Decision details

To give the Leader an opportunity to hear the views of committee members on the projects in the outline City Deal infrastructure programme.

Public Question

A member of the public asked a question as set out below.

 

Mr Lucas-Smith raised the following points:

      i.          Welcomed the Officer’s report and expected City Deal funding.

    ii.          This was an opportunity for the city, which needed democratic input.

 iii.          Cost efficient schemes were set out in the Officer’s report.

  iv.          The inner ring road and radial roads needed separate lanes for cars, bikes and pedestrians.

    v.          Expressed concern that there was no space for separate cycle lanes in some proposals.

  vi.          Asked for details about city centre cycle capacity improvements.

vii.          Bike links to villages around the city should be included in priorities to reduce congestion.

 

The County Council Director of Strategy and Development responded:

       i.          The scheme came from the Joint Transport Strategy for the city and South Cambridgeshire.

     ii.          Consultation would be undertaken in future on the high level priorities set out in the Officer’s report. Wherever bus priority measures were proposed, there was an intention to put in cycle facilities too.

   iii.          Work had not yet been undertaken on developing designs.

 

Matter for Decision

The Officer’s paper updated the Committee on the current position regarding the infrastructure programme to be delivered through the Greater Cambridge City Deal, work undertaken to date, and next steps. 

 

The paper sought the Committee’s views on the options before a final decision is made on the programme to be delivered from 2015-20 by the new Greater Cambridge Joint Committee.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport

Listened to the views of committee members on the projects in the outline City Deal infrastructure programme.

 

The Committee noted the work carried out to date and currently ongoing, and commented on the programme of transport schemes that could form the first five years’ City Deal programme and future work around the City Deal programme.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Head of Corporate Strategy.

 

The Leader of the Council made the following points:

       i.          The City Deal had a 2 part governance arrangement.

     ii.          The Shadow Board would be in place from November 2014, and the Assembly in January 2015.

   iii.          Central Government was delaying governance arrangements. A report would be taken to Strategy & Resources Scrutiny Committee 20 October 2014.

   iv.          The process needed to start now.

    v.          There was a program to engage with cyclists, businesses and residents in future.

   vi.          Priorities were set out in P39 of the Officer’s report.

 

The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:

       i.          Asked for trees to be considered whilst work was being undertaken, particularly in Milton Road.

     ii.          Public transport and cycle facilities needed to be improved to reduce car usage.

   iii.          Multi-modal transport needs should be addressed.

   iv.          Suggested joint work between the City Deal and possible extended Park&Ride services during Park Street Car Park refurbishment.

    v.          The City Deal should lead to transformative change. Preparatory work could be undertaken during tranche 1, so big projects could begin in tranche 2.

   vi.          Congestion should be factored into transport modelling. There was no point having road etc access into the city if people could not travel around it.

 

In response to Members’ questions the County Council Director of Strategy and Development said the following:

       i.          Shared pavements were not ideal in the city due to the high use by pedestrians and bikes. This was acceptable in rural areas where there was lower use.

     ii.          Providing real improvements for pedestrians, cyclists and buses, would only be achieved by restricting private car access, as had been done with the rising bollards in the city centre. Setting this would be a policy decision for councillors, not officers. This would then allow the space for  street redevelopment work.

 

The Director of Environment said that air quality figures were available if desired. The city growth strategy was based on 60% non-car trips. The City Deal would feed into this programme.

 

The Leader of the Council made the following points:

       i.          The Council would have to demonstrate the impact of £100m City Deal funding before it could get more from Central Government.

     ii.          The focus was on getting people out of cars. Work on some radial routes may help access to the city.

   iii.          Reshaping transport access would raise challenges. There would be feasibility studies and public consultation.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendation.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation.

 

Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted)

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.