That this Council continues to oppose congestion charging for Cambridge.
Decision:
The following motion was LOST:
That this Council continues to oppose congestion charging for Cambridge.
Minutes:
Councillor Grenville Chamberlain moved the following motion as set out on the agenda:-
“That this Council continues to oppose congestion charging for Cambridge.”
In moving the motion, Councillor Chamberlain expressed the view that the problem of congestion in Cambridge city centre would only be addressed by a significant improvement in public transport and that this was unlikely to be achieved within the lifetime of this Council. He noted that there was scope to investigate alternative options for addressing air pollution, such as measures to control the entry of the most polluting vehicles into the city and, recognising the rapid evolution of vehicle technology, promoting the use of electric vehicles by requiring developers to include electric charging points in new developments. He commented that residents of South Cambridgeshire had no alternative to using cars as public transport was not a realistic option and that accordingly the District’s residents would be unfairly taxed by the introduction of congestion charging. Additionally he pointed out that charging would impact on people who could not afford to live in the city. Councillor Chamberlain accordingly urged the Council to confirm its continued opposition to congestion charging for Cambridge.
The motion was seconded by Councillor Sue Ellington.
During discussion:
· Councillor Aidan Van de Weyer outlined the nature of the measures being considered by the Greater Cambridge Partnership (GCP) to manage traffic in Cambridge. He acknowledged the need for high quality public transport in order to achieve modal shift. The GCP was working on its city access strategy and could not exclude any specific measures at this stage but he expressed the view that charging would not be acceptable unless other adequate modes of transport were first in place to enable people to travel into the city for work or other reasons. Councillor Van de Weyer expressed the view that the motion would unreasonably bind the work of the GCP.
· Councillor John Williams referred to comments by the Leader of Cambridgeshire County Council that congestion charging should not proceed until alternative measures were in place and indicated that this reflected the Administration’s position. Councillor Williams felt that there was a need for a “carrot and stick” approach to encouraging modal shift. He believed it was unlikely the metro would be in place for at least another ten years. Therefore in the short term, it was likely that subsidised buses would need to be part of the solution, but at the same time it was important to address congestion in the city. A package of demand management measures, which need not necessarily include congestion charging, could be introduced which could bring in revenue to fund improved public transport.
· Councillor Nick Wright argued that a congestion charge would be an unfair tax on the residents of South Cambridgeshire who had to travel into the city for work. He referred to a previous proposal to exclude City residents from charging and emphasised that any new system had to be fair to the residents of South Cambridgeshire.
· Councillor Philippa Hart agreed that any new scheme would need to be fair to the residents of South Cambridgeshire but did not believe the Council should continue to be bound by the previous Council’s decisions in 2010 and 2017 on congestion charging. She argued that residents would not be well served by the Council failing to engage in consideration of measures to address congestion, noting that demand measures could generate revenue to subsidise public transport improvements.
· Councillor Peter Topping was mindful that many workers did not have control over their rights of employment and needed to get into work on time and would be unfairly penalised by a congestion charge operating in peak times. He also highlighted the practical difficulty faced by some workers who needed to take tools and equipment for their jobs and which limited the scope for using public transport.
· Councillor Tom Bygott commented that public transport could not adequately serve all communities in a rural district like South Cambridgeshire. He feared that there would always be some villages that would be served by little or no public transport and accordingly argued that imposing a congestion charge would disadvantage people who had no alternative option to using the car.
· Councillor Deborah Roberts pointed out that congestion in the city reduced significantly outside school term time. Traffic movements during school term time should therefore be reviewed with a view to better managing congestion associated with school journeys. Councillor Roberts additionally commented that the control of traffic by traffic lights merited review. She felt that some simple approaches to traffic management should be explored prior to committing significant public funds to major infrastructure projects.
· Councillor Anna Bradnam expressed the view that it was important to keep all options on the table for review.
· Councillor Nigel Cathcart felt that there was a need for some form of demand management. Whilst there might be short term turbulence associated with introducing such measures, he believed that this would be outweighed by the longer term benefits. However, congestion charging should not be considered in isolation from other measures and it was important to be mindful of the interests of businesses in any scheme introduced, including exemptions where appropriate.
· Councillor Bill Handley felt that the motion was too broad and would shut down the Council’s opportunity to engage on the debate around demand management.
· Councillor Judith Rippeth commented that a blanket approach did not need to be taken when introducing any demand management scheme, for example consideration could be given to the use of vehicle number plate recognition systems or exemptions for business vehicles where appropriate.
Councillor Ellington, in seconding the motion, argued that the Council needed to think carefully about the rural nature of the district and suggested that it would not be possible to fund enough buses to accommodate all of the people who currently drove into the city. She believed that the congestion charge would be an unfair tax on the people of South Cambridgeshire, would disadvantage workers who were least able to bear the cost and would sound a “death knell” for high street shops which were already struggling to remain in business.
In summing up, Councillor Chamberlain reiterated his view that the significant public transport improvements needed to address the problems of congestion in Cambridge were unlikely to be implemented during the life time of this Council. He believed the Council should make clear that it was not in favour of congestion charging and imposing a tax upon the estimated 28,000 residents of South Cambridgeshire who had no option but to travel into Cambridge for work each day.
Upon being put to the vote, votes were cast as follows:-
In favour (10)
Councillors Ruth Betson, Dr. Shrobona Bhattacharya, Tom Bygott, Grenville Chamberlain, Graham Cone, Sue Ellington, Peter Topping, Bunty Waters, Heather Williams and Nick Wright.
Against (29)
Councillors Henry Batchelor, John Batchelor, Anna Bradnam, Dr. Martin Cahn, Nigel Cathcart, Sarah Cheung Johnson, Gavin Clayton, Dr. Claire Daunton, Dr. Douglas de Lacey, Clare Delderfield, Peter Fane, Neil Gough, Jose Hales, Bill Handley, Philippa Hart, Dr. Tumi Hawkins, Pippa Heylings, Steve Hunt, Peter McDonald, Brian Milnes, Dawn Percival, Judith Rippeth, Nick Sample, Bridget Smith, Hazel Smith, Dr.Ian Sollom, Aidan Van de Weyer, John Williams and Eileen Wilson.
Abstain (0)
The motion was therefore declared lost.