Agenda item

GCP Future Investment Strategy

Minutes:

Angela Chadwyck-Healey was invited to ask her public question. She asked a further question on behalf of Dr Colin Harris. The questions and a summary of the responses are provided at Appendix A of the minutes.

 

The Head of Transport Strategy presented the report which set out an updated Future Investment Strategy to support preparations for the forthcoming first Gateway Review.

 

Councillor John Williams informed the Joint Assembly of the outcomes of South Cambridgeshire District Council’s public consultation on its Business Plan, which indicated there were serious concerns regarding transport in South Cambridgeshire; in particular the need for alternatives to the car for local trips within South Cambridgeshire. He suggested that the GCP focussed on the main commuter routes into the City, Biomedical Campus and Cambridge Business Park, and overlooked these shorter local trips between South Cambridgeshire villages. South Cambridgeshire District Council was keen to make growth more sustainable and to encourage businesses into villages, thereby enabling more sustainable commuter trips between villages. South Cambridgeshire needed the infrastructure to enable sustainable work journeys such as by foot and bicycle. Councillor Williams hoped that the GCP would take note of and support South Cambridgeshire District Council’s Business Plan.

 

Councillor Massey commented that while improving service provision and journey times on key routes, cost should not be forgotten. Public transport needed to be affordable for everyone and she was in favour of investigating the feasibility of free travel. She asked how far the GCP had progressed in discussions with local transport providers. The Joint Assembly was informed that officers were asking questions of the public regarding the appetite for reducing fares as part of ‘Choices for Better Journeys’.

 

Councillor Sollom queried the degree to which East/West rail was being aligned. He highlighted that development around the Cambridge/Oxford corridor was being consulted on. Assurance had been given that the GCP was aligning with East/West rail. He raised concern regarding the potential duplication of public transport, highlighting the Cambourne to Cambridge corridor. He queried the degree to which this corridor should be prioritised when there was still uncertainty around the Cambridge/Oxford transport corridor and East/West rail.

 

Regarding prioritisation of schemes, Jo Sainsbury commented that the achievability of timescales was missing. She wanted to see the risks around S106 funding included and the alternatives and impacts on other services if funding was not forthcoming.

 

Dr Wells suggested that affordability should be separated from other elements of deliverability. It should also be stipulated that if certain schemes were delivered, what other schemes were therefore unlikely to be delivered.

 

Christopher Walkinshaw was pleased to see that the GCP was looking forward to the end of the period and introduced the concept of a second gateway review. The Joint Assembly was informed that the criteria for this would be different to the first gateway review and would look at economic indicators and growth.

 

Councillor Topping queried whether an allocation of £25m to address energy capacity and infrastructure issues was sufficient and whether this matched other investment in capacity. He suggested there needed to be a prioritisation of S106 payments. He also pointed out that while an aspiration for jobs to be located in villages was good, this may not be realistic for the knowledge based economy as  many companies such as start-ups, wanted to be located in the city near other similar organisations, rather than being isolated in a village. Councillor Bick echoed this point. He also wanted to see the enablement of housing as on of the criteria for prioritisation of new schemes and that enabling the recycling of GCP funds for other GCP projects should be reflected.

 

The Chief Executive, responding to the points raised, commented that:

·         It was not possible to achieve everything included in the Transport Strategy due to limits on funding. This meant there was a need to prioritise the most heavily used commuter routes.

·         The GCP had launched its ‘Choices for Better Journeys’ consultation, which set out the options on which the GCP was seeking the public’s views. This included questions regarding the public’s appetite to reduce public transport fares.

·         The Joint Assembly was informed that a more detailed report on energy capacity had been presented to the Economy and Environment Working Group.

·         Shortage of skills was a challenge for the delivery of projects. However this was being planned for.

Supporting documents: