Decision details

To review options for sustainable transport measures and infrastructure that manage and mitigate the potential impact of increased vehicle movement within the city as a result of improvements to the A14.

Public Question

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

Mr Lucas-Smith raised the following points:

      i.          The A14 is dangerous and unsuitable for cycling. He asked for a parallel non-motorised route.

    ii.          The Prime Minister committed funding to cycle-proofing roads.

 iii.          Referred to the Highways Agency letter and said there were no details about non-motorised users. Asked if the City Council could request this be a condition of Department of Transport funding.

  iv.          Strongly support a fund for work.

The County Council Director of Strategy and Development responded that a parallel non-motorised route was part of the scheme. The County Council informed the Highways Agency the scheme should include greater clarity on this. There was an intention to provide a path, its use was to be confirmed.

Matter for Decision

The City Council is in discussion with the Highways Agency about the impact of proposed improvements to the A14 on traffic flows, noise, air quality and vibration within Cambridge.  When this information has been received, and analysed, options would be prepared to mitigate the impact of the scheme on residents within the city. In the meantime it was recommended to agree the principle of an investment by the City Council of £1.5 million over 25 years to mitigate these impacts.

Decision of Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport

Agreed the principle of an investment within the next 25 years by Cambridge City Council of £1.5 million into measures that mitigate the impact of trunk road improvements on the A14 in accordance with the approach set out in the Officer’s report and that the Head of Finance was requested to consider the financial implications of this commitment in the forthcoming Budget Setting Report of the City Council.

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 Director of Environment.

In response to Members’ questions the Director of Environment said the following:

       i.          If recommendations were agreed in principle by Environment Scrutiny Committee and the Executive Councillor, a Budget Setting Report could then be put to Full Council.

     ii.          Funding could be invested in and outside the city boundaries if it benefitted the city. For example, Park&Ride services.

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.