Venue / Comberton Village College
Date & Time / Monday 17th July 2017 at 6.30pm
Attendees / Members of the Local Liaison Forum:
Helen Bradbury (HB) Chair; Cllr Bridget Smith (BS) Vice-Chair; Cllr Lucy Nethsingha (LN): Cllr Rod Cantrill (RC) Newnham; Cllr Des O’Brien (DO’B) Bourn; Cllr Tumi Hawkins (TH) Caldecote; Cllr Tim Scott (TS) Comberton; Cllr Janet Lockwood (JL) Harston and Hauxton; Cllr Grenville Chamberlain (GC) Hardwick; Bev Edwards (BE) Barton Parish Council; Pauline Joslin (PJ) Hardwick Parish Council; Steve Jones (SJ) Bourn Parish Council; Phil Claridge (PC) Caldecote Parish Council; Keith Howard (KH) Caxton Parish Council; Howard Russell (HR) Dry Drayton Parish Council; Steve Rose (SR) Hardwick Parish Council; Jill Fieldman, Comberton Parish Council; Jenny Jullien (JJ) Haslingfield Parish Council; Eddie Blair (EB) Caxton Parish Council; James Littlewood (JL) Cambridge Past, Present & Future; Harriet Gillett (HG), Storeys Way Residents’Association (SWRA); Penny Heath (PH) North Newnham Residents’Association (NNRA); Janet Cohen (JC), Madingley Road Residents’Association (MRRA); Edward Leigh (EL) Smarter Cambridge Transport; Stephen Coates (SC) Save the West Fields; Rita Langan (RL) Cranmer Road Residents’Association (CRRA), Ellen Khmelnitski (EK), Gough Way Residents’Association (GWRA), Jean Glasberg (JG), South Newnham Neighbourhood Forum (SNNF)
Greater Cambridge Partnership:
Ashley Heller (AH), Adrian Shepherd (AS), Katy Rogerson (KR)
Guests:
James Palmer (JP) Mayor of Cambridge, Colin Young (CY) Atkins
Apologies / Jane Ward Haxton Parish Council, Nyle O'Burn Harston Parish Council
Purpose of Meeting / Local Liaison Forum (LLF)
Agenda Item / Minutes
1. Minutes from Last Meeting / The Chair welcomed everyone and requested that respect be shown for Officers in all discussions whether in agreement or not.
Outstanding actions from 17th March 2017 minutes
1) Representation of Residence Associations on LLF.
Chair showed her analysis of the population and location of Residents' Associations whom regularly attend LLF meetings and demonstrated her findings that their representation on the LLF is fair and balanced.
2) Inbound Flow Control
The request that the City Deal Executive Board and Joint Assembly consider Inbound Flow Control within the Cambourne to Cambridge Scheme has not been actioned.
ACTION: HB to put to the Joint Assembly when she presents to them on Wednesday 19th July.
Summary of activity since the last meeting by Chair
•April 11th 2017 Option 6 was presented to The Executive Board and the Board agreed to include it within the scope of the research.
•The Board agreed that the LLF could view the commissioning brief.
•A small subset group of the LLF was agreed and has been working with developer Atkins. They have created a 13 point criteria to assess the strength of the proposed options.
•A Park and Ride workshop was attended by members of LLF and there was overwhelming support, including the bus companies, for a Park and Ride site to be located before the congestion begins.
•Chair has written to Greater Cambridgeshire Partnership expressing concerns about the way workshops are conducted and requesting advanced notice, terms of reference, list of invited attendees, how feedback is gathered and weighting given to various feedback. Awaiting a response.
Vote for Vice Chair
Two candidates: Cllr Bridget Smith, current Vice Chair (South Cambs, Gamblingay)
Cllr Tim Scott (South Cambs, Comberton)
Both candidates spoke briefly to the LLF on why they should be Vice Chair. A councillor voiced his opinion on whom should be elected and then the candidates left the room while the LLF discussed and voted. There was a brief debate as to whether there could/should be two Vice Chairs. Chair advised that it was not necessary for it to be a secret ballot.
VOTE: SHOULD THE LLF HAVE TWO VICE CHAIRS?
Majority in favour of 1 Vice Chair.
VOTE: FOR VICE CHAIR
For BS 13; For TS 2
CLLR BRIDGET SMITH REMAINS AS VICE CHAIR
2.Guest Speaker - Long Term Transport Plans for Greater Cambridgeshire / Mayor James Palmer took the floor to talk about a Light Rail Solution for the region
JP stated that over the next 15 years there will be 44k new jobs in Cambridge City and South Cambridgeshire. Housing cannot grow at this rate so if the transport issue isn't dealt with, Cambridge risks losing its international status as a centre of excellence for businesses to locate.
JP made it clear that he was not present to criticise the Greater Cambridge Partnership as they have addressed their remit of looking at the transport issues in South Cambridgeshire and the City. He feels however that extending the Park and Ride scheme, although meeting the remit, will not solve the problem and the area looked at should extend much further. In his opinion links need to be made with towns like St Neots and Haverhill. JP informed the LLF that he is running a feasibility study looking at a Light Rail Solution. JP acknowledged that this will be expensive and he cannot ask it to be funded fully by Government. He stressed that it will be vital to make it affordable in order to make it achievable. JP is proposing a Land Cap for areas along the corridor of growth. Suggests setting the cap at 10 times agricultural land and then a percentage of house sales is fed back into the investment fund for Light Rail. Would work over a 30-year period. Timescale is the biggest issue and the longest part is getting the proposal through not actually building it.
JP concluded his presentation stating that Light Rail for Cambridge is achievable and affordable and he will work with the LLF and Greater Cambridge Partnership to make it a reality.
The Mayor then took questions from Members of the LLF and members of the public present.
Following the questions the Chair asked if the Mayor felt that it might be sensible to defer further decisions on the A428 until the Mayor's feasibility study is complete to which the Mayor agreed.
Proposed Resolution 1 (Proposer: Bev Edwards, Chair, Barton PC): The LLF welcomes the Combined Authority's long-term view of transport strategy and regrets the Greater Cambridge Partnership’s continued short-termism. We agree with Mayor Palmer's view that the Busway is a short-term solution and support him in his efforts to ensure that public money is spent wisely. We support Mayor Palmer in his proposals for a comprehensive light rail system, comparable to that seen in other European cities of similar size and also proposed for Oxford.
VOTE: TO ACCEPT ADDENDUM OF RESOLUTION 1: 'The Greater Cambridge Partnership are requested to defer decisions on the proposed A428 Busway until such time as both the high level mass-transit study, as proposed by the GCP, and the feasibility studies on Light Rail as proposed by the Combined Authority, have been completed and published, with adequate time for public review of, and comment on, these documents.'
ADDENDUM PASSED
22 F, 0 A, 2 Ab
VOTE: TO ACCEPT RESOLUTION 1 WITH ADDENDUM
RESOLUTION 1 WITH ADDENDUM PASSED
23 F, 0 A, 2 Ab
Passed Resolution 1: The LLF welcomes the Combined Authority's long-term view of transport strategy and regrets the Greater Cambridge Partnership’s continued short-termism. We agree with Mayor Palmer's view that the Busway is a short-term solution and support him in his efforts to ensure that public money is spent wisely. We support Mayor Palmer in his proposals for a comprehensive light rail system, comparable to that seen in other European cities of similar size and also proposed for Oxford. The Greater Cambridge Partnership are requested to defer decisions on the proposed A428 Busway until such time as both the high level mass-transit study, as proposed by the GCP, and the feasibility studies on Light Rail as proposed by the Combined Authority, have been completed and published, with adequate time for public review of, and comment on, these documents.
Proposed Resolution 2(Proposer: Grenville Chamberlain, District Councillor, Hardwick): The LLF asks that further development work on Option 3a is stopped until the feasibility studies for Rapid Mass Transit are concluded. We do not consider Option 3a to be a suitable alignment for RMT given its proximity to rural communities; the amount of infrastructure required to keep our communities safe, and its impact on sensitive green belt areas. We ask that consideration is given instead to developing a more suitable alignment - ideally north of the A428.
Questions were asked about the detail of this resolution and a Member explained that she was unable to support the resolution as it was too prescriptive and was trying to cover too much.
VOTE: TO REMOVE 'IDEALLY NORTH OF A428' FROM RESOLUTION 2
ADDENDUM PASSED
21 F, 0 A, 3 Ab
VOTE: TO ACCEPT RESOLUTION 2 WITH ADDENDUM
RESOLUTION 2 WITH ADDENDUM PASSED
15 F, 4 A, 4 Ab
Proposed Resolution 3 (Proposer: Rod Cantrill, City Councillor, Newnham): Given the current feasibility studies into Rapid Mass Transit, the Cambourne to Cambridge Busway project should constitute no more than a short-term intervention along the lines of the LLF’s Option 6. This would still support the Local Plan by allowing those living west of Cambridge to access the City quickly and reliably, yet would be far less expensive and would offer greater flexibility when RMT decisions are made.
The need to have the Local Plan passed to halt developers building anywhere they choose was a key point in the discussion around this resolution, however, with a variety of views, amends were suggested to make the resolution acceptable to more Members. Three amends were proposed and the resolution proposer, Rod Cantrill, accepted the amends to the resolution.
VOTE: TO ACCEPT RESOLUTION 3 WITH ADDENDUM
RESOLUTION 3 WITH ADDENDUM PASSED
21 F, 0 A, 4 Ab
Passed Resolution 3: Given the current feasibility studies into Rapid Mass Transit, the Cambourne to Cambridge Busway project should constitute no more than a low-interventionsolution along the lines of the LLF’s Option 6, and/or including smart transport measures.This would allow those living west of Cambridge to access the City quickly and reliably, yet would be far less expensive and would offer greater flexibility when RMT decisions are made.
3. Park and Ride Location Progress Update / Ashley Heller, Greater Cambridge Partnership, presented.
Following instruction from the Board to review where a new park and ride should be located AH ran through the process to date and the next steps.
•Phase 1 - identifying all potential sites - this has been completed and 8 sites have been identified including the existing Park and Ride. A workshop was held to create an assessment criteria. (The scoring system is available online.)
•
•5 sites have been identified to go forward to Phase 2: Madingley Mulch (the site previous work had suggested was the best option); Waterworks; Bourne Airfield; Scotland Farm; existing site
•Phase 2 - looking at the short list in more detail - this is the next step to be taken. The preferred site, based on the assessment criteria, will then go to public consultation if the Board wishes to progress.
Questions were taken.
Resolution 4 and Resolution 8 were concluded to be questions rather than resolutions.
ACTION: Chair will take proposed resolutions 4 & 9 to the Joint Assembly and Executive Board on Wednesday and request an answer. Chair also stated that she will encapsulate some of the other points raised in the question session at Wednesday's meeting.
It was noted that Resolution 5 was also a question. AH explained that the £1mil stated in the question is not an overspend but a budget profiling issue.
ACTION: Chair to request clarity on what a profiling issue is when she meets with the Joint Assembly and Executive Board on Wednesday.
5 & 6. Potential Route Alignments for Option 3a and Work to Date on Option 6 / Colin Young, Atkins, presented
The presentation, available on the GCP website, covered the following points:
•Option 3A - possible alignments, the criteria that informs the developing alignments, maps showing the routes, sight line assessment points, where the routes are on and off road, measures that could be used to alleviate congestion for buses when on road.
•Option 1 - review of this low cost alternative
•Option 6 - definitions based on LLF workshop, map of bus stops served
•Options Assessment Report (also on GCP website) - Comparison of requirements for Option 6 and Option 1, list of assessment criteria agreed with the LLF working group, comparison of representative assessment criteria emphasis between Options 6 and 3a, scoring sheet results,
•List of Key LLF comments to which CY explained Atkins would be issuing clarification and indicating their agreement or otherwise with comments made.
•Next steps
Options' Assessment Results
Transport OptionOption 1Option 6Option 3a
Atkins514551
LLF44.54635
Chair requested that questions be held until after the LLF Working Group had presented on the same Assessment Report
7. Report from LLF Technical Group / Technical Assessment Process Report from the LLF working group, Gabriel Fox presented
Technical Group Members: Steve Jones (Coalition of Parish Councils), Gabriel Fox (Coton Parish Council), Rod Cantrill (City Councillor, Newnham)
The presentation listed the areas of disagreement between the LLF and Atkins and why the LLF disagreed with Atkins' scoring on these points
1) Journey Time - had 4 categories so 4 separate scores however other areas only had one for example cost.
2) Landscape and Visual - Option 3a cuts through the landscape and was awarded 1 point, Option 6 runs adjacent to existing infrastructure but score 2.
3) Option 1 was given 5 points in September but now given 3 - not sure what has changed
4) Constructability Risk - Do not feel that constructing a new freeway is only 1/4 of the complexity of widening an existing bridge
5) Policy Fit - Dispute that Option 6 should have been awarded 2 and Option 3a a 5. Provided a point from the Cambridge Local Transport Plan which contradicted these scores.
Concluded that it was a good process up to the point of agreeing the criteria but the scoring process had proved very frustrating and the Working Group feel that it raises questions around the objectivity, credibility and trustworthiness of the Contractor advising the Greater Cambridge Partnership.
Questions were then taken by CY for Atkins.
Adrian Shepherd responded to some of the questions by stating that previously the GCP had talked about workshops to look at the proposed route options but the LLF turned these down however the GCP are still very happy to do these if the LLF feel it will help their queries.
Resolution 6 (Proposer: Gabriel Fox, Vice-Chair, Coton Parish Council): The LLF endorses the technical group’s scoring of options 1, 3a and 6 as a fair and transparent appraisal
VOTE: TO ACCEPT RESOLUTION 6
RESOLUTION 6 PASSED
20 F, 2 A, 1 Ab
8. Workshops / Chair reaffirmed that she would be requesting a response from her letter about Workshops mentioned in Item 1 at the meeting on Wednesday.
Proposed Resolution 7 (Proposer: Penny Heath, North Newnham Residents’Association): In preparation for future workshops, the LLF support reviewing the Terms of Reference(s) ahead, to ensure collaborative work on transport, design, environmental and community issues. The Terms could be tailored to geographical areas along the route. For example City Wards and Option 6. We recommend first step is for Councillors, RA representatives & stakeholders from the affected and neighbouring Wards to work with GCP officers to review and re-draft terms. We recommend Helen Bradbury is selected to initiate the process.
The following concerns and points were made regarding this proposed resolution:
•Splitting the LLF would reduce its impact.
•Representation is needed not just where people live but also where they travel so it is not as simple as dividing by ward.
•This LLF is currently representing 45 parishes and 10 residents associations - concerns that it is too big.
•Agreement that it is hard attending all meetings but many feel that members need to see the full approach.
•Participation in workshops will be self selecting as those volunteering to be on a specific workshop are likely to do so as the workshop in question relates to the area in which they live.
•Maintaining a broader group prevents domination by a certain geographical area.
The LLF debated amending the resolution but in the end the proposer withdrew the resolution
ACTION: Chair agreed to set up a working group to look at workshops and then address again when a response to the her letter has been received.
9. Next Meeting / Early September - Date TBC
Meeting ended at 9.35pm