Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Agenda and minutes
Venue: Rex Freeman Hall Chesterton Community College Gilbert Road Cambridge
Contact: Toni Birkin Committee Manager
No. | Item |
---|---|
Apologies for Absence Minutes: Apologies were received from Councillor Gawthrope. |
|
Welcome and Introduction (including Declarations of Interest) Minutes: The Chair welcomed the County Council and City Deal Officers present and was pleased to see such a high turn-out of members of the public. No interests were declared. |
|
City Deal - Histon Road and Milton Road Proposals 6.00pm Welcome & Introductions 6.05pm General principles behind the City Deal / emerging issues from the
initial consultation to date (City Deal
Officers) 6.15pm Next steps in
project development / further consultation
/ timeline (City Deal
Officers) 6.25pm Opportunities for Public
Realm and Green Landscaping enhancement within City Deal Delivery (Urban Design
and Conservation Manager) 6.40pm Public Question
& Answer Session: Principles behind the City Deal 7.10pm Public Question
& Answer Session: Milton Road proposals 7.30pm Public Question
& Answer Session: Histon Road proposals 7.50pm Public Question
& Answer Session: Mitcham’s Corner Master Plan & Victoria Road Minutes: Bob Menzies: Service Director: Strategy and
Development Cambridgeshire County Council Bob Menzies presentation included the following: City Deal and Growth •
Commitment to Growth: Government, County, City and
District •
Emerging Local Plans: •
Sustainable growth: city fringe developments and
satellite sites •
Demand for travel was expected to increase by 30%
in fifteen years •
‘Do nothing’ not considered a viable option •
Failure to act would result in ever increasing
congestion •
The City Deal Prioritised •
Walking •
Cycling •
Public Transport •
Invest in high quality infrastructure •
Reallocate road space from private vehicles City Deal Funding •
500 million over three 5-year tranches •
Tranche One (2015-2020) £100 million •
Tranche Two (2020-2015) £200 million •
Tranche Three (2025-2030) £200million •
Supplemented by private sector funding •
Tranches 2 and 3 conditional on delivery of results
from tranche one. •
A huge opportunity Brian Stinton: Team Leader, Highway Projects, Cambridgeshire County
Council Brian Stinton’s
presentation included the following: Milton
Road and Histon Road Objectives •
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 Consultations ·
Prior warning notification had been delivered to
local properties and sent to stakeholder groups ·
Local councillor and stakeholder briefing sessions
held prior to formal consultation period
·
Provision of project material on City Deal website ·
Information leaflet/questionnaire sent to local
properties and stakeholder groups and available online ·
Exhibitions: staffed events to facilitate 1 to 1
engagement with stakeholders/the public (Now completed) Next Steps •
Analysis of all feedback from all responses
[February / March] •
Further technical work to assess the best
combination of ideas to form a ‘preferred option or options’ for both routes
including the need for any mitigation measures [March / April / May] •
Recommendations on further scheme development for
both schemes to Executive Board in June •
Preferred option(s) consultation: by early 2016 Glen Richardson:
Urban Design and Conservation Manager Cambridge City
Council Precedents elsewhere show that it is possible to achieve the infrastructure to support more sustainable
modes of travel and deliver a high quality of public realm. However: •
Ultimately there would be choices to be made in
order to strike the right balance of infrastructure and the amount and type of
public realm (soft and hard landscape) •
Detailed investigation of constraints (services
etc.) and the development of design options to integrate soft and hard
landscaping would be an important stage of future work •
Options need as much as possible to respond to
their context (urban, historic, residential, suburban, etc.) City Deal offers a
great opportunity to improve mobility along key routes and in city centre
locations for pedestrians, cyclists and bus users. This must be
balanced with the need to create attractive places and streets that will
enhance the experience for residents and visitors in Cambridge. Question and
answer sections on the principles behind the City Deal on Milton Road, Histon Road and Mitcham’s Corner followed. Overall themes
were as follows. Members of the
public stated the following (Officers responses in bold):
i.
Queried how much of the present congestion was
caused by present traffic management plans.
ii.
Asked what could be done to improve traffic flow. A. There has to be
a trade-off to solve the congestion problem but needed to get the package right.
iii.
Enquired what was the projected number of people
who would travel into the centre of Cambridge in the future as mentioned in the
presentations?
iv.
Queried where the raw data had been taken from shown
in the tables presented in the report. A. There were more
jobs in Cambridge than housing and traffic was a major problem which needed to
be resolved.
v.
There seemed to be a desperate urge to spend the
first £100 million instead of going back to Central Government to advise that
the money could not be spent sensibly within the time frame given. A. Unable to change the funding sequence,
the Government would take the money back.
For this reason there had been early public consultation.
vi.
Asked if the buses could be regulated. vii.
Questioned how qualified the Service Director
Strategy and Development, Cambridgeshire County Council was. viii.
Stated it seemed that the University of Cambridge
had been given the freedom to build student accommodation throughout the City
when housing needed to be addressed.
ix.
Asked if the emergency services had been consulted
and what would be the impact on the emergency vehicles of the proposed road
layouts.
x.
The proposal to close junctions could create
additional rat runs which would eventually ruin properties. A. The suggestion for closing junctions was
at an early stage and all junctions were subject to further consideration. The
fewer movements that took place at junctions the more efficiently they can
operate. Accessibility was an issue which needed to be addressed.
xi.
Requested to know what would be the jobs that that
had been forecasted for the City Centre, what was the evidence of job growth in
the City Centre. xii.
The impact to local residents needed to be taken
into consideration. A. The impact on local residents would be
considered and was important, all options would be considered. The needs opf the environment would be addressed. xiii.
Need to promote modern methods of working with
business such as flexible working or working from home. xiv.
Stated that adding another bus lane would not make
a difference to the congestion. A. There was no
current scheme which was seen as favourite; all options needed to be considered
in the first instance. xv.
Questioned if there was sufficient resources in terms
of staff and money to consider all options for Histon
and Milton Road. A. The consultation had been produced by a
specialist research team at the County Council. Additional staff had been
employed as part of the City Deal Scheme. xvi.
Asked what was the evidence to show that guided bus
ways worked and were this information could this be viewed. A. The Guided Bus
Services from St Ives to Cambridge had proved to be a success, with a service
first being offered every 10 minutes and now every 5 minutes to meet demand. xvii.
Stated that the consultation was regurgitating
proposals that had previously been rejected. xviii.
Needed to see evidence of where people from
traveling from and where they were going to. A. People were moving out of Cambridge due
to the high cost of living but still worked in the City and many used their
cars to commute each day. xix.
Stated that the needs of locals were given less
consideration than those of commuters.
i.
A. Needed to
remember that Milton road was a former trunk road and was a main road into the
City. However, it was recognised that this remained a residential road. Future
improvements to the A14 would have an impact on the flow of traffic into the
City. xx.
Enquired what was being done to encourage people to
change their habits and needed to be given a cheaper option than the car. A. The new train
station in the North of the City would help to reduce congestion but would not
be used by everyone. xxi.
Stated that bus companies seemed to be absence
during the consultation process. xxii.
Noted that Drummer Street was unable to cope with
the current number of buses that come into the City, how would the
infrastructure be able to support an increase in the number of buses. A. Not all buses
had to stop in the City Centre; there could be proposed routes which bypassed
Drummer Street Station. There could also be orbital bus routes around the City xxiii.
Stated that people should be made to put their
personal details on the consultation forms. A. Legal considerations regarding
confidentiality precluded any requirement regarding personal details on the
consultation paperwork. However, the consultation was open to everyone who had
used Histon and Milton Road whether on a daily basis
or just once a year. It was not just for local residents. xxiv.
Considered that if additional bus lanes were to be
established, the extra buses would result in heavier road usage. Houses were
already shaking from the buses that go past. This would further damage the
properties. A. Studies had
been undertaken by the Transport Road Research Laboratory on the impact of
large vehicles passing properties and these showed that vibrations from traffic
did not did not generally cause structural damage to property. Officers
undertook to make these studies available on the City Deal website. (See link
below.) http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/citydeal/info/2/transport/1/transport/8 xxv.
Stated that current buses do not stop for Milton
Road residents. xxvi.
Said that Stage Coach would be the main company who
would benefit financially from the proposals. xxvii.
Stated that Stage Coach should have been invited to
the meeting and an invitation be extended to attend a future meeting. A. Stage Coach had bid for Government
funding as part of its plan to overhaul its existing double decker fleet with
new low-emission, hybrid buses which would see a reduction in emissions. xxviii.
Advised that a Park and Ride should be considered
to serve Histon Road. A. Agreed that it was
important that the Park and Ride Options on Histon
Road would be looked at. xxix.
Reiterated that local residents needed to be
listened to and their concerns considered. xxx.
Closure from Victoria Road to Histon
Road is not satisfactory. A. Aware that Histon Road
was narrower in places and reiterated that options would have to be different
for Histon Road. xxxi.
Histon Road and Miton
Road are linked up and there should be a joined up approached in considering
options. A. Histon and
Milton Road had to be considered separately as they were two different roads. There would be a further scheme development
report, taking into account this consultation, in June for both Histon and Milton Road xxxii.
Advised that only the Citi 8 stops on Histon Road not numerous buses as quoted in the
consultation. A. Bus schedules
would be looked at throughout the City. xxxiii.
Noted that the consultation was not online and that
paper copies were difficult to find. xxxiv.
Asked if was possible to use trams instead of
buses. A. Trams would need to use their own
dedicated space which would cost additional money and more expensive than
buses; guided bus way had cost £5 million per km and trams elsewhere had cost
£25 million per Km.
xxxv.
Stated that the Schemes on Mitcham’s Corner were
poorly thought out; the main beneficiaries would be car users. xxxvi.
Stated that more input from Landscape Designers was
required on the Mitcham’s Corner design. xxxvii.
Mitcham’s Corner should remain a gyratory road
system. xxxviii.
Proposals for Mitcham’s Corner were a narrow approach
to a major problem. xxxix.
Car parking at and around the Chesterton Road Co-op
was dangerous and needed to be addressed.
xl.
Crossing the road at Chesterton Road was dangerous.
xli.
The traffic light system on around Mitcham’s
Corners did not allow an efficient flow of traffic. A. The
city and county councils were working together to look at an innovative scheme
which attempted to undo the gyratory but that further design development and
modelling was necessary. The city council was keen to see if both the Mitcham’s
Corner master plan work and the City Deal work for Milton Road could be brought
together to mutually benefit both. Closing
remarks from the Chair of the Greater Cambridge City Deal Executive Board. i.
Welcomed
the engagement of local residents and thanked them for their feedback. ii.
Acknowledged
the need to address the Park and Ride issues. iii.
Suggested
that peak and off-peak traffic might need different treatment. iv.
Agreed
that Histon Road and Milton Road, whilst linked, were
very different in character and road layout. v.
Confirmed
that there was no intention to increase car use. vi.
Welcomed
the involvement of Resident Associations. vii.
Confirmed
that consultation results would be published. |