Issue - meetings

The Committee received an update on the Milton Road project from the Greater Cambridge Partnership (GCP) Senior Delivery Project Manager. Further information could be found via Milton Road (greatercambridge.org.uk).

 

Members of the public asked questions as set out below.

 

Question 1.

 

Was concerned over the lack of compensation available for traders who were severely impacted by the GCP Milton Road scheme.

 

Over-running on the original intended construction schedule had led to substantial losses for several traders on Milton Road.  Some businesses had suffered these losses since July 2022. Customer parking bays were still not reinstated for the shops in vicinity of 36 Milton Road leading to all day commuter parking. Noted that if customers can't park, they won't stop. Losses were at a minimum of 20% of takings for most traders, some businesses had closed and changed hands. The once thriving Pod Orlem grocers’ shop was facing closure. Confidential loss figures were provided at the meeting.

 

Traders were warned to expect 4 months of construction disruption for construction segments. Wanted to ask why compensation was not available to those traders who suffered the extra 11 months of losses. Asked why funds were not available given that:

a) The project team had experience of these kind of delays from Histon Road and could have been anticipated on the "risk pot".

b) There was a contingency budget / risk pot to cover delays and increased costs as evidenced by FOIA  2127284 which detailed an increase in the GCP Board’s approved budget of £24 million to £31.945 million. This was an average daily spend of £42,000.

 

The GCP Senior Project Delivery Manager said the following:

i.    Noted and sympathised with the concerns which had been raised.

ii.  The project had been predicted to take approximately 2 years to deliver, there had been some delays, but the project was generally on track.

iii. Noted that there were difficulties with Cambridge Water at the southern end of Milton Road, which meant that works had taken a lot longer on the eastern side of Milton Road to what was expected.

iv.The 30-minute parking bays had been suspended for the works to be undertaken. Traffic signs needed to be put back up and traffic regulation orders covered the parking bays. Hopefully this would assist with the parking issue.

v.  The GCP was an extension of the Highways Authority which could carry out improvements to the highway. They were not statutorily required to provide compensation to business owners.  

 

The member of the public suggested that a hardship fund for cases where businesses could show financial loss because of the works should be provided. Also noted that cycle parking was being provided as suggested by the businesses. 

 

The GCP Senior Project Delivery Manager advised that once the project was complete links for pedestrians and cyclists to the shops should be improved.

 

Councillor Meschini agreed to meet with the member of the public to discuss the compensation issue outside of the meeting.

 

Questions 2.

 

At the GCP Executive Board Meeting on 17 March 2022 the Director of Transport agreed to support the process of prioritising a residents’ parking scheme to mitigate the loss of on-street parking planned for the southern section of the Milton Road re-development which was due to be completed next year. Following this a formal public consultation on the proposed Milton Road Area Residents Parking Scheme was completed on 14 November 2022. One year later, no results had been published. The response from the County Council Governance Team to a Freedom of Information request stated that “the consultation analysis report is due to be presented to the GCP Executive Board and Cambridgeshire County Council’s Highways & Transport committees towards the end of this year.”

 

The final meeting of the GCP Executive Board was on 14 December. Asked councillors to confirm that this item would be on the Board’s agenda?  If not, would they urge the GCP Director of Transport to include it?

 

The GCP Director of City Access Programme responded:

i.               Apologised that the residents parking scheme would be brought to the GCP Board later than anticipated, this was because of work with residents and councillors responding to feedback, which had taken slightly more time than planned.

ii.             Hoped to begin the statutory consultation on the Traffic Regulation Order before the end of 2023, which should help to be able to introduce the residents parking scheme.

 

Question 3.

 

Regarding parking arrangements outside the shops on Milton Road, opposite Westbrook Drive:  It had been reported that the new parking bays resulting from the road redevelopment no longer had the 30-minute waiting restriction that was there previously.  As a result, commuter cars were occupying the bays all day thus depriving the shops of customers who used to visit regularly. The independent grocery shop had experienced a 20% drop in turnover and was in danger of closure. Asked for something to be done urgently to rectify the situation? Asked if the shop could apply for compensation for loss of trade?

 

The Chair noted that the GCP Senior Project Delivery Manager had advised in response to a previous public question that the signs detailing parking restrictions at the southern end of Milton Road needed to be put back up so that enforcement of the traffic regulation order could take place.

 

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

      i.         Thanked GCP Officers for arranging visits with Milestone and WSP (contractors) who were undertaking the works on Milton Road.

    ii.         Asked for lighting to be reviewed from 184 Milton Road onwards.

   iii.         Expressed concern regarding the service area at Woodhead Drive particularly with regards to dust and noise.

  iv.         Queried the number of cycle parking stands and if more could be provided.

    v.         Noted access problems outside the care home towards the southern end of Milton Road.

  vi.         Queried disabled parking provision.

 vii.         Queried the width of pavements and cycleways.

viii.         Queried the tree species planted along Milton Road and whether trees would be damaged by double decker buses driving past.  

 

The GCP Senior Project Delivery Manager responded:

     I.         Had thought the lighting issue had been resolved but would pick up with the contractor the following day.

    II.         The service area at Woodhead Drive was ideally located as it was in the middle of the project area. Had tried to mitigate noise and dust by installing fencing / hoarding, covering the spoil heaps and the generator had been removed from the area.

  III.         Could talk to the designer again to see whether more cycle parking could be provided at Mitcham’s Corner or closer to the shops at the southern end of Milton Road.

 IV.         Acknowledged that access to the care home and hotel (on Milton Road) had been difficult due to the works being undertaken but both providers had been extremely accommodating.

   V.         Confirmed that work was in progress regarding disabled parking bay provision.

 VI.         The bollards outside the shops at Arbury Road were to be removed as they were creating an obstruction in the footpath. Remedial work to some of the footpaths would be undertaken by the contractor (Milestone). 

VII.         Details regarding tree species planted along Milton Road were available via the GCP website.