While this Council recognises the urgent need for
high-quality public transport connections between Cambourne, Bourn
Airfield and Cambridge, which will be delivered through the Greater
Cambridge Partnership (GCP), it believes that it is essential that
decisions are made on the basis of publicly scrutinised evidence
and advice to ensure that the best choices are made.
This Council therefore welcomes the undertaking from the GCP to
publish the evidence relating to the northern off-road route as a
first step towards a robust comparison, building on the work in the
Combined Authority’s recently published Arup report, between
that northern route and the southern route via Coton, both of which
meet the new requirement of the Combined Authority that any route
be CAM-compliant.
This Council also acknowledges the commitment to ongoing work with
the local communities along the proposed routes and calls for close
engagement with representatives of the A428 Local Liaison Forum
(LLF) throughout the process of the development of the outline
business case for the Cambourne to Cambridge project.
This Council welcomes the offer from GCP officers to look at plans
to introduce interim on-road measures along Madingley Road on
Madingley Hill, which the ward councillors for Coton, along with
the LLF, have been calling for.
Decision:
Council AGREED the following motion:
While this Council recognises the urgent need for
high-quality public transport connections between Cambourne, Bourn Airfield and Cambridge, which will
be delivered through the Greater Cambridge Partnership (GCP), it
believes that it is essential that decisions are made on the basis
of publicly scrutinised evidence and advice to ensure that the best
choices are made.
This Council therefore welcomes the undertaking from the GCP to
publish the evidence relating to the northern off-road route as a
first step towards a robust comparison, building on the work in the
Combined Authority’s recently published Arup report, between
that northern route and the southern route via Coton, both of which meet the new requirement of
the Combined Authority that any route be CAM-compliant.
This Council also acknowledges the commitment to ongoing work with
the local communities along the proposed routes and calls for close
engagement with representatives of the A428 Local Liaison Forum
(LLF) throughout the process of the development of the outline
business case for the Cambourne to
Cambridge project.
This Council welcomes the offer from GCP officers to look at plans
to introduce interim on-road measures along Madingley Road on Madingley Hill, which the ward councillors for
Coton, along with the LLF, have been
calling for.
Minutes:
Councillor Philip Allen moved the following motion as set out on the agenda:-
“While this Council recognises the urgent need
for high-quality public transport connections between Cambourne,
Bourn Airfield and Cambridge, which will be delivered through the
Greater Cambridge Partnership (GCP), it believes that it is
essential that decisions are made on the basis of publicly
scrutinised evidence and advice to ensure that the best choices are
made.
This Council therefore welcomes the undertaking from the GCP to
publish the evidence relating to the northern off-road route as a
first step towards a robust comparison, building on the work in the
Combined Authority’s recently published Arup report, between
that northern route and the southern route via Coton, both of which
meet the new requirement of the Combined Authority that any route
be CAM-compliant.
This Council also acknowledges the commitment to ongoing work with
the local communities along the proposed routes and calls for close
engagement with representatives of the A428 Local Liaison Forum
(LLF) throughout the process of the development of the outline
business case for the Cambourne to Cambridge project.
This Council welcomes the offer from GCP officers to look at plans
to introduce interim on-road measures along Madingley Road on
Madingley Hill, which the ward councillors for Coton, along with
the LLF, have been calling for.”
In moving his motion, Councillor Allen acknowledged the need for the GCP to deliver high quality public transportation between Cambourne and Cambridge but argued that decisions needed to be made on the basis of properly evaluated publicly available evidence and should not ignore the outcome of public consultation. He acknowledged that some progress had been made and welcomed the undertaking given by the GCP to publish evidence regarding the northern off-road route as a first step to enabling a comparison between that route and the southern route via Coton, both of which could be segregated and therefore CAM compliant. Councillor Allen felt that it was important to understand how the proposal aligned with future transport plans, including those for Girton interchange, the Cambridge Autonomous Metro (CAM) and connections to the wider network. He noted that he had raised the issue with the Mayor at the Combined Authority’s Overview and Scrutiny Committee and had been advised that a fuller evidence base would be published shortly. Councillor Allen felt it was vital that regular engagement continued with the local communities along the route and with the A428 Local Liaison Forum (LLF) and its technical group. The offer of GCP officers to investigate the introduction of interim on-road measures on Madingley Hill, as called for by Local Members and the LLF, was also welcomed. Councillor Allen concluded by reiterating the need for full evidence to be available for public scrutiny which addressed the wider economic benefits, environmental impacts and funding implications, together with further assurances around connectivity.
The motion was seconded by Councillor Ian Sollom.
During discussion:-
· Councillor Tom Bygott welcomed the call for publication of evidence, but opposed the motion because of the reference to the on-road measures along Madingley Road and felt it was important to speak on behalf of local residents who might be affected. He acknowledged the strength of feeling in Coton but understood that the on-road route was intended to be in addition to, not instead of, an off road route and expressed the view that it would not be cost effective to proceed with two projects with the associated disruption to residents and that the on-road route would simply divert resources away from the main project. Moreover, referring to the earlier motion passed on adopting the target to transition to zero carbon by 2050, Councillor Bygott argued that the Council should support the CAM metro option rather than a diesel bus solution, having regard to both environmental and health considerations.
· Councillor Ruth Betson indicated that she could not support the motion because of the inclusion of the reference to the on-road measures on Madingley Road. She commented on the congestion already experienced along Madingley Road and was concerned that the disruption associated with work to implement the interim on-road measures would exacerbate the existing problems.
· Councillor Bridget Smith, the Leader of the Council, noted that because of the expiration of the question time earlier in the meeting she had not responded to the question from Councillor Chamberlain which also related to the Cambourne to Cambridge route and indicated that she would do so now. She commented that until May, she had been the Vice-Chair of the LLF. During her two years in that role the focus of the LLF had been on calling for an independent evidence base to inform considerations around the project and potential routes. Councillor Bridget Smith noted that the LLF had been successful in persuading the GCP and the Combined Authority to commission some independent work which had resulted in the Arup report, although she recognised that the report had fallen short of what some had hoped to see. She commented on the importance of the Council remaining engaged in the process, noting that stating outright opposition at this stage, would shut down the opportunity for engagement and further dialogue. The Council needed to be part of the process and to be able to engage with the relevant parties in order to influence the outcomes and to ensure that, at the point at which a decision was made, there were proper evidence based choices on the table.
· Councillor Grenville Chamberlain was sceptical as to whether there had been a detailed examination by the GCP to date of an alternative route and suggested that a solution involving the Girton Interchange, with a route running alongside the A428, might be a preferable option. He indicated support for most of the motion, other than the reference to the on-road measures along Madingley Road in the final paragraph. As an amendment to the motion, he accordingly moved:
“That the final paragraph of the motion be deleted.”
· Councillor Nick Wright seconded the amendment.
· Councillor Philip Allen indicated that he was not prepared to incorporate the amendment within his motion.
During discussion upon the amendment:-
· Councillor Peter Topping indicated his general support for the motion, other than the proposal for the introduction of interim on-road measures along Madingley Road. He expressed the view that if Councillor Allen could accept the amendment, it would be possible to send a clear message to the GCP and Combined Authority that there was a united approach on this issue.
· Councillor Ian Sollom provided further background and context on the proposal for interim on-road measures on Madingley Road. He explained that these works would be within the bounds of the existing carriageway, would not give rise to major disruption and would be a “quick win” in terms of an earlier contribution towards improving congestion and traffic flow. Councillor Sollom noted the need for work on various transport proposals, including the development of a strategic outline business case for CAM metro, to align before progress could be made on the main route. Therefore it appeared prudent to progress with the interim measures which could be undertaken with relatively little impact to address congestion. He reiterated earlier expressed views about the need for development of an alternative off-road CAM compliant route for comparison purposes. Councillor Sollom emphasised that the on-road route was different to that which had been consulted on previously and had not formed part of the GCP Executive Board’s report as the GCP Transport Director needed to undertake further investigations and discussions with the LLF technical group.
· Councillor Ruth Betson indicated that further information was needed about the new proposals for an on-road solution along Madingley Road and likely timescales for implementation. She commented that the A428 was already suffering increased congestion as a result of traffic avoiding the roadworks on the A14 and highlighted the significant congestion and journey delays already experienced along Madingley Road. Councillor Betson therefore expressed the view that any further disruption connected with the new on-road route would be unacceptable.
· Councillor Philip Allen acknowledged Councillor Bygott’s concerns on behalf of his constituents on Madingley Road and appreciated that any full on-road scheme along the lines previously proposed, involving gantries for example, would impact on local residents. He explained that these proposed on-road measures would be delivered a long time before construction of any off-road route, with the aim of tackling congestion now. Councillor Allen accepted that there would be a short time whilst the work was actually taking place when there would probably be some disruption, but thereafter congestion would be alleviated.
Upon being put to the vote, votes on the amendment were cast as follows:-
In favour (12):
Councillors Ruth Betson, Dr. Shrobona Bhattacharya, Tom Bygott, Grenville Chamberlain, Graham Cone, Dr. Douglas de Lacey, Sue Ellington, Mark Howell, Peter Topping, Bunty Waters, Heather Williams and Nick Wright.
Against (25):
Councillors Philip Allen, Henry Batchelor, John Batchelor, Anna Bradnam, Dr. Martin Cahn, Sarah Cheung Johnson, Dr. Claire Daunton, Clare Delderfield, Peter Fane, Neil Gough, Philippa Hart, Geoff Harvey, Dr. Tumi Hawkins, Pippa Heylings, Steve Hunt, Alex Malyon, Tony Mason, Peter McDonald, Brian Milnes, Nick Sample, Bridget Smith, Hazel Smith, Ian Sollom, John Williams and Eileen Wilson
Abstain (0):
The amendment was declared lost.
During further discussion upon the motion:
· Councillor Ian Sollom, responding to the earlier point from Councillor Betson about the need for more detail on any on-road measures proposed on Madingley Road, clarified that the final paragraph of the motion simply welcomed the offer from GCP officers to look at plans to introduce such measures. The motion did not provide any definitive proposals as to what those measures might include and therefore if Members wished to see further details for such a scheme, he suggested that they should vote in favour of the motion. Councillor Sollom agreed with Councillor Topping that it would be desirable to demonstrate to the GCP that the Council was united on the motion and wished to see a full range of proposals coming forward and accordingly urged all Members to vote in favour of the motion.
· Councillor Philip Allen was pleased to note the apparent large degree of support for the motion and acknowledged comments regarding the need to protect residents in villages. He hoped that the reassurances given around the limited amount of disruption likely to be associated with the on-road measures on Madingley Road would be sufficient to enable all Members to support the motion. Referring to earlier comments, he indicated that he too would share concerns about any proposal which did not involve using clean efficient vehicles. In concluding his summing up, he indicated his hope that any decision on the future off-road route would be made on the basis of robust evidence.
Upon being put to the vote, votes were cast as follows on the motion:
In favour (25):
Councillors Philip Allen, Henry Batchelor, John Batchelor, Anna Bradnam, Dr. Martin Cahn, Sarah Cheung Johnson, Dr. Claire Daunton, Clare Delderfield, Peter Fane, Neil Gough, Philippa Hart, Geoff Harvey, Dr. Tumi Hawkins, Pippa Heylings, Steve Hunt, Alex Malyon, Tony Mason, Peter McDonald, Brian Milnes, Nick Sample, Bridget Smith, Hazel Smith, Ian Sollom, John Williams and Eileen Wilson
Against (12):
Councillors Ruth Betson, Dr. Shrobona Bhattacharya, Tom Bygott, Grenville Chamberlain, Graham Cone, Dr. Douglas de Lacey, Sue Ellington, Mark Howell, Peter Topping, Bunty Waters, Heather Williams and Nick Wright.
Abstain (0):
Council
RESOLVED
While this Council recognises the urgent need for
high-quality public transport connections between Cambourne, Bourn
Airfield and Cambridge, which will be delivered through the Greater
Cambridge Partnership (GCP), it believes that it is essential that
decisions are made on the basis of publicly scrutinised evidence
and advice to ensure that the best choices are made.
This Council therefore welcomes the undertaking from the GCP to
publish the evidence relating to the northern off-road route as a
first step towards a robust comparison, building on the work in the
Combined Authority’s recently published Arup report, between
that northern route and the southern route via Coton, both of which
meet the new requirement of the Combined Authority that any route
be CAM-compliant.
This Council also acknowledges the commitment to ongoing work with
the local communities along the proposed routes and calls for close
engagement with representatives of the A428 Local Liaison Forum
(LLF) throughout the process of the development of the outline
business case for the Cambourne to Cambridge project.
This Council welcomes the offer from GCP officers to look at plans
to introduce interim on-road measures along Madingley Road on
Madingley Hill, which the ward councillors for Coton, along with
the LLF, have been calling for.