to reject this scheme.

 

New York style trialing should be built into the project from this early stage, but despite repeated support for this concept at the LLFand local meetings, it STILL doesn't appear.

 

There are enough City Deal schemes going forward, this one should not be given the go ahead at this stage.

 

Please make sure it is noted that I support NOT banning parking 24/7 outside the Hairdresser and Fish and Chip shop on Green End Road.

 

Although I'm no longer the local member as the Divisions changed in May, I was during the scheme development and it was me that originally proposed the entire scheme via S106 feasibility study.

 

The Chairperson invited Councillor Jocelyne Scutt, Chairperson of the Milton Road Local Liaison Forum (LLF) to presented feedback on the Forum’s views on these proposals.  She referred to pages 38-45 of the agenda pack which set out the resolutions agreed by the Forum and the officer responses.  Councillor Scutt paid tribute to the work of the LLF, residents and officers who had put a huge amount of time and effort into engaging in the debate on the proposals. 

 

Councillor Scutt commented upon the recommendations being presented to the Executive Board and suggested adding the words ‘bearing in mind resolution (d)’ to the beginning of recommendation (c).  She also suggested the deletion of the word ‘process’ from the end of resolutions (d) and (e).  Councillor Scutt clarified that she had not been formally delegated to propose these amendments on behalf of the LLF, but was making these suggestions as its Chairperson.

 

The Chairperson in responding to Councillor Scutt’s comments paid tribute to the work of the LLF and the constructive way they had contributed to the process and in making progress towards a mutually satisfactory solution.  He also commended Councillor Scutt for her work in leading the work of the LLF.  Other Executive Board members endorsed the Chairperson’s comments and each paid tribute to the work of the LLF and thanked all concerned for participating in the process and for the contributions made. 

 

At this stage in the proceedings the Chairperson invited members of the public to ask questions relating to this item, which had been submitted in line with the provisions of Standing Orders.  He explained that a response to the questions asked would be covered in the officer presentation on the report.  Details of the questions and answers are set out in Appendix A to the minutes.

 

The Interim Transport Director in presenting the proposals stressed the outcome of what was being proposed was designed for 2031, taking into account predicted growth.  This was the start of a process and at this stage approval was being sought for the concept, not the final detailed design.  He believed the proposals being presented to the Executive Board addressed many of the concerns raised by the LLF and local residents.  Plans included ways of improving bus reliability, high quality cycling and pedestrian provision.  The aim was also to achieve a high quality environment for local residents.  He confirmed the LLF had been very instrumental in coming to the final concept and there would be further opportunity to work together to develop the final design proposals which would ultimately be presented to the Executive Board for approval and then be subject to public consultation. 

 

The Executive Board noted that the Milton Road and Histon Road schemes supported the priority of achieving efficient and reliable movement between key existing and future housing and employment sites.  This included new housing at Northstowe, Waterbeach and on the northern fringe of Cambridge and improved links with key employment sites, such as the Science Park and Cambridge North Station, benefitting residents, commuters and businesses.  The projects aimed to provide enhanced infrastructure for busses, to improve service reliability and journey times and encourage greater patronage.  They also aimed to significantly improve the quality and safety of cycling and walking facilities, whilst also enhancing the quality of the streetscape and public realm areas and the environment.  To avoid creating undue pressure on the road network in Cambridge, it was proposed that the projects would be constructed consecutively rather that concurrently.  While both schemes were high priority, the Milton Road scheme had a stronger case for early delivery and would be progressed ahead of Histon Road.  A detailed report on the Histon Road project would be presented to the November Executive Board meeting.

 

The Chairperson on behalf of the Executive Board welcomed the progress made, much of which he believed could be attributed to the hard work of the Interim Transport Director and he thanked him for his work.  

 

The Executive Board was invited to consider and comment on the proposals, taking into account feedback from the Joint Assembly, comments from a local Member, feedback from the LLF, questions from the public and officer responses.  The response to questions of clarification and main points of discussion are summarised below:

 

·         Councillor Herbert referred to progressing to final design and asked if there was a list of items on which specific input from the LLF would be required.  In response the Interim Transport Director confirmed that this included trees, verges, junction designs, which would be critical in looking at bus lane lengths, crossings and bus stops.  Work would also focus on the public realm including siting of trees.  This was by no means an exhaustive list as other matters would emerge as detailed design work progressed.

 

·         Councillor Herbert referred to proposals for the Highworth Roundabout and options considered.  The Interim Transport Director responded that there was a lot of space there, but the LLF and residents were quite clear they wanted to retain as much green there as possible.  There was another option put forward that involved a T junction, that worked just as well, but that wasn’t given as much support.  The roundabout was the concept being proposed, but there would still be lots of opportunity to refine that more for pedestrians and cycling.

 

·         Councillor Herbert referred to comments about the focus being on four wheeled vehicles and asked what was being done to ensure we modelled pedestrian movements and cycling movements.  The Interim Transport Director confirmed that the ongoing modeling had already factored in all the signals with all the right timings for cyclists and pedestrians as this affected traffic flows.  Allowance would also be made for some cyclists using the road and the potential impact this would have on traffic.  While the Interim Transport Director accepted the premise that design was for four wheeled vehicles and above in terms of modelling, in terms of the proposed concept whilst there was provision for 190 extra meters of lane for those types of vehicles, there was 17,000 extra metres for two wheeled vehicles.

  

·         In response to a question from the Chairperson, the Interim Transport Director explained the difference between the various models.  Two models were being used, firstly the CRSM which was the Cambridge regional model which covered the whole of Cambridgeshire.  By its very nature, this was a general model and did not provide fine detail.  It covered the key links and had just been updated to take account of all of the development within the Local Plans and the impact of Cambridge North Station.  Paramics was an industry standard model which takes detail out of the general model and modelled individual junctions along shorter lengths of road.

 

·         The Chairperson asked for clarification on how proposals for Mitcham’s Corner linked with these proposals.  In response, it was reported that when the original Milton Road/Histon Road scheme came forward it included Mitcham’s Corner, but the Executive Board subsequently decided to take it out of the proposal.  There had been discussions about this at the LLF and there was support to bring that back into the mix.  The Combined Authority was also interested in bringing in a scheme there and officers were discussing how this might be achieved.  It would not alter significantly what was being proposed but it would greatly add to it.  The Chairperson responded that he supported this.

 

·         With reference to cycle ways, the Chairperson highlighted the 1728 metres [over a mile] of extra cycle way being created.  He referred to trees and reported that it had been confirmed that there were currently 139 trees on Milton Road, of which 11 were categorised as being dead or dying.  The Chairperson had counted 189 ‘green dots’ on the final concept plan of which 168 were on Milton Road and drew attention to the fact that the concept of providing more trees was being established.  In response the Interim Transport Director replied he hoped that this would be confirmed in the final detailed designs.  He explained that the trees identified in the final concept plan took account of driveways, but at this stage it was not possible to take account of what services ran underground.  This would be looked at as part of the detailed design work.

 

·         In response to a further question about next steps, it was confirmed that it was proposed to appoint a construction contractor to develop the detailed layout plan towards the end of 2017.  Practice was to get contractors signed up early so that they could be involved in the process of producing the final scheme.  Any appointment would be subject to the usual established local authority processes.  The start of the scheme would not be until well into 2018, subject to appropriate approvals being secured from the Executive Board.  With reference to the planned timescale for presenting detailed proposals it was confirmed that this was planned for March 2018.

 

·         Professor Allmendinger expressed the view that these proposals were moving in the right direction and progressing from a general concept to a detailed scheme.  He was heartened by the LLF’s comments and this engagement had clearly been a very positive part of this process.  He welcomed the potential re-inclusion of Mitcham’s Corner as it made no sense to stop at the other side of Gilbert Road.

 

·         Councillor Bates welcomed the proposed workshops and ongoing engagement with the LLF and local residents on developing the detailed design.  In particular he supported further work on bus lanes.  He drew attention to predicted growth, in particular a planning application for the development of over 6000 homes at Waterbeach currently being considered by South Cambridgeshire District Council.  He also referred to studies on the A10 up to Ely and Kings Lynn which would look at the impact of growth on this and other counties.  It would be important to see how these interlinked with the corridor into Cambridge.

 

·         Councillor Bates referred to the LLF Chairperson’s reference to park and ride charges and explained that he was currently working on removing the £1 charge from all park and ride sites in the county.  He also supported comments made about Mitcham’s Corner.

 

·         Councillor Herbert recognised that considerable progress had been made, but there was still a lot to do.  He highlighted the need to look at major junctions and the need to take into account safety, which was the subject of Mr Taylor’s question.  With reference to cost benefit analysis, he was of the opinion that the Executive Board should not be worried about putting extras into the scheme if this was responding to the views of a community who cared about the area.

 

·         Councillor Herbert supported the amendment proposed by the Joint Assembly about modal shift and commented that the GCP should look at what was a fair and deliverable, equitable way of capping the number of cars that came into the City, which would include the number coming down this road.  This was particularly relevant given plans to work in a more consensual way with the Combined Authority.  It was important to accept that we faced a period of significant change and doing nothing was not an option.

 

·         With reference to Mitcham’s Corner, Councillor Herbert acknowledged that the City Council and the GCP would need to look at this.  He suggested that once the work of the LLF on this project was done it be asked to have an initial discussion about this, in the context of the local action plan being proposed for that area.

 

The Executive Board AGREED unanimously to:

 

a)    Note the prioritisation of delivery of the Milton Road project ahead of the Histon Road scheme;

 

b)    Note the Milton Road Local Liaison Forum resolutions set out in Appendix B and agree the responses set out therein;

 

c)    Approve the ‘Final Concept’ design shown in Appendix D as a basis for detailed design work and the preparation of an interim business case to facilitate further public and statutory consultation;

 

d)    Note that wherever highway space permits, opportunities to adopt further aspects of the ‘Do Optimum’ design will be taken as part of the detailed design process;

 

e)    Support further engagement with the Milton Road LLF to help inform the detailed design process;

 

f)     Support discussions with relevant property owners to explore interest in a joint funding approach to potential streetscape and public realm improvements on land outside the public highway outside local shops along Milton Road;

 

g)    Note the revised project timelines shown in Appendix H and the next steps in project delivery set out in the report; and

 

h)    Supplement development of this scheme with further consideration of means of achieving modal shift to public transport.

 

Amendment to officer recommendations shown in italic text.