Agenda item

The Chairman reported apologies from the Chair of the Cambridge South East Transport Study Local Liaison Forum (LLF) who was unable to attend the meeting, but had asked for a statement to be read out on his behalf. It was noted that the LLF had met on 12 September 2018 and received a presentation on the paper being discussed by the Joint Assembly and Executive Board. The LLF had:

·         Noted the outcomes of the consultation held early in 2018; and

·         Broadly supported the further work proposed in relation to Strategy 1, but there had been some support for continuing to consider light rail and it had been noted that if Strategy 1 proved to be impractical, Strategies 2 and 3 remained on the table.

The GCP Transport Director presented the report which set out the GCP’s vision and objectives for public transport,  the Cambridge South East Transport Study business case development work and the results of the public consultation undertaken at the end of 2017.

The GCP’s Transport Portfolio Holder informed the Joint Assembly that the LLF meetings which he had attended had expressed their general support for the proposals.

Regarding Haverhill to Linton, the Joint Assembly was made aware that West Suffolk aspired to enhance its highways capacity in that area, which did not align with the aspirations of the GCP to reduce congestion in  Cambridge while highways enhancement would facilitate congestion reaching Cambridge more quickly. The GCP was working with West Suffolk on this.

The Joint Assembly discussed the report and made the following points:

·         Councillor Williams pointed out the need to serve the key employment areas. He felt that Strategy 1 did not serve the Babraham Research Campus and stopped short of Granta Park. The proposed routing for Strategy 1 needed to set out how it would serve these sites to ensure the vision and objectives for public transport were achieved.

·         Councillor Massey queried the safety considerations of segregated routes.

·         Andy Williams suggested that the relationship between the Sanger Institute, Babraham Research Campus and Granta Park needed to be understood. He also queried how far the existing Babraham park and ride site would impact on the business case for having a transport scheme further out of the city.

·         Christopher Walkinshaw observed that the report did not set out the need for the capacity for the mass transit scheme. He urged that this be picked up.

The proposals also needed to bear in mind the wider area and national highway network given that not everyone travelling from Haverhill wanted to come into Cambridge.

·         Helen Valentine suggested that the overall benefit of the proposals had been underestimated. Cambridge South Station had not been taken into account and, if delivered, would increase the benefits significantly.

·         Councillor Bick supported the positive direction of the proposals and welcomed the opportunity to tackle the environmental challenges and to enhance and improve the environment.  He commented on the need to serve the key residential centres outside the city, such as Sawston, Stapleford and Great Shelford, as well as the key employment centres.

·         Councillor Kavanagh observed that 25% of consultation respondents had not provided their postcodes. It was suggested that this may be due to a lobbying group responding to the consultation. In response, the GCP Chief Executive assured the Joint Assembly that the research team had sophisticated manual and automated technology to ensure the response to the public consultation was balanced and not just from one area.

·         The GCP’s Transport Portfolio Holder reported that County Councillor Kevin Cuffley was concerned that the villages of Sawston and Shelford were not forgotten in the development of the infrastructure. Councillor Bates emphasised the importance of keeping local members such as County Councillor Cuffley, involved.

In response to the Joint Assembly’s comments, the Transport Director made the following points:

·         The employment sites were the key drivers for usage of the proposed schemes, however he acknowledged the residential centres were also important.

·         Not all users would travel along the corridor from end to end, so access points were key for local services to ensure they had access to the infrastructure.

·         Technology had moved on since the creation of the Guided Busway. This scheme would be less intrusive. Safe walking and cycling was integral and was being designed into the project.

·         The route was indicative and discussions had taken place with most of the landowners. Regular dialogue was taking place with Cambridge Past Present and Future (CPPF) to address its concerns.

·         The future location of park and ride sites was important on this route. The aim was to get people onto public transport as soon as possible on their journeys in order to achieve traffic and environmental improvements. Park and ride sites therefore needed to be further out of the city. Their relationship to employment site locations was important along this route.

·         Cambridge South Station could not be included in the proposals as this was not yet a committed scheme.

The Chairman summarised the conclusions of the debate noting that the Joint Assembly had broadly welcomed the proposals and supported their progression.  However there had been concern about the reach of Strategy 1 to Babraham Research Campus, Granta Park and the Wellcome Genome Campus, as well as to the villages in the vicinity; Sawston, Stapleford and Great Shelford in particular. The opportunities for potential environmental enhancement offered by the scheme had been supported.  There was a strong desire for Cambridge South Station to move up the agenda so that it could be incorporated into the business case.