A Cambridge City Council website

Cambridge City Council

Council and democracy

Home > Council and Democracy > Agenda item

Agenda item

Minutes of Last Meeting and Matters Arising

Minutes:

1. Apologies – Cllr Tim Moore

 

2. Minutes of the last meeting Monday 12th January 2015 and matters arising.

Minutes agreed.

·  YHA Cambridge. The cycle racks and lockers have now been installed.

·  Metal bollards (Guided Busway). The Cycling and Walking Liaison Group met with the County Officer responsible for the busway recently, Campbell Ross-Bain, and CR raised the issue of the visibility of the bollards. The main problem is that there is no space to add reflective strips without stopping the bollard from being able to be dropped. The suggestion of using reflective paint is being considered as an alternative. All agreed the situation will be improved as increased development along the Busway will improve lighting conditions.

·  Replacement of Grand Arcade pushchairs. Two new pushchairs have been purchased.

 

 

3. Promotion Grant fund application – Cambridge Cycle Campaign.

(Cllr Smart declared an interest as a member of Cambridge Cycle Campaign. Cllr Robertson declared an interest as a subscriber.)

The application is for the maximum award of £5000 to provide a number of cycle repair stations around the city as part of the Campaign’s aim for better, safer cycling and to reduce instances of abandoned cycles. QR codes on the stations could provide access to maintenance instructions as part of a longer term educational programme. Key locations could include the Chisholm Trail aswell as the city centre. Roxanne de Beau has been appointed as the Campaign’s first full-time employee to co-ordinate the project.

 

The Group’s comments were as follows:

 

·  Location.

This is a key issue. Some locations within the sensitive historic core of the city may appear obtrusive or may have planning permission or health & safety implications. The Campaign are also requested to consider residential areas of the city such as King’s Hedges where cycle repair shops or tools may not be as easily accessible. Central locations may also feel more ‘public’ leading to the user feeling self-conscious. The Campaign are also asked to consider potential sites at or close to community centres where youth groups could congregate for lessons in bike maintenance. There could also be locations within the new developments on the fringes of the city worth investigating.

 

·  Maintenance.

The Group raised the issue of maintenance and ownership or asset control following the initial capital cost. The Campaign proposes a partnership between the provision of materials by Cycle Hoop and the County Council’s maintenance programme. (According to HLHJ,

remaining grant money could be used for maintenance within the pilot scheme although the Campaign anticipates costs to be low.)

 

·  Skills and knowledge.

Although commendable as a sustainable project, the Group expressed some scepticism as to whether there were sufficient willingness and craft skills in the general population for it to achieve success. If the scheme needed partnership working with local bike shops to source replacement materials, the Group expressed the additional concern that this project could be seen by retailers as unwelcome competition.

Instructions on how to carry out repairs would also need to be provided on laminated sheets for the benefit of those without Smartphones.

 

·  Shelter.

As cyclists are unlikely to be willing to carry out repairs in poor weather, the Campaign are requested to give further consideration as to whether the stations should be covered

 

·  Liability

The project should be covered by a Disclaimer informing users that the City Council would not be liable should an accident occur following repairs.

 

Conclusion.

The Steering Group support this application in principle but would like to stress that significant further work is needed, particularly in the identification of suitable locations that would be the basis for further discussion prior to the Group’s approval.

All agreed the level of quality of materials would ultimately depend on the number of viable locations. The Campaign are however advised to consider both the level of use and abuse of these stations when deciding on that level of quality.

 

ACTION: Cambridge Cycling Campaign to produce a detailed project plan (including all costings and warranty provision) to be presented at the next Steering Group.

 

 

4. County Team Leader Cycling Projects (including City Deal) – Mike Davies.

·  Abbey-Chesterton Bridge. This went to the County’s Economic and Environment Committee but was sent back for further stakeholder consultation. An architect has been appointed and initial sketches drawn. Land ownership is split between Gonville & Caius College and Network Rail with funding to be from both DFT and Section 106 (with links with the Chisholm Trail.) Cllr Blencowe stressed the sensitivities with local residents in relation to the project.

·  Hills Road segregated cycle lane. Progress has been slow with issues including the method of protection surrounding utilities and limited working hours. This is also a particularly busy area within the vicinity of the Perse School and various private accesses. A new supervisor on site should accelerate progress.

·  Huntingdon Road. A new red lane has been installed.

·  2-way cycling on 1-way streets. Signage installation is ongoing.

·  Cherry Hinton High Street improvements. This is a joint project with the City Council (S106 funded). A further round of consultation is anticipated.

 

 

5. Carter Bridge ramp.

Direct access from the bridge to the station was part of the original outline planning permission for the Station Area according to CR. Various options have been considered over the years and a Section 73 application is currently due to go before Committee in June which proposes a new ramp designed into the existing arrangements (Ref 13/1041/S73). A route through Ravensworth Gardens had been previously dismissed due to issues of land ownership (and is not supported by County Council officers).

The South Petersfield Residents’ Association representative invited the Steering Group to re-consider the Ravensworth Gardens option, as well as alternative options that would involve the enhancement of existing highway arrangements.

 

Frank Gawthrop added that there was a need for a holistic approach to this busy junction. The reduction in the site footprint of the Travis Perkins site on Devonshire Road and the resulting reduction in heavy vehicle movements would make such measures more viable. According to Mr Gawthrop, the City and County Councils could work more comprehensively to reach a satisfactory solution.

 

Conclusion.

The Group could not reach a consensus regarding the advantages and disadvantage of the various options. The inclusion of a new ramp would result in the reduction of available green space and protected trees, but could be partially replaced by improved planting and provide what Cllr Smart regarded as the welcome segregation of pedestrians and cycles. Cllrs Robertson and Tucker both felt the viability of the Ravensworth Gardens route was worthy of further exploration and was preferable to the submitted new ramp proposal. The Group noted that although the alternative option of providing traffic management measures on Devonshire Road could not be eliminated, they would likely involve a reduction in residential parking that would prove unpopular with residents.

 

ACTION: CR to contact Circle Housing Wherry (Housing Association) for their views on the possibility of a route through their land.

 

ACTION: CR to circulate accident statistics for the cycle ramp/Devonshire Road junction. (Although the Group are reminded of the likely under-reporting of incidents according to CR.)

 

 

6. City Cycling Schemes (JR)

·  Green Dragon Bridge. Details of the consultation have not yet been agreed. Progress will be delayed until after the election.

·  Fen Road improvements. These are linked with wider improvements and speed management measures. Progress needed.

·  City Centre cycle parking. The racks issue on Guildhall Street has been resolved.

·  Queen’s Green path. The work has been well received. Additional enhancements are now planned.

·  Widening of Palmers Walk path, Mill Road/East Road junction. CR is meeting with ARU representatives to discuss funding.

·  Lammas Land. Solar lighting has been installed on the rest of the path. This project has been well received and may generate greater demand for solar lighting in other areas of the city.

·  Cherry Hinton Hall. Temporary cycle racks have been installed and CR is waiting to hear from Friends of Cherry Hinton Hall on agreed locations of some permanent racks. Improved cycle parking provision for the Folk Festival would be welcomed.

·  Wyman’s Lane/Castle Street. Project Officer (Landscape) Bana Elzein is taking this forward with funding committed.

·  Herbert Street/Chesterton Road. To be treated as an Environmental Improvement Project. The poor quality of the Herbert Street footway is seen as a key concern.

·  Storey’s Way – (update circulated by Cllr Tucker).

 

 

7. Joint Cycleways Budget.

Details of the City Deal cycle projects should be known within the year according to CR. The County Council have decided to place more emphasis on funding cycle projects outside the Cambridge area and so there is currently no match-funding for the Cycleways budget. CR suggested that the City budget could be used for small to medium sized schemes which do not get City Deal funding. CR has been involved in the scoring of the different schemes being put forward for City Deal funding and the Steering Group will be updated at the appropriate time.

 

 

8. Any Other Business

·  Cllr Robertson had been contacted by a member of the Walking & Cycling Liaison Group about the role of this group and whether the two should be merged.  The Walking & Cycling Liaison Group is Chaired by the County Council and is made up representatives of local cycling, walking and disability groups and City and County officers, brought together to evaluate local cycle and pedestrian related schemes and cycling and walking. Provision proposed for new developments. The Liaison Group has no Member involvement and has no links with the formal Committee process.  There has been a call for the Liaison Group to be more focussed and CR has been tasked with re-drafting the Terms of Reference for discussion at their next meeting. Officers will need to look again at the Liaison Group and decide its level of effectiveness (CR).

 

 

 

9. Date of next meeting – Thursday 16th July 4.30pm