===============================================================================
Greater Cambridge Partnership - Executive Board 01.07.21 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nPewwgf7Lk
===============================================================================
3:48
okay thank you very much members um good uh good morning um
3:53
the first uh task i have is to actually call for nominations for a vice chairperson of the executive
4:00
board and i call for those nominations but i personally like to
4:06
nominate councillor elisa machini do i have a seconder
4:15
are there any further nominations okay could we vote for
4:21
councillor elisa machini that's good well welcome councillor machini if you'd like to join me
4:27
up here i'd be most grateful thank you
4:38
good morning um just wait for the machine to take a
4:46
roll excellent um so uh firstly i'd like to
4:53
formally welcome everyone to this meeting of the greater cambridge partnership
4:59
executive board particularly welcome those who are listening
5:05
on the live stream welcome to them i'd also like to welcome our new county
5:10
council representative and our new chap vice chairperson uh councillor elisa machini
5:17
and i'd also like to welcome city council representative councillor
5:22
louis herbert who's joining us for one last hurrah and will enjoy reading my thanks to him
5:28
for his service in the in the minutes uh which we're just about to review but welcome back uh lewis
5:33
um and i'd also really like to extend a very very warm welcome to uh mayor dr nick johnson i
5:40
really appreciate you taking the time out for your busy schedule and i know you've rearranged things today to join
5:47
us this is very welcome to to see you at this meeting um just to be clear the mayor is
5:55
attending uh at my discretion in a non-voting capacity
6:01
but this is obviously a recognition of the really important role which the combined authority plays in the work of
6:07
the gcp as the strategic transport authority so a very very warm welcome on
6:13
behalf of myself and the executive board to you and i think it i'd like to just invite
6:19
you to make any introductory uh comments to to the executive board
6:42
i'm very delighted to be here for my first meeting of the gcp board i hope it's one of many in the next four
6:49
years but as i say i must apologize to um early um i do have a long-standing family engagement um postponed because
6:56
of covid so i'm going to stay as long as i possibly can and then i'll take my first break since my appointment
7:03
um but being you know seriously feeling it's for me it was very important to come and join you today
7:09
as i recognize the importance of the relationship of myself and the combined authority with the
7:16
greater cambridge partnership over the next four years now i'm i don't suppose we'll agree on
7:22
everything but i must admit that our initial discussions have been very fruitful and very promising and we
7:28
definitely seem to have a both similar direction of travel i really believe that we need a reboot
7:35
of transport priorities moving forward and importantly with the new county council leadership
7:40
myself as the mayor and the cambridge city council we have more in common than our differences
7:46
we do need to cooperate and collaborate to ensure we come up with a joined up connected transport system not just
7:51
obviously for the greater cambridgeshire partnership but in for my case the whole of the combined authority camacho and
7:56
peterborough so we can deliver exciting and innovative solutions to our transport needs we need
8:03
to need to get people out of their cars into better more connected public transport and we need to be promoting
8:09
healthier active travel whether it's cycling walking or even equestrian we have to be mindful of the environment
8:15
and we always need to be aware of the green solutions now as you know i said in my election
8:21
campaign that i believe in buses buses buses they are the quick solution to try and
8:26
start tackling the issue of getting people out of their cars to ease congestion but we do need to look at those problems
8:32
across cambridge and develop a viable alternative and that is something i'm focusing on with a revised transport
8:38
strategy which will hopefully be available by the end of july but as it always is the case it's about
8:44
our relationships and mine with yours and it has to be a two-way street so i'm working i'm very much looking forward to
8:50
working with you forward and i hope you will also be adopting the mantra that i campaigned on of ideas of the three c's
8:57
the compassion the cooperation and the sense of community at all our decisions
9:02
thank you thank you for those uh comments would uh
9:08
can i just ask any member of the executive board like to follow up
9:15
any questions claire ruskin
9:23
i'd just like to welcome you nick very pleased that you are joining us and the corporation is what we're all about um i
9:29
guess i'm going to get straight to the point do you support our general schemes and the the bus ways in particular are
9:35
they within your vision for the future uh yes the the bus ways in themselves
9:40
are in my vision and i believe the sort of the transport strategy going forward
9:45
i think obviously there are details more finer details which you are um doubt you know it's down to your
9:51
discussions but you know i want to work with the the vision of busways i've seen the
9:57
benefit that they brought in terms of the corridor between cambridge and st ives and i absolutely recognize there have
10:03
been some significant challenges in terms of the process of consultation um about but ultimately the decision
10:09
that is made by your group is one that i know that we will have to work with and i'm not in the idea of putting further
10:16
stops of something that should have been moving forward over a period of time
10:23
thank you for phil thank thank you um i just wanted to to
10:29
say thank you as well nick and thank you for those words of support it was more just a
10:36
general welcome to what you've said because over the years the gcp the assembly and
10:42
executive board i think we've been working with a range of different communities and we will
10:48
hear the voice of a number of those today but there is a also a strong
10:53
um silent community out there that i also think it is our duty to to uh listen to
10:59
and uncover their views and their support because there are no easy decisions here as
11:04
you've said and as you know and from the education sector it's really important i think that we do
11:11
move forward and improve public transport in the greater cambridge area and i very much look forward
11:19
to working with you on that going forward thank you thank you phil
11:25
any other questions so i'd like to again thank you mayor for those uh those comments very
11:31
very helpful um i think i take away from from that sort of support for us
11:37
pressing on and making the decisions we have on our agenda today um you know it would be
11:46
clear and i think that that as you say we recognize that that
11:51
the schemes in front of us none of them are perfect but we have to make a decision at some
11:58
point and i take away from your comments that you have our support today and pressing on and making those decisions
12:04
as i say i recognize the need for bus ways i just recognize that we need to be
12:10
consulting everybody around ruti the one thing i always have highlighted
12:16
that for me delivering a healthy uh a population improved public health outcomes
12:22
okay so excuse me for interrupting can i just ask members to speak directly into their microphones when they're talking
12:29
um i mean we may have a few sound problems in the room it's very echo in here thank you
12:36
okay excellent um i'd just uh now like to ask the democratic services to report any apologies for absence thank you chad
12:43
no there are no apologies for absolutely okay um are there any declarations of interest from the
12:49
executive board members
12:54
nope okay i just remind all members that they can declare interests either at the start of the meeting or if they forget
13:00
the start of each relevant and again a gender item and then move on to agenda item five
13:06
which is the minutes of the uh previous meeting i'd like to just take these uh as a block of minutes
13:13
rather than going through them page by page uh does any of the executive board uh have any um comments on the minutes
13:21
or are they able to confirm them as an accurate record
13:29
i'll be happy to confirm them there are even fewer typos than usual so that's brilliant thank you
13:36
excellent okay well in that case i will take that as a confirmation of their
13:42
accuracy and i'm happy to sign them as an agreed record
13:51
okay so the the next item and the agenda is item number six which is the executive
13:58
board membership papers are in your pack and i just like to invite rachel to
14:05
the chief executive to invite introduce the item thank you chair um this report is
14:13
referring to the standing orders of the gcp executive board which sets out the provision for the cambridge and
14:18
peterborough business board to nominate a representative to sit on your board as a non-voting member
14:25
at the business board meeting in may they made a nomination for their chair austin adams uh to take up the seat on
14:33
the gcp board and they also agreed their substitute member to be dr andy williams
14:39
so you are being asked to confirm that those appointments today
14:45
in addition um they also asked uh if you would uh use the chairs discretion and
14:51
support uh the chair in that endeavor to allow andy williams to attend uh and and
14:57
speak and the rationale for that was just recognizing the the local knowledge that uh andy williams has uh in
15:05
businesses in this geography to complement uh the role of the mayor sorry the role of the chair of the
15:11
business board the final recommendation in front of you is just to
15:16
acknowledge that claire ruskin who has been the business representative for a number of years now having stepped into
15:22
the breach when there was a gap when the lep was terminated
15:29
she came up from the assembly and as andy williams has left a gap on the assembly
15:35
the recommendation in front of you is to ask the business board to support uh claire returning to the
15:42
assembly as one of the three business representatives there so they are the recommendations in front of future
15:49
excellent thank you very much indeed there's any comments from the executive board um well just briefly i think this
15:55
is an opportunity to thank claire ruskin for all you've contributed on the board
16:00
and to support the recommendation but thank you claire
16:06
okay listen please can i just say i'm right thank you very much i've only been um on
16:13
here for well basically about a month but you know my interactions with claire have been fantastic she's told me so
16:19
much already so i would like to really you know thank her for
16:25
helping me until now very briefly um just to record i like
16:32
accuracy as you know i'm a bit of a patent on that page 21 has three misstatements which i
16:38
have asked the combined authority to correct it's from their record of their board which is that i
16:44
was a member of the lep before which i wasn't that i had recently resigned as ceo of
16:49
cambridge network which i hadn't and i was now stepping down for my role on the gcp executive board which i
16:55
wasn't so just to correct those uh it's been a delight and a pleasure nobody volunteers for these things but somebody
17:01
unfortunately has to do it so i've been pleased to do that thank you good excellent thank you do we have any
17:06
other comments okay excellent um so what i would like to do now is just um proceed
17:13
to actually vote on the recommendations um for the
17:18
appointment of austin adams uh andy williams as the substitute and the uh discretion which we will
17:25
extend to uh invite the um uh both to attend the board and to
17:31
consider the appointment of chair claire ruskin to the joint assembly
17:37
so could i please ask for votes on that for approval
17:42
okay excellent okay so that uh is is passed
17:47
um i would also like to extend my sincere thanks to to claire uh for her contribution to the executive
17:55
board uh she's been a stalwart and um our loss on the executive board is the
18:00
joint assembly's gain and it was great that you'll be continued to be associated with the work of the great
18:05
cambridge partnership so thank you very much indeed for that so i'd like to just conclude that item
18:11
um thank you to the officers for for that
18:16
item and we will now move on to item number seven which is questions from members of the
18:23
public i'd like to just announce that we've had 32
18:29
public questions submitted i think that's not quite a record but it
18:34
is close of those questions one relates to a
18:40
gender item 10 on eastern access there are 16 questions relating to
18:45
campbell and cambridge independent audit item number 12. 14 questions relating to item number 13
18:52
on the southeast transport scheme and we've also received one question relating to
18:58
um overall items number 10 12 and 13. details of these questions are published
19:04
on the website and have been sent to all members of the executive board those submitted questions were offered
19:10
the option of attending the meeting or having the question read out by the officer the questions will be put at the start
19:16
of each relevant agenda item as is the normal practice
19:22
so so we will deal with those questions as we as we reach them in the agenda um
19:27
but i would like to take the one question from edward lee which rates to
19:32
a number of the agenda items at this point in the agenda so i'd like to welcome edward to our meeting it's very
19:39
nice to see you um and thank you for joining us and i would ask you to answer your question i i
19:46
would like to say that uh during the course of given the number of questions i would like to make sure that we
19:53
get the right balance between the length of time we spend listening to the question and that answering the question
19:59
so i will ask the each of the people answering the question to keep
20:04
their comments as brief as possible edward please go ahead
20:12
yep thank you very much chair um i come today to present a petition signed by
20:18
1900 people as of this morning calling on the grace cambridge partnership to prioritize funding for
20:24
walking cycling improved bus services and bus prioritization on existing roads
20:30
to fund these projects by withdrawing funding from the current busway and car park schemes
20:36
to reappraise all projects against current government climate change targets
20:41
to follow the elected mayor and county council in putting people's health at the heart of all projects
20:48
to support the mayor to give everyone in greater cambridge access to convenient and affordable bus services
20:54
and to support the mayor to work with residents to develop a comprehensive coherent and sustainable transport
21:00
strategy now you say we can't afford more delay i agree
21:06
the busway projects are still at least four years off opening in highway priority measures could be
21:12
delivering benefits within two with much lower risk of delay
21:18
perhaps you think we need the boss ways and the other things we have proposed so how will you fund the other things
21:24
the budget is already 120 million pounds over subscribed and the busway schemes
21:30
will absorb almost all of the gcp's human resources perhaps you think busways do do enough
21:36
to promote low-carbon transport well gcp's own sustainable travel programme objectives and government
21:43
decarbonisation targets both require a large absolute reduction in private
21:50
vehicle mileage that will eliminate congestion rendering busways redundant
21:57
your councils have declared climate emergencies the city has endorsed doughnut economics the county has
22:03
adopted the think communities approach emphasizing community participation the labor group's manifesto for the county
22:09
council election stated ensure genuine co-creation of initiatives
22:15
yet the projects you are being asked to progress are at odds with all of that will you heed the petition and resolve
22:22
today to direct the gcp to co-create a vision and a plan to deliver zero carbon
22:28
emissions zero air pollution zero road deaths and zero congestion
22:34
thank you thank you uh edward for that question i'd like to ask peter blake to respond
22:41
please thank you jim uh and many of the points in the
22:47
the statement are for the board to consider during today's deliberations but just one or two comments from me the
22:53
gcp would entirely support um the decarbonisation of transport we
22:59
would entirely support promoting access to public transport walking and cycling uh reducing toxic air reducing the
23:06
number of casualties on our roads and they are urgent priorities alongside the need to unlock housing and managed
23:14
growth in this area the fact remains that we are a hugely successful area and
23:20
that's created tremendous pressure on housing and transport to respond to that challenge we need a
23:27
balanced package of new infrastructure new services and refocusing the city
23:33
centre environment away from the private car on your agenda today are the infrastructure elements
23:39
of of that package what you will be discussing in september and certainly what came up during the course of the
23:45
the george assembly's deliberations was very much linking to the city access and public transport provision agenda
23:52
which i say i'm sure will feed in today but you will be considering that at your meeting in september
23:57
thank you joe okay thank you uh thank you mr blake and
24:03
thank you edward for your uh your question um and as uh mr blake has said we will
24:10
be considering uh those those points during the course of the agenda on the items and i hope
24:15
mr lee will be able to stay with us and listen to those debates
24:21
um i'd also like to add that in addition to the public question uh board members
24:26
have received a significant amount of additional correspondence on the matters on the agenda
24:33
some of those uh have come directly some have been circulated they've all been read and taken account by the members
24:40
and will be done so in in in terms of reaching their decisions so thank you very much indeed
24:46
to all members of the public who have taken the time to write and express their views to uh
24:52
to the board okay i'd like to now move on to item number eight which is uh feedback from
24:59
the joint assembly and invites councillor tim bick to give us an overview of the meeting
25:05
which was held on the 10th of june thank you thank you chair
25:12
just at this stage to report that the george assembly met
25:17
earlier this month on the 10th of june um replete with quite a number of new
25:24
members following the recent elections we received a petition
25:29
23 public questions and one from um a member of a partner authority
25:35
um and the the points that um that arise from our meeting
25:42
i suggest are dealt with when you come to particular agenda items
25:47
because they are specific to to those but i would at this stage like to
25:54
raise one but quite major point that arose
26:00
repeatedly through our discussions and relates to all of the um
26:06
four substantive transport projects that you've got on the agenda today
26:11
and that relates to the the need to have in place
26:18
as rapidly as possible a well-considered city access
26:24
strategy it was felt by members of the assembly
26:30
that that it is at this stage a missing piece in the jigsaw that we're putting
26:36
together for effective transport in the greater cambridge area on the ship we felt that the
26:44
the contribution the city access strategy needs to make
26:50
is going to be critical to the effectiveness of all four congestion
26:56
um and car use inside the urban area of cambridge
27:01
um and that um the there is a an important relationship
27:06
also with the effectiveness of public transport which is the theme for all of the items today
27:11
um an important relationship to the whole question of bus franchising
27:18
which the mayor will be considering and also a relationship to
27:24
the discontinuation of the of the cam project which the mayor
27:30
i understand has already announced will discontinue so all of these factors make it really
27:36
important that we have an effective strategy in place to deal with congestion it deals with the
27:43
the last mile or two of all of the projects that we're talking about it deals with the
27:49
the the the crux crunch question of um of reducing the growth in car usage
27:56
in the urban area with all of its consequent benefits in terms of climate change and air
28:02
pollution and what i think members of the assembly
28:07
would be grateful of from the board is an indication that
28:13
you too see this as a priority to to put in place without looking back on the history and
28:20
asking why we've arrived in the need to make this a a really high priority now
28:25
it does need to happen and it would be very helpful if members
28:30
of the board could indicate that they see this the same way and that they will be doing all they can
28:37
to arrive at an agreed strategy as soon as as soon as possible thank you
28:45
thank you councilor vic for that do any executive board members like to come out or ask any questions
28:54
um well just briefly i'll save um a response to edward lee's
29:00
comments for the first item but i endorse and have endorsed um previously
29:07
the principle that in addition to enabling buses to get
29:13
through into the in and out of the city which i'm not sure i've heard an answer from
29:19
mr leon um uh there is this critical issue and
29:26
we we can't get anywhere unless we triple the number of people who are able to
29:32
come in on bus but we also need to enable uh them to get through and
29:40
we haven't got that much road space so at the moment it's completely clogged
29:45
including with with buses stuck behind cars so so this is if you like the fifth
29:52
route which is the city center and we do need to give that considerable
29:59
thought and commitment and i do think it builds chair on the decisions that we've
30:04
got today because i don't see that we were in a position to properly
30:10
um address it albeit that both i and councillor bick think that we could have
30:16
done this earlier um but we do need to address it we we are
30:22
going to the mayor's points earlier it isn't just the city center but people
30:27
living next to the radial roads suffer damaging air pollution and
30:33
the health is also a factor in this but yes we do need as a board and i hope that we
30:40
can be clear one way another chair with a recommendation today
30:45
that we recognize the need even if we just tag it onto one of the items that we've got
30:52
for there to be a measure to cut car usage not in a penal way but by
30:59
giving people who currently drive because it's the better option a better than better option than they have now
31:06
which is reliable public transport that gets people to where they want to
31:11
go and they know when they're going to arrive and that does require measures um
31:18
right through the city centre thank you
31:23
phil thank you um well just to respond to tim's call and the
31:31
assembly's um call on us putting forward an effective strategy
31:37
for whatever reason we haven't been able to do that i'm now very hopeful that we will be able to have an effective
31:44
city access strategy for all the reasons that have been mentioned not least public health and public realm um
31:50
improvements but i do think it's worth noting again the the
31:56
the executive can only do so much and unless and until the city council start
32:02
to think much more seriously about this and in particular multi-story car parks in the city centre
32:08
which are encouraging people to drive into the city then we will only have a half solution so what i would also call
32:15
for is greater cooperation and coordination between the board and those
32:20
other authorities that have some of the levers that are going to be important in providing a solution to city centre
32:27
access thank you claire thank you
32:33
so thanks tim um the assembly was a very good meeting as far as i could tell and the assembly does very good scrutiny i
32:40
think i absolutely endorse it is key to reduce car usage and pollution we've got
32:46
to multiply bus provision for those traveling more than maybe three or four miles i mean it's fine for lycra clad
32:51
people to be cycling 20 miles but most of us don't want to do that lots of people ask about the impact of covid and
32:58
how we return after the pandemic my view is currently people are returning to commuting those who've had
33:05
to work all the way through it's a little bit of a middle age middle class ability to work from home that many
33:11
people multiply up to meaning that there will be a dramatic decrease in traffic
33:18
travel to work for hospitals shop restaurant lab staff education etc is
33:23
still very much ongoing and we're seeing in the centre of town traffic returning
33:28
just on the city access point i think it's really important but on the other hand cambridgeshire has a necklace of
33:34
very important employment sites and if we could get those solved and people out of their cars were getting to the
33:40
necklace of employment sites we would be a big big step forward as well that's not ni that city access needs sorting
33:50
thank you any further comments okay excellent
33:55
yes please i'll just say something really quickly i think it's not been said in so many words but how crucial
34:01
air quality is to all of this because one of the biggest problems that we have in the city center is just how very
34:07
quickly the air quality deteriorates as soon as you get an exponential pile up of all these cars
34:14
and we have we have children whose health is being impaired by being in the fumes for the
34:20
whole time they spend in and out of schools or in you know play areas and things like that and we also you know we
34:28
the city access will need to have a bigger quality objective at the core of it because that's how you measure and
34:34
that's how you really really really start improving the nation's health get people moving but get them breathing
34:40
better air when they do so as i'm sure dr nick will agree just just
34:45
how important that is and i hope that we will put it front and center because it's really important
34:53
um thank you lisa um i'll just reiterate that from the point of view of the combined
34:58
authority as i mentioned we have to get putting together uh an improved transport strategy and recognizing the
35:05
challenge particularly around the uh transporting people across the city area is an absolute priority um there
35:13
will be difficult decisions um but i think together we can solve them
35:19
okay thank you well i i i hear sort of uh
35:24
overwhelming support i think councillor vic for your request to address the issue um
35:30
i i think we'll come back to it on a couple of the items we're going to talk about on the agenda later and i would
35:36
just like to note that we have changed our forward plan as the executive board
35:41
and it is now on the program for review in september which will of course mean that your assembly will also
35:48
be uh looking at the same issues uh in your next meeting as well so
35:53
thank you for your your comments your initial comments and we look forward to inviting you to make
35:59
further comments as we reach the appropriate items
36:05
okay thank you so i'd like to now move on to item nine which is obviously a very
36:12
substantive item with respect to uh the transport better transport uh
36:18
scheme between water beach and cambridge um i propose to handle this item by
36:23
first inviting peter blake to introduce the the report
36:30
and then he will take uh questions we'll also ask councillor bick to uh feedback from the
36:37
the assembly and then have a vote so peter would you like to introduce your
36:43
report please thank you chair so this focuses on the route from water beach newtown into into
36:50
cambridge city it flows from work that we've previously done with the combined authority on the entire a-10
36:56
corridor and one of the recommendations for that was to progress um sustainable
37:01
walking and cycling options if i can just dwell for a moment on on the figure one on page 31.
37:09
um now in a sense this almost forms the context to all of your your sort of
37:14
reports today um but this is in essence the infrastructure
37:20
elements of the program that we're looking to bring forward and obviously council a bit councillor
37:26
herbert and others have then emphasized the city access that you'll discuss at your next meeting what we're looking to do with this
37:33
corridor and the other main corridors is to try and ensure that we support
37:39
the delivery of that sustainable economic growth that we we tackle the
37:44
challenges of homes and and transport in this area and we deliver on the existing
37:49
local plan so for example in this corridor we have 11 000 up to 11 000
37:55
homes in water beach that we need to cater for in a sustainable manner and the same then applies on the other
38:01
corridors whether it's born in west or or the biomedical campus we need to do that in a manner
38:07
that tackles congestion that tackles air quality and deals with the the climate challenge that we've got
38:14
so this paper is um the first step on the the road of
38:19
exploring a a project and a corridor improvements in this area this
38:25
is the strategic case it sought to establish whether a strategic case existed for intervention between the new
38:33
town and and cambridge city we undertook a consultation
38:38
to that degree which whilst there was support for intervention there was also
38:43
concern around impacts on local impacts in water be the existing water beach village and particularly the allotment
38:50
sites so we have reflected the proposals to take account of that and we can
38:55
assure residents that we will not be impacting on the local area as per the the feedback that we that we've had
39:01
i suppose perhaps unsurprisingly given the scale of development in water beach the strategic case for this route is
39:09
made um and what we are saying is the strategic case is there
39:14
the the consultation at the moment uh supports us moving to the next steps
39:19
where we will get far more into the details of root alignments and and all the things that we would imagine that
39:25
goes with that in terms of what environmental issues there are what societal issues are and then really
39:30
allowing us to undertake detailed consultation engagement with local
39:35
communities to to go through that in further detail one one slight addendum to this report
39:42
chair is also the inclusion of the relocation of the the rail station at
39:47
water beach and many of you many board members will be aware that that is currently a planning requirement to
39:54
deliver the first 4 600 houses of part on that on that site at the moment the viability of that site
40:01
is such that the rail station cannot be relocated to accommodate that and so one
40:07
of the recommendations put before you today is that you allow officers to continue in negotiations
40:15
with the developer to see if an agreement can be reached whereby there is gcp involvement in relocating the the
40:22
rail stations to ensure that we release those 4 600 houses um
40:28
not proposing to say any more at this point here but clearly happy to answer any questions okay thank you mr thank um
40:35
can i invite uh councillor bick to make his comments from
40:40
the joint assembly stage uh chair the um
40:46
the assembly was was supportive of the basic case being made in this report
40:53
there were a number of other points that assembly members
40:59
were keen to have in front of you the first of which is the
41:04
the consequence of the review there is a a sense in which the the um
41:10
the revision to the central route incidents do need um a meaningful
41:16
opportunity to contribute to that revision in addition to the other things that would happen at the next stage we
41:23
talk to them and i think developers to easily get off the hook
41:28
from what ought to be their responsibilities to provide that type of funding
41:34
but but but we saw the point that it does also allow some influence on the part of the
41:40
gcp and the collective body of local councils in the in the um in that provision
41:47
but also we need to be careful about the implications for other discussions
41:54
um in relation to rail stations uh new and old um
41:59
process of public questions that we that we heard
42:04
that it would be helpful if we could be more explicit about the
42:10
potential role of this of this public transport alignment not
42:16
only in joining up the dots um on the alignment itself in those
42:23
communities but also as providing at various points in its um
42:29
in its course uh picking up the um the the increment of
42:35
public transport journeys which may have started significantly away from the alignment itself
42:40
um such as um large-ish communities like cotton which
42:46
this project was not put in place specifically for but obviously can add loading onto the
42:52
onto any infrastructure we're providing and can provide a great extra facility
42:59
and in speeding up public transport journeys from them too um and i i think that the the process of
43:05
public question questioning highlighted the fact that we were not actually we were actually underselling
43:12
what what the potential benefits of this um this project were by by not
43:17
highlighting that that the buses starting from cotton can actually benefit from at least part of
43:24
this alignment thank you council can i just ask peter blake to respond to
43:31
any of those points which were raised yes thank you chair um so we've already been in contact with local
43:36
representatives following the points that were raised at the the joint assembly uh regarding the revised route
43:43
but as you say i mean the the revisions come from the consultation so we you know we we consult to listen
43:50
and then we change things but we did recognize the point we've already met them and that engagement will now
43:55
continue well in advance of any formal consultation that would take place down the line and again i think the wider impact is
44:01
another point that is well made we we are looking to update and improve
44:07
the existed guided bus way one of the areas we know it can be improved
44:13
is around flexibility and making sure that it serves the maximum possible area
44:18
so it is not just services that use that that you know our new infrastructure in their entirety it's services that can
44:25
hop on and hop off to gain a real reliability and journey time advantage
44:32
and cotton was an example that was used in the in the joint assembly i think it's a very good example that says
44:37
actually we think bus services that we're looking working with with the combined authority and the mayor to
44:42
improve them generally um they will be able to to make access and use this facility in part um and much to serve a
44:50
much wider geography i hope that's that's helpful chair thank you
44:57
okay i'd just now like to open for any comments questions from the board phil
45:04
is that thank you um it's more of a point followed by a question to to nick
45:11
so i'll give you a heads up on on this one so i mean i i'm very supportive of what
45:16
we're doing particularly at the strategic level around water beach
45:22
but on paragraph 4.7 which is on page 35
45:29
it rightly notes that what we are doing is in parallel with and taken account of
45:35
proposals that the combined authority are looking at for upgrading the a10 between eli and cambridge now it's
45:41
always struck me as being strange if not undermining of what we're trying to do as a board to be improving
45:48
public transport at the same time that the proposals are coming forward to make it easier to drive along the a-10
45:55
particularly from ely which is one of the few areas that actually has a very
46:00
good rail route into cambridge now i know this emerged under the
46:07
previous there but i suppose my question is is this still
46:12
part of the agenda of the combined authority or of thinking now moved on
46:22
it is still in the thinking of the combined authority and it's part of the transport plan okay
46:29
thank you okay
46:34
okay i'll move to a slightly different point of
46:39
the fact that we were all individually probably horrified by the idea of houses being knocked down
46:44
uh for this route and i think we were all grateful to the cambridge independent for bringing forward the
46:51
concerns of residents as they are rather good at doing
46:56
and i think it was explained to us individually that we needed to put all options on the table
47:03
at any one point for any of the schemes that we're developing so we do have
47:08
house demolition and purchase of gardens and everything else is a very last resort but it does have to be on the
47:14
table with all the other options so just to comment on that i'm glad we've moved away from that option
47:21
and glad it wasn't the last resort we needed chair if i if i may i mean
47:28
that's just that that's a good example of of consultation why we consult
47:33
the these schemes take a number of years in development we follow the process
47:39
we're obliged to follow and so the likelihood is before we get to the final stages we will have done three or four
47:45
consultations you're absolutely right we have to examine all of the options and all of
47:50
the options need to be in our consideration because that's what department for transport tells us we've got to do
47:55
but consultation on this particular issue we've listened very clearly to those local residents and we've refined those
48:03
proposals in light of that consultation i think as we've done on all of our major schemes it's just an example of
48:08
how the schemes move forward in a in a sort of a natural progression
48:13
as we're required to do by government thank you okay i'd just like to ask mr blake a
48:21
couple of questions and i would like a chair to say a few things um
48:27
later or after so just looking at the two ends and i do endorse and thank the
48:33
assembly for the range of points that they've made um
48:38
in terms of the issue that they've raised of who pays for the
48:45
relocated water beach station i just like a bit more clarity mr blake because
48:52
uh as i understand it this was one of those um
48:57
make or break conditions in the planning application that the developers
49:03
would actually pay for that and that nothing would fall on the gcp
49:09
or other public bodies and looking at the other end given that we're still flexible about the middle
49:15
bit um how will the route link up with the guided bus way is it envisaged that
49:23
um it will actually join subject to where where that happens and and how
49:29
will that affect the end capacity of the guided busway
49:34
um between that point and cambridge north station so i'm i'm thoroughly in favor of this
49:41
as i'll explain later but i do want just a couple of answers and
49:46
and also a recognition that in addition to a lot of listening as you mentioned mr blake that the points that the
49:53
assembly have made will also be fully investigated thank you
50:01
thank you jim um so so in terms of your the second point first uh yes it will join the the guided bus way exactly the
50:06
same as cambridge southeast will join the gowdy bus way uh off francis crick avenue
50:12
so we're working to ensure that compatibility exists in in terms of bus
50:17
ways themselves one of the benefits when we've explored this previously with the combined authority was the scalability
50:24
um so the existing bus way's gone from a ten minute to a five minute frequency in in any case uh the scalability exists to
50:30
accommodate this um we may be looking at some enhanced signaling in that particular location uh but that's well
50:36
within the engineering uh constraints that we're able to manage so we've got confidence about that and it also then
50:43
fully utilizes existing infrastructure so we're not having to build any more things than we than we necessarily need
50:50
but again the caveat on that is this is all subject to consultation and discussion with with local communities
50:56
as we go forward in terms of the the rail station the relocating the rail station was was
51:02
attached as a grampian condition by the planning authority when planning consent was given to the developer for 4 600
51:09
homes the viability of the site as assessed by the developer and the planning authority
51:16
is that the money does not exist to relocate that that rail station so we we
51:22
ordinarily the general gcp's position we would not be negotiating with a developer we take our lead from the
51:28
local plan and the local planning authorities as we should so we are being told there's a viability problem by the
51:34
local planning authority but we are sat here now all saying we need 4 600 homes delivered as soon as
51:41
we can reasonably do it so all this paper says is is to allow an opportunity for us to have a
51:47
conversation with the developer to see if we can bridge the the financial gap
51:52
of relocating that to that station and that will then be brought back to to the chair and vice chair for um for
51:58
consideration i hope that's helpful um having been involved in training planners yesterday
52:04
about viability i would certainly want to be assured that um that that is a only uh public money if
52:13
completely unavoidable we we would entirely agree which is why
52:19
we are taking our lead from the local planning authority
52:24
excellent any other questions from mr blake before i've got a
52:30
couple um well if there isn't any other questions i'd just like to make a few comments please do um
52:37
so i mean this is an example of what we need to do and it's an example of why
52:43
the existing road network is completely incapable of allowing a public transport alternative
52:49
if you get on public transport north of cambridge you're wasting your time
52:56
even if you transition into milton park and ride that's in a location which is
53:03
somewhere you really don't want to go in that you cannot simply get through the a10 a14
53:10
morass which hasn't improved and hasn't been addressed because of the value
53:15
engineering that was undertaken by the government in coming up with the cheap version of the
53:21
a14 a very welcome investment in its way but stellarly three-lane for much of its
53:29
time unless it's uh subject to um the dropping of passata by a lorry um
53:36
but then it comes to this junction and i mean i i'm happy to talk uh with mr
53:42
lee further on this point but but why is it that the previous mayor supported
53:47
dueling a road um which we didn't really support and i can't really see the need
53:53
for if we um address public transport but the number of vehicles that come down or
53:59
up the a-10 aren't to do with the city center a significant of the number of
54:05
them are to do with hubs on the edge of cambridge a significant amount of the blockage is actually nothing to do with
54:12
cambridge it's simply that that's the only road that comes down from the north from the east of the county
54:18
so this is to me a perfect example why we should be supporting off-road busways
54:26
and whilst it's a short stretch genuinely do go much further out the previous mayor
54:32
also opposed this scheme i never could understand any logic in that because
54:38
ultimately we will have water beach we've got a huge amount of employment donations and not near a station
54:46
and therefore and that's why i really welcome the new mayor's focus on bus services for the next 10 years and way
54:54
beyond that because people have been talking about buses being out of date in my understanding for the last three
55:00
decades and they're still not we need routes like this and we need uh that
55:07
along with the wider points that uh councillor bick made we need a combined
55:12
solution of which this route is an essential component thank you
55:17
thank you very much for uh claire later
55:23
just say i fully support this we've got to try and reduce car use as more people move into water beach and
55:28
the surrounding areas so fully supportive of the scheme the
55:35
recommendations that we've got there are a couple that are missing i think one is that we work with cpca in
55:42
discussion of parallel plans to julie 810 because i think we are collaborating but let's just make that explicit
55:47
because i think it is very relevant to this and two that we perhaps agree that plans
55:52
to try to add benefit for other local centres like cotton
55:57
it's very important that we do funnel in as many people as possible to these new routes
56:10
so i'll take that as a sort of recommended to add to the recommendations would any
56:17
other board member support clarinet excellent okay so lewis can we just
56:23
take a quick vote as to whether we would add that to the recommendation yep okay
56:29
so if we could add two um points to the recommendations around
56:37
the treatment of the integration with a10 i think this feeds very nicely into the mayor's comments about
56:43
the fact that while we through the process have to progress
56:48
these items individually these schemes as mr blake uh explained in figure one
56:55
and as the mayor uh quite rightly talked about is we are trying to actually build a
57:01
network here with linkages uh and and that obviously raises the
57:06
issue of the city access too as well so i sort of welcome the addition to recognize the
57:13
integration with the other work of the cpca and likewise as well this this point which i
57:21
think is really important about the connectivity beyond the immediate corridor
57:27
i think it's it's really would be advantageous for us to sort of look at that optionality and
57:35
deliberately try to plan it in rather than it become a sort of accidental consequence of the
57:41
scheme so that when we are looking at options we we in alternative routes we we have a
57:47
mind to those routes which create maximum optionality for linkage to
57:54
other location sites i'd also just like to while i'm
58:00
just just point out one thing about this this area which i i know reasonably well is that
58:06
it is of course that it is not simply just connecting
58:11
um homes to jobs uh at both ends of this route ones have fairly significant
58:18
employment centers as well um the cambridge research park which is in
58:24
in figure 3 but there are also fairly other significant employment centers in water beach so
58:30
this is all about actually creating a corridor where where people can move freely up and down it
58:36
in not unidirectional from the the new town into the uh into the city
58:45
excellent so with those modifications is there any further comments okay
58:51
so so in summing up what i'm basically hearing is support for the
58:57
recommendations i'm also hearing welcoming the the refinement of
59:03
the route options uh subject to the consultation um
59:09
which is uh in the in the recommendations i i also hear a sort of
59:15
from the assembly and from certain comments which are made and i share these as well the the need to
59:21
proceed with with extreme care and caution on the commercial negotiations
59:26
uh with the developers on the relocation of water beach rail station and i very
59:31
much appreciate mr blake your confirmation that uh you you share
59:38
that that that care with which those discussions will be entered into
59:44
so with that in the addition of the two recommendations respect to the a-10 integration working
59:50
with the combined authority and the consideration of the broader uh relationship to communities outside
59:57
of the immediate corridor i'd just like to now ask the executive board to vote on the recommendations so
1:00:05
those in favor excellent
1:00:10
mayor sorry i i i it's normal practice to invite all non-voting members to express a view
1:00:17
on this recommendation if you would if you'd care to do so but your option
1:00:22
okay thank you i'm happy to watch for the moment okay in that case that is that is carried thank you very much indeed
1:00:35
okay um let us now uh
1:00:41
before i move on just thank you to the officers as well for all the hard work and uh
1:00:46
on the consultation which has been uh undertaken on this corridor so thank you very much indeed
1:00:54
okay um i'd now like to move on to agenda item number 10
1:01:00
which is the cambridge eastern project
1:01:07
we have a public question on this so i'm going to start by
1:01:12
inviting tanya verdonk on behalf of the
1:01:17
a to b 1102 transport group to pose her question
1:01:22
i'll then uh invite the peter blake to respond to that question and then make a
1:01:28
presentation and then we will have the opportunity as a board to ask questions of clarification and then have the
1:01:35
debate chair just to confirm i'm going to be reading the question out on on behalf of
1:01:41
the thank you very much okay if you'd like to go ahead thank you the question reads as follows
1:01:47
if the eastern access project is to meet the needs of all those who travel within greater cambridge
1:01:53
what does the project do to meet the needs of those communities to the north and east of cambridge who work learn
1:02:00
shop and use the services of the city we have many issues including those listed below which need addressing if
1:02:08
the proposed changes take place in cambridge the two planned greenways to the east do
1:02:15
not connect how will this be rectified will the new park and ride site be
1:02:20
delivered before private car access into cambridge is restricted how will the extra traffic at the kai
1:02:28
kwai be monitored and reduced how will gcp work with all relevant
1:02:33
stakeholders to improve public transport to encourage people out of their cars
1:02:38
it is currently inadequate with no buses in the evening or on sundays
1:02:44
to say it is outside our remit is simply not acceptable what will incentivize the modal shift
1:02:51
required to make the proposed changes anything other than a disaster for the communities who live around work and
1:02:58
travel in and around cambridge thank you
1:03:03
mr blake thank you chair um without action
1:03:09
transport congestion and air quality in this corridor is going to get worse that's what the evidence is telling us
1:03:15
this scheme is designed to promote walking cycling and the use of public
1:03:20
transport it will build upon the five greenways to the east which will all be connected to
1:03:26
the wider walking and cycling network um to ensure
1:03:31
that it maximizes the opportunity for for local people in the area um i certainly as part of the joint
1:03:38
assembly conversation the link with city access came up and i think in response to the to the questioner
1:03:44
a lot of these issues will not just be dealt with by this particular infrastructure project but as part of
1:03:50
that wider conversation around city access working with the mayor the combined authority and others
1:03:55
to ensure a general improvement of public transport services across the wider greater cambridge area
1:04:02
thank you joe thank you okay so uh mr blake would you now like
1:04:09
to present your report on this scheme thank you just just a few
1:04:14
comments uh and i'm i'm presuming that city access will be picked up in the joint assembly um feedback because
1:04:20
certainly that was a theme that came through uh loud and clear this um this project is at the same stage as the
1:04:27
waterbeat project so we're examining the strategic case um and and
1:04:33
undertaking initial public consultation to gauge local views as to what uh proposals might
1:04:39
might be beneficial in terms of coming forward the difference from water beach is that the strategic case in accordance with
1:04:46
the department criteria that we're obliged to meet on this corridor is not made
1:04:51
and it's not made because there is not a significant growth node
1:04:57
identified along this corridor at the moment what i've said previously is we clearly follow the local plan um whilst
1:05:04
we recognize there are discussions as part of the emerging local plan around the growth node on this area we should
1:05:10
follow the emerging local plan and thus far the strategic case is not made
1:05:15
but there clearly is a requirement to do something in the shorter term so the recommendations that are outlined on
1:05:21
page 268 are proposing to undertake improvements around newmarket road exploring
1:05:27
relocating the park and ride site further out so to capture traffic before it comes further into the to the city
1:05:34
center centre and then following the emerging local plan if there is
1:05:39
indeed a further development along this corridor then to review the strategic case akane and bring forward wider
1:05:46
scheme proposals and finally from me following the um the joint assembly
1:05:52
conversation we added in a recommendation e which just relates to the close
1:05:57
alignment particularly between this scheme and the city access discussions that we'll be having in the autumn i'll
1:06:04
leave it there chair and happily take any questions thank you very much uh mr blake um first
1:06:09
of all i'd like to just invite councillor bick to report i know it was a very lively discussion at the joint
1:06:15
assembly i i listened to it so uh i look forward to you trying to summarize
1:06:20
the the discussion uh which was had thank you chair um i just wanted to
1:06:26
highlight a couple of the points because you've got the others in writing in front of you but um i think the um
1:06:34
the theme of the contributions of the assembly were
1:06:39
a certain impatience to to get to the larger measures that this
1:06:45
corridor seems to require and a desire to remind the board
1:06:53
of that injunction from the citizens assembly about being bold um i
1:07:00
think that we nevertheless understand the constraints that exist in relation to the um
1:07:07
the the marshall's potential development which um
1:07:12
we don't know about yet because it has no status in local planning terms
1:07:18
but i just feel that the assembly would want me to convey to you the impatience to get on with this as
1:07:25
soon as it is clear whether the marshals airfield is going to be
1:07:30
um part of the development plan for the future uh
1:07:36
i think this of the four projects that you're talking about today
1:07:42
has a slight difference from the other three in the in in the sense
1:07:48
that it is um almost wholly within the urban area
1:07:53
whereas the others are mainly outside the urban area and connect to it at the near the edge of it
1:08:01
and so the point that i made earlier about city access is not just a point
1:08:07
about what happens at the end of the um at the end of the alignment we're
1:08:13
trying to create um it's a complete overlay city access
1:08:18
um in a sense um is part of the same approach that we need in this area and
1:08:25
so um i think having having made that point through the assembly discussion
1:08:31
we would be pleased to see the addition of the recommendation e that you've got
1:08:36
you've got now there i think that's appropriate the um
1:08:44
one of the examples that was repeatedly mentioned in our discussion of the need
1:08:49
for city access to come along with this this this corridor
1:08:55
it's a very sensitive route at the moment so far as residents those
1:09:02
living around it and those who use it discussion about the impact of the
1:09:07
closure of mill road at the bridge and the displacement effect that may have on
1:09:13
coldham's lane but there is also in this report the seeds of a further
1:09:18
concern about what happens on new market road may be further adding to what
1:09:24
happens on coldham's lane and so it underlines the need for a
1:09:30
a broader umbrella of policy which constrains
1:09:36
car journeys in a way which avoids particular streets taking the hit
1:09:42
for other routes being improved and and so
1:09:47
we would want you to take on board the sensitivity of coldham's lane but i think it's a sort of an example of
1:09:55
of the need perhaps across the urban area to to have a regime which avoids
1:10:01
actions taken beneficial in a few places um from making just displacing the problem else elsewhere
1:10:11
another point that i think members would want me to highlight is
1:10:16
the is the significance of the retail parks in this in this geography
1:10:23
the beehive and the long new market road which as they're currently configured are
1:10:30
our car attractors in quite a major way and generate many car journeys
1:10:37
and demonstrated by their large car parks and that any plan that we put together
1:10:45
needs to address them as well as
1:10:53
journeys to places of employment and where people live and so we wanted to kind of
1:10:59
wave that flag that as we move from here those retail destinations need to have some role
1:11:06
because if we are trying to deter car journeys then we do need to make sure that those retail locations are
1:11:14
connected up by really good public transport i think the other points that we raised
1:11:20
are covered in what's in front of you on paper but we'd be grateful for your comments on those please
1:11:28
thank you castlevick i i know um mr blake we've uh incorporated uh some of the feedback
1:11:35
from the assembly in terms of recommendations but is there any other comments you'd like to make with respect
1:11:40
to i don't think there's anything to add i think the the the complexity of of this
1:11:46
route and interrelationship with the city access agenda i think has been has been outlined yeah i i i very much
1:11:53
thank the assembly for making those points as i said i listened to the debate and the complexity and the extreme pressures
1:12:01
in this part of the city came across loud and clear and the the need to address it in a sort
1:12:07
of integrated uh way um i've got one question for mr blake
1:12:13
before i open up to any other questions which is that on the recommendation c um plate where we've we talked about
1:12:20
option one b1 which is i guess the second stage of this with with with marshall's
1:12:25
site given the comment from the assembly about the sort of general impatience in
1:12:30
this what what what timing of the work associated with that
1:12:36
recommendation be um so firstly i understand the
1:12:42
frustration but we will absolutely maintain a position following the local plan so we are ready to go
1:12:49
when the local plan is in a position uh to move forward in terms of any acknowledgement of development in that
1:12:55
area okay we're simply ready to do that but we will follow the local planning authorities we will not we will not go
1:13:01
with a load on this excellent okay thank you i'd just like to um open up now to any
1:13:07
other questions or comments from the board members uh thanks chad in terms of questions so
1:13:15
it may not be um that you can add a lot mr blake but the
1:13:20
the history of new market road is a pretty sad one particularly for the people who live uh next to it and
1:13:28
the last effort by the county council and i must be about 15 years ago that's
1:13:34
only a rough estimate but i can remember a long period when it was different
1:13:40
um roughly how what sort of time scale is the gcp envisaging in terms of reviewing
1:13:48
the package of measures which are very helpfully summarized in the map on page
1:13:54
270 which would constitute a significant improvement for
1:14:02
uh cycle users who are at severe risk at several places on this route um as well
1:14:09
as others who just simply want to cross the road or use a bus
1:14:15
just roughly what sort of time scale is envisaged and
1:14:21
at what point will we get of a price tariff on the package that is needed um
1:14:28
that will make a difference so i do support the measures that are listed there but on uh people who live in that
1:14:35
area um have suffered a lot and i would like to ensure that coldham's lane is
1:14:43
included as part of our project going forward so i'd just like assurances
1:14:50
that it will be specifically included because in addition and i don't think it's
1:14:57
specifically to do with mill road bridge and the decision that's still to be made by the county council transport
1:15:05
committee but it has suffered before then and it is
1:15:13
is definitely part of the need for a solution so really just to get mr blake a bit more
1:15:21
flavor and detail and then we can uh get an idea of when the assembly and the
1:15:27
board are likely to see some of the uh granular aspect of the
1:15:33
different proposals because really the last set of changes were really a stalemate rather than an
1:15:40
improvement so in terms of headline time scales at
1:15:46
the moment the next 12 months we will be having a consultation engagement around
1:15:52
the detailed design options and we'll be pulling together the business case which would include include the cost so in 12
1:15:58
months time we would expect to be back in front of you talking through the details of this
1:16:03
in theory 12 months after that we could be on site but but i say this in in
1:16:10
with this depends on the consultation and the
1:16:17
feedback we received i mean councillor herbert you referred to um sort of the difficulties in terms of
1:16:23
previous deliveries of schemes along this road so we should be under no illusions that
1:16:29
everybody is going to agree with every aspect of this certainly if we're looking for impactful
1:16:34
change for walking cycling and public transport along that route um the the
1:16:40
consultation and the engagement will drive this but the time scales of 12 months and 12 months are what we're
1:16:46
currently working to i hope that's helpful thank you
1:16:51
claire this is an area i'm very familiar with i was brought up at the far end of new
1:16:57
market road and used to skip to school along new market road and then i think when my parents had a car we used to stop outside the grocers that is now
1:17:04
impossible to do um so one fairly uh strategic thing
1:17:10
there is the logistics hub being talked of coming to coldham's lane the cherry hinton road and this could be an
1:17:16
absolute disaster for coldham's lane if it's handled badly so i just hope that we're taking account of that and the
1:17:23
last mile i know we're trying to reduce the uh i think it was about 18 of our vehicles in town are commercial vans and
1:17:31
we maybe just need to persuade people to change their behavior a little bit and not expect instant delivery of parcels
1:17:37
but the logistics hub is a real worry um there are five bridges over the
1:17:42
railway which we're constrained to if you are travelling by commercial vehicles that the leper chapel i think
1:17:47
goes a14 leopard chapel coldhams lane mill road hills road so we've got one of
1:17:53
those shut and the others completely congested during the pandemic coldham's lane has been completely
1:18:00
log-jammed so it hasn't slowed anything down the retail park for a big part of that
1:18:05
cambridge united playing causes mayhem let alone passata and olive oil i mean
1:18:10
it just is a very congested area so the logistics hub i plea that we
1:18:16
actually look at that really carefully we may have to distribute that rather differently than just putting it at the
1:18:21
end of coldham's lane and there are a few other little tactical things so there's a furniture
1:18:28
shop that has been sold to become another stag night hotel
1:18:33
right on the corner of new market road and coldham's lane um it is an opportunity to maybe make a
1:18:39
little bit wider space there rather than putting up another hotel in that region
1:18:45
the other opportunities there have been left because of commercial reasons i'm sure
1:18:50
and then just a personal support for the subway new market road and east road it's a delightful space to be in so i
1:18:57
know we're trying to reduce it for uh traffic reasons but actually it's great for walking and cycling through there
1:19:03
so that's a tactical thing thank you thank you
1:19:10
any other comments or questions yes um
1:19:16
yeah i i mean when we compare this to the scheme that we just looked at the
1:19:23
gcp i think rightly has gone from modest what could be called a modest
1:19:28
improvement to milton road but but we will need at least that and a bit more
1:19:34
because this is arguably in quite stiff competition the most
1:19:39
unpleasant road coming into cambridge um and
1:19:44
the measures such as the chisholm trail and the value of looking at hard at it
1:19:52
is also severely constrained but but but i do think that um along with city
1:19:58
access which council bit was quite right to link very strongly into the solution
1:20:04
to these problems that we do need to do make an improvement and then subject to
1:20:09
planning decisions um if there is an opportunity for off-road it only really
1:20:14
works chair um half of the way because this area is so dense in terms of
1:20:21
properties and uh activity that there is no value in in thinking about off-road
1:20:29
um into the city it just isn't going to be practical so i do fully support this and i think
1:20:35
the the residents in that area as well as cyclists walkers and also bus users
1:20:41
deserve an improvement but unfortunately without reducing the overall number of cars
1:20:48
um life on new market road and on coldham's lane won't be perfect but i think it's
1:20:54
really is important that we're moving ahead with this package because irrespective of a bigger need in the
1:21:01
future we do need to tackle this my last point chair is we haven't mentioned
1:21:07
rail and i'm glad that it's still figures and i will along with my support
1:21:12
for whoever's representing the city on the gcp board and that is my colleague
1:21:20
dave baijin after this meeting i really do think that this is an
1:21:25
unused resource and we should be looking at the access
1:21:31
whether in cherry hinton or in fullborn for a potential station and it's a little bit like the
1:21:37
titchfield thunderbolt line where you're actually hitting the brambles when you go out towards um berries and edmonds
1:21:44
currently and i do think that uh it it's a little odd that on one side of cambridge east
1:21:51
west rail is looking at the most magnificent railway and yet we aren't at this stage able to
1:21:58
do anything on this and i believe that if we if we could persuade an earlier
1:22:04
government intervention and get the support of the mayor for the route to newmarket including the
1:22:11
wonderful soam station which was so close to the heart of the previous mayor but particularly the amount of traffic
1:22:18
that comes in through the a14 off the kwai junction i do believe rail has a
1:22:25
major part to play in the east of the city so i'm grateful that it's still there and i will
1:22:31
not relent from being involved in trying to improve the rail line east of cambridge
1:22:39
thank you comments very well mate mayor would you like to um just to acknowledge i've heard that from councillor herbert
1:22:45
i would i'll draw that to attention as part of the transport plan that we are pulling together i'm a supporter of of
1:22:52
all forms of transport um in this case and i acknowledge the idea
1:22:57
excellent thank you and you will note in the recommendations item number d uh which explicitly talks about
1:23:05
the engagement uh with respect to potential improvements on on the rail so i think that is well well captured
1:23:13
in in that and again i think it just goes to reflect a theme which is coming up um a
1:23:20
lot of votes to thinking about sort of optionality and connection to other neighborhood uh communities and making
1:23:27
sure that the linkage to the greenways and other forms of uh active travel are are not just
1:23:34
happening by accident but are actually planned in okay um any other
1:23:41
comments i'm i'm hearing a a general support for this in particular uh
1:23:47
welcome for the addition of recommendation e following the feedback from the assembly
1:23:53
which is most welcome so thank you for for counsellor bick for uh the contribution
1:24:00
there excellent um so can we now proceed to uh vote on those recommendations which
1:24:06
are on page 268 of your agenda um can i take those in favor
1:24:16
i think that is carried unanimously thank you very much indeed
1:24:24
excellent okay so that concludes um item number 10 again i'd like to thank
1:24:31
the officers involved for their hard work on that scheme it's clearly
1:24:37
something which uh the assembly and the board uh thoroughly support and the imperative to
1:24:45
address what uh council lewis said is probably the most congested and most unpleasant i think he
1:24:50
said access into cambridge is is really important okay um so we'll now move on to uh item
1:24:59
number 11 on the agenda which is on page 200 323.
1:25:05
um yeah small logistics question there's an immense cold draft has just suddenly
1:25:12
started is everyone else feeling it i know phil and i are feeling quite chilled over here okay
1:25:17
is there anything we can try and do about that
1:25:25
can i can i just check is that everyone from the board you know we could conceivably take a ten minute break here
1:25:32
if that would be helpful or you happy to carry on this is the last item we're going to take before we take a flight to
1:25:38
carry on chair okay is that um as long as the defrosting can be
1:25:43
arranged okay phil are you okay to carry on
1:25:49
okay people want to sit over this way they can and i'll sit in the cold so
1:25:57
yeah we'll we'll just we'll just pause for two minutes to allow you to take a cup of
1:26:03
coffee and warm up
1:26:09
um
1:26:42
um
1:28:00
so sorry my apologies
1:28:27
um
1:28:51
okay
1:29:03
excellent well thank you so we'll we'll move on to now agenda item
1:29:08
number 11 which is the quarterly progress report
1:29:15
i'd like to handle this item as we've done before by
1:29:22
breaking up the uh discussion into the various work streams
1:29:27
given that they're they're so um various so we will deal with
1:29:33
transport skills smart work stream housing economy and environment separately
1:29:41
um and i would therefore like to start by uh inviting
1:29:47
neve matthews who's the assistant director of strategy and program to introduce this report
1:29:54
starting if you would with the transport works
1:29:59
stream there are various recommendations which are associated with
1:30:06
this item which are on page 323 of your agenda so neither as you go to
1:30:14
the relevant item if you could make sure that we are aware of the associated recommendation that would be very
1:30:20
helpful so okay thank you to you thank you chair uh so
1:30:26
uh i normally kind of run run through the um recommendations and then pick up any any questions at the end of that
1:30:33
that's okay with you um so so just to do that um item a uh as as
1:30:40
you'll see starting on page 323 of your pack um asks the
1:30:46
board to to note that the gcp's assurance framework has recently been updated uh
1:30:54
jointly by officers and officials at mhclg and really this is a procedural
1:30:59
point um as the assurance framework is kind of a live document it contains the details
1:31:05
uh and information around the expectations of government in terms of national guidance that public bodies such as ours
1:31:12
need to follow so really for the board to note that it's been updated uh in it to
1:31:18
to ensure it reflects up-to-date governance arrangements um and recently changed national guidance
1:31:25
um that that comes from that comes from government around project project assessment and so as it says in the
1:31:31
framework and it will continue to be reviewed on an annual basis uh to ensure it continues to reflect those kind of
1:31:38
updates um and local decision making arrangement arrangements and in line
1:31:43
with national guidance um item b
1:31:49
uh where officers are asking the board to a agree the request to extend the center for business research
1:31:56
work until november 2022 um at a cost of 60k members will see from
1:32:02
sections 8.2 and 8.5 uh of the of the report and that we
1:32:08
there's an overview there and a kind of summary of the key findings um
1:32:13
just to kind of touch on on on some of those and the work kind of seeks to analyze the growth of employment in
1:32:20
different sectors across cambridge and really the idea is that the work will enable local partners to have this kind
1:32:25
of robust timely data on local sectors and businesses um it's entirely unique and not available
1:32:32
anywhere else and which i know that members have um have have really liked the sound of from
1:32:38
previous uh from previous work on this and it takes the form of a kind of series of updates uh analyzing
1:32:45
um data drawn from company accounts over over time and so it really specifically
1:32:50
focuses in on those local sectors uh particularly in the light of of what covert 19 may or may
1:32:57
not um do do to our economy and so yeah as i said given how unique
1:33:02
and kind of useful this this is we're asking the board to um extend it for another another four data
1:33:08
draws and the final recommendation in front of you um item c asks the board to approve
1:33:14
the proposed allocation of 150 k from the city access budget for a secure
1:33:19
cycle parking match funding pilot some members will see from section 8.6
1:33:25
the detail um of of this work but just as a quick overview and to remind the
1:33:31
board last year the executive board agreed and that the city access project should support the creation of
1:33:37
additional secure cycle parking proposals have been developed for publicly accessible facilities in the
1:33:43
city centre alongside this work it's proposed that the gcp runs a match funding pilot
1:33:49
to support workplaces to install secure cycle parking facilities and
1:33:55
i think people know a lack of secure cycle parking parking is a real barrier to people cycling
1:34:01
in particular to the uptake of e-bikes and and you know the evidence is saying that new secure cycle facilities will
1:34:07
encourage employees um to to cycle instead of um instead of
1:34:12
driving their cars uh the proposed match funding pilot would offer grants to workplaces of kind of 25 to 50 of the
1:34:19
cost of secure cycling facilities with a cap of around 10k per scheme um
1:34:26
in exceptional financial circumstances an award of up to 75 could be made at
1:34:31
the type of facilities that could be installed could include kind of bike lockers bike
1:34:36
hangers lockable bike stores cycle cages and hubs with swipe card entries secure gate
1:34:44
and fencing as well as kind of lighting and cctv and so for the proposed pilot the gcp
1:34:51
would run at least one funding round um where workplaces would be invited to submit applications for grants there'd
1:34:57
be a scoring process and following that officers would work with shortlisted workplaces and
1:35:04
to to work through the kind of design um to refine proposals before a final
1:35:10
application would be made and the proposed budget as i said is 150 k um
1:35:16
which should work to support a kind of range of businesses to to install these facilities
1:35:21
and actually test appetite for a wider potential scheme and so subject to executive board of
1:35:29
approval um officers would aim to invite bid for match funding over the summer with successful applicants installing
1:35:35
facilities from kind of autumn time and chair that was a summary of specific
1:35:40
items so very happy to take questions on those um or leave you to run through the
1:35:46
sections as you suggested yep no let's uh let's let's pause there thank you very much uh and if i could just now ask
1:35:54
councillor bick to sort of maybe give us the joint assembly's overall reaction uh to those recommendations and
1:36:01
then we will go through uh sort of section by section okay thank you chad i'll just make one
1:36:08
contribution um because you don't want to bring me in and out more than necessary but um
1:36:14
we did support the um two specific recommendations in relation one in
1:36:19
relation to the center for business research and the other in relation to the um
1:36:25
the allocation for the pilot project on secure cycle parking um
1:36:30
there was a question that i will convey to you um about um could
1:36:36
could charities and community groups be eligible to participate in the secure cycle parking match funding project
1:36:44
which i'd like to put on the table for you and just to avoid me coming back
1:36:50
during the later discussion um we did um
1:36:56
want to record our congratulations to the work on skills um
1:37:02
the form the future contract which seems to have delivered um
1:37:08
a performance which exceeds the kpis that they had which
1:37:13
in a very difficult employment environment right now seems to be an important thing to note and encourage
1:37:21
and then finally we wanted to welcome the fact that the forward plan at the back of this report
1:37:28
has been adjusted to reflect um agreement that we want to bring forward
1:37:34
the city access strategy discussion for for focused attention in september
1:37:40
so those were our comments thank you very good thank you very much um before we proceed would
1:37:46
need would you like to just answer that question about the sort of extension of the scheme to charities and community groups
1:37:53
yep thank you chair absolutely possible yes great thank you very much
1:38:00
okay and they are very heavy to carry stacial the station cycle parking last night was
1:38:07
alarmingly empty from which i concluded either everybody's got in their cars instead of parking their bikes at the
1:38:13
station or they're taking their bikes on trains which isn't very desirable either or all the bikes were stolen yesterday
1:38:20
um one or one of those but anything we can do to help security of cycle parking
1:38:26
is a very good thing and i support you lisa can i ask a question it might
1:38:32
be a sort of newbie question so i apologize in advance for that but as part of the pilot is there going to be
1:38:38
any conversation with the businesses large community groups that take part and it seems you know it's quite a lot
1:38:44
of money that we're giving them and it sounds you know it sounds like it could have quite a lot of really good effects of what kind of other facilities they
1:38:51
might like to include other than because i suppose some of it they will have to fund themselves if there's
1:38:59
any sort of pattern emerging about other facilities other than cycle parking that are needed
1:39:04
by businesses to encourage their employees to cycle in i am thinking you know something my own
1:39:10
workplace has done in terms of providing changing rooms and showers and things
1:39:15
because for anybody cycling more than a couple of miles you start having those problems if you're then expected to look
1:39:20
pristine and in a suit very quickly after you've got off your bike and also you know things like
1:39:28
accessories that you might need for example if you want to have things that you need to use to repair
1:39:34
your bike or add um you know or sort of pump your wheels you know those kinds of things because
1:39:39
those are all things that came up in my own personal experience and i was wondering whether um
1:39:44
there might be information to be gleaned from what businesses tell you about that yes i i believe that the scope of this
1:39:50
is quite wide but uh neith do you want to just answer that question here yeah i think we'd absolutely take it as an
1:39:56
opportunity to to have that engagement with businesses uh to understand those sorts of issues absolutely right
1:40:02
yep very good okay so any other lewis sorry um i'm
1:40:08
hope i'm within the way you're structuring it um chisholm trail i just want assurance
1:40:15
that in the better management that we now have that we're working to a budget
1:40:22
and whilst i'm speaking chair the other red rag or red rat rag to a
1:40:30
bull was the blocking of the work that was underway in residence parking so i just
1:40:36
hope that there's a dialogue with including the chair of the highways and
1:40:42
transport committee with the hope that we could restart work
1:40:47
on a range of small but very valuable contributors to
1:40:52
a successful city centre and wider access project and i think quite a lot of residents in
1:40:59
cambridge are waiting for the block to be unblocked on that so so first of all
1:41:04
you're absolutely spot on in terms of the structure of the debate thank you thank you very much i realized
1:41:10
i probably overly complicated the situation so mr blake would you like to respond thank you yes we're working
1:41:16
closely with county colleagues on both of those issues so chisholm trail in accordance with the decision that this
1:41:22
board took in december um and in terms of the integrated
1:41:27
parking strategy that we've agreed with the with the county council and exploring residence parking is part of
1:41:33
that and can you commit to working within the budget that we've now got for the
1:41:38
chisholm trail to complete it we are working closely with county colleagues to ensure that happens
1:41:45
you should be a politician mr blake
1:41:51
excellent all right thank you i i just before we move on to the skills i'd just like to also um sort of add my uh
1:41:59
support for the extension of the proposal on secure cycle parking to
1:42:06
charities and community groups i think that's most welcome
1:42:11
moving on to skills which which interestingly i'll just sort of note
1:42:18
that this is another area which is going to be very closely associated with the work of the combined authority and
1:42:25
i know we've our officers worked very very well with combined authority
1:42:31
and it's obviously a huge area of focus for us and we've significantly increased
1:42:38
the amount of resources in this coming cycle of the contract
1:42:44
with uh form the future uh on apprenticeships and so forth um
1:42:49
which is which is most welcome and they are they are as the assembly pointed out delivering
1:42:55
really well on on this most important agenda is any other comments from the board
1:43:01
members on this list um well just to welcome that and i think also um
1:43:07
it's it's not been a gcp that's been targeted but there's been some really um
1:43:13
unpleasant and totally unjustified attacks in social
1:43:18
media about staff for instance in our planning service from people
1:43:23
who believe that they can just use social media to attack and i just i just think that the skills
1:43:30
agenda is an indication of just the range of work that's done and also as
1:43:35
you've said the importance of the partnership so i i pay tribute to the work
1:43:41
and it's one of the areas i supported the previous mayor on was the work on the skills and
1:43:47
business development agenda and it really is important postcovid i
1:43:52
some of my fears about the cambridge economy have been laid but there are
1:44:00
there are hundreds of people who don't have jobs that did have jobs in retail and other
1:44:06
sectors and the hospitality sector will recover but it's struggling and quite a
1:44:12
lot of businesses are also completely dislocated in different ways so
1:44:17
i do think that the work by form the future but also this wider support for
1:44:23
business research is vital because we we are not just high tech in this city and
1:44:29
we have to make sure that the skills and the business research assists the sectors that have been
1:44:36
struggling including quite a large number of small businesses who've just about kept their
1:44:42
themselves afloat thanks thank you um yeah just to sort of follow on from
1:44:49
the comments there from councillor herbert um i realize as a mayor i've only been in post for
1:44:55
two months and a lot has been made about decisions around affordable housing and
1:45:01
developments and indeed transport plans but it would be wrong of me to not acknowledge
1:45:07
the success of the combined authority in terms of the skills agenda and particularly the team who although it's
1:45:13
not particularly relevant to this group in terms of the greater cambridge area you know we now have a
1:45:20
new university in conjunction with anglia ruskin university and i think that demonstrates that there is a real
1:45:27
push within the combine authority to work with all agencies including yourselves to deliver improved
1:45:33
opportunities in terms of skills and education in terms of the adult education budget
1:45:39
and i would just draw attention to the work of marmot
1:45:45
in terms of looking at opportunities when people have had over the course of the last year and a half
1:45:51
in terms of the covert pandemic and we can do all we can to improve the health outcomes
1:45:57
for people but it was the people who were the most vulnerable the most coming from the most deprived communities and
1:46:02
it's not a case of that just fixing health in terms of improved diabetes control
1:46:08
improved respiratory management of those issues it actually comes down to improved opportunities for
1:46:13
those people who have access to employment who have opportunities to live in improved
1:46:18
housing that's where you see the real public health outcomes so absolutely although i'm absolutely
1:46:24
focused on improvement in public health outcomes it comes by recognizing that many
1:46:29
factors affect your health and one of those is skills and that is an absolute focus of the combined authority working
1:46:36
with you going forward thank you very much phil
1:46:41
sorry just a quick i should have um declared an interest as the center for business research is part of the university of cambridge even though i
1:46:48
have no connection with them okay thank you noted okay excellent um
1:46:54
[Music] that's uh very very important area and it's it's
1:46:59
gratifying and to to see such progress on that um if we could just go on now to
1:47:05
any comments or questions relating to the smart work stream
1:47:11
um just so you've had a lot of fun driving around in the shuttles
1:47:18
so you might see them going past and one important comment i've had quite a few questions about how accessible
1:47:24
they are to wheelchair users for example and the third shuttle is accessible
1:47:32
it was a question of the motor from italy not coming through the post brexit horror or something the reason the
1:47:38
previous ones weren't great thank you and and well done for the launch event
1:47:44
claire on the on the autonomous vehicles as well uh any comments questions on housing
1:47:56
okay so let's uh turn to the economy and environment work stream
1:48:01
which also includes that that recommendation on the extension of the work for the centre for
1:48:07
business research any comments or questions relating to that it's the just to remind you it's an
1:48:14
additional 60 000 pounds which is our contribution which will extend the work until november 2022
1:48:22
claire just say i fully support that it's useful work and if we're aiming mostly
1:48:27
at job increase and opportunity increase then it's really important to be able to measure that so i support that the other
1:48:33
very important part of this report is the energy grid project and i know it's
1:48:39
not a topic on the agenda today but just to hope that that is still going smoothly and we're making progress with
1:48:45
ukpn any officer like to
1:48:51
update someone uh i'm happy to come in on that one because i chair the project board and can reassure
1:48:57
members that it is progressing well and we have submitted our application to ukp
1:49:03
excellent any other comments i'd just like to add my uh support to the
1:49:09
center for business research is it is a really useful report to see such
1:49:14
granularity about what is actually happening in our local economy
1:49:19
and as councillor herbert it does feed into some of the decisions around skills and sort of emphasize
1:49:27
uh the the nature of the challenge which we're facing is a local economy so i welcome that too as well
1:49:35
good um any other comments before we we move on to the actual recommendations okay
1:49:43
excellent so so the recommendations uh you have uh in front of you are on
1:49:51
page let's get this right
1:49:58
yeah sorry appendix one is is shining in my eyes here
1:50:04
and we have a couple of red red aspects there so come campbell to cambridge has been
1:50:11
paused we know for quite a long time the next stage is
1:50:16
more consultation as ever but it would be great to hear from
1:50:22
the mayor i'm sorry to ask you again directly whether pausing or carrying on
1:50:27
to the next stage because we've we've got c2c and we've got sea set both likely
1:50:32
to go red if we're not careful and do do we have agreement that we're trying to progress these onto amber and
1:50:39
then green okay
1:50:45
as i said before i am supportive of the idea of busways i appreciate the final
1:50:50
decision sits with the gcp about routing and everything but with a focus on a
1:50:56
franchising bus service and making sure that we transport people not just around cambridge city but from
1:51:03
populations on the outer ring road of the cambridge city i recognise that
1:51:08
busways may well be an option in this area but i would obviously recognize the final routes
1:51:14
need to be decided carefully in consultation with the communities
1:51:19
i think that's probably all i have to say to the matter and just on the residential parking i
1:51:25
think we understand that that has been delayed whilst the pandemic happens and everything else but again are we likely
1:51:32
to see progress on that okay i think that was just similar to the
1:51:37
point um councillor herbert made earlier on so we're in we're in positive discussions with county colleagues about
1:51:42
progressing that okay
1:51:50
excellent okay so um if we can move to uh the
1:51:55
the recommendations uh which are essentially three to note the
1:52:01
revised assurance framework to the extension for the center for the business research work
1:52:08
at the cost of 60 000 and the approve the allocation of 150 000
1:52:14
for the secure parking uh cycle parking match funding pilot uh can we just all those in favor of
1:52:21
that okay phil were you
1:52:27
i am but i didn't want to vote on the you so so you will abstain so that's
1:52:34
the voting member is all unanimous though so thank you very much indeed so that is uh
1:52:39
that is carried uh thank you very much indeed and i know the mayor will probably have to leave us now i thank
1:52:46
you very very much indeed for making the time out of your schedule to join us much appreciated and we look forward to
1:52:51
seeing you at the next meeting
2:55:37
foreign
2:55:44
okay um good afternoon everyone um i'd like to start the
2:55:50
afternoon uh session this executive board of the greater cambridge partnership
2:55:56
particularly like to welcome members of the public to our meeting and those in
2:56:01
person and also those who are listening to the live stream i've been made aware that there are
2:56:08
periodic periodic interruptions to the live stream which we apologize for i'm afraid that's
2:56:15
a function of the setup of the wi-fi in the building
2:56:20
it will reconnect but if there is any loss you can be assured that the recording of the full
2:56:27
proceedings will be made available to you and
2:56:34
i just wanted to also for those who weren't present
2:56:39
this morning just to acknowledge that we had the presence of dr nick johnson
2:56:45
this morning at the executive board
2:56:51
he rearranged his timetable his agenda to be here this morning
2:56:56
unfortunately he couldn't extend that to this afternoon for which he sent his apologies
2:57:03
but he's he made some general remarks to the executive board and i think most
2:57:09
importantly he expressed his desire to sort of work with
2:57:15
the executive board gcp and express support for our wider program including busways and looking
2:57:22
forward to working with us on progressing them so his presence was very welcome this
2:57:29
morning and we look forward to his continued presence at subsequent
2:57:34
meetings so with that we'll move on to uh agenda
2:57:39
item number 12 which is on page 357 of
2:57:44
the agenda um this is uh an item uh relating to uh
2:57:51
the independent audit and first of all i would like to invite uh phil swann uh welcome i mean uh phil
2:57:59
swann and john sutton who carried out the independent audit they are
2:58:04
sitting here with us and the way i propose to take this item is to essentially
2:58:12
ask the um quite get there's a few questions which
2:58:18
we've had pertaining to the independent audit from the public i would like to sort of deal with those
2:58:23
first uh and get those addressed by uh mr swan and mr sutton
2:58:29
uh before we move on to the public questions which relate to
2:58:35
the broader recommendations we have a lot of questions on this item
2:58:42
i have decided that we will do them in blocks so that
2:58:48
we we deal with five questions four or five questions at a time and then i will ask uh mr blake
2:58:55
to deal with those questions before we move on to the next the next block
2:59:02
for those questioners who are here in public i would really ask that you you
2:59:07
try and keep your time for your questions as as crisp as you can we do have a lot of
2:59:14
questions and i would like to sort of keep the balance appropriate between the time spent asking the questions and the
2:59:21
time spent answering them so um
2:59:26
let us start with the uh the public questions and i would like to
2:59:32
ask the officers to read out three public questions which relate to
2:59:39
the independent audit by dr marilyn tracy relate to general recommendations
2:59:46
and one relates to the audit so mr swan and mr sutton will respond
2:59:52
to the question the part of the question relating to the independent audit and
2:59:58
then mr blake vacation for the gcp proposed route through the green belt over mattingly hill which will forever
3:00:04
damage this valuable landscape and open it up to urbanization whilst the c2c audits was being carried
3:00:11
out cotton parish council employed an independent firm of transport consultants of national repute to
3:00:17
examine the issues their report was submitted to the audit they concluded that
3:00:23
there is insufficient evidence to date to confirm that suitable alternatives potential alignment via the a428 and
3:00:29
gerton interchange and potential on highway options have been assessed to the to the degree
3:00:36
that one can conclude that they do not afford greater protection to the green belt which is fundamental to the context
3:00:42
of the twa process under which c2c will be considered they added
3:00:48
it is strongly recommended that the constraints relating to the consideration of alternatives are
3:00:53
reconsidered on a more equitable and transparent basis they concluded
3:00:58
without further work on the above listed issues the scheme assumptions and constraints are not robust and do not
3:01:04
withstand scrutiny and those shortcomings will undoubtedly be exposed in any twa process
3:01:12
question why are the gcp attempting to progress this scheme again without having examined alternatives in more depth and
3:01:19
why did the independent auditor not pick up on this point
3:01:25
the second question from alan treacy reads as follows
3:01:30
the business case for the c2c preferred route is weak with a bcr of
3:01:36
0.43 to 0.48 this is without any adjustment within
3:01:42
the outline business case for cancellation of the cam resulting in a busway which terminates at grange road
3:01:49
without any prospect of further rapid access through the city the possibility
3:01:55
of 30 to 50 percent of potential passengers choosing to travel via east-west rail to
3:02:01
cambridge south and the city centre and emerging patterns of working from home
3:02:08
for office workers one to three days a week in the future
3:02:13
these factors are bound to adversely affect the business case for c2c
3:02:19
the conclusion of the independent transport consultants employed by cotton parish council was to recommend that the
3:02:25
constraints to this project should include providing a bcr of at least one
3:02:31
to represent an acceptable level of value for money particularly in the light of the use of government and
3:02:38
public funds how can the gcp justify progressing this scheme with a business case which does
3:02:45
not stack up why did the independent auditor not highlight this issue
3:02:53
this question is from terry spencer the joint assembly failed to mention in
3:02:58
their report that the newly elected mayor for cambridgeshire and peterborough had confirmed that the cam
3:03:04
would not would not proceed one without the cam how exactly does the
3:03:09
gcp propose to link buses from the current terminus of the camborne to cambridge busway at grange road to the
3:03:15
three stated destinations the science park the city centre and the biomedical campus
3:03:22
two without details of these connections the preferred route for the busway scheme will fail to deliver the stated
3:03:28
objectives why is the gcp persisting with this scheme which has received overwhelming
3:03:33
opposition by the public the previous mayor for cambridge and peterborough the local mp and many organizations
3:03:40
including the national trust cppf parish councils and the local liaison forum
3:03:46
three how can the independent audit team advise that there is no reason that the scheme should not proceed when no
3:03:52
feasible or sensible routes have been proposed to connect from grange road to the stated destinations without
3:03:59
aggravating congestion in cambridge and without serious environmental city impacts on pedestrians cyclists and
3:04:05
tourists visiting the historic city
3:04:12
okay can i ask is it mr sutton who will respond
3:04:17
could i ask mr sutton that you make it clear which question you're responding to if you as you go through your responses please yes of course yes good
3:04:25
afternoon everybody um i'll respond to question 19 which is from dr marilyn tracy first
3:04:35
she makes a number of claims in her in her question regarding
3:04:40
the audit and the consideration of submissions that were made
3:04:45
the audit considered the input from colton parish council and the submission made by eye transport
3:04:52
including the proposed alternative alignment for coal lined route via the a-408 and
3:04:59
looping south of the curtain interchange this is reviewed in section 6.6.3
3:05:06
of the independent audit according to the eye transport report
3:05:12
the scheme is a viable option although no evidence is presented to support this assertion
3:05:18
their report recognizes that there would be engineering challenges for the route they propose
3:05:23
with cost implications which are not estimated alternative route options including
3:05:30
those going via gerton interchange have been reviewed at various stages in the scheme options development process
3:05:38
as remarked in audit comment 21 which is in section 6 page 69 of the audit
3:05:45
i comment that the c2c scheme assumptions and constraints are not invalidated by the alternative options
3:05:53
some of which can reasonably claim that they are just as valid it is not the role of the audit to
3:05:58
adjudicate between conflicting options the objectors will have the opportunity to present their alternative route
3:06:04
option to the public inquiry and cross-examine the gcp and its consultants on the options development
3:06:11
and preferred scheme appraisal there is no guarantee for instance that
3:06:16
the co-alignment route scheme proposed by eye transport would perform any better if subject to a detailed
3:06:23
appraisal than the preferred option evaluated in the business case
3:06:29
so that was my answer my response to question 19
3:06:34
in response to question 26 from
3:06:39
alan tracy he asked why did the independent audit
3:06:45
not highlight this issue with regard to objections to the scheme
3:06:52
particularly the economic appraisal the independent audit discussed the economic appraisal including the
3:06:59
estimation of the bcr in section 4.2.1 of the report
3:07:05
the bcr of 0.43 refers to the transport user benefits
3:07:10
only which increases to 0.48 when taking account of agglomeration benefits in the
3:07:16
corridor in line with transport appraisal guidance guidance from the department of
3:07:22
transport and hm treasury the business case estimates the wider
3:07:27
economic impact impacts which increases to increases the bcr to 1.47
3:07:35
which has increased further to 3.48 with cambridge uh sorry greater cambridge additional
3:07:40
benefits the issues surrounding city center access from grange world are reviewed in
3:07:48
section 3.3 of the audit which identifies this as a weak link in
3:07:53
the c2c project and more widely the cambridge better public transport program
3:07:58
this is acknowledged as a key constraint by the gcp and the combined authority which is partially addressed in the
3:08:04
recent city access policy of soft measures to improve bus movements
3:08:10
further measures will be required if bus accessibility is to max the ambitions of the better public transport project
3:08:17
regarding east-west rail claims are made in several submissions that east-west rail will replace the
3:08:24
need for the busway without any evidence being provided support to support this assertion
3:08:31
it is likely that east-west rail will abstract some travel demand in the corridor which is why the audit
3:08:37
recommends in section 5.2 that the east west rail be brought into the appraisal process to evaluate the
3:08:44
impact on the c2c scheme
3:08:49
moving on to the third question of question 27 from terry spencer and it's
3:08:55
the third part of that question which i will respond to
3:09:00
this is related to um the same issue about city center access from grange road
3:09:06
and my answer really reflects the previous answer that was made in response to
3:09:13
uh the question from alan alan treacy so i don't really have anything further to add to that
3:09:20
only to say that [Music] despite the
3:09:25
problems with the city centre access the assumptions of constraints relating to the growth of travel movements in the
3:09:32
kanbone to cambridge corridor remain valid thank you thank you thank you mr sun
3:09:38
maybe it is easier now if uh mr blake you'd answer the residual two points and uh in
3:09:46
mr tracy at mr spencer's good question thank you chair um so cambodia cambridge will be adopting the
3:09:52
approach of the existing guided bus way so at grange road it will move on road for movements to the city centre and
3:09:59
other employment nodes this will be enhanced by city access proposals which we've discussed this
3:10:05
morning will be coming back to to this board and the joint assembly in in september
3:10:10
in terms of the second point around objections the evidence does not support overwhelming opposition to the scheme
3:10:16
cambodia cambridge is part of a strategy that will ensure the delivery of
3:10:21
sustainable local planned growth across the greater cambridge area thank you chair
3:10:28
thank you mr blake okay so i'd now like to move on
3:10:33
from the independent audit to general questions which relate to
3:10:39
the item and to the recommendations and i'd like to ask
3:10:45
people who are here in present to ask come forward and answer ask their questions
3:10:51
if we could start please with mr gabriel fox
3:10:56
welcome thank you for joining us thank you very much um
3:11:02
i've been doing this for at least six years which is kind of i think depressing in itself and and i have been
3:11:08
asking i guess the same question the whole of that time why is it necessary to build an off-road section of busway for the
3:11:15
less than two mile stretch between maddingly mulch roundabout and the west cambridge site a great financial and
3:11:22
environmental cost when a simple on-road bus solution for that stretch on the
3:11:27
a1303 would perform just as well at a fraction of the cost initially we were told that
3:11:34
the off-road bus way along that uh two mile stretch delivered valuable transport benefits
3:11:40
but when they got round to examining it properly gcp's transport officers conceded that an off-road route across
3:11:47
the mattingly hill greenbelt landscape would actually have no significant end-to-end journey time or reliability
3:11:53
benefit over a well-designed scheme using the a1303 and they were even kind enough to admit in the outline business
3:12:00
case published last year that the most reliable bus infrastructure in cambridgeshire is not
3:12:05
as some had previously claimed the existing cambridgeshire guided busway mr blake just referenced north of the city
3:12:11
but the intermittent on-road bus lane between ditton walk and napier street on new market road a busy radial route that
3:12:19
is far more challenging in terms of congestion and junctions than the a1303 on mattingly hill and i emphasize
3:12:25
intermittent this is not actually a bus lane that runs continuously it is actually broken at places between it and
3:12:32
walk and napier street so once that excuse was laid to rest we were then told that the off-road stretch was
3:12:38
necessary for cam compliance but now it appears cam is not going to happen
3:12:44
so i'm left wondering what is the next excuse to be used we all
3:12:49
across the community want a better bus service between camborne and cambridge we want a better service that the public
3:12:55
can afford to use and we ideally want it to be evidence-based
3:13:01
so my question is when is gcp going to accept that a popular affordable and
3:13:06
highly efficient and quick to implement on-road scheme for that two-mile stretch
3:13:12
is the best way to achieve that i'm afraid i have to kind of dine and dash because i've got another thing so i'm
3:13:17
going to be very rude and just skip that thank you thank you thank you for joining us to answer your ask your
3:13:22
question okay um second uh question in this block is could i ask
3:13:28
councillor marcus gearing please to ask his question
3:13:33
welcome thank you very much and congratulations chair on
3:13:40
your position and your election i'm very concerned my residents are very concerned about the ctc proposals
3:13:48
in particular the public participation element and i'm afraid to say that we feel that
3:13:56
officers intervened and weren't properly controlled by the
3:14:01
politicians on this board because repeatedly we requested that an lf should be called a local liaison
3:14:09
forum should be convened coming with the independent assessment and therefore no public
3:14:16
participation needs were necessary however the llf my residence my
3:14:23
residence associations feel sidelined they didn't feel they had uh appropriate
3:14:28
interaction with the independent reviewer they were confined to written
3:14:34
submissions while many think that
3:14:40
gcp itself had personal interactions so my question for the board is do you
3:14:47
think the right process has been followed do you think it was right to exclude the possibility of an llf when
3:14:54
that llf was readily available via zoom and third
3:15:01
do you is the gcp afraid of public scrutiny thank you
3:15:09
thank you for your question could i now ask miss james littlewood to come forward
3:15:15
and ask his questions welcome
3:15:27
good afternoon everyone thank you very much for allowing me to speak in person i have two questions
3:15:32
and one of them does relate to the independent audit so i'll ask that first and then i'll ask a separate question about environmental impact assessment
3:15:39
so the the first question is that we submitted a series of questions to uh yourselves in response to the
3:15:45
independent audit these are too numerous to raise a public question so we would like to just ask one of these publicly
3:15:51
which is will the gcp acknowledge that there are no significant delays westbound along mattingly hill in the
3:15:57
evening peak the audit report page 19 states currently on delay on the a1303
3:16:04
eastbound in the am peak is up to and over 70 percent slower than average night time speeds
3:16:11
this is mirrored in the westbound pm peak with between 50 to 75 slower speeds than night time average
3:16:17
speeds this appears to be a misquote from the economic case on page 61
3:16:23
which is listed in 3.1 traffic moving at over 75 percent slower traveling into
3:16:28
cambridge in the amp compared to night time average speeds between maddening mulch roundabout and the m11 junction
3:16:34
part 0.2 traffic exiting the m1 motorway moving at between 50 and 70 slower compared to
3:16:42
night time average in both the am and pm peak and point three delays occurring in
3:16:47
both the am and pm peak with traffic moving at over 75 percent slower than the night time average speed at the
3:16:54
mattingly road park and ride side neither of the two second points describe the speed of westbound traffic
3:16:59
on mattingly hill in the pm peak our report which we submitted included an analysis of a year's worth of bus
3:17:06
travel data published by the gcp itself on the smart cambridge data hub this demonstrates incontrovertibly that
3:17:13
there is no significant delays westbound along maddingly hill in the evening peak even in the morning peak the pattern of
3:17:20
delays is too complex to be usefully summarized to 75 slower and we've provided two graphs with our question to
3:17:27
demonstrate this point my second question relates to the environmental impact assessment
3:17:34
firstly i'd like to ask how much approximately the environmental impact assessment would cost and taking into
3:17:40
account the independent audit recommendations should the board not have sight of the updated business case
3:17:46
before it considers spending money on the eia and if not could you please explain to us what the purpose of the business case
3:17:52
is when it so far cost eight million pounds if it is not to determine whether the project is an appropriate way to
3:17:58
spend public money thank you thank you for the questions
3:18:05
okay um could i now ask superintendent uh matthew brown to come forward and ask
3:18:10
this question welcome thank you
3:18:27
[Music] thank you so much
3:18:36
i'll start by reading a short statement and getting to the questions
3:18:41
the mattingly hill landscape is a place of beauty that has been valued by many generations and is worthy of preservation
3:18:48
its stunning view shed extends north towards ely cathedral east towards king college chapel
3:18:55
south over red meadow hill and beyond with the picturesque villages of coten
3:19:01
and mattingly nestled on either side in 1945
3:19:06
u.s army major general lee requested that mattingly hill become the site of a permanent commemorative
3:19:13
cemetery and memorial to honor fallen u.s service personnel of the second world war
3:19:20
specifically because of its natural beauty and unparalleled view shed
3:19:26
the u.s government asked for this specific terrain no other terrain in east anglia would do
3:19:33
because this view shed was the key selling point then as it is still today
3:19:40
today the cambridge american military cemetery is a world renowned monument and a grade one listed landscape by
3:19:47
historic england extending south the unspoiled open countryside located
3:19:53
in the greenbelt is extensively protected by national trust covenants
3:20:01
we are concerned that gcp's proposal to build a tarmac bus route across the south side of the
3:20:07
hill would irreparably damage this unique and precious landscape compromising the
3:20:13
setting of the american military cemetery severing historic community access
3:20:18
routes and paving the way for further urban encroachment in its vicinity
3:20:26
and so my questions to the board include one
3:20:32
will the gcp consider rejecting a scheme that is so manifestly damages damaging
3:20:39
to such a sensitive and internationally recognized landscape
3:20:45
my second question is will the gcp consider properly and impartially assessing the
3:20:52
well-characterized alternatives for improving bus journeys between camborne and cambridge
3:20:59
using existing infrastructure and by that i specifically mean the a428
3:21:05
to the gurton interchange so thank you chairman i um should point
3:21:11
out that i am representing both myself as the superintendent of the american cemetery but also
3:21:18
the mattingly parish council the coten parish council and the cambridge past present and
3:21:25
future thank you gentlemen thank you thank you for your question okay um can i ask
3:21:32
mr blake to respond to all those questions again if you wouldn't mind
3:21:38
making it clear which question you're responding to that would be helpful
3:21:43
thank you chair um so in terms of the question raised by uh gabriel fox the evidence does not support the
3:21:50
assertion that an on-road bus solution performs just as well
3:21:56
we've assessed these route options in accordance with dft requirements all that information is available online and
3:22:02
the best performing route is the route that we are proposing the idea that an on-road solution
3:22:09
could be provided at a fraction of the cost again is not supported by the evidence
3:22:14
particularly in the can you hear me particularly in the
3:22:20
given the insufficient space outside of the american cemetery and the triple s i
3:22:26
the independent audit states that alternative route options have been assessed in accordance with department
3:22:32
of transport requirements if i turn to the question from uh
3:22:38
councillor gearing the the outline business case has been discussed at the local liaison forum in january 2020 and
3:22:46
then again in june 2020 in the laser forum on the 8th of december 2020 we outlined the
3:22:54
recommendations for an independent uh audit of the process
3:22:59
that independent audit audit has been managed by an independent person and phil swann will will outline his
3:23:06
approach in in a minute that report has been prepared and submitted to the board
3:23:13
as an independent report mr swan met the chair of the liaison forum twice during the audit
3:23:19
process including to to outline the outcomes and the recommendations
3:23:26
in terms of james littlewood's a question regarding the the eia eia work
3:23:32
is yet to be agreed the scope of which is yet to be agreed with the department for transport and the costs will be identified at that point once we've
3:23:39
agreed with them as we are required to through the prescribed process the
3:23:44
independent audit has recommended that the business case be updated in due course to reflect east-west rail covered
3:23:50
and other issues and that will be brought forward at the next stage gate as we're required to do
3:23:57
in terms of your question around delays westbound
3:24:03
along along madigan hill at present the significant westbound delays in the evening peak are mainly to the east of
3:24:10
the m11 but traffic is often heavy over mattingly hill and likely to deteriorate
3:24:16
given the planned growth along that corridor particularly along
3:24:21
to bourne and to west camborne and then finally in terms of superintendent brown
3:24:27
um the gcp has properly assessed the alternatives both on road and off
3:24:35
and these deliberations have included the impact on the american cemetery
3:24:41
and the conclusion is that the southern proposals have less of an impact than the other options which in part is why
3:24:48
they've been discounted
3:24:53
i believe that's meet you thank you very much uh mr blake um i'd just like to ask mr swan whether you
3:25:00
would like to respond to the question about the degree of gcp influence on the
3:25:06
independent audit now or would you like to sort of pick that up when you make your remarks on the process
3:25:12
i'm i'm happy to to comment now um
3:25:18
the [Music] only content the only contact we have had
3:25:24
with the gcp during this process was to agree the terms of reference with them
3:25:30
which i also discussed with the local liaison forum and the combined authority
3:25:36
to obtain information and evidence from the the um the transport team at the gcp
3:25:44
and i accompanied john sutton to that meeting i also kept you informed of the progress
3:25:52
with the audit but not the content and i briefed you on our conclusions um
3:25:59
in a similar time scale to the briefing i provided to the local liaison forum there has been no attempt to influence
3:26:05
the contents of the report whatsoever thank you very much indeed
3:26:11
um i have to uh apologize that i missed a question from mr pratt uh in my in my
3:26:18
list so if i could invite mr pratten to come forward and first question for the next block my sincere apologies
3:26:26
she'd like to ask your question is that working
3:26:31
actually that works quite well because my question i very much want to direct at the board and not the officers
3:26:37
because i feel that um i want the board to answer the question rather than the officers um
3:26:42
so it's kind of two parts to my question the first part has been slightly mentioned in some earlier questions
3:26:49
we've been asking for five years how the buses will get back to grange road from the city's enter
3:26:55
destinations all that time they keep saying city center access study is going to come out
3:27:00
it never comes out the board members must have an opinion of this for themselves they know this is
3:27:07
the problem so how do you think the buses are going to get back from town center to grange road
3:27:13
they can't go down lensfield road unless significant changes are made to
3:27:18
the traffic structure there are you the board willing to sign off on that and persuade your voters that they're
3:27:25
willing to accept that or do is there some other option that you guys know about that we don't know about how are the buses going to get back i don't want
3:27:32
to talk to the officers because they're just going to say it's going to come out in the access study they've been saying that for five years it's time that
3:27:38
someone said how the buses were going to get back the second is my second part of my question concerns the westfield section
3:27:45
of the route are the board members aware that the planning justification in law
3:27:52
given by the officers and their consultants is appealing to a speculative piece
3:27:58
uh is making a risky appeal to a uh a loosely replaced related piece of case law and like this is highly speculative
3:28:06
okay i'd give an analogy if i had it was a farmer who wanted to develop a piece of green belt land i'd be quite happy to
3:28:11
take a piece of legal advice where someone said well you've got a 20 chance of getting it through it gets through
3:28:17
you win the jackpot if i'm buying a house i want legal advice that i know is 100
3:28:23
gonna be okay i want my contract to look like all the contracts and everyone else has signed to sign a house
3:28:30
the advice you've been given legally for the planning for the um section over the west fields is like the former it's
3:28:37
not a hundred both of these were mentioned to the auditors and neither were adequately um
3:28:43
discussed in the audit um response but my real question is for the board members on this not the officers
3:28:49
okay thank you very much for your question uh as well on city access so
3:28:56
if i could just ask for uh the questions to be read out from uh mr andrew taylor
3:29:03
melanie forbes jane rennick and caroline poscate please thank you chair this question is from
3:29:09
andrew taylor of countryside properties please can you confirm that the gcp
3:29:14
board will approve the decision to move forward with the recommendation regarding the c2c scheme
3:29:21
countryside support the conclusion of the audit that there is no reason not to proceed to the next stage in the
3:29:27
development of the c2c scheme following the publication of the kanban to cambridge independent audit
3:29:33
countryside and its consultant team have reviewed the findings we support the proposed route for the
3:29:39
ctc as recommended through the audit and are supportive of the gcp reaching a
3:29:45
positive decision on this matter within the bourne airfield new village site the route is consistent with the
3:29:53
adopted spd for the site and the parameters on which scdc
3:29:59
resolved to grant permission earlier this year the delivery of the c2c is important for
3:30:05
delivering new community-based transport options and the two-step stops within the bourne airfield new village will be
3:30:12
at the heart of the community including adjoining the new village centre
3:30:18
we look forward to continuing working with the gcp to support the swift delivery of the scheme which is a key
3:30:25
infrastructure project in the area both for the existing and the new communities which will be developed
3:30:33
this question is from melanie forbes as we emerge from the pandemic we are faced with an ecological disaster
3:30:40
the signs of which are manifest everywhere and every day we know what we have to do
3:30:46
and it is a race against time many organizations are working to create and preserve disappearing habitats to
3:30:53
protect the ecosystem which is to protect the ecosystem which sustains us
3:30:58
the cppf project to create a wetland in koten provides a local example
3:31:04
how then does the gcp justify destroying protected greenbelt land and important habitats to build an off-road bus way
3:31:12
when a faster rail solution is just a few years down the track and
3:31:17
an on-road alternative runs parallel close by in the light of recent changes and
3:31:23
future threats why does the gcp continue to resist a formal comparison of the
3:31:28
off-road and on-road proposals this question is from jane renick
3:31:35
following the conclusions of the independent audit i would like to ask a question concerning the lack of public
3:31:41
confidence in the democratic process that has led to the gcp to progress so
3:31:47
unwaveringly with their preferred route for the cambod cambridge busway
3:31:52
i refer to point 3.7 of the joint assembly feedback it is stated that overall there was a
3:31:59
consensus that the scheme should proceed to the eia stage as some residual areas of concern
3:32:06
such as the impact on hardwick and cotton can only be addressed by that means
3:32:12
this infers that the severe environmental impact that the proposed bust way would have
3:32:18
on these two villages is only of residual concern here the use of the word residual
3:32:25
suggests that the eia stage will yet again merely
3:32:31
another sweeping up be another sweeping up exercise that will in no way lead to
3:32:36
any serious reappraisal of the gcp preferred route i would like to ask how can the
3:32:42
residents of hardwick and cotton be reassured that this is this is not just another box ticking exercise that will
3:32:49
have no impact on the final decision this question is from carolyn postgate
3:32:57
with reference to feedback from the joint assembly meeting 10th july 2021
3:33:02
agenda page 28 item 5.2 second point some members welcomed reference to the
3:33:08
potential reassessment of the alignment in hardwick avoiding the need to chop down trees alongside its road
3:33:15
this was in relation to a statement from peter blake if this realignment on saint nia's road
3:33:21
hardwick is changed to an on-road bus lane instead of a segregated route
3:33:26
this leaves the short distance through the green belt on maddingly hill next to cotton and then through the cambridge
3:33:33
westfields the only fully segregated section in the entire sea to sea route
3:33:38
will the board reconsider the wisdom of wasting huge sums of money on a minimally segregated route that no
3:33:45
longer fulfills its original brief viable alternative routes exist and need
3:33:51
to be examined in greater detail before any final decision is made
3:33:59
okay if i could ask uh mr blake to respond to those questions please thank you thank you i am going to respond to
3:34:06
mr pratt recognizing that your comments will be reflected on by the by the board but in terms of risky and speculative uh
3:34:13
the planning advice is not risky nor speculative if there is no requirement for very
3:34:18
special circumstances in the green belt transport infrastructure is appropriate in the green belt subject to appropriate
3:34:25
planning review and that's the process that we will be following in terms of the existing busway it goes from
3:34:32
segregated to on-road and that is the plan for um for the campbell under cambridge but again the the
3:34:38
conversations we've had this morning and we will have again in september we'll talk about city access and how the uh
3:34:44
traffic levels are better managed for public transport walking and cycling within within the city uh in in terms of um the
3:34:52
andrew taylor uh question that that's a point for the the board to note i think um in in similar
3:34:59
fashion in terms of the question for from melanie forbes so the green belt point i
3:35:04
think is again appropriate um transport infrastructure is appropriate in the green belt subject to the necessary
3:35:11
checks and balances the audit notes that c2c complements east-west rail
3:35:16
particularly with with any further planned growth along that corridor and east-west rail will not serve the communities between camborne and
3:35:23
cambridge particularly areas like born airfield aka the question we've had in from from
3:35:30
matthew taylor previously and the audit also concludes that alternative routes have been put forward
3:35:36
and considered as we are obliged to do in accordance with department for transport guidance
3:35:43
jane renwick's question the scheme has been developed with regular
3:35:48
input from communities there have been four consultations over the years along with countless meetings uh and and
3:35:56
discussions with stakeholder groups and and the like the community has contributed and impacted on the on the
3:36:03
scheme for example the location of the park and ride side noise barriers along the along the 408
3:36:10
changes to the to the detail design if the decision of the board today is to
3:36:16
restart the scheme and move forward with the with the eia consultation we will be restarting engagement with the with the
3:36:23
community and the community groups and again that will also be subject to a statutory eia consultation that we're
3:36:29
obliged to undertake carolyn postgate's uh question the audit
3:36:34
states that the alternative routes have again have been considered in align with the with guidance
3:36:41
if the saint niotz road option is considered and changed as a result of
3:36:46
the eia consultation the majority of the of the proposed cambodia cambridge route will still be off-road uh reflecting the
3:36:53
requirements of the scheme i believe that's that's the list i think thank you very
3:36:58
much indeed um okay so now we come to uh the last
3:37:04
block of questions which there are three can i ask um i'm not sure who's asking this question dan dan
3:37:10
uh well it's dan strauss and heather ducati anthony carpent and pauline joslin can i ask the officers to please
3:37:16
read those questions out thank you chair this question is from dan strauss and heather de kenny on
3:37:22
behalf of the north newnum residents association over 3
3:37:27
300 people signed a petition urging the gcp not to use adams road as the final
3:37:33
stage of the c2c busway and we were pleased to see that these people were listened to
3:37:40
can the gcp now consider the safety of the six thousand cyclists who use adams
3:37:46
road every day and urgently make improvements to the road which should include traffic calming and removing the
3:37:53
parking this question is from anthony carpen
3:37:59
please can the greater cambridge partnership set out what detailed discussions they have had with stagecoach regarding the cambridge
3:38:06
access element of the busways programme in particular with regards to one what
3:38:13
happens to busway buses from camborne that reach grains road two what happens to sea set buses when
3:38:20
they reach aden brooks three how are you managing the risk of building stranded pieces of transport
3:38:26
infrastructure that previous generations of transport engineers left cambridge with during the 1960s and 1970s
3:38:35
including elizabeth way bridge and barnwell road dual carriageways mr carpen has provided some background
3:38:41
information which is available on the published version of these questions and chair i think there's a further
3:38:47
question which you didn't list which is from pauline joslin
3:38:52
can the gcp make it clear and formal that if this scheme is to go ahead then
3:38:58
the gcp will be addressing the environmental sound and visual barrier issues of the proposed busway and the
3:39:05
a428 motorway on neitz road hardwick i remind the gcp that
3:39:12
764 hardwick residents signed a petition to save our trees on sydney its road we
3:39:18
do not want the tree barrier removed does the gcp acknowledge that hardwick
3:39:24
parish council confirms it does not support the off-road c to c
3:39:29
nor the destruction of the tree line between the a428 and the ancient meets
3:39:35
road does the gcp acknowledge that the verifiable online petition on
3:39:42
change.org to save the synthetic road trees has over 750 signatures
3:39:49
will the gcp please confirm that there are no changes to the neat road carriageway whether the gcp off-road
3:39:56
busway goes ahead or not would the gcp please confirm that the
3:40:02
sustainable pedestrian and cycle path planned for niatz road will continue
3:40:08
regardless of the gcp going ahead or not and finally where can we see the gcp plans for
3:40:15
upgrading the sydney its road footpath please including the start and finish date that concludes the questions thank
3:40:22
you chair thank you can i again ask mr blake to address those three questions
3:40:29
thank you chair uh in terms of north newnum residents association i answered this at the joint assembly um so we will
3:40:36
be bringing forward proposals as part of the combatant greenway for adams road and we will be in discussions with local
3:40:42
residents in the in the near future in terms of the question from anthony carpin i've already covered the the
3:40:48
grange road um sort of issue um in terms of
3:40:53
cambridge southeast that will link up with the existing busway passing the new rail station when it opens in 2025
3:41:00
and the gcp is oppo is proposing flexible um option with buses
3:41:06
which means that there will no creation of stranded assets so assets will not be
3:41:12
be used going forward you know the existing bus way is highly successful has double the number of bus services on
3:41:17
than when it opened and we expect that to be the case with these with these services going forward and then finally in terms
3:41:24
of pauline jocelyn's question should the scheme advance then we will be in discussion with uh the parish
3:41:31
council and other residents in hardwick on all of these issues
3:41:36
uh regarding uh saint nia's road uh footway cycleway and the like chair
3:41:42
thank you thank you mr blake okay so that uh concludes the question i'd
3:41:47
like to thank all of those uh members of the public who asked the questions um
3:41:52
very grateful for the time you've taken and indeed i'd like also to thank all members of the of the public who've
3:41:59
taken the time to write to the board members uh on on this
3:42:04
particular item to convey their thoughts and views okay so um
3:42:11
now if i could ask chief executive rachel stopard to make some introductory remarks on this
3:42:17
item i would be very grateful thank you thanks chair um as has already been referred to a
3:42:23
number of times um this scheme has been long in debate uh and subject to a
3:42:28
number of delays and uh opinions about um the appropriate route as a result of
3:42:34
that in december last year the executive board agreed to undertake an independent audit the purpose was to validate the
3:42:41
assumptions and constraints that had led to the conclusions of the outline business case and consider whether they
3:42:47
remained valid at that time you also emphasized the importance of the audit being
3:42:53
independent open and transparent for that reason we appointed an independent person phil
3:42:59
swann to oversee the process and act as the point of contact and intermediary but
3:43:04
thank you swan thank you thank you good afternoon
3:43:11
i was commissioned to independently manage the audit
3:43:16
i then commissioned john sutton as the transport expert to carry out the audit
3:43:24
following a competitive process the gcp was not involved in that
3:43:31
recruitment process in any way but it did follow cambridgeshire county council
3:43:36
procurement rules um neither john nor amy
3:43:41
the um the company he works for have had any previous engagement with the gcp or
3:43:47
the c2c scheme shortly after john was appointed we
3:43:53
published a statement on the constraints and the pinning and assumptions underpinning the c2c
3:44:00
outline business case with a further invitation which was which we published and circulated with a
3:44:07
further invitation to local representative organizations to make submissions to the audit
3:44:13
in total in response to both of those invitations to submit submissions we received around 50
3:44:20
submissions which are listed in the audit and all of which were taken into account in the work we did
3:44:28
i should now like to repeat the comment i made a few minutes ago um which is that there has been no
3:44:35
attempt by anybody um including the gcp to influence the
3:44:41
content of the audit or the conclusions we reached and john will now
3:44:47
briefly speak to the conclusions in the audit
3:44:54
yes thanks phil thank you chair i'll just um briefly summarize the
3:45:01
main conclusions from the audit the audit has concluded that the scheme
3:45:07
is in alignment with national regional and local policies on the economy and transport
3:45:13
stakeholder engagement has been carried out in a robust manner and the business case development followed the hm
3:45:20
treasury green book and the department for transport transport appraisal guidelines
3:45:26
methodology the appraisal has been carried out in a robust manner and the economic analysis
3:45:32
and financial case remain valid the environmental impact of the scheme
3:45:38
is mixed and the validity of some of the assumptions will need to be investigated further as
3:45:44
part of the environmental impact assessment which would form part of the next stages
3:45:50
a number of alternative route options have been put forward and have been examined in the audit
3:45:56
it is important to stress however that the business case must balance local concerns with the wider strategic goals
3:46:03
the gcp has followed the national guidance on appraisal such as this
3:46:09
overall the audit has confirmed that the key constraints and assumptions on which to see to see business cases based
3:46:15
remains valid there have however been some significant changes in the wider context including
3:46:22
the impact of corvid 19 the increasing importance of climate change
3:46:27
the government's new bus policy east-west rail and the camp scheme
3:46:32
these factors will have to be taken into account in the next stages of developing the c2c scheme
3:46:39
it has been argued that progress with the c2c scheme should be delayed to consider the cam and the east-west
3:46:46
rail projects this audit has concluded that the case for delay is not strong and has been
3:46:52
significantly weakened as a result of the increasing uncertainty about cam in the light of statements of the incoming
3:46:58
mayor so the overall conclusion of the audit is that there is no reason why the
3:47:03
executive board of the gcp should not proceed to the next stage in the development of the c2c scheme
3:47:11
thank you thank you very much mr sutton okay so um i would like at this point to
3:47:19
uh just now turn to uh discussion amongst the
3:47:25
the board and clarification of any questions which the board members have
3:47:31
or indeed questions which came or comments from the joint assembly uh on the audit report
3:47:38
and then as a separate part of this item we'll go on and talk about the substantive
3:47:43
recommendations so first of all if i'd just invited mr bick is there any comments from a joint assembly relating
3:47:49
to the independent audit which you would like to pass on
3:47:55
um yes i hadn't expected to separate the two but indeed if you wish to if you wish to if you wish to amalgamate them that's that's
3:48:01
okay i'll i'll do that i think um so chair the um
3:48:07
phil swann and john sutton both attended the assembly a few weeks ago um and there they also um
3:48:15
responded to questions from public questioners and from members of the assembly
3:48:21
um the consensus of the assembly was that the
3:48:28
audit had been conducted along principles of independence which
3:48:35
they had hoped for um and that was questioned um and
3:48:40
explored with them and the consensus was also that the audit report
3:48:46
does provide an assurance that it would be appropriate to proceed with the next stage
3:48:52
of this project um the assembly
3:48:57
did support the the recommendations that um that you were going to consider today
3:49:05
um and they did so with varying degrees of enthusiasm and
3:49:10
reluctance as the as is written in my report um but that was um
3:49:18
with some considerable degree of consensus nevertheless and i think the the reason for that was
3:49:26
that there is a recognition of what has been described as the wider strategic goals that this project is
3:49:34
seeking to um to achieve of providing fast and efficient
3:49:39
sustainable public and active transport to the growing new communities meeting housing needs on
3:49:46
the west side of cambridge the um
3:49:53
the the um we welcomed the fact that um
3:49:58
the the audit um had pointed out um
3:50:04
that by proceeding the gcp
3:50:09
should and could combine that with further study of a number of related factors which
3:50:18
i think is the main reporter acknowledged as subject to change um in
3:50:23
this corridor such as the future of the cam the impact of east west rail
3:50:30
the implications of of covid about climate change and policy for that
3:50:35
about national bus policy and i think that we were pleased
3:50:40
to um we got that advice that um that the shutters did not go down on
3:50:48
considering those elements of that contribute to this part project
3:50:55
just because we were going to proceed to the next stage so we we welcome that and
3:51:01
i do think in that context that um we we would be pleased um to see
3:51:08
your recommendations c um extended um to add to the list of factors that
3:51:16
are listed there integration
3:51:22
with the emergent city access strategy it's been the subject of some of the
3:51:29
public questions we're talking here about a list of other factors which
3:51:34
are in motion and can be subject to change whilst we proceed with this project
3:51:41
i think we have to acknowledge that the city access strategy is one of those and i think it
3:51:46
should be i would really request the board to to add that to the list and recognize
3:51:53
that um the city access strategy needs to integrate with that and it is only an
3:51:59
emergent strategy and so it does need to be added to that list and dealt with in the same way
3:52:05
we also felt that um by moving the next to the next stage
3:52:12
it would be welcome that the environment environmental impact assessment could take place
3:52:20
particularly because it does enable the areas of environmental sensitivity
3:52:26
um in areas like hardwick and cotton to be properly and importantly practically
3:52:33
explored because we feel that a lot has been asserted a lot has been said in
3:52:39
very general terms about those subjects and only when we get to the environmental impact assessment are we going to be
3:52:45
able to evaluate the practical issues there and how they can be
3:52:52
mitigated and accommodated so you've got the whole lot of comments
3:52:57
from the assembly there but the broad consensus was that
3:53:04
the recommendations hopefully if you will agree to amendment then then that would be good um should be should be
3:53:10
supported thank you thank you thank you councilor bick um we will we will just log your uh
3:53:18
suggestion on the recommendation and and return to that uh in a minute um thank you for your comments um so can
3:53:25
i can i now just invite um members of the executive board to uh if they have any questions of
3:53:31
clarification or uh for for uh mr sutton mr swan to
3:53:37
please
3:53:43
okay no just to thank mr sutton for his piece of work okay
3:53:49
i have a i i'd also like to thank you but before doing so can i just uh it's your last as
3:53:55
your last uh element just i have a few questions which are really just to make sure that
3:54:02
um my understanding of the of the conclusions of the report are clear
3:54:09
this was a report undertaken by the board um as a very important part of this of this
3:54:16
process in recognition of the of the time which had elapsed uh since this piece of work had started
3:54:23
and also uh the dynamics of what's actually happening in this in this corridor so
3:54:28
just got a couple of questions which i'd like to uh if you could sort of confirm for me um
3:54:36
what is your your view east west rail has come up in a lot of the correspondence i've received a lot of
3:54:41
the questions a lot of the uh comments we've had is israel in your
3:54:47
opinion likely to enhance or detract from c to c in terms of its strategic
3:54:53
objectives in its business case yes thank you for your questions um
3:55:01
there is still an uncertainty on the east west rail and the station location
3:55:06
at camborne and therefore the potential impact of east west rail on the c2c scheme
3:55:12
is still uncertain for this reason the audit recommended that east west rail should be brought
3:55:19
into the appraisal framework in the final business case
3:55:24
given the amount of housing and employment planned in the corridor potentially boosted further by east west
3:55:30
rail station in north carolina the two projects are complementary and serve different travel markets albeit
3:55:38
with some overlap right
3:55:43
hence its inclusion in our recommendations is a sort of parallel off of further work
3:55:49
if i may can i just ask one other question which is also came up in one of the questions directly which is
3:55:55
which is the impact on of covid on long-term travel plans
3:56:01
and and do you feel that that impact has sort of
3:56:07
you know changed materially the assumptions underlying the business case to the extent that they're no
3:56:13
longer really valid
3:56:19
[Music] without being disrespectful i think this is one of those known unknowns
3:56:25
and there is uncertainty on future travel that may impact all modes the audit reviewed the latest evidence
3:56:32
and concluded that the risk to bus travel is less than rail travel so if anything the fallout from kovite
3:56:38
19 is likely to affect rail more than bus including east-west rail
3:56:44
it is also worth noting that the government regards buses as an important element in recovering from the pandemic
3:56:50
as evident in the bus back better national bus strategy launched in march
3:56:56
the audit recommended that assumptions regarding future travel demands in the corridor should be
3:57:01
subject to more scenario testing but at present the underlying assumptions remain valid in the corridor and there
3:57:07
is no reason to pause its progress in the next stage of planning thank you
3:57:12
thank you the next question is again regarding
3:57:18
questions which were raised about um onward travel
3:57:23
do you feel that the strategic case is is sort of missing
3:57:30
i think i'm missing mentioned here um this is the wheat link
3:57:35
in the c2c schema more generally for the better public transport project
3:57:41
the outline business case is focused on the corridor from grange road to camborne interventions which we've we've
3:57:47
had and emails which we've had relating to sort of alternate routes
3:57:53
um firstly we're negating regarding sort of the a1303 and
3:57:59
prioritization do you feel that would you consider that the gcp in its work overstated any of the
3:58:05
constraints or made any invalid assumptions that caused it to reject those options as a viable long-term
3:58:11
solution for the strategic objectives
3:58:19
are you referring to the northern route the 1803 a13 or three the prioritization
3:58:26
schemes oh okay so the bus priority measures along the
3:58:32
8th 1303 are short-term measures that are incapable of coping with the
3:58:37
additional traffic generated by the proposed housing and employment growth in the corridor once these are delivered
3:58:44
the focus of the of the outline business case is on delivering a solution that works for the short and the long term
3:58:51
the rejection of prioritization measures along the a3 or 1303 may have been overstated in order not to
3:58:58
divert resources away from planning a longer-term solution to meet the travel demands in the corridor
3:59:05
the audit concludes that the two are not mutually exclusive and following the government's
3:59:12
bus back beta strategy there is funding available to implement some of the short-term bus
3:59:17
priority measures to complement the segregated bus way thank you
3:59:23
my last question regards to the sort of 8428 alignment and
3:59:29
again the similar structure of the question is do you consider the gcp overstated any constraints or made any
3:59:34
invalid assumptions that caused it to reject any option of a428 alignment on the
3:59:39
basis that it will not deliver with the overall strategic objectives of the scheme
3:59:45
this option was evaluated as part of the options development process and not taken forward because it did not perform
3:59:51
as well as other options the evaluation was undertaken as part of the auctioneering process and the
3:59:56
assumptions and constraints applied at that stage were not reviewed in the audit which focused on the continued
4:00:03
validity of the assumptions and constraints for the preferred option in the light of recent developments such as
4:00:09
calm and east-west rail so the audit is not in a position to judge whether earlier assumptions and
4:00:14
constraints were overstated and relies on evidence presented in the online business case and supporting
4:00:20
documents okay thank you thank you for those uh answers okay um
4:00:28
now i'd like to move to the substantive part of the report and uh
4:00:33
peter if you would like to mr blake jesus thank you really i'll just refer
4:00:39
the the board to the recommendations uh so if you are content with what you've heard regarding the uh independent audit
4:00:46
the recommendations are to proceed to the next steps as outlined in section 2.1
4:00:52
thank you okay i'd like to invite any
4:00:58
members of the board claire thank you for the paper and for the
4:01:04
audit uh we desperately wanted an independent audit and we haven't spent enough time with you in my view actually
4:01:10
i would like to spend more time getting your feel for this against our overall objectives
4:01:16
um we've been trying to give options to the workers to the students to the people
4:01:21
going on to tertiary education and opportunities
4:01:26
um lower paid school people university people shop workers john lewis people in
4:01:33
particular they don't park in the grand arcade during the day they park in adams road they park in
4:01:40
story's way they're fairly beaten up cars that are often parked in those zones so from my
4:01:47
point of view i know it's out of process but it's my last meeting so i'm allowed to do that but actually answering mr
4:01:52
pratt's question i think which was do we as board members have views on some of these things
4:01:58
yes we do have views i'd be very interested in your views since you've looked at this scheme so much
4:02:03
so from my point of view when we've beaten the worst part of the radial route the center of cambridge is
4:02:10
often much more peaceful than the radial route coming into town particularly
4:02:15
so the inner part of new market road for example is often completely uncongested whereas the outer part of new market
4:02:21
road is very badly congested same with the university bus that comes from here and i frequently take it to
4:02:28
the station or to the hospital it works pretty freely from grange road
4:02:33
and these buses that come from camborne bringing people in the worst part of the journey can then continue relatively
4:02:40
freely down west road queens road silver street particularly if we can go to some of the six city access solutions that
4:02:47
we've got um to reduce some of the traffic there you can circle around you can have a
4:02:52
one-way route there are ways of getting the big buses through those parts secondly you can move to smaller
4:02:59
vehicles to go off in different directions if you're not going in the same direction as the main bus from camborne you can use smaller
4:03:06
shuttle buses you could even have a fleet of these dreadful scooters dare i
4:03:11
say it at the bus stop in grange road for people to zip off to
4:03:16
somewhere that they wanted to different connections and access can be used in different ways
4:03:21
but overall in london in other busy cities like paris anywhere else you
4:03:27
don't expect to be dropped off right outside your favorite shop you expect to walk the last bit we're
4:03:33
trying to get people to be more active our mayor has said he wants people to be healthier if people are currently walking from
4:03:40
adams road from story's way from warts causeway and babraham road surely they could actually get off the
4:03:47
bus one stop earlier and walk in the last bit so i think there's a lot of um
4:03:52
practicality in building something that is a rapid transit as rapid and reliable as we can
4:03:58
get it to be from the outskirts of cambridge or a travel hub into
4:04:03
the inner circumference we don't have to go right outside the school or the shop
4:04:08
or the university building but we do need to get people in that first bit and then they can take a more
4:04:14
active route or a smaller route if they want to so outside process because i know no
4:04:20
we're not really meant to have ideas we're meant to ask the officers but actually it's quite quite useful that
4:04:26
we'd always have some thinking going on as well don't we lose
4:04:32
that was a question on your field but i think it was more of a statement but if you have a feel for whether this
4:04:38
is actually going to meet our bigger objectives of getting people in that first major part of the route to
4:04:44
give them the opportunity that they need to to work and be educated etc in town that would be really useful
4:04:53
would you like to [Music] yes thank you thank you for your
4:04:59
comments i'm not quite sure if there was a question in there but
4:05:04
yes i think i think fundamentally i think what you're referring to is
4:05:10
that the gcp area and the combined authority has accepted
4:05:15
the idea that greater cambridge is going to grow significantly in terms of housing employment
4:05:23
and the challenges is that how do you accommodate that growth i mean here we're just focusing on
4:05:29
travel movements so something has got to give you know i mean you're increasing the
4:05:34
population of this area by one-third by 2035
4:05:39
according to the latest projections and if you believe the combined authority you could be looking at increasing the
4:05:46
population by up to 50 now i mean this is going to have a huge impact
4:05:52
as well as the employment that's going to come with it so i think what your question is is what
4:05:58
your comment is is that well we need to find a way of being able to get those people around the area
4:06:04
in the most efficient and effective way without harming the environment and i think you know this scheme or
4:06:11
schemes like it is as part of the better public transport program is the solution which the greater
4:06:17
cambridge partnership has come up with i mean yes there are questions over specific alignment and impacts and
4:06:23
things like that which have to be addressed but if you're going to have a transport
4:06:29
strategy which is aiming to move people out of their cars and onto public
4:06:34
transport and active traffic active travel you're going to have to be i think quite
4:06:40
brave in what you need to do and uh if i can just also refer back to a
4:06:46
comment that was made earlier perhaps i didn't make this as strong as what i could could have done
4:06:52
but with all the projected growth in the corridor along the a48
4:06:58
you don't just need the c2c busway you're going to need east-west rail as well
4:07:03
especially if you're going to make sure that people are going to be transferring from cars into public transport
4:07:09
so it's not a case of either or you really need both
4:07:15
thank you very much any other comments or
4:07:21
questions um one area i would like to ask mr blake
4:07:27
about is the um the discussion that was raised by a
4:07:33
number of people in responses um and i don't really want to draw in mr sutton
4:07:39
but he might comment but uh the hardwick road end of the scheme
4:07:45
um in terms of the what will be the um opportunity under the eia to test
4:07:53
that that particular element and as it has been raised and as we have
4:07:59
also discussed it briefly this morning and i'm sure we'll say more in comments
4:08:06
what in the eia will be the assessment of the grange road end and
4:08:14
the need if you like the obligation on the
4:08:19
politicians as well as the gcp team to develop um
4:08:25
answers to where does the but do the buses go i'm not so worried about the
4:08:31
lensfield road circuit i'm more worried about the integration of
4:08:36
public transport more generally and the reduction in the
4:08:42
level of congestion in the city center
4:08:48
so in terms of the eia it's where we get to the detailed design questions so we
4:08:53
will publish a whole host of detailed designs from from grange road through hardwick to camborne and were then able
4:09:00
to talk in detail to local communities so they can see exactly what the proposals are
4:09:07
and we can we can then give them the opportunity to influence that hardwick is a good example of something
4:09:13
that may be raised as part of the process so it is clear that the the mayor is moving the position on cam
4:09:20
um we're obliged to reflect the mayor and the combined authorities position because they're the strategic transport
4:09:26
authority and in hardwick there is a genuine choice if the
4:09:31
position on cam essentially moves and the genuine choice is do we use saint niacc road
4:09:38
or do we look to continue with with the sort of the the line of vegetation our line of vegetation was was chosen in
4:09:45
large part because cam requires segregation um whereas actually we think we can
4:09:51
deliver the benefits by using a slightly reconfigured at the st neos road so what
4:09:57
we need to do working closely with combined authority is to come forward with that detail and
4:10:02
then sit down with the question as the parish council and others to say on that particular point what works what works
4:10:09
for for the residents of hardwick and we'll have that opportunity throughout so even people who are rejecting to the
4:10:16
scheme will be able to talk through detailed design around what does the foliage what should that look like what
4:10:22
vegetation what visibility issues can can we address and it gives us that
4:10:27
opportunity to get into that level of detail and that will then come back to you
4:10:32
before you decide on the next steps and i think that's an important step in the process and it's exactly why department
4:10:38
of transport require us to do it and on the city's city end of it i
4:10:44
appreciate that in pure environmental terms there isn't um
4:10:49
a full assessment but in the breadth of the assessment how will um evidence including if we make progress
4:10:57
um on the interventions in the city center feed into this eia
4:11:04
well in the very in in the short term it of course it's the junctions around grange road so what exactly do those
4:11:11
junctions look like what capacity are we giving to public transport what will be the impact on on on other areas but
4:11:17
obviously as conversations take place around around city access we have far more flexibility to do things uh if
4:11:24
we're taking prevailing traffic levels down and and that will require conversations with yourselves with the
4:11:30
assembly but particularly with local communities to understand well actually
4:11:35
are we content really rebalancing and refocusing the city environment away from the private car which is what we've
4:11:42
said in the papers certainly what the joint assembly talk through but as is always with these things the devil will
4:11:48
be in the detail which is why we are suggesting that your entire
4:11:53
meeting in september covers city access in far more detail i had a
4:11:59
recommendation on the wording so that we do
4:12:05
reference if this is going to be approved the need continuity because i've been at lots of meetings on this
4:12:11
issue since 2015 that we made an earlier commitment that we would progress a scheme on adams road
4:12:19
sorry this is a side track but as a side track i'd appreciate um not
4:12:25
being an empty um promise earlier so to be categoric
4:12:31
we are pursuing a scheme on adam's road we're bringing it forward as part of the combat and greenway proposals and we
4:12:38
expect in the near future to have outline designs that we can discuss with local residents and with the residents
4:12:44
association sorry for the side track um i do appreciate the
4:12:49
thoroughness that we've been going through the core issue today okay thank you okay so so can i just um
4:12:57
sort of councillor herbert's comment can i just ask the board whether we are in agreement that we will add city access
4:13:04
to uh c as the recommendation in terms of uh adding that to the list is that accepted
4:13:10
okay we will we will make reference to city access can i also just add ask a
4:13:16
question of mr blake in the context of the question which i asked mr sutton about
4:13:22
the prioritization issues the reference to the national bus strategy here would
4:13:28
contain a review of what options there may be on short-term prioritization measures
4:13:34
uh consistent with the national bus strategy it would all i would add is that the the
4:13:41
response for this area will come from the combined authority uh as their their public transport authority yes so we
4:13:46
would be working in partnership with them okay understood okay thank you okay so with those recommendations can i
4:13:52
just now turn to any uh comments or which the board members want to make on
4:13:59
the recommendations and the item itself um
4:14:04
i'll i won't give the full um comment but i do need i do need to make several
4:14:10
comments i i i've listened at length and understood some of the concerns and i
4:14:17
can see a view from residents in the cotton area that they don't want this
4:14:22
but but it does come back to a point that was made earlier that there is a strategic need
4:14:28
and um i don't believe that we've skewed the evidence and that was one of the claims
4:14:34
that was made i do believe that we've gone through an elaborate lengthy thorough
4:14:41
thoughtful and objective process in reaching the conclusion that we have
4:14:47
that that an off-road route to the south is is the right option i
4:14:55
have been involved in looking at an off-road route to the north and the gentleman from the american cemetery is
4:15:02
no longer here i do not think that this has any material impact on the american cemetery
4:15:10
i appreciate there are wider points here but if we actually look at the
4:15:16
thoroughness that we've looked at different options and assessing the need there is a real
4:15:23
need for a an off-road route
4:15:29
because of simply the as mr sutton has also alluded to we are not dealing with the current we
4:15:35
are dealing with the future and as has been evidenced by uh the mayor
4:15:42
when he mentioned the success of the root trumps and ives through past
4:15:48
the growing north stone this is a transport necessity
4:15:54
and for people to only harbor views about well we can um
4:16:00
we can have a gertin interchange or we can have various things or it's not needed because of east west rail
4:16:07
i i i just they're entitled to put the point but fundamentally is motivated often by a
4:16:15
legitimate issue which is we don't want anything but our job is to answer the question
4:16:22
and the question is how do we improve transport and
4:16:27
i heard another comment this week which was you can't do this in the green belt well we are unavoidably needing to
4:16:35
provide transport solutions through the green belt to answer the point that mr sutton made that there is a growth in
4:16:43
population and there's a growth there's been an even bigger growth in transport
4:16:48
movements i don't ever hear a voice for the bus users of camborne
4:16:54
and i don't ever hear the voice of people moving into the area needing to be able to get to work or to
4:17:02
to the center of cambridge and i i just i can i can explain my logic in
4:17:09
fuller detail if people want it but this route off-road is needed for the future
4:17:16
and is essential and i have listened to evidence all the way
4:17:22
through and there's been a thorough assessment and i i'm glad that we're moving to the
4:17:28
eia stage chair thank you lisa thank you um
4:17:35
i want i wanted to follow on briefly from what claire said and i think we find ourselves in a similar situation
4:17:41
paradoxically because she's on her way out and i'm on our way on my way in and perhaps we have similar at this
4:17:47
point levels of uncertainty on how you deal with public interaction in these meetings and i'm very sorry that a
4:17:53
couple of people whose comments i wanted to address are no longer here sometimes
4:17:59
the democratic process requires long discussion times it is regrettable but it's how it is
4:18:07
you know and i think what i've heard in terms of the relationship between
4:18:12
this and city access and by the way absolutely we should have that recommendation and i think it's a great idea um everybody else has said it but i
4:18:19
was going to say it um and you know what one of the things i'm hearing is that
4:18:25
people there seems to be a desire to say until that is sorted don't do this
4:18:30
and until this is sorted don't do that which is a problem in the sense that quite clearly you end up not doing
4:18:35
anything because neither of those things can proceed until the other thing has proceeded um and i have a feeling that this is
4:18:42
potentially where we've been until now um and also given my new status on here perhaps
4:18:49
it is possible and maybe some of the officers or some of the people that were here before me can confirm
4:18:55
that sometimes a lack of alignment among the people making these decisions can cause delays and that
4:19:01
seems to have happened over the past four four or five years which which is a pity and i i feel that we have a greater
4:19:07
alignment now to actually be able to be on the same page on some of these decisions which will be enormously
4:19:13
beneficial i think and in terms of city access you do actually have to have the full picture
4:19:20
you know you have to get people from the commuter built into cambridge move them around and then get get them
4:19:26
back out and i would be grateful for a confirmation that my feeling is right
4:19:32
that these things are all very urgent and they all need to be developed
4:19:38
together with a fuller vision and they don't get sold without one another in that
4:19:46
sense and you know it is they are elephants in each other's room and they're very big elephants because they've grown over the
4:19:52
last four years and hopefully we can stop them growing now and i am very hopeful about that thank you
4:19:58
thank you phil thank you i'll i'll try and be brief um because lewis has said a lot of and what
4:20:05
i wanted to say um as well i want to thank the auditors for the work and analysis which i think was
4:20:12
really welcome and excellent um just to address a couple of points that
4:20:17
were made from the floor first about city access being used as a way in which we have or something we've fallen back
4:20:24
on as a um something that will will solve a lot of the issues that we
4:20:30
weren't prepared to address um i think it has been used in that way sometimes and i don't want to raise expectations any more than they have
4:20:36
been raised about our next meeting when we'll be looking at it but we have been trying to do this with not
4:20:42
one but both hands tied behind our backs over the last few years i think now we have a real opportunity
4:20:48
not to rule things out so the city access debate but to start rule things back in again and that's what i'm very
4:20:54
much hoping we will be doing when we meet and to talk about it um
4:21:00
greenbelt has been raised a few times and it's going to be raised i suspect in the discussion on cset which is to
4:21:05
follow this and i think there's some misunderstanding about green belts which are not a call on sanitare and one of
4:21:12
the exceptions that's two green belts and i'm looking at it right now
4:21:18
is the local transport infrastructure and to me this is absolutely the kind of
4:21:24
thing that we should be thinking about unless unfortunately but
4:21:29
nevertheless green belts are not there to stop all kinds of development they are there to stop certain kinds of
4:21:36
developments and then finally just on the recommendation i mean i think the audit
4:21:41
um really supports the process and the analysis
4:21:46
and the direction that we've been taking um to date so i would support the
4:21:52
recommendations i would support the move to the eia and the ea and some of the issues which come down to different
4:21:58
views on development will rightly be considered by an inspector as part of the public
4:22:04
inquiry um but we need to be able to get to that point and therefore i support the recommendations
4:22:10
okay thank you do i have any more comments before i make
4:22:16
the summaries okay okay well um
4:22:21
i think you know this is a i've had lots of questions we've had lots of discussion i i really
4:22:27
thank the uh mr sutton mr swann for the independent audit i think
4:22:33
it's been a very useful process for my sense and that
4:22:39
you know when i reflect back on what the role of the gcp is our role is to deliver
4:22:47
uh the objectives and uh of the combined authority's local transport plan and the
4:22:52
local plans and i think we've heard amongst the board members today and in the
4:22:59
independent audit confirmation that that this scheme
4:23:05
does deliver those those important objectives associated with
4:23:10
managing the growth and the sustainable transport which is required to go along with
4:23:18
the employment growth and the housing development in our local plants so that has been
4:23:24
a useful part of the process and i feel that the strategic objectives sort of tick
4:23:31
and the delivery tech box has been has been actually satisfied
4:23:36
um i also feel in a number of board members have made this that
4:23:42
the impedant audit went through the actual process which was undertaken by the gcp
4:23:49
and i have heard basic confirmation of the the robustness and the thoroughness of
4:23:56
that process which is led to the preferred option
4:24:03
i also think that you've correctly pointed out which we've reflected in the
4:24:08
recommendations that there are as you say weak links relating to
4:24:14
city access there are other areas where
4:24:19
we need to keep working on making sure that the
4:24:24
impact of covid19 east-west rail uh bus strategy the
4:24:30
short-term options are actually reflected uh you know in our work but but essentially the important conclusion
4:24:37
and the most important conclusion out of your report report is that none of those are grounds for delay in moving forward
4:24:44
in the in the project and lastly on the the
4:24:50
environmental there are clearly um lots of concerns residual concerns around
4:24:56
uh the impact of this scheme no scheme is perfect and this one clearly has some
4:25:02
points which have raised a lot of concern
4:25:08
i feel that you've also made a a good case that those those are are are to be
4:25:15
addressed in the environmental impact assessment
4:25:20
and that we will hopefully uh through that process uh focus on those points particularly
4:25:28
around cotton and particularly around hardwick and ensure that
4:25:34
those impacts are understood and to the best possible
4:25:39
extent uh mitigated so i'm in a sort of position where i feel that
4:25:47
that we are uh able to move forward uh on this on this
4:25:53
scheme as per the recommendations so at that point if there's no other comments from the board members i'd like
4:26:00
to sort of move this to a to a vote is there any other comments to make
4:26:08
clay a quick one i think the strategic decision that we're about to make is
4:26:13
right i think it's then down to all of us to make it the best possible
4:26:18
implementation uh that we can so the strategic decision is
4:26:23
is the smallness or something yeah um i think we made
4:36:34
um agenda item 13 i just like to uh make an announcement i understand we the
4:36:40
problems with the live stream continue and there was an interruption just at the
4:36:46
moment when uh the board took a vote on the last item on campbell to cambridge
4:36:53
so i would just like to confirm for those who are listening on the live stream
4:37:00
that the recommendations were approved with the addition of a reference to city
4:37:06
access in part three of the recommendations as to future work which needed to be
4:37:12
conducted in parallel with the work on the environmental impact assessment
4:37:21
apologies again for that so moving on to
4:37:26
agenda item number 13 on the cambridge southeast transport scheme
4:37:33
i would in the first instance like to invite tony orgy who's chair of the
4:37:39
local liaison forum to feedback on their meeting which they had on the 7th of june welcome
4:37:49
thank you very much the local liaison forum had a public meeting on the
4:37:54
um 7th of june which was between the publication of the papers for the joint
4:38:00
assembly and the joint assembly meeting itself at this meeting
4:38:07
presentations were given by gpcp consultants and staff and the consultation
4:38:14
presentation is on the gcp website and i'd like to discuss the following issues which are
4:38:20
raised at the meeting first of all i'd like to say something about root and root variants
4:38:28
two root variants were each separately considered but some of the discussion concerns and
4:38:34
challenges were of a general nature and applied to either route variant and
4:38:40
indeed to the gcp's preferred brown route
4:38:46
there was complete surprise that there would only be 1 250 car parking spaces
4:38:52
at the proposed new travel hub near the fall wentworth's roundabout
4:38:57
it was thought that this out of the blue reduction in car parking spaces at the
4:39:02
new travel hub was of critical importance particular concern was expressed about
4:39:08
the reduction in proposed spaces in the light of recent job creation and what is
4:39:14
already known about future jobs to be created at the cambridge biomedical campus
4:39:20
given the number of jobs already in the cbc area and that they will increase by many thousands in the coming years it
4:39:27
was felt to be counter-intuitive to reduce the number of parking spaces at
4:39:33
the new travel hub reference was made to the present uh
4:39:38
west suffolk local plan up to 2031 and the fact that work was already
4:39:43
underway on the next plan up to 2041.
4:39:48
it was questioned whether any account had been taken by haverhill's needs since many people living in their
4:39:54
commute along the 1307 towards cambridge and about future growth in haverhill
4:40:01
in response it was stated that the reduction in the number of car parking spaces was the
4:40:06
result of further traffic modelling the combined authority's response to the
4:40:12
eia consultation had stated that 2000 spaces was too high
4:40:17
the figure of 1250 was the proposed capacity in the opening year
4:40:27
staff and consultants were asked at the meeting how could gcp progress such an
4:40:33
uneconomic scheme 26 of today's agenda papers
4:40:39
surely it was argued this was way under what can get approval and such a low beat have no impact on
4:40:46
the value of the bcr at the end of some time spent on this issue my very clear impression with
4:40:53
those attending the meeting still remained intensely skeptical and thought
4:40:58
that removing so many car parking spaces could only lower what was already an
4:41:04
exceedingly low bcr and by way of context i should add that a gcp presentation at
4:41:11
the local liaison forum meeting held on the 1st of june 2020
4:41:16
gave figures of 2 000 to 2 500 car parking spaces and a bcr of 0.71
4:41:26
also raised the issue of cam compliance and queried wire scheme was going ahead when the new mayor had stated that he
4:41:32
would not be taking the cam scheme forward if the previous mayor's metro scheme did
4:41:38
not go ahead there was no need for this scheme some people argued and alternatives were suggested
4:41:46
in addition the point was made that the gcp need to think strategically about cambridge's problems rather than in
4:41:53
silos and that her light rail solution for example would give
4:41:58
scalability and it was pleasing to note the new mayor was talking holistically
4:42:07
we then talked a little bit about the pink root variant and gcp had commissioned a report to assess this and
4:42:14
you see that report in appendix 6 of your agenda papers today
4:42:19
a very short gcp presentation of the meeting on this variant focused on the assessment report findings in relation
4:42:26
to environment costs benefits and benefit cost ratio
4:42:31
overall gcp argued that the brown roots perform better than the pink route variant and the brown route therefore
4:42:38
remained the gcp's preferred route local residents responded by quoting the
4:42:45
final paragraph of the gcp commissioned report which reads as follows and this is read out in the meeting
4:42:52
the technical assessment results for the pink route variant are sufficiently close the gcp could
4:42:58
also take into account public and stakeholder opinions in reaching a decision on whether to consider the pink
4:43:05
route variant for adoption as the preferred route instead of the current brown route alignment
4:43:13
local residents felt the report made clear the differences between the brown root and the pink root variants were marginal
4:43:19
and they felt very strongly that their views had not been given sufficient weight in the process of determining the
4:43:24
preferred route the question can you confirm that you will take into account public opinion
4:43:31
was asked in a variety of different ways and it was stated that the parish of babrum wants the pink root variant and
4:43:38
the other the brown root uh cuts the field and goes through ancient water
4:43:43
meadows the root the brown route does bisect the farm and i understand that members of
4:43:49
the gcp's executive board did receive an email yesterday from
4:43:55
chiefly park farms regarding the strategic shelford's rail
4:44:01
uh alignment again there was a short presentation at the meeting um by the um
4:44:08
consultants uh focused on the findings of the and atkins independent review
4:44:13
which is set out in appendix five of today's agenda papers
4:44:19
in support of the shelford rail alignment it was argued that the atkins independent review stated that the route
4:44:26
was feasible the point was made that whereas the gcp has considerable
4:44:31
financial resources the eye transport report was crowdfunded locally
4:44:37
and with support from parish councils if there had been more time and greater
4:44:42
finance available then further research could well have addressed impacts and constraints identified in the review and
4:44:49
so offset risks identified further work was needed
4:44:57
regarding the impact environmental impact assessment there was a comment that environmental impacts
4:45:04
affect not only residents but also the wider community and then there was a question about the
4:45:10
type of transport to be used in response it was stated that no specific vehicle
4:45:16
had been selected but that vehicles would be electric powered when in the city
4:45:22
but not outside the city on the expected opening date it was
4:45:27
likely that a hybrid bus would be used there was widespread i would say almost
4:45:33
unanimous support at the meeting for the public transport on the cset route to be all electric from the start of
4:45:40
operations and the final section i just want to say a little bit about is the eia
4:45:47
consultation concerns were raised about a number of issues for example bus stops on france's
4:45:54
creek avenue for example where there would be hold-ups to the movement and emergency vehicles and whether the roadway would
4:46:01
be wide enough for use by non-sea set buses a number of comments and concerns
4:46:07
were made about the nine wells area what planting is proposed near nine wells
4:46:12
and what would be the impact of construction work on the nine wells nature reserve
4:46:18
where would the construction compound be positioned some concern was expressed about
4:46:24
pedestrian and cycle access to nine wells had there been an environmental impact assessment for this small fragile
4:46:32
area current access was by an informal path but changing the surface to
4:46:38
compacted hardcore was felt to be unsympathetic and completely unacceptable
4:46:45
in response it was stated that the intention was not to make access to nine wells easier but to maintain current
4:46:51
levels of access however it was something this view was unrealistic since improving access was
4:46:57
likely to bring more people to the area and finally concern was expressed about
4:47:03
details of the active route travel bridge over the a11
4:47:14
gp gcp's commitment to inclusivity and to local transport note ltn 120 was
4:47:20
questioned and the questionnaire went on to make further comments in response it was said that the further
4:47:27
comments included new information that would be considered and it was agreed that this issue would
4:47:33
be discussed at the next non-motorized users meeting
4:47:38
the final point it was felt that cycle parking at the travel hub needed locker spaces
4:47:44
in addition to cycle parking spaces and that lighting was needed both at the hub itself
4:47:49
and along the active travel route so in conclusion
4:47:55
the llf questioned whether the scheme was fit for purpose given the significant reduction in car parking
4:48:00
spaces at the travel hub and whether the scheme represented value for money
4:48:07
if it was decided to progress the scheme then there should be further work on the shelf of railway alignment and the pink
4:48:13
route variant the mode of transport on the public route needs to be fully electric from
4:48:18
day one and issues such as those related to france's creek avenue the nine wells area and the active
4:48:25
travel bridge over the a11 need to be very seriously considered and resolved
4:48:32
so thank you very much thank you and uh thank you for joining us this afternoon and uh your your
4:48:39
feedback um you raise a a a lot of issues there which i think if you uh
4:48:45
stay around um mr blake will uh answer in the first instance on his report and we'll be part of our
4:48:51
discussion so thank you very much indeed for your contribution
4:48:56
okay um again we have a a large number of public questions
4:49:04
which i'm going to break into two blocks uh three blocks actually and i would like in the first instance
4:49:10
to ask the officers to read out questions from uh carol barnes councillor howard
4:49:16
cattell gavin flynn jenny coe john hall and colin greenelle
4:49:24
the first question is from carol barnes why is gcp proposing to use greenbelt
4:49:30
land for the busway when there are two greener and more environmentally friendly alternative routes
4:49:37
i'm writing regarding the planned gcp busway route currently set to slice through the attractive undulating
4:49:43
greenbelt land near magog down a cherished area of cambridge countryside
4:49:49
two much better alternative routes have been put forward both of which would have far less impact
4:49:54
on the environment route one a bus way running alongside the a1307 to
4:50:00
babraham this less intrusive route would be cheaper than the gcp's proposed route as
4:50:05
it would run alongside current infrastructure route 2 using the former haverhill railway route
4:50:12
via shelford as described in the eye transports report commissioned by
4:50:17
by shelford and stapleford councils additionally this route would directly benefit the transport needs of local
4:50:23
villages along the route which wouldn't be the case with the gcp plan
4:50:29
need to review this decision the criteria for choosing a busway route needs to be looked at again
4:50:35
has the reduced need for public transport now that home working is becoming the norm been taken into
4:50:41
consideration for example additionally lockdown has made us all think carefully about our local
4:50:47
environment and our need for green spaces the unnecessary loss of greenbelt
4:50:52
countryside to the busway would not only make the surrounding area susceptible to development
4:50:58
but also be a great loss to the mental wellbeing of those people who currently enjoy this beautiful area
4:51:04
it would certainly have a disastrous effect on the environment when there are much greener and cheaper alternatives
4:51:10
this project urgently needs to be reconsidered particularly in the light of changes to
4:51:15
our needs and lifestyle the next question is from councillor
4:51:20
howard cattell chair of stapleton parish council with the sea set busway operating at
4:51:27
capacity on opening brackets ice transport report commissioned by great shelford and
4:51:33
stapleton parish councils close brackets how will the vision for growth at
4:51:38
cambridge biomedical campus be accommodated simply adding more buses as the gcp has
4:51:45
proposed cannot be the answer because the limited road capacity in central cambridge prevents this
4:51:52
central cambridge currently has 125 buses per hour at peak
4:51:58
independent consultants separately calculate that on present plans that will need to grow to between 200 to 300
4:52:05
buses per hour will the gcp consider a more scalable and future-proofed infrastructure such
4:52:12
as light rail that already successfully operates in several european cities of a
4:52:18
similar size to cambridge please justify your answer
4:52:24
the next question is from gavin flynn qualitative analysis in the gcp's
4:52:30
economic appraisal concludes that the preferred sea set route will have adverse impacts on landscape
4:52:37
if these impacts were quantified and hence properly incorporated into the economic model brackets as per
4:52:43
government's transport appraisal guidance brackets tag on monetizing environmental social
4:52:49
heritage and other non-market features of projects they would negatively affect
4:52:54
the already poor bcr of 0.81 of cset why have you not done this
4:53:01
and what effect do you think that monetizing them would have on cset's bcr brackets or in its wider economic case
4:53:07
if you no longer support bcr in answering please explain which other legitimate government guidance you are
4:53:14
following brackets because at the joint assembly meeting on 10th june this was the
4:53:19
indication given by peter blake and why is it more relevant than tag
4:53:25
the next question is from jenny co irrevocable damage to the cambridgeshire landscape
4:53:31
rising awareness of and action to mitigate the climate emergency the absence of a city transport strategy
4:53:38
to link up the bus ways other major infrastructure projects which with busway projects have zero
4:53:45
planned compatibility a vast lack of public support for busways and mistrust of the
4:53:52
gcp and the impact of covid on public opinion values and working habits
4:53:59
in the face of all these changes and pressures the gcp has not notably
4:54:04
altered its plans will not the elected members think of our children and grandchildren and plan
4:54:12
a transport structure that cambridge people deserve rather than a naive congestion-busting
4:54:18
short-term policy the next question is from john hall
4:54:25
the cset scheme has relied on an estimate that 29 of usage will come from the local villages
4:54:31
this is believed to be an overestimate by many villages in stapleford given the sites of the stations
4:54:37
there is now further uncertainty as partially reflected in an updated csets business report about the impact of
4:54:45
dilution by the ewr route other major uncertainties leading to possible further dilution of numbers
4:54:52
include changes to flexible working practices around cambridge and new post-pandemic national bus strategies
4:54:59
an updated genetic path could further dilute routes through the greenbelt using buses down the a-1307 for now
4:55:06
until a more stable picture of demand emerges and two given public disquiets
4:55:12
and claims of not being heard to publish revised estimates of usage and to london underground without zone one
4:55:19
the route starts in a remote car park bypasses on route centers of population
4:55:26
and fails to demonstrate strategic integration with existing rail lines
4:55:31
east-west rail greenways pedestrian routes and haverhill from where many car
4:55:37
journeys to adam brooks biomedical campus and cambridge originate
4:55:42
in addition the lack of both a peak period congestion charge and restrictions on car occupancy numbers
4:55:49
give no incentive for the majority of people to prefer public transport to private cars
4:55:56
meanwhile smarter cambridge transport has calculated that gcp's busway proposals will cost almost half a
4:56:03
billion pounds with every resident in south cambridgeshire obliged to contribute 1
4:56:09
370 pounds and every additional busway passenger costing residents 180 000
4:56:16
pounds no wonder the business case ratio for the cambridge southeast busway is only
4:56:24
0.81 compared with a gcp target of 1.5 to 2
4:56:30
a figure that becomes even worse than the 8 0.81 if the cost of the huge environmental
4:56:38
damage to the greenbelt to villages such as great shelford and stapleford and to the mental and
4:56:44
physical health of residents of cambridge and south cambridgeshire is included in the calculation
4:56:51
can the gcp explain what evidence in support of cset weighs more heavily than
4:56:56
all these important and negative environmental cultural and financial factors a question which so far gcp has
4:57:05
refused to address okay thank you could i ask mr blake to
4:57:12
respond to those block of questions please thank you chair um in terms of carol
4:57:18
barnes's question it's notable at the outset that both of our alternatives also go through the the
4:57:24
green belt the suggested route running alongside the a1307 was considered previously has
4:57:30
its own environmental disbenefits and was not supported in public consultation
4:57:35
it's also notable that that route also doesn't serve the villages at all and was one of the reasons that we
4:57:41
received the feedback that we did on the road the alternative route using the former uh railway line through staples and
4:57:48
sheltered uh details are appended to the the document uh that you've got in front
4:57:53
of you um the appraisal concludes that the railway alignment is considerably more expensive requires the demolition
4:57:59
of local properties and creates impacts with the local railway line particularly at the level crossings that are already
4:58:06
a particular pinch point carol barnes also raises the issue of covid as do a number of the questioners
4:58:12
so i'm just going to answer it here in greater cambridge
4:58:17
cut the car is coming back far more strongly than than all of the other transport modes which is a cause of
4:58:23
concern but it also reflects the national situation i'm afraid it is still though too early to draw final
4:58:29
conclusions from the impact of of covid and the business case for this scheme
4:58:35
and our schemes and indeed every single scheme up and down the country will be updated when the department of transport
4:58:41
releases that information as we go to the next steps it is though in the context of csets
4:58:47
notable that many of the nhs medical and support staff staff working in hospitals and
4:58:53
laboratory environments cannot work from home they will have to continue to go into their office
4:58:59
as such in terms of the question from councillor kettle
4:59:04
it is incorrect to suggest that csets will operate at capacity on opening and
4:59:09
it's one of the shortcomings of the eye transport report if demand is higher
4:59:14
more vehicles can be provided and the case study for that is the existing guided busway that has twice as many
4:59:20
vehicles today as it did when it opens services today as it did when it when it opens the city access program we've
4:59:27
discussed previously light rail the the grady cambridge partnership
4:59:32
members may well recall along with the combined authority reviewed the options for mass transit back in 2017
4:59:39
light rail was not supported on grounds of cost and flexibility and indeed the light rail would not
4:59:44
offer the scalability benefits that the questioner suggests in the urban environment
4:59:50
it turned into gavin flynn's questioning we are absolutely following the government's transport appraisal
4:59:55
guidance that is what our business case is based on that is what applications to government will will be based on um we
5:00:03
are monetizing the environmental issues in the way that we are required
5:00:08
to do so we are also looking at the national capital
5:00:14
assessment issues around monetizing environment and we are looking to pull
5:00:20
that together as part of the application uh for the transport and works out and submitted to to uh to the secretary of
5:00:27
state which will also form part of the public scrutiny opportunity that um that communities will have at that
5:00:34
juncture turning to the question from from from jenny co we do have a strategy it is new
5:00:40
infrastructure new services and refocus the city center um and i think it is
5:00:46
unfair to suggest that we've not noticeably changed plans again for those members of the board that have been
5:00:51
around long enough they will recall that this started off as the three business park uh scheme that did not serve in any
5:00:57
way shape and form the local the local villages and those plans have been changed significantly since the start of
5:01:03
the process the question from john hall regarding patronage estimates again they've been
5:01:08
produced in accordance with government guidance east west rail does not serve shelter
5:01:14
station and the expectation is it will not have a significant impact in the in the area
5:01:20
and i think we asked the the question from from colin greenhalge uh regarding interactions city access we've talked
5:01:26
about but csets also will integrate with the existing guarded busway it will serve the plan cambridge south
5:01:32
station and we're working closely with network rail and partners on doing that it's been developed in conjunction with
5:01:38
the linkedin and the sourced and greenways and the the travel hub is being developed for onward journeys out to to
5:01:45
haverhill so that services bus services coming in from from haverhill can join
5:01:51
the segregated solution at the travel hub side and then enjoy the benefits in terms of tackling and avoiding
5:01:58
congestion at that point and again to reaffirm this is all being in a assessed
5:02:03
in accordance with the requirements that the department of transport lay down thank you chair
5:02:09
thank you mr mike um okay if we can now go to the next batch of questions which are
5:02:15
asked by dr john coppendale christopher bo barbara kettle annabelle sykes roger
5:02:21
french and peter gray thank you the first question
5:02:26
is from dr john coppendale please quantify and explain the
5:02:31
reduction in the size of the proposed new car park at babraham from 2000 spaces to
5:02:37
1250 on the bcr of cset with reference to both your old and new
5:02:43
economic models please recalculate the bcr of alternative routes put forward for
5:02:49
public consultation in 2018 with reference to both the new and old
5:02:54
economic models so comparisons with the preferred greenbelt route can be made
5:03:00
and can you set out your conclusions with on all routes including amplification of
5:03:06
your previous response that the bcr is only one aspect to consider
5:03:13
this question is from roger roger french how can the gcp board make a decision on
5:03:19
whether to progress the cset scheme further in the absence of a completed environmental impact assessment on both
5:03:26
the preferred route and viable on and off road alternatives as required under
5:03:31
greenbelt policy why has this not been done as a first priority and made available for public
5:03:37
scrutiny this question is from christopher bo
5:03:43
given that the current poor business case for cset with a bcr of 0.18
5:03:50
why is the new economic model not being made available for public scrutiny
5:03:55
and does this not undermine the credibility of the methodology and the resulting projections
5:04:02
in the light of previous responses that the bcr is only one aspect to consider
5:04:07
will you apply the same criteria to alternative routes in answering this question please let us
5:04:14
know what the bcr of cset is using the new economic model
5:04:22
this question is from barbara cattell the independent eye transport report found that the shelford railway
5:04:28
alignment brackets sra is a viable route option and that mcdonald had substantially
5:04:35
overestimated the extent of demolition required in contrast to the public statements subsequently made by a gcp
5:04:42
officer the gcp's independent consultant atkins brackets actually the gcp's retained
5:04:49
consultant for cambridge to waterbeach scheme found that design compromise was not considered a showstopper to rule out the
5:04:56
feasibility of the sra at this stage but identified land acquisition and construction as risks which would
5:05:03
require further work to properly understand given the requirement to appraise accurately the alternatives before
5:05:09
developing in the green belt will the gcp undertake the work atkins outlines
5:05:14
and compare all route options on the same criteria please justify your answer
5:05:21
the next question is from annabelle sykes it is widely recognised that green
5:05:26
spaces and nature have become more important than ever to people during the pandemic it was noted on radio 4 yesterday
5:05:33
morning that uk biodiversity has experienced centuries of hurt and that we are in the bottom 10 percent of
5:05:39
countries due to the large amount of the country's biodiversity that has been lost
5:05:45
in addition the national planning framework framework requires avoidance of environmental impact first ahead of
5:05:52
any mitigation measures several transport projects are proposed that will significantly impact on the
5:05:58
stretch of the greenbelt to the south of cambridge between the city and its necklace villages
5:06:04
this stretch includes nine wells and hobson's park and the related green corridor into
5:06:10
cambridge it also includes a precious chalk stream along which otters and the nationally
5:06:17
threatened waterville are found the projects are the new cambridge south
5:06:22
station east-west rail and the sea set busway the environmental impact of any one of
5:06:29
these projects including its construction on this area will be considerable
5:06:35
the incremental environmental impact of all three including the visual impact of
5:06:41
the flyover junction ewr may need has the potential to be
5:06:46
overwhelming who is carrying out a comprehensive environmental assessment on this
5:06:52
to decide which if any of these projects are justified
5:06:58
the next question is from peter ray one given the known and yet unknown impacts on travel habits working habits
5:07:05
and public finances post pandemic is the gcp going to pause decisions on the southeast mass transit mass transport
5:07:12
project to allow time for a thorough and meaningful review of the intended and previously discarded routes budgets and
5:07:19
other brackets may be unthought of ideas as is being called for by
5:07:24
ourselves and others including our local mp if not why not and how can gcp ignore
5:07:31
how can gcp justify ignoring these calls in the current national situation
5:07:36
two has the gcp considered other solutions for example one involving the
5:07:42
purchase of electric ps fees for leasing at minimal costs to the large companies
5:07:47
slash organizations as a way of providing a transport alternative to the motor car on existing routes
5:07:54
and that would have a minimal impact on the area's environment 140 million plus pounds
5:08:03
could be invested in rather a lot of in rather a lot of vehicles at minimal cost to users
5:08:08
plus the necessary separated and secure pedestrian and cyclist infrastructure
5:08:14
if not why not three as we do not recall the time when the gcp was established was there a
5:08:21
requirement to consult the public and was this and subsequent decision making done in accordance with requirements in
5:08:27
a meticulous and transparent manner
5:08:35
okay thank you um mr blake would you like to respond to those please thank you chair um in terms of dr john
5:08:42
coppendale's question 1250 car parking spaces are required for the scheme
5:08:49
the site can be expanded over time to 2000 spaces but we are cognizant of
5:08:54
warnings within the green belt and secondly the requirement from the combined authority in the response to
5:09:00
the eia that said 1250 should be sufficient and so we are reflecting that
5:09:06
the new economic model and there's a number of people who ask this question when it is completed it will support the
5:09:12
full business case and we will publish it as we've done with the existing um the existing model
5:09:20
the terms of the question from from roger french under dft requirements we are required to produce an eia in
5:09:27
environmental statemental effects as much as possible that includes the outcome of this meeting
5:09:33
and the design changes proposed in the report the eia including produced
5:09:39
alongside a whole series of benefit cost ratios for the different route options to help inform decision making
5:09:46
gcp is committed to publishing the as i've said the uh an updated model when it is when it's complete and we'll make
5:09:53
sure that it's in the public domain and it will feed into the work on the on the final business case
5:09:58
the question from barbara cattell con is regarding the i transport report and
5:10:04
both the gcp and the atkins report agree on property demolition is required significant additional cost and the the
5:10:11
complex rail interface requirements and they're outlined in the in the report and we'll cover them in greater detail
5:10:17
later the question from annabelle sykes
5:10:22
each project is required to undertake its own environmental assessment
5:10:28
we are required to consider committed schemes so cambridge south is
5:10:33
a cambridge south station is a committed scheme so we have assessed the cumulative environmental impacts of that
5:10:40
as part of our as part of our case east west rail is not a committed scheme and
5:10:45
so we have not done so and nor have network rail on on cambridge south nevertheless we will continue to to work
5:10:52
closely with network rail east west rail and other partners as we go forward both to the public inquiry and beyond to make
5:10:59
sure we we capture these issues in in full peter ray asked the question again
5:11:05
around around kovid which i've answered previously about cars returning and and the particular
5:11:10
impact on on the biomedical campus with um office based and hospital based
5:11:17
staff he puts forward a proposition around electric vehicles i think there are a number of concerns with that one
5:11:23
is potential state aid of giving 140 million pounds to commercial bus companies
5:11:28
but actually probably more fundamentally is all of our evidence and all of our work suggests that people want regular
5:11:36
reliable bus services and we know that regular reliable bus services cannot take place
5:11:42
on existing congested roads so one of the reasons we are going for a segregated solution is to ensure that
5:11:50
that regular reliable services those regular reliable services are are provided he raises the question on on
5:11:56
consultation and our obligations we do have obligations under dft requirements we've consulted extensively on cambridge
5:12:03
south east including four public consultations in the last five years
5:12:09
i believe that was the last of the questions chair excellent thank you thank you very much
5:12:18
um okay we've now got um two questions from mr james littlewood so could i
5:12:23
invite him to come forward again and uh these questions thank you
5:12:35
hi thank you again for allowing me to ask these questions i've got two questions about the environmental impact assessment and the first is that the eia
5:12:43
known as the environment statement is not not complete for this project and it's not provided with this pack of
5:12:49
papers um what has been provided is a progress update on the eai process which is
5:12:56
described on page two 528 of your pack as a non-technical summary of the environmental statement
5:13:02
which it can't be because the environmental statement's not completed and the lack of an environmental
5:13:08
statement also means that the local community cannot comment or raise questions about the findings
5:13:14
the board is being asked to approve this scheme to go forwards for submission for a transport and works order act without
5:13:20
having seen the environmental statement given public comments from all voting parties on the gcp board regarding the
5:13:28
importance of the environment we believe that the board would want to see the environmental statement and give the
5:13:33
community the opportunity to scrutinize it before it's submitted for the transport and works orders act rather than as an
5:13:40
application to the transport and work orders act when we would be faced with a public inquiry
5:13:45
as the application is not due to be made until late autumn the board would have the opportunity to
5:13:51
review the environmental impact assessment when it meets at its next meeting on the 30th of september
5:13:58
you've already agreed earlier in principle to look at the eia for the c2c scheme before progressing so i don't understand why you can't do the same for
5:14:04
this one here so cambridge past present and future is asking the board to request to review the environmental
5:14:11
statement at its next meeting before deciding whether to proceed with the transport and works orders act
5:14:17
the second question relates to the environmental impact scoping opinion that was submitted by the gcp and has been approved by the
5:14:24
secretary of state this was unusual and it has to assess the impact of two design options this is
5:14:31
because the gcp has not decided whether the busway would be constructed using a kerb guided system similar to the
5:14:37
existing guided bus or using a regular road with line markings for an optically guided system and this
5:14:43
is set up on page 17 of the eia scoping report which states that the exercise
5:14:48
concluded that both the curb guidance and the optical guidance achieve most or all of the guidance requirements for the
5:14:55
cset scheme and should both be developed and investigated further to robustly account for either scenario
5:15:02
the environmental statement will assess both curb and optical guidance systems the impacts of the two options would be
5:15:09
different officers seem to be asking the board to approve to submit an application for a transport and works act without
5:15:16
indicating which of these two schemes they will be applying for police can the board ask for clarification on this matter
5:15:23
thank you very much thank you mr wood for your question
5:15:28
thank you chair so in terms of the environmental assessment and environmental statement i i answered that previously from mr turnbull's
5:15:35
question um that is part of a process that process continues today with decisions that you are going to make
5:15:41
outlined in the report the full assess environmental assess assessment
5:15:46
statement and a non-technical summary will be made available um at that point of application for public
5:15:52
scrutiny and then will be scrutinized i'm sure through any through any public inquiry in terms of the um the guidance system
5:16:00
to be clear we are pursuing an optically guided system the the approach that we are pursuing
5:16:06
with government is not unusual it follows a standard rochdale envelope approach that has been approved by the
5:16:11
department for transport this approach may be employed when the nature of the proposed development means that some of
5:16:17
the details are yet to be finalized those details are gcp cpca and dft
5:16:23
working on the regulations for optically guided system and those regulations are currently
5:16:30
being updated by the department for transport thank you chair thank you mr blake
5:16:36
okay so now can i invite you to um
5:16:41
introduce the report um
5:16:47
thank you so i mean just just starting with figure two on on 527 where we are
5:16:52
the the position is we've gone through um the various early stages we've
5:16:57
produced an outline business case we've got a preferred route we've gone through an environmental impact assessment consultation
5:17:05
and the issues around the consultation are enclosed in the appendix but particularly in paragraph 4.2
5:17:12
whereby we're making some suggested changes to our designs in light of feedback from that from that
5:17:17
consultation if you're content with them they will be fed into that detail work that will that
5:17:22
will move forward to the application we did also here on two particular route variants
5:17:29
um that are outlined in paragraphs 4.6 and 410 and if i deal with them
5:17:36
once we've considered the route previously because we heard on both of these route variants
5:17:42
we've included them in the in the body of the report so 4.6 outlines the
5:17:48
railway alternative route that has been put forward by a couple of the local parish councils and there are two
5:17:54
appendices on this that outline our assessment of it and an independent assessment
5:18:00
undertaken that register some concerns with that root uh vis-a-vis the preferred solution that we've that we've
5:18:07
come forward with and i think i've answered them in them in questioning in terms of for paragraph 410 the pink
5:18:14
root variant the pink root variant is far more marginal decision
5:18:19
but in terms of the requirements that we are required to access by department for transport cost
5:18:27
benefit environmental implications then all of those are marginally better on
5:18:33
the brown root than they are on the pink root variant that said as we continue to work on this scheme and we go forward to
5:18:40
a public inquiry we should continue to to inform ourselves
5:18:45
uh of any potential issues that that arise with the pingwoo variant the rest of the report chair outlines the nature
5:18:51
of in response to the consultation that we've received and then the implications on the next steps of the transport and
5:18:58
works act order whereby we are pulling together the transport assessment the environmental information that is
5:19:04
required and the detailed planning application that we will put forward to the secretary of state the secretary of
5:19:11
state is then extremely likely to request a public inquiry whereby the planning inspector will call um for
5:19:20
all interested parties and those with a view locally and indeed further afield
5:19:25
to have the opportunity to raise concerns or raise support for the earth
5:19:30
proposals that we are putting forward with and we will await the outcome of that inquiry maybe i'll stop there chair
5:19:36
and hopefully try and take any questions you may have great thank you thank you mr blake so um you know
5:19:42
listening to those uh the the questions and your introduction i i'm sorry i should have
5:19:48
thanked those who um submitted questions and asked questions in per person
5:19:54
your contributions are much appreciated as are those who have written to uh the
5:19:59
board members um on this particular topic uh we thank them for their for their views uh which
5:20:06
have been expressed in the time they've taken to do so and particularly i would like to sort of
5:20:14
acknowledge the work which had been commissioned by the parish councils on the shelford rail alignment and
5:20:22
their report which i hope uh they will see has been reflected uh both in the uh
5:20:29
report we're considering today um but also uh by the board members themselves
5:20:35
uh actually um engaging in that and on several occasions actually visiting
5:20:41
the location to understand uh the implications of that alternate
5:20:47
so we've we've heard a number of um sort of issues raised i think
5:20:53
clearly there's a lot of discussion around alternative route alignments
5:20:59
which we've we've heard also around the impact on the green belt
5:21:05
in the landscape and implications coming from covid for business case and so forth so um i would
5:21:12
like to uh start the debate and discussion by inviting uh councillor bick to give us
5:21:19
feedback from the joint assembly on this particular item please
5:21:26
thank you chair we discussed this substance of this report
5:21:34
mr orgy um from the local liaison forum um gave um
5:21:40
his report to us as well and we had 14 public questions
5:21:46
apart from apart from one of our 15 members um the joint assembly was generally
5:21:52
supportive of the progress that is recommended on this project
5:21:59
um and a lot of the discussion um revolved
5:22:04
around the issues raised in relation to the
5:22:10
railway alignment and the green belt driven by um
5:22:17
some of the public contributions that we had um and information that we've been
5:22:22
provided with um i think the um
5:22:27
the the bottom line from the assembly was that um that we
5:22:33
would have liked um like i suspect many people would have liked um an arrangement whereby
5:22:40
the um the new transport alignment did did go through the middle of the settlements that we're we're talking
5:22:46
about um that that would be more accessible to uh more people and probably um
5:22:54
less environmental mentally impactful but um
5:23:00
we we had we felt we had to recognize um the the evidence that we were being
5:23:06
given about what was actually feasible to achieve um in relation to the
5:23:13
to the um um the green belt um i think um phil armanding made a similar point
5:23:18
in relation to the previous item um it is not our understanding
5:23:24
that um the um the concept of the green belt is a prohibitive concept um it is our
5:23:30
understanding that it exists as a discipline to to force us to
5:23:36
try and avoid development in it but if it can't be avoided then um it is
5:23:43
under the right conditions um something that there is no alternative to
5:23:48
and and i think we felt that that's the place we were because we did want to see
5:23:54
the further away um didn't seem to us to be a satisfactory
5:24:01
approach and we we did feel that we were dealing with some important why wider
5:24:08
strategic had to do this to do this well there were two
5:24:15
two requests that we agreed to to bring to the board in
5:24:22
relation to this whole project one was
5:24:28
about the biodiversity net gain that
5:24:33
that should be sought through the through the development of this alignment
5:24:38
we would we we believed that it ought to be a project in which we
5:24:45
could commit to attain a 20 biodiversity net gain instead of the 10
5:24:53
that stands as our standard policy um and i think national policy
5:24:59
this is an alignment that is almost entirely in the urban area and
5:25:05
a a higher target like that ought to be something that should be attained
5:25:14
and in some way that is a recognition of the uh of the many people that are
5:25:19
concerned about the um the use of the green belt for the alignment at all
5:25:25
the second the second request that we wanted to make of the board was that
5:25:31
the board did take on um the whole question of connectivity of
5:25:37
these uh three settlements each which has stops on the
5:25:42
um on the alignment um on the edge of the settlements that we should take on that you should take on
5:25:49
um the challenge of how people could regard those stops in those
5:25:54
settlements as for them um they are for many people those settlements
5:26:00
um some way from where they live um the settlements in particular saucedon is a very
5:26:06
large one and um we were we were interested in the
5:26:11
board's approach to consider ways in which access could be extended within the
5:26:19
settlements and for example the questions arise
5:26:25
so could a circular could a circular bus um through those set through through
5:26:31
each of those settlements exit the um the busway itself and then
5:26:37
rejoin it do does the do the stops at the edge of the settlements enable
5:26:43
exit from the busway for the vehicles as well as re-entry if a loop was created
5:26:50
around the settlements it seems that's an important issue because there is no
5:26:56
as i understand it there's no provision for sort of people to drive to those to
5:27:01
those stops um and the distance for some residents is quite large it's just an
5:27:07
example but it seems a pity that we are that if we
5:27:12
aren't willing to to load the vehicles um making use of this bus way to the
5:27:18
maximum extent recognizing we've taken the alignment so close to to um to the settlements but still
5:27:25
not not very close to some people in them so those were the two questions we'd be
5:27:30
um very pleased if you would address in your debate
5:27:36
and we think that um positive responses on those points would um would help to
5:27:42
further improve this project thank you thank you and the first is could i just ask mr blake to
5:27:48
respond to those two points the extent to which it can be incorporated
5:27:55
i mean i i think both both can i think one on one already is in large part we're just not making enough of it um so
5:28:01
in terms of the connectivity and accessibility piece one of the real issues in on this route
5:28:06
is are the additional walkways and cycleways we're putting in um and so i think expanding that is relatively
5:28:13
easily done um and i think in terms of by biodiversity in that game
5:28:19
actually i think the way the calculation works we we kind of have to do 20 on um on on the route such as this to meet our
5:28:26
uh because we've said 20 across our wider program so i think the maths requires us to do it anyway but in which
5:28:31
case i'm happy to sit here and confirm that we will take that away
5:28:38
if i just could come back on that so i welcome the point about diver biodiversity it'd be great if that could
5:28:43
be recorded then um but i didn't didn't quite feel that the whole point
5:28:49
about um access and egress from the busway um
5:28:55
allowing loops within the settlements i didn't quite hear that that was something that was envisaged
5:29:02
sorry if i wasn't clear so what is envisaged is this the bus way can be accessed and egressed at various points
5:29:10
um and and that will support the suggestion that you've made whether that actually takes place at stops
5:29:16
or or other slightly different locations that will depend on the final detailed design but in terms of what you're
5:29:22
trying to achieve about having local bus services accessing the bus way that will absolutely be delivered and we'll get
5:29:28
that recorded okay claire
5:29:34
just to address tim's point i think you may be talking at cross purposes i may be wrong
5:29:40
tim my view is a rapid bust way that goes from one point to another point
5:29:45
fire some stops are you suggesting that we take a rapid route and actually do
5:29:50
loops around everywhere because i don't think that particularly works for me unless you have every third bus and the
5:29:57
buses are going every two minutes one bus goes through shelford one bus goes through staplefoot one bus goes through
5:30:03
source and otherwise you might be better with a pack of scooters and minibuses
5:30:08
scooping up around the villages but i don't know whether you are talking about because i think peter's talking about getting bus and walk sorry cycle and
5:30:15
walkways better lit from the center of staplefoot to the bus stop for example
5:30:21
yeah that's right but i do recognize the boss point um and so we'll we will take that away
5:30:28
i don't have a question but i do have some comments so if anybody has questions and i'll stop okay can we just
5:30:34
take any questions first lewis just following up the um discussion
5:30:40
about biodiversity and also the context of the route i'm
5:30:46
um when i get emails telling me it's going across the gold my gold downs i'm
5:30:51
somewhat dubious but nevertheless if i'm standing on
5:30:57
the smaller down that's set apart from the god magogs and i look out
5:31:04
what opportunities are there near the entrance points into shelford and
5:31:10
stapleford to to plant in that area
5:31:15
because that both assists those two settlements
5:31:20
and and that's not maybe the best word but it provides a baffle
5:31:27
in terms of the um the view i'm not saying that any view is
5:31:32
sacrosanct but those happen to be about the two most visible
5:31:38
locations because there will at those points be
5:31:44
a bus stop an enclosed covered area at both and
5:31:52
whilst at the moment they can see some houses it will be an intrusive view
5:32:00
and and we are in continued discussions with the local community as as to exactly what uh landscaping uh foliage
5:32:08
uh issues need to be addressed at those points um and and we are we you know i
5:32:14
think this is something where we can largely be led by the local communities in terms of how they see the the
5:32:20
management of the area immediately around the shelters because you're right the most visible part of this will be the shelters uh in terms of accessing
5:32:27
the route i've saved some comments for like uh claire will for for um a statement but but picking up
5:32:36
the interesting point that councillor bick spoke of um it would seem that if every third or
5:32:43
fifth bus did a u down into stapleford and out via shelford i'd i do would i would like
5:32:51
that investigated um because i
5:32:57
it is in the nature of this area which we
5:33:02
as councillors added back in 2015 as a effectively a first five years priority
5:33:09
given the volume of jobs and the volume of traffic in terms of bus users coming through it is
5:33:17
just by geography um the fact that stapleford and shelford are just slightly in the bottom end of
5:33:24
this zone and so personally i think the sport benefit
5:33:30
there is some so i yeah are you able to
5:33:35
perhaps come back um in a few weeks just with some response to that point and then copying
5:33:43
the board members so so there is there is some benefit to
5:33:48
the local community uh in terms of the current proposals and i believe i've already agreed to do it so we will pull
5:33:53
something together uh and we will happily uh then consult with boys i mean i think there is some benefit personally
5:33:59
if i lived in those villages anyway but i do think uh of of this edition but i
5:34:04
do think that um we're talking about uh
5:34:10
a demographic with quite a lot of older people um who have broadly got the choice of using their car or
5:34:17
a bit of a walk and um anyway so i just i'd like
5:34:23
i appreciate your response mr blake but i i think it's a point worth the board
5:34:28
and the assembly pursuing and i'm happy to concede the point and i will take the action to go away and come
5:34:34
back with proposals yeah if i could just add my um comments to
5:34:39
this i think i think this sort of reflects in some ways the discussion we had this morning about sort of maximizing
5:34:46
the sort of optionality and the connectivity around these these schemes um
5:34:52
so uh without actually trying to uh get into the business of
5:34:59
sort of guessing or defining what the solutions are i think that the general question um
5:35:05
spike is if if you could uh sort of consider how to sort of maximize the
5:35:10
accessibility of the uh the stops for the the local
5:35:15
villages by whatever whatever means and sort of report back to us and and i actually i think it's also
5:35:22
um as you get into the sort of detailed design the same point really extends to
5:35:29
and we heard it and one of the the questions about the sort of travel hubs as well
5:35:34
and sort of covering off when we get into the details now as to sort of what what are the attributes of those and how
5:35:40
do we make sure that they function as as as best as they possibly could
5:35:49
again so i i would agree with that i'll take the action and obviously the board has previously uh the assembly's
5:35:55
previously considered uh travel hubs and really moving the hubs away from a simple park
5:36:00
and ride to a you know we need cycle parking but not just any old cycle parking it needs to be secure cycle
5:36:07
parking because you know particularly we're looking at a sort of e-bikes the price point is significantly higher we
5:36:12
need to be looking at toilets we need to be looking at wi-fi we need to be looking at uh charging capabilities for
5:36:19
for vehicles um so that that that has been outlined and that will be the the sort of the direction of travel we will
5:36:25
continue to develop i'm sure the functionality of of travel hubs but i will certainly take the action away
5:36:31
around the accessibility point and yeah okay and just one last comment on that i think your your sort of comment that the
5:36:37
best way to do that is with engaging with the local community is right because there are clearly going to be
5:36:42
trade-offs between uh the provision and uh and what may be the impact um uh in in terms of the
5:36:50
uh the sort of visuals at least anyway okay any other
5:36:55
uh questions claire just to continue the discussion of this
5:37:00
point we are in danger of becoming unfocused if we start
5:37:06
trying to be all things to all people uh shelford and sauston are reasonably well
5:37:12
served for shopping occasional trips i think my focus for this
5:37:18
expressway to for one of a better word is to try and get the commuters who are doing this daily so in from the
5:37:24
haverhill region into the hospital as workers at strange times of day
5:37:29
lab workers going out to babraham trying to get this rapid transit route
5:37:35
if we start going around every single opportunity to take somebody on a
5:37:41
different route we will become unfocused it will cost a lot more we will spend a lot more time going
5:37:47
around the minutiae of picking up everybody so just my plea
5:37:55
would be try to keep focused on what the real need is and where the where the greatest benefit will come
5:38:02
because with from shelford there is quite a good route to have active travel into cambridge for example
5:38:08
but there isn't from abraham so i'll end there but just if if we want
5:38:14
absolutely every opportunity taken up we will play can i can i just ask you one of the
5:38:19
questions which were one of the comments which came up in the questions was around
5:38:25
um light came out in 2017 uh concluded that
5:38:30
light rail wouldn't be appropriate it may well be desirable but it wouldn't be affordable and it actually wouldn't
5:38:36
offer the flexibility that that we need um in terms of delivering some of some
5:38:41
of these schemes um so for that reason um we took a view in terms of of sort of
5:38:46
bus ways and actually that's where the combined authority took of you in terms of rubber tired cam at the time
5:38:52
because they followed the advice from from that report so at that point consideration of light rail was was no
5:38:59
longer taken forward good thank you okay so let me just uh if there are no
5:39:05
other questions just me to open it up for more general debate sorry at least i i you're you're in my
5:39:12
sort of peripheral vision so so please if you do wish to you have to wave a bit more vigorously
5:39:19
so anyone would like to come and declare
5:39:24
kick off if nobody else wants to um my feeling is very strong we need a solution to enable the rapid growth
5:39:32
that's already happening at both ends of this route growth that is essential to the area and also to the uk it is quite
5:39:39
exceptional we have very strong support from the hospitals from the biomedical campus and
5:39:44
the babraham research center on behalf of their workers and we shouldn't forget that in
5:39:51
the many many comments that we obviously get against some of the details that we're looking at
5:39:57
they're completely agnostic on the details of the route to be fair so they will take any solution that we can come
5:40:04
up with they need something because the a1307 is already congested it's polluting
5:40:09
and they want people out of their cars they can't get people out of their cars who are not willing to cycle the five
5:40:14
miles that it is out of town to be abraham for example and coming in to the hospital
5:40:20
it's too long a journey to walk or cycle daily so people drive in and park on all the roads around there
5:40:26
um hospital and lab workers on the biomedical campus can't afford to drive and park the parking is is rare and
5:40:32
expensive and they have been working all the way throughout the pandemic so these are not the workers who can work from home
5:40:39
conveniently as some of us can if we don't find a solution there are
5:40:44
companies out at the babraham grant park who will continue to leave cambridgeshire and the uk they don't go to another part of the
5:40:51
uk they go somewhere abroad we've got a real issue in my view i
5:40:58
appreciate politicians want to be popular please shut your ears those of you who are sensitive to this one
5:41:04
but i am really unimpressed by politicians who get photographed with every placard
5:41:09
they write letters to us claiming that everyone is against this scheme or other schemes
5:41:15
there's little backup to these stated facts and it just comes across as anti-business which i obviously find
5:41:22
quite offensive businesses are basically groups of people normal people like you and i
5:41:28
working to pay for their food their homes and their taxes which pays in turn for the schools the hospitals and indeed
5:41:34
the politicians so i think we really need a solution we need it sooner rather than later
5:41:41
and if we can move on with the route that is the preferred route i am
5:41:46
neutral on brown versus pink variant brown is shorter and looks quicker
5:41:53
the pink variant might go along the hedge row and the edge of the field so it might have some benefits
5:41:59
that are in the detail that we will find later
5:42:04
but i support the route to the edge of shelford and stapleford simply because
5:42:09
having assessed in quite some depth the practicality of going through the center of shelford
5:42:16
holding up the level crossing for minutes in every hour instead of 24
5:42:21
minutes in every hour whatever the exact numbers are there's quite a substantial knock-on effect with all the
5:42:26
contingencies of waiting for trains and buses let alone knocking down the station building which network rail is not going
5:42:33
to rebuild anytime soon and even more emotionally is knocking down houses
5:42:39
and taking up people's gardens which i think we've all declared we do not like demolition as
5:42:45
part of our schemes so i'm in favor of the scheme we need a solution we can't
5:42:50
rely on the a3 1307 and i think the um our objections are absolutely valid
5:42:58
but we need to look for the greater good you phil
5:43:05
thank you um again i think claire has said everything that i want to say in a far more compelling
5:43:11
way than i'd be able to say this is similar in many ways to the discussion
5:43:17
we had on um c2c earlier there's obviously a lot of local
5:43:23
concerns about this but i think it's strategically necessary for all the kind of reasons we've talked
5:43:30
about um and we know that growth is happening and growth more
5:43:36
growth is coming and we need to do something to address that
5:43:41
so i'm confident that it's necessary it's justified um and i think the next step in this
5:43:48
process is the right one to resolve some of the arguments and disagreements that come
5:43:55
down to what i would say are differences of view how do you weigh the green belt
5:44:00
against a strategically important transport infrastructure the right way to do that is through a plan application
5:44:06
and a public inquiry and that's why i think we should be moving to support the recommendation
5:44:13
thank you um i read one article this week
5:44:18
where another politician said that we should avoid putting transport routes through the green belt it's unavoidable
5:44:25
um and we have gone through a sequence and i
5:44:31
appreciate the comments and the issues that have been raised by people in staplefoot and shelford
5:44:37
and others about this particular countryside it is valuable countryside
5:44:42
and a wonderful recreational area the route on road has been assessed and
5:44:51
is not deliverable nor is in practical terms the route through shelford simply because there
5:44:57
isn't enough space and people have built on what space there was so this is the best route and
5:45:06
going back to the need the need is slightly different to the need in the other scheme that we've
5:45:12
looked at this afternoon but the reason why it got greater attention and it has been looked at as
5:45:19
people have said since 2015 is just that really rapid jobs
5:45:24
growth and if you look at sites i think i saw the data for granted park where
5:45:30
way over 90 percent of people who go to granta park arrive by car
5:45:36
and it's not much different at babraham and just in the nature of
5:45:42
the fact that there isn't really enough space at the biomedical campus for all of the
5:45:50
links businesses and employment and research so it is in the nature of this area plus
5:45:57
people the hundreds of people who travel every day and from haverhill and and many resort to cars because that's the
5:46:05
only practical option that they're sometimes left with plus the fact that the whole area of um not just the
5:46:13
biomedical campus but adam brooks is just a disaster zone in terms of
5:46:18
transport because people don't have an option at the moment on how to get in and out easily so
5:46:24
so i do think this scheme is necessary and if i came back 10 years after it's
5:46:30
built assuming it does get planning permission i do think it will be universally welcome and valued and heavily used
5:46:40
thank you lisa just very very quickly again i think a lot of the things have been said
5:46:47
politicians will confuse you i am completely aware of that the same politicians will hold out placards do
5:46:54
not run a narrow strip of bus bearing thing across the green belt the same
5:47:00
politicians will go on to campaign for wide and extremely quick
5:47:05
development on the green belt in another place which is not very far from where we are
5:47:11
discussing development on the green belt is not an absolute oh my god we should never do
5:47:17
that it's something that you do according to the proper planning processes there are
5:47:23
those that you follow for housing and um accommodation and there are the things
5:47:29
that you follow for transport and i do believe that we are following the latter quite well
5:47:35
um i do look forward to seeing how the next stage develops and i also want to you know
5:47:43
in terms of i've read about i've read all the things that were given to me about the pink
5:47:48
slightly less pink slightly more pink uh brown um i'm also quite neutral to be
5:47:53
honest with whatever works and i believe we will get further input about that
5:48:00
i note that some of the most intrusive work that would be required to go
5:48:05
through shelford cuts across estates of people that don't have a clue
5:48:11
that people are talking about that that is dangerous we have a whole sheltered accommodation
5:48:16
estate access to which would be curtailed you do not want to do that
5:48:23
and i do actually think we want to look at making this a little
5:48:29
bit more integrated because there is probably space to accommodate something that works very well both as a very
5:48:34
straightforward thorough route and something that perhaps those people whose houses we're trying to save can
5:48:41
use and i think we can do that and i i very much look forward to the to see what
5:48:46
happens next thank you lisa thank you um let me just
5:48:52
sort of uh see if i can summarize this and
5:48:57
make my own comments as in doing so um so
5:49:02
so again rather like see to see the discussion we had there i think first of all we need to go back to
5:49:09
you know what our role is here and our role is to deliver a local transport plan and underpin the
5:49:16
the local plans and um i think i'm hearing from the board members is a sort of consensus
5:49:23
that this scheme does that and it it delivers on the strategic goals of
5:49:30
uh underpinning economic growth and opportunity and and i think the
5:49:36
the additional element of this scheme is well not additional it's contained in
5:49:42
all our schemes but the one which is particularly pertinent is that given the importance of the of the
5:49:49
employment center it is expanding transportation opportunities
5:49:54
which increase is the ability of of workers to access high quality jobs and and expands
5:50:03
the scope of participation for people in the economic success of
5:50:09
cambridge and that is one of the other elements of what we are trying to do as
5:50:16
a board no scheme is
5:50:21
is perfect and this scheme does
5:50:27
involve the development of the of the green belt i i think that's well recognized that that
5:50:35
is what would be ideal if we could avoid it it also
5:50:41
involves stops for the buses which are on the edges of the of the villages uh which
5:50:47
also has certain um issues associated with it on the latter issue i think
5:50:52
we've we've covered that i think council vic raised that um mr blake's assured us that that he will
5:50:59
be uh working on that and report back to us on what the mechanisms are to sort of
5:51:05
try and uh ameliorate uh that disadvantage um but in terms of the
5:51:12
other element in terms of the the green belt it turns on then the issues of alternatives
5:51:20
and here i think there are uh alternatives which have been put forward
5:51:26
put forward very well i would have to say by the parishes involved and if we deal
5:51:32
with the sheltered rail alignment first i personally went there four times i
5:51:38
know a number of other board members went went there numerous times
5:51:43
that was a reflection i think of how seriously the officers and the board members
5:51:49
reviewed that i am confident in the assessment which has been presented to us
5:51:56
uh in the report pack that but that's um that that scheme is
5:52:02
really flawed in a number of significant areas we've talked about
5:52:08
the demolition of houses i know there's an argument about
5:52:14
to what extent that demolition is required but i point out two things one of which
5:52:20
is that in in the water beach schemes which we uh reviewed this morning
5:52:26
demolition was such a significant issue there when consulted upon that it caused
5:52:31
us in large part to drop one of the options and secondly if
5:52:37
properties are not demolished they may still be impacted by the
5:52:43
the existence of the tree screens and the shelford rail alignment would
5:52:49
result in exactly that too as well so i think that those issues are certainly relevant and
5:52:57
as uh clara said which is in front of us
5:53:02
as um phil alderman said as well the ultimate
5:53:07
descent decision on whether this scheme
5:53:13
uh will get planning permission to be developed in the greenbelt is for the
5:53:18
planning inspector but on the basis of the papers in front
5:53:24
of us and as a board i think we should consider whether we feel the scheme is capable of
5:53:30
satisfying that requirement and from my personal perspective i i am um
5:53:36
in that we we've got a scheme for which uh it delivers on our strategic
5:53:43
objectives and the alternatives are inferior to the scheme which we have
5:53:50
in front of us so that concludes my
5:53:56
comments as i said i would ask the board when we look at these recommendations to
5:54:02
bear in mind in particular the the issue of whether you feel that this
5:54:10
scheme does deliver on our strategic objectives in the delivery of the local transport
5:54:17
plan and local plan and also this issue of which i think we've debated and understand quite well
5:54:24
of the potential impact of the scheme on the on the green belt and the landscape
5:54:31
so we've got three recommendations in front of us on page 528
5:54:40
which i will for sort of 2.1 a b and c
5:54:45
uh and i would just at this stage ask the board uh whether i can take those in favor of
5:54:51
those recommendations thank you very much so that is uh
5:54:57
unanimous uh consensus and those recommendations will go forward so thank you very much indeed
5:55:04
so that um concludes item 12
5:55:10
on our agenda um i think all
5:55:16
that now leaves me to do i think is to
5:55:23
just highlight the dates of the future meetings which are
5:55:29
in your agenda pack on page 2 of 1 678
5:55:35
with the next meeting scheduled for thursday the september the 30th
5:55:41
so thank you very much to the officers for their support today and thank you very much to the executive board
5:55:48
members aurevoir to lewis and to claire i'm sure we'll see you again
5:55:55
and thank you very much indeed and thanks very much to those members of the public who've participated and listened
5:56:00
thank you i'm pleased can i thank you chair for sharing and sharing so well this has gone really really well in my opinion so
5:56:07
thank you so much thank you
5:57:50
you
