Issue - meetings

To welcome Richard Preston (Project Manager, Major Infrastructure Delivery) from Cambridgeshire County Council.

 

A presentation will be given on the Histon and Milton proposals which aim to improve bus, cycling and walking trips through the remodelling of the highway which would have significant implications for streetscape, local traffic movements and parking.

 

The Chair welcomed Bob Menzies, Cambridgeshire County Council (Service Director, Strategy & Development) and Richard Preston (Project Manager, Major Infrastructure Delivery) who gave a presentation on the upgrade of Milton Road and Histon Road which would see bus, cycling and walking improvements.

 

The Service Director gave an overview of the City Deal decision making process and which local authorities were involved including the University of Cambridge and how the schemes would be taken forward. As part of the City Deal funding this would allow new public transport infrastructure in and around the City but would require the development and implementation of the schemes quickly. 

 

The Project Delivery Manager explained the detail of the scheme and process. It was reiterated that none of the proposals put forward for Histon Road and Milton had been approved, but approval had been given to go to public consultation. The following objectives were then explained:

 

•           Comprehensive priority for buses in both directions wherever practicable.

•           Additional capacity for sustainable trips to      employment/education sites

•           Increased bus patronage and new services

•           Safer and more convenient routes for cycling and walking,      segregated where practical and possible

•           Maintain or reduce general traffic levels

•           Enhance the environment, streetscape and air quality.

 

Below are some of the questions / statements that were put forward by members of the public and the Committee.

 

Comments from the public:

 

    i.          Queried if the consultation meetings would be open to the public that had been planned with Councillors and stakeholders; who were the stakeholders as local residents had not been invited to take part.

  ii.          Asked if there was still time for members of the public to have input on the consultation before it went public.

 iii.          Questioned if the full tree condition surveys would be published as part of the additional information before the public consultation took place.

iv.                    Asked what would be the impact on closing some of the proposed junctions and having an outside bus lane.

  v.          Would the use of the new train station in the North of the City be promoted encouraging people to take the train rather than the bus.

vi.          Asked where was the evidence to show that the traffic lights system required changing.

vii.          Queried what was the issue trying to be solved; it appeared to be an engineering problem but the problem was much bigger such as traffic management problems and the consultation process did not allow for broader comments.

viii.          Would have an environmental impact with the loss of trees and increase in traffic pollution.

ix.          Issues raised by the Cambridge Cycling Campaign had been ignored; there had been no design input from the people who understood cycling; the design of the junctions was of concern.

  x.          The design appeared to accommodate more traffic on the highways and would have been better to have a solution that limits the traffic.

xi.          Additional lanes could increase risk to cyclists.

xii.          The junction close to Arbury Junction was narrow and unsure if this could accommodate additional traffic lane.

xiii.          There has been a significant lack of public information on the proposals.

xiv.          Noted that there were currently dropped kerbs for residents to enter their properties and asked how this would be managed.

xv.          Resident’s gardens would have to be reduced in size to allow Milton Road to be widened.

xvi.          The proposals appeared to support the new residential developments outside of the City.

xvii.          There was not enough time for the public to consider these proposals and the consultation period should be extended.

xviii.          Information on the website was hard to understand and would take time to digest.

 

 

 

 

Comments from the Committee:

 

i.             The introduction of additional lanes on Milton Lane would not have a positive impact on reducing the amount of traffic into the City and needs to be readdressed.

ii.             Plans showed that the cyclists would have to go past allocated parking spaces.

iii.             Stated that a Dutch style road layout would give cyclists much more safety especially at junctions and should be considered further.

iv.             Asked for the consultation and questionnaire to be put into a language that would easily be understood by all members of the public and not full of technical terminology.

v.             Lack of information on process.

vi.             Suggested that residents formed a residents association which would be recognised as a relevant stakeholder in this process.

 

In response to comments from the public and the Committee the Urban Growth Project Manager responded with the following:

 

     i.        It had been the decision of the City Deal Executive Board to take the consultation forward.

    ii.        Two briefings would take place the following week with a session for Councillors consisting of City, District, Ward, County and South Cambridgeshire, to ensure that they understood the process that was being undertaken.

   iii.        Stakeholders consisted of resident groups and the Cambridge Cycling Campaign group that would be able to share the information further afield; it had not been logistically possible to invite all residents to the briefings.

  iv.        Cambridge Cycling Campaign Group would continue to be involved in the process.

   v.        There would be a series of public events which residents could attend, printed material would be distributed and information could be found on the following website: http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/citydeal/

  vi.        All comments and suggestions would be noted.

 vii.        Tree condition survey would be published by the time public consultation started.

viii.        The designs were currently ideas and further detailed work was required to determine how the junctions would work.

  ix.        Would want members of the public to put forward all views and ideas, the consultation did allow for the basis of the scheme to be challenged and taken back to the Executive Board. There was space on the consultation that allowed members of the public to put forward different ideas.

   x.        The key elements on the local plan and the City Deal were to protect the green belt around the city whilst ensuring sustainable growth in an organised way.

  xi.        Enterprise Zones had been announced in Northstowe and Cambourne outside of the City and part of the City Deal strategy was to encourage businesses to locate outside of the City.

 xii.        If the consultation highlighted that there is a traffic management issue there would have to be a different agenda.

xiii.        The proposals were not intended to accommodate extra capacity but to improve the flow of traffic.

xiv.        Would continue to work closely with the Cambridge Cycling Campaign.

xv.        Opportunities for open spaces had been identified on Milton Road but the space could be used for other uses.

xvi.        Ideas for Milton Road / Elizabeth Way junction had been passed to consultants for further consideration.

 

Councillor Cantrill thanked both Bob Menzies and Richard Preston for their time. He then encouraged residents to attend City Deal meetings such as the ‘City Deal Executive Board’ which was open to the public and where residents could register to speak at the meetings and listen to the debate. Further information could be found at http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/citydeal/

 

Councillor Cantrill concluded that it may be beneficial to arrange a public meeting chaired by City Councillor Lewis Herbert, as Chair of the City Deal Board and residents (diary permitting) to discuss the proposals further (ACTION).