Agenda item

Rural Travel Hubs

Meeting of Greater Cambridge Partnership Executive Board, Wednesday, 20 March 2019 4.00 p.m. (Item 12.)

Decision:

The Executive Board AGREED:

a) To note the outcome of the Oakington and Sawston Rural Travel Hub public consultation and engagement.

b) With regard to the detailed design for the pilot Rural Travel Hub at Oakington, option 1 (with parking) be considered, together with options for potential alternative locations and a further report be brought back to a future meeting of the Joint Assembly and Executive Board.

c) To explore the opportunities for alignment of a Rural Travel Hub site at Sawston with the Cambridge South East Transport Scheme.

d) To note the conclusions of the Whittlesford Station Masterplan study and initial stakeholder feedback.

e) To undertake public consultation on the Whittlesford Parkway Station Masterplan and develop a draft delivery plan, with a report to come back to a future Executive Board meeting.

f) To acknowledge that the location of other potential locations for Rural Travel Hubs, including at Cambourne, will be subject to further review.

Minutes:

The Chairperson of Oakington and Westwick Parish Council and Councillor Peter Hudson, County Councillor for Oakington and Westwick, were invited to address the Executive Board. They both raised concern about the project and in particular regarding the potential provision of parking at the rural travel hub. The following points were raised:

· There was concern about the impact the provision of parking would have on the residents of Oakington and Westwick. It was felt this would increase the level of traffic passing through the village from the surrounding area.

· It was felt that a travel hub with parking would benefit Cottenham residents, to the detriment of Oakington and Westwick.

· The rural travel hub project had set village against village.

· The preferred option for the majority of Oakington residents was for a rural travel hub with provision of secure cycle parking, rather than car parking. Cottenham residents had also indicated a willingness to cycle if parking was not provided at the rural travel hub.

· A primary school was located on the same lane as the proposed hub; there were already safety issues due to the volume of traffic passing the school, which would increase if parking was provided at the travel hub.

· The new Oakington to Cottenham cycle path should connect with the rural travel hub.

· It was felt that it may be too early for a travel hub to be located in Oakington and it would be better to revisit this when an extended transport network was in place. There were other communities with greater need for a travel hub, such as Cambourne.

· The rural travel hub should have bike storage facilities and a bus turning circle.

· The C6 bus service from Cambridge to Oakington needed to be extended to the rural travel hub as the existing service stopped about 400 metres short of it.

The Transport Director presented a report which provided an update on progress and emerging issues regarding rural travel hubs.

The Executive Board discussed the proposals:

· Executive Board members acknowledged and understood the views that had been expressed by the representatives of Oakington and Westwick.

· Councillor Van de Weyer pointed out that there was neither a compelling strategic business case nor the local support for the Oakington Rural Travel Hub. However careful thought would need to be given to stopping this travel hub.

· Whilst recognising that the GCP was trying to reduce traffic, it was also recognised that people still needed to use cars. Executive Board members agreed that to make this rural travel Hub successful and well used, it needed to have car parking.

· It was suggested that further engagement with residents was needed before a decision was taken and that a further report was considered by the Joint Assembly and Executive Board following this.

· Councillor Bates indicated his support for rural travel hubs as a means of getting people out of their cars, however these had to be in the right places and link into bus services. Whilst it was regrettable one village had been set against the other, the recommendation was only for a pilot rural travel hub, for which Councillor Bates indicated his support. He did not want to see this as the only rural travel hub that was built, as they were needed at many other locations; he wanted commitment from the GCP that more travel hubs would be built. South Cambridgeshire District Council needed to be engaged with regarding the potential locations for other travel hubs. Councillor Bates indicated his support for the recommendation as originally set out.

· Claire Ruskin suggested the rural travel hub could be situated closer to Cottenham, where it would be closer to the majority of people who would be using it. She pointed out that a travel hub without car parking, was merely a bus stop.

· The Joint Assembly Chairperson, pointing out that he was a resident of Cottenham, highlighted the views of the Joint Assembly which had expressed little support for the development of a rural travel hub at Oakington, pointing out that the GCP should be concentrating resources on projects that would achieve a step change. A lack of feeder services along the current busway had led to the rural travel hubs proposal. He suggested the Executive Board either go ahead with the recommendation as submitted in the report, or drop the proposal of having a rural travel hub at Oakington.

· The Executive Board agreed that further work and engagement should take place before a decision was made, with a further report to be presented to the Joint Assembly and Executive Board. In response to this, Councillor Bates proposed an amendment to recommendation (b) reflecting this, which was seconded.

· The Executive Board suggested that Cambourne be looked at as a potential location for a rural travel hub and was informed that officers were already looking at this.