Agenda item - A1307 Three Campuses to Cambridge

To consider the attached report.

The Executive Board AGREED unanimously to:

i. Note the revised options and strategies resulting from the work with the Local Liaison Forum (LLF).

ii. Note the increased cost of the strategies, more than the £39m previously estimated, as a result of additional options.

iii. Approve the withdrawal of existing park and ride proposals at Babraham Village and Wild Country Organics pending new larger sites being identified.

iv. Public consultation on the three strategies subject to Strategy 1 being considered as an off-road public transport corridor; with the most appropriate mode being the subject of further consideration and consultation at a later stage of scheme development following the outcome of this consultation.

v. Consultation to aim to begin in February 2018 following discussion with the Mayor and Combined Authority on the content of the consultation.

vi. Delegate authority to the Transport Director to approve public consultation materials in conjunction with the Chair and the Transport Portfolio Holder.

vii. Approve environmental surveys to be carried out starting in January 2018 to meet seasonal windows for species.

viii. Authorise officers to progress the design and planning of lower cost works within the public highway not requiring consents for early delivery, subject to consultation.

ix. To rename the project ‘Cambridge South East Transport Study’ and ask the Local Liaison Forum to endorse this.

Councillor Tony Orgee, Chairman of the A1307 Local Liaison Forum (LLF), updated the Executive Board on the work of the LLF:

· Five workshops had taken place to develop options for the A1307 Haverhill to Cambridge corridor. 200 ideas had come forward which were grouped into 40 proposals. Three of the workshops looked at specific sections of the A1307.

· The three strategies set out in the officer report to the Executive Board had been developed by the LLF and had been presented at its meeting in September 2017. Councillor Orgee explained that all three strategies were identical between Fourwentways and Haverhill. The LLF agreed that all three strategies should be consulted on. Councillor Orgee emphasised that this did not mean that LLF members supported all three schemes.

· Councillor Orgee urged that the work on the A1307 Haverhill to Cambridge corridor should not be seen in isolation from the other work of the GCP and that the work of the GCP should not be seen in isolation from the work of other organisations, such as the Combined Authority and the Chamber of Commerce in Haverhill.

· Once consultation was over, the LLF urged that work on the uncontentious section which was common to all three strategies be progressed with as quickly as possible.

· Councillor Orgee supported the removal of the park and ride sites from the consultation.

The Executive Board Chairman noted and thanked Councillor Orgee for his update and thanked the LLF on behalf of the Executive Board for their work.

The title of the project was discussed. The Executive Board Chairman proposed the name ‘Cambridge South East Transport Study’, which the LLF Chairman supported. The Executive Board asked the LLF to endorse the proposed new title.

The GCP Interim Director of Transport presented the report and the three strategies detailed within it. He drew the Board’s attention to the cost implications of the three strategies. Strategy 2 and 3 were similar in cost however Strategy 1 was circa £145 million, but was more future proof than the other two strategies.

The following points of clarification were provided:

· Strategy 2 did not reference mode shift while the other two strategies did.

· The Executive Board was informed that the economic benefit of the £145 million spend on Strategy 1, was estimated to be £280-320 million.

· Environmental surveys would look at the presence of any protected species and ecologies. These surveys could only be carried out at certain times of the year and could not be carried out during the Spring and Summer. The survey data would then allow an environmental impact assessment to be carried out by specialists in environmental assessment.

· The public consultation would present the modelling of journey time savings clearly.

The report was discussed and debated, with the Executive Board making the following points:

· Members advised that Addenbrooke’s Hospital needed to be closely engaged with and that views of staff on the Biomedical Campus needed to be taken into account.

· The Biomedical Campus’ masterplan exercise needed to be factored in.

· Cost/benefit of the strategies and value for money needed to be detailed in the consultation and this made clear for the public to understand.

· The Vice Chairman advised that early investment was needed once consultation had been completed and a decision made following this.

· The Vice Chairman expressed support for leaving the option of light rail open. He was keen for more people in the area to commute by rail and for the GCP to contribute to the rail study. He had hoped for more commitment from central government to Cambridge South station than had been announced in the Autumn budget statement.

· The scheme needed to fit in with the strategy for the whole of the south of Cambridge.

· Mark Reeve supported all three strategies being consulted on provided the Board was reassured that all the options were deliverable. He questioned the cost/benefit of Strategy 1 and was sceptical of its economic benefit.

· The Chairman pointed out that one of the advantages of Strategy 1 was that it was on an old railway line. He advised that the National Infrastructure report referred to land value capture and suggested that developer contributions could have a part in funding schemes such as this.

· The Chambers of Commerce in Haverhill and Suffolk should be engaged with as part of the consultation, as well as the relevant MPs.

.

The recommendations in the report were discussed. Members were advised that following discussions between the Chairman and GCP Interim Chief Executive and the release of new national documents, a new recommendation (iv) and new recommendation (v) were proposed. The wording of these was circulated to the Executive Board and members of the public at the meeting. The Interim Chief Executive explained the reasons for proposing these new recommendations which reflected the views of the Joint Assembly and the GCP’s close working with the Combined Authority. All members agreed to the inclusion of these additional recommendations and a vote was taken on all recommendations: