Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Agenda and minutes
Venue: Committee Room 1 & 2, The Guildhall, Market Square, Cambridge, CB2 3QJ. View directions
Contact: Toni Birkin Committee Manager
No. | Item | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Apologies To receive any apologies for absence. Minutes: Apologies were
received from Councillor Reid. Councillor Brierley attended as an alternate member. |
|||||||
Declarations of Interest Members are asked
to declare at this stage any interests that they may have in an item shown on
this agenda. If any member of the Committee is unsure whether or not they
should declare an interest on a particular matter, they should seek advice from
the Head of Legal Services before the meeting. Minutes:
|
|||||||
Public Questions Please see information at the end of the agenda Minutes: No public questions were received. |
|||||||
Under Council
Procedure Rules 43 - special meetings of committees, Councillors Herbert and Marchant-Daisley have requisitioned this special meeting of
Environment Scrutiny Committee. The request was that a special meeting of the
Environment Scrutiny Committee be held at the earliest practical opportunity to
scrutinise the latest proposed plan for major improvements to the A14,
particularly its benefit for, and impacts on, Cambridge and the Cambridge area. (Members of the
Scrutiny Committee will note that subsequent to this requisition being
received, a Notice of Motion on this subject was debated at Council on 18 April
2013). Report to follow Additional documents:
Minutes: Matter for Decision On 3
April 2013 Members requested a special Environment Scrutiny Committee meeting
to discuss the latest proposals for improvements to the A14 Scheme. On 18
April 2013 Full Council debated a request from Cambridgeshire County Council for
a financial contribution towards the cost of the proposed A14 Upgrade Scheme.
It was resolved to abstain from making a funding contribution to the A14; and
to continue contributing what funds the Council could make available for public
transport and cycling within the city to help mitigate the impact of commuting
into the city, in particular by starting a "Keep Cambridge Moving
Fund". The
Officer’s report set out the background to the debate at Full Council and also
identified key issues that would need to be taken forward through formal
processes for consideration of the upgrade scheme and establishment of a ‘Keep
Cambridge Moving’ Fund. Decision of Executive Councillor for Planning and Climate Change (i)
Noted the decision of Full Council on the
scheme. (ii)
Noted
the following amendment as Labour’s position statement: The Executive Councillor is asked to 1) restate that the City Council is committed to a
major A14 upgrade and will work jointly with the County Council to ensure all
essential additional local Cambridge measures are implemented, to maximise
diversion of ongoing journeys within Cambridge to non-car 2) organise an all-party meeting with the new
county council, reflecting recent political changes, inviting all
Cambridgeshire councils to negotiate a single 25 year ‘Keep Cambridgeshire
Moving Fund’, as an integral part of any scheme negotiated with Government.
This should not rule out options before ensuring the best achievable scheme is
developed for Cambridge and Cambridgeshire residents 3) undertake a consultation with residents and
businesses, and report whether responses support the upgrade 4) bring a further report to Committee after the
meeting, including on the further detailed traffic impact analysis and the list
of new non-car measures needed for Cambridge. This should assess a new NW
Cambridge park and ride, public transport interchanges and new cycleways, which
will need to be fully integrated in any overall A14 scheme and a revised County
Transport Strategy, not separate. 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 regarding the Upgrade
to A14. The Committee made the
following comments in response to the report: (i)
Sought
clarification regarding accuracy and reliability of transport modelling data. (ii)
Noted
that some housing developments outside the city boundary were dependent on A14
improvements going ahead. Councillors asked for traffic modelling data to show
the impact on city traffic; showing all effects/contingencies from A14
improvements going ahead or not. (iii)
Sought
clarification regarding the benefits to Cambridge from A14 improvements. Labour Councillors felt the A14 upgrade was a big issue and expressed
surprise that a decision had been taken without the opportunity to scrutinise
it. They welcomed the opportunity to do so now. The Leader of the Council said
that the County Council had pressurised the City Council for a response, so it
seemed expedient to take the proposal to Full Council. In response to Councillor Herbert’s questions the Executive Councillor
for Planning and Climate Change,
Director of Environment and Service Director (Strategy and Development) said
the following: (i)
The Local Plan does not have a specific policy
on the A14 and none of the allocations within city limits in the Local Plan are
directly contingent on an upgrade of the road. Two developments outside of the city
limits (Northstowe and Waterbeach) were dependent on the A14 improvement and
could not go ahead without it. Alconbury was not dependent on the A14 upgrade,
but was related to it. Bearscroft Farm was not dependent on, or related to the
upgrade. (ii)
Modelling
of transport needs had been undertaken and Officers were confident of its
reliability. One of the most sophisticated modelling systems in the country had
been used. (iii)
Modelling
suggested transport impacts on the city from the A14 upgrade was an overall reduction
in traffic levels. City traffic levels may increase from housing developments,
but this was a separate issue. City traffic levels would be affected by housing
growth/developments rather than A14 improvements. (iv)
The
County Council had provided all transport modelling data to the City Council to
factor it into the Local Plan. (v)
Referred
to the Transport Strategy for figures on housing growth impact on traffic
levels. (vi)
The
City and County Councils had been discussing integrated infrastructure
arrangements and links to Local Plan housing developments. These discussions
were put on hold due to local election results; but would resume after the new
County Leader was confirmed. In response to Councillor
Kightley’s questions the
Service Director (Strategy and Development) said the following: (i)
Transport modelling had been undertaken on several
occasions. (ii)
The model was periodically updated to validate it.
The last occasion was in 2010, but traffic volumes had changed little over the
last few years. (iii)
The model was a reliable tool, albeit with a margin
of error. (iv)
The A14 was principally a strategic road, so
traffic was more likely to go around the city than enter. In response to Councillors
Brierley, Owers and Saunder’s
questions the Service Director (Strategy and Development) said the following: (i)
Transport modelling did not factor in accidents,
traffic congestion etc. (ii)
The modelling convention was to model a regular
day, it would be inappropriate to model irregular events as they were unusual. In response to Councillors
Kightley and Saunder’s
questions the Executive Councillor for Planning and Climate Change plus Director of Environment and Service
Director (Strategy and Development) said the following: (i)
The key driver for A14 improvements is resilience,
the road was operating above capacity at present. (ii)
It was unusual, but not unprecedented for councils
to give other councils financial contributions to strategic networks. (iii)
The County Council was working with the Department
for Transport (DfT) and Treasury. They informed the County Council that the A14
improvement scheme would not go ahead without local contributions. (iv)
The DfT scheme was not open to amendment, so the
Leader of the City Council had proposed a "Keep
Cambridge Moving Fund". The City Council could not use council tax
contributions, so instead would have to rely on Community Infrastructure Levy
and s106. DfT set these specifications ie all contributions must be cash. (v)
If A14 improvements went ahead, the city could
expect an increase from business rates. These could contribute towards
transport funding. The Council was asked to contribute £3m over 25 years
together with neighbouring authorities. (vi)
The Leader of the Council and the Director of
Environment said the City Council collected £93m in business rates, but kept
only £7m of these. It would need to increase the net amount of business rates
(ie amount retained) to cover Central Government’s infrastructure contribution
requirements; this was hard to do. The link between business rate increase and
A14 improvements was unclear. The committee was not in a position to revisit
the Council decision for six months for reasons set out in the Officer’s
recommendation (ie legal and resource implications). Business rates were
limited to a period of seven years, which did not allow the Council to commit
to using these for a twenty five year work programme. Hence the Leader’s "Keep
Cambridge Moving Fund". (vii)
The scale of infrastructure was unrelated to
tolling. A toll road was proposed for strategic areas of the A14,
parallel access routes would give access to Cambridge and be free. (viii)
The Minster (Patrick Mcclaughlan) hoped to
announce details of the A14 improvement scheme (including tolling) in September
2013. The County Council and Central Government would negotiate a funding
package between June and September. Work should commence in 2018. Labour Councillors requested a change to the
recommendations. Councillor Herbert formally proposed to delete the Officer
recommendations and replace with the following: The Executive Councillor is asked to 1)
restate
that the City Council is committed to a major A14 upgrade and will work jointly
with the County Council to ensure all essential additional local Cambridge
measures are implemented, to maximise diversion of ongoing journeys within
Cambridge to non-car 2)
organise an all-party meeting with the new county council,
reflecting recent political changes, inviting all Cambridgeshire councils to
negotiate a single 25 year ‘Keep Cambridgeshire Moving Fund’, as an integral
part of any scheme negotiated with Government. This should not rule out options
before ensuring the best achievable scheme is developed for Cambridge and Cambridgeshire residents 3)
undertake
a consultation with residents and businesses, and report whether responses
support the upgrade 4)
bring a further report to Committee after the meeting, including on the
further detailed traffic impact analysis and the list of new non-car measures
needed for Cambridge. This should assess a new NW Cambridge park and ride,
public transport interchanges and new cycleways, which will need to be fully
integrated in any overall A14 scheme and a revised County Transport Strategy,
not separate. The amendments were lost
(by 4 votes to 4 and on the Chair’s
casting vote). Councillors requested a change to the
recommendation. Councillor Saunders formally proposed to withdraw the following
recommendation from the Officer’s report: Executive
Councillor is recommended to: 2) Agree the
process set out in this report for future work in relation to the A14 Upgrade
Scheme and the ‘Keep Cambridge Moving Fund’. The Committee unanimously
approved withdrawing this recommendation. The following
recommendation was formally proposed: The Executive Councillor is asked to note the
following amendment as Labour’s position statement: The Executive Councillor is asked to 1) restate that the City Council is committed to a
major A14 upgrade and will work jointly with the County Council to ensure all
essential additional local Cambridge measures are implemented, to maximise
diversion of ongoing journeys within Cambridge to non-car 2) organise an all-party meeting with the new
county council, reflecting recent political changes, inviting all
Cambridgeshire councils to negotiate a single 25 year ‘Keep Cambridgeshire
Moving Fund’, as an integral part of any scheme negotiated with Government.
This should not rule out options before ensuring the best achievable scheme is
developed for Cambridge and Cambridgeshire residents 3) Undertake a consultation with residents and businesses,
and report whether responses support the upgrade 4) Bring a further report to Committee after the
meeting, including on the further detailed traffic impact analysis and the list
of new non-car measures needed for Cambridge. This should assess a new NW
Cambridge park and ride, public transport interchanges and new cycleways, which
will need to be fully integrated in any overall A14 scheme and a revised County
Transport Strategy, not separate. The Committee unanimously endorsed this
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. |