Agenda item

To consider the attached report.

The Joint Assembly considered the overall approach being recommended to the Executive Board to develop a full business case for a preferred option for a new park and ride site immediately to the north west of junction 11 of the M11, to include increased park and ride capacity and access/bus priority measures both into and out of the park and ride along Trumpington Road for city bound park and ride bus services. The business case would compare the costs and benefits of a new park and ride site against significant expansion of the existing site at Trumpington.

Whether to expand the Trumpington Park and Ride led to a detailed debate amongst the Joint Assembly members, with a difference of opinions expressed. An additional recommendation to the Executive Board was proposed by Councillor Tim Bick that further park and ride development should be considered only on the Hauxton side of the M11. This proposal was seconded by Councillor Williams and a vote was taken with five members voting in favour of the proposal, five against and two abstaining.

The Joint Assembly Chairman requested that the Local Liaison Forum (LLF) received a written response to the resolutions made at both the September and November meetings. A meeting would be arranged between the Executive Board Transport Portfolio Holder and the Chairman of the LLF to discuss the responses.

Helen Bradbury, Chairman of the Western Orbital Local Liaison Forum, was invited to address the Joint Assembly. She brought the following points to their attention:

1.    Process – the LLF requested that more timebe given between the publication of end stage reports and the timing of the subsequent Joint Assembly meeting so that it could better feed its recommendations, concerns and suggestions into the decision-making process. The timing structure made it difficult for the Joint Assembly to take account of the LLF’s views and consequently the LLF did not believe that its views,recommendations and suggestions were given adequate consideration. The LLF Chairman explained the considerable amount of work that needed to be done by the LLF in the time between reports being published and Joint Assembly meetings taking place. This had been particularly difficult for the LLF in September 2017 with a large number of documents to consider in 12 days between publication of the Joint Assembly papers and the subsequent meeting. The LLF therefore recommended that an extra week be given between the publication of relevant end stage reports and the timing of the subsequent Joint Assembly meeting, to enable the LLF to carry out its relevant business within a reasonable timescale before the meeting.

2.    Connectivity at junction 13- The LLF did not believe that it was sensible to decide the alignment of the Cambourne to Cambridge busway first. The LLF believed that connectivity of a Western Orbital service to Cambourne to Cambridge bus services was of key importance. End to end journey times and journey quality from west of Cambridge settlements to key employment sites such as the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, were a critical factor in judging the benefit of these schemes, to allow proper evaluation of benefit to cost ratio. The LLF requested that the Joint Assembly recommended to the Executive Board that end-to-end journey metrics be included in all documentation on this and related schemes moving forward, particularly in the forthcoming consultation literature.

3.    Park and Ride at junction 11 – the LLF needed more information and more options to be put forward in order to provide a considered response to this. The LLF wanted to know why other locations around M11 junction 11 had been rejected so early in the process. The LLF acknowledged the importance of adequate park and ride provision near M11 junction 11, but had serious reservations about both park and ride options presented in the end stage report. The LLF felt it had not received answers to the questions it had asked of the Joint Assembly in September 2017. Trumpington Residents Association had raised many questions about the visual impact on the local community particularly if the Trumpington park and ride was decked, the impact on the local network if it was extended, what would happen during construction and the value for money per new parking space. The Joint Assembly was informed that Hauxton and Haston parish councils had questions regarding the impact on their villages of a large park and ride west of the M11, such as traffic through the villages which were already congested, access to the new site and concerns about erosion of the green belt buffer between Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire villages. The LLF had passed a resolution at its 17 June 2017 meeting that the new park and ride should be sited before congestion began and as a general principal that new transport infrastructure should not be allowed to urbanise villages surrounding the city or unduly damage the city’s greenbelt.

The LLF Chairman asked for the following in order to allow community feedback to be given:     

1.    A written response to the questions that the LLF had asked of the GCP at its September 2017 meeting.

2.    A written response to the LLF’s new concerns, voiced at its meeting on 31^st  October 2017, about each of the proposed sites.

3.    Further possible sites to be brought forward, together with an explanation as to why other sites around junction 11 had been rejected.

4.    As the evidence base on the number of parking spaces projected to be needed around the M11 in 2031 did not factor in the impact of the new Cambridge South rail station, or the potential effect of increased parking provision further south along the A10 (for example at Foxton station), the LLF requested officers provided data and modelling on these two points. 

5.    Where commuters were travelling to and not just where they were coming from, needed to be considered to enable  informed community feedback to be given on the required size and location of park & ride provision at junction 11.

The Joint Assembly Chairman asked officers to provide written answers to the questions the LLF felt had not been answered. Councillor Ian Bates agreed to organise a meeting between himself and Ms Bradbury to discuss in details the LLF’s concerns in detail.

The Interim Director of Transport responded to the points raised by the LLF Chairman while presenting the report:

·         It was clarified that the western orbital was originally going to be a new road but was then looked at to run on the M11 between junctions 11, 12 and 13.

·         The M11 was being dealt with as apart of the smart motorway upgrade with Highways England.

·         The recommendation regarding junction 11 was to look at a new park and ride site to accommodate the parking capacity that was needed for the anticipated increase in traffic volume. This was rather than doing more with the existing park and ride site at Trumpington. An alternative site was being looked into and there were limitations on where this could be. A consultation group would be set up to work on this. Foxton was being looked at as part of the process.

·         Park and cycle at junction 12 at Barton was looked at however, colleagues from the Cambridge cycling group advised there would be little use of this therefore the Executive Board would be advised not to consider this.

·         M11 junction 13 was tied up with Cambourne to Cambridge and the recommendation was for this to be dealt with as part of the Cambourne to Cambridge proposals.

·         As the Western Orbital LLF had two major schemes on it, it was considered beneficial to remove junction 11 from the work of this LLF and to create a consultation group to look at this.

·         Cambridge South station would be considered, although it was pointed out that the only developments that could ultimately be factored in were those that were in the approved Local Plan.

The Joint Assembly considered the overall approach being recommended to the Executive Board to develop a full business case for a preferred option for a new park and ride site immediately to the north west of junction 11 of the M11, to include increased park and ride capacity and access/bus priority measures both into and out of the park and ride along Trumpington Road for city bound park and ride bus services. The business case would compare the costs and benefits of a new park and ride site against significant expansion of the existing site at Trumpington.

The Joint Assembly debated the proposals:

·         Andy Williams informed members that AstraZeneca strongly supported new park and ride capacity at M11 junction 11 and at Fourwentways. This was based on evidence gathered by AstraZeneca which mapped where employees were coming from based on where they lived and where they were going to. AstraZeneca also had predictive software which could map what would happen if there was a train station. Mr Williams offered to work with officers to make information available where possible in order to help with mapping. Mr Williams understood the concerns of the local population but emphasized that more park and ride capacity was critical and needed to be in place by 2019. He questioned the lengthy timeline of the end of 2021 for a new park and ride to be built.

·         Cllr Bick advised that the GCP should be planning on the basis of scenario three of the modelling of the number of parking spaces needed by 2031. Additional demand management measures in the city needed to be envisaged. These additional measures were critical and a sense of urgency needed to be renewed regarding this. There were significant constraints of the existing park and ride site at Trumpington due to the new community built around it, therefore the Harston side of the M11 needed to be considered for a new park and ride site rather than extending the Trumpington site.

·         Some members felt that large expansion of the existing park and ride site would be disruptive and add to the already substantial congestion around the entry and exit to the park and ride. The use of the existing footprint at Trumpington did however need to be optimised.

·         Cllr Bick referred to access to a potential new park and ride site at Harston via a new bridge, advising that there may be issues with this as this would be part of a country park that was envisaged. In response to this, the Transport Director informed members that access to a new park and ride site had been discussed with Highways England. The existing service bridge would take the weight to enable access to the site. Other possibilities for access to the site were being looked at.

·         Cllr Bick asked whether the park and ride could be moved off the site at Trumpington, or whether commitments had been made to John Lewis, which tied the park and ride to this site.

·         Cllr Bick asked for further opportunity for the Joint Assembly to discuss the smart motorway issue that was being discussed with Highways England, to ensure it would deliver what was needed.

·         Councillor Kavanagh agreed that the existing park and ride site at Trumpington should not be expanded and that a new park and ride site with plenty of capacity should be built. He asked if a new park and ride site were built, whether the existing park and ride site could be taken out of service and turned over to use for housing.

·         Claire Ruskin highlighted the need to manage growth well and that with more access to the hospital and jobs needed, more parking spaces would be needed. Ms Ruskin supported the idea of expanding the existing park and ride site at Trumpington as this would be the quickest and easiest thing to do, but advised that new park and ride sites were also needed. Hubs also needed to considered.

·         Dr Wells advised that given the rate of growth of jobs on the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, there was urgency for a solution which needed to be consulted on.

·         Some members expressed disappointment that park and cycle was not being taken forward. Councillors Baigent, Kavanagh and Dr Wells spoke in favour of park and cycle and suggested trial of small scale park and cycle which could be expanded if demand materialized suggested. It was proposed that this be considered on an existing park and ride site.

The Interim Director of Transport responded to the points raised:

·         The Joint Assembly’s comments about a trial park and cycle would be taken onboard.

·         The Joint Assembly was informed that it would take 18 months to build a new park and ride site, however the planning process and consultation took more time hence the timeline of 2021 for build of a new site.

·         The GCP was talking to Highways England about the junctions to make them more accessible to park and ride buses.

·         Travel hubs were being looked at. These were envisaged to be places with coffee shops, electric charging points, cycle provision and the potential for the provision of office space.

Councillor Ian Bates added:

·         Trumpington park and ride was owned by Cambridgeshire County Council and a bus from here went to the biomedical campus.

·         The County Council did have an agreement with John Lewis regarding the long term provision of their retail collection point at the park and ride site.

Councillor Bick queried how the Joint Assembly’s views would be represented to the Executive Board by not voting on recommendations. The GCP Interim Chief Executive assured members that their views would be captured and fed back to the Executive Board with the relevant Portfolio Holder present at the meeting to hear their views. Views expressed would be fed into the officer report to the Executive Board following the Joint Assembly meeting. The Joint Assembly Chairman would also be submitting a report on the Joint Assembly meeting to the Executive Board, which would reflect the views expressed by members.

Councillor Tim Bick proposed that a steer was given to the Executive Board that further park and ride development should only be on the Harston side of the M11. This was seconded by Councillor Williams and a vote was taken with five members voting in favour of the proposal, five against and two abstaining.