MINUTES

Project Name Western Orbital Local Liaison Forum

Venue Hauxton Primary School

Date Wednesday 21 June 2017 Time 6pm-9pm

AttendeesMembers on the Local Liaison Forum Helen Bradbury (HB) Chair; Bridget Smith (BS) Vice-Chair; Cllr Des O’Brien (DO’B) SCDC Bourn; Cllr Lucy Nethsingha CCC Newnham; Stephen Coates (SC) Save the West Fields; Steve Jones (SJ) Bourn Parish Council; Bev Edwards (BE) Barton Parish Council; Jane Ward (JW) Hauxton PC; Janet Lockwood, SCDC Harston and Hauxston; Jenny Julian (JJ) Haslingfield PC; Andrew Roberts TRA; David Neville Grantchester Parish Council; Cllr Tim Scott (TS) SCDC Comberton; Edward Leigh, (EL) Smarter Cambridge Transport; Jean Glasberg, South Newnham Neighbourhood Forum; Wendy Blythe FeCRA; Jeni Sawton (JS) Cambourne Parish Council, Stuart Hawkins (SH) Madingley Parish Council, Rita Langan (RL) Cranmer Road Residents’ Association, Ellen Khmelnitski (EK), (GWRA) Gough Way Residents’ Association, Abigail Shaw (AS), (MRRA) Madingley Road Residents’ Association, Angela Chadwyck-Healey (ACH) , Penny Heath (PH), North Newnham Residents’ Association; Cllr Lina Joseph, CCC Hardwick. Niall O’Byrne Harston PC

From Cambridgeshire County Council Ashley Heller (AH), Katy Rogerson (KR)

Apologies

Purpose of Meeting Local Liaison Forum

Agenda Item Key Points discussion Resolution

1 Introduction Helen Bradbury, Chair Meeting conductLLF updateNew member request(s)

South Newnham Residents’ Association co-opted.

HB: Chair’s update report:

Met with Board after March meeting to agree to reassess Option 6 alongside 3, 3a & option 1.

LLF to see the commissioning brief both for option 6 and reassessment of P&R sites.

Atkins appointed to assess Option 6, Mott MacDonald P&R.

2 technical workshops have been held between sub-group of LLF and consultants: to re-assure the LLF that the assessment process between options 3a, 1 and 6 is being conducted in a fair and transparent fashion.

Sub-group will report back in A428 LLF in July. July P&R workshop LLF representatives were Helen,

Rod and Steve. Overwhelming support to have P&R one junction west from Madingley Mulch. Connections, good access, less congestion, environmental impact considered. Remarkable amount of unanimity in the workshop in regards to this.

BE: Concern expressed regarding rat-running through Dry Drayton if P&R at Scotland Farm.

HB: Workshop was held in Barton on P&C: unrepresentative invitee list with no-one invited along the corridor who might use a Park and Cycle at Barton. Less successful meeting, Invitee list more carefully looked at in future which might take in more of those who live along the corridor.

HB: Suggestion of workshop to discuss workshops.

TS: Until P&R workshop, I had been led to believe bus operators hadn’t want to go further west out of Cambridge.

Resolution: in favour of SNRA joining the LLF.Unanimous.CARRIED

HB: To draft a letter to The Greater Cambridge City Deal detailing LLF concerns with the way workshops have been organised to date and to suggest ways in which they can be made more representative and effective. LLF wants to collaborate with GCP on this.

LN: Inform LLF who are invited to these workshops.

HB: Proposed meeting to discuss how meetings were held.

SC: Complaint regarding transport officer participation in workshops.

WB: Complaint surrounding Ian Bates involvement in A1307 workshops.

AH: Workshops were limited in number to make them productive, no intention to be definitive exercises and are all part of scheme information gathering.

Question from the floor: Not here to discuss LLF itself, can we move on to Western Orbital?

BS: Feedback from the LLF Review.

Review noted that it was admirable that LLFs have been brought in early in the process to be able to take part in discussions.

Concern regarding consultation exercises in centralised locations

Suggested move to change the way the Assembly and Board work which is a move in the right direction. This will lead to clearer routes of communication and responsibilities.

2 Aims of this meeting & project progress Tim Watkins, CCC Project manager

TW: Purpose of today is to update you on the work since the WO consultation in February & March last year and the December 2016 Board decisions.

There has been joint working group with Highways England.

More bespoke Western Orbital assessment to be carried out on J11 P&R and P&C at J12 and slip roads at J13.

Greenways interacts with the project on same timetable 2020-2025 dovetail J12 and J11. Early work now beginning on this.

Presentation available online.

3 Update on Smart Motorways, Highways EnglandCurrent processProgress with Roads Investment Strategy 2020-25 Future priorities for this section of the M11Q&A with Highways England

Eric Cooper Operations Directorate, Highways England (HE).

EC: Day-to-day operation of network and dealing with spatial planning, local plans and strategy of the network.

Key: accessibility, economic growth and ability to move from A to B.

We can’t look at our network in isolation. Working with CCC to define solution, access into Cam and travel through Cambridgeshire.

2015-20 Roads Strategy including A14 upgrade and A428 upgrade to Caxton Gibbet.

Next strategy delivered by government, where funding for HE comes from. HE makes recommendations to Central Govt.

HE gather evidence what are issues and problems and regarding effective spending.

Key issues include: M11 J10-13 suffer from congestion and safety concerns; J14 flooding; J9a key to local employment campuses.

Option appraisal reports are like a business case assessing cost, value for money and other measures is currently underway, to be completed by late Autumn 2017.

Evaluation by Central Govt via Strategic Road Network Initial Report due Nov 2017, to be followed by public consultation.

GCP to make information from HE available to LLF members.

DfT develop road investment strategy and decision made by ministers. Decisions result due in 2019, ready for 2020 five year period.

This strategy is funded by Car Tax approx. £6bn ring-fenced monies.

HE are now a company and scruitinised by office of Road and Rail Regulation and Transport Focus. Must meet key targets and efficiency review.

Please make your views known in the public consultation

M11 options – widening or smart motorway. EC expects smart motorway provision i.e. hard shoulder running lane, supported by gantries, speed control and emergency refuges.

Studies of each junction to see what improvements can be made.

TW: City Deal deferred assessment regarding on and off line choices for M11 given this work.

BS: Query smart motorways and need for Western Orbital/infrastructure.

EC: M11 near capacity, slip road queueing can get people to Cambridge but not into Cambridge – this is where City Deal works come in.

BE: Query whether buses could be run down M11 after upgrade.

EC: Safety implications if buses were allowed to run down the hard shoulder.MD: If roads are built they will fill up with traffic (induced

demand), AA have called for a rethink on how Smart Motorways are built. If you do this to the M11 how will you stop this from happening? Also isn’t smart motorway in direct competition with WO?

EC: Traffic control support, safety refuges, CCTV, 24/7, Traffic Officer services, evidence base showing safe operation.Still need to get on and off M11. Junctions already at capacity will not generate traffic – WO a way to get from A to B sustainable way get to points of interchange.

JL: What is being considered for Girton Interchange?

EC: Gathering views, looking at missing links, working with CCC yet to be decided. Wil provide information to Central Govt

Question from the floor: A10 increasing in traffic, what is going to be done about it?

EC: A10 not strategic road network, defer to CCC. Not under High Ways England jurisdiction, managed by local authority as of 2001.

SJ: Query regarding confidence in the quality of modelling – Caxton Gibbet could reduce A428 down to one lane at Girton experiment – backs up 3 miles.

EC: Same traffic model used by other City Deal schemes.

4 Junction 11 Tim Watkins, CCC Project ManagerJustification for expansion of existing P&R siteRationale for new P&R siteResolution in favour of P&R at Foxton Niall O’Bryne, Harston PC

Data shown to illustrate demand along the corridor & business and housing links.

Decking of current P&R site at Trumpington being evaluated – another storey to add space.

NO’B: How do you get vehicles across the junction?

TW: A roundabout option and a junction traffic light option will be assessed.

Question from the floor: Is that in addition to Hauxton?

TW: Yes, to provide additional capacity. The two sites might provide different services.

AR: Opposition to double level – next to multi-storey. Concern access to Primary School. Environmental concern against loss of green space and wildlife pond and trees. Add to congestion around Hauxton HB: Need to see proximity to housing to judge impact of proposed P&Rs.

BS: Why can we not consider going underground?

TW: Closure of P&R and cost benefit analysis would need to be undertaken.

Question from the floor: Concern re the model – smart motorway remove ability to queue, back up Trumpington, queuing to P&R on both sides build it they will come. In favour of rail rather than road and P&R. Oxford example – parking.

AH: Without double story there are only a few hundred places available.

GCP to make available presentation to LLF members.

Resolution: We do not think it is a reasonable proposal to create multi-storey P&R at Trumpington. Expansion would be counter-productive and have a negative impact on the school and local community.

Not voted on.

Resolution 1: P&R should be sited before congestion begins and as a general principal new transport infrastructure should not be allowed to urbanise villages surrounding the city or damage the city’s greenbelt. The LLF would like the CD to:

- investigate sites South of Harston

- would also like to prioritise rail

- consider a P&R at Foxton 30 in favour2 abstentionsCARRIED

SC: Concern regarding two-storey principle. Would an underground not yield just as much traffic flow?

Proposal from NO’B Harston PC: The new A10 P&R should be sited adjacent to Foxton railway station to reduce traffic through the greenbelt. It should not be sited on greenbelt land and overarching principal should be to reduce traffic through Harston village. Encourage commuters to use rail transport. City Deal is for Greater Cambridge area not just City. Must reduce traffic in South Cambs. Local railways are under used. Foxton intercept south of Cambridge with 13 mins travel to Cambridge it is an attractive option. Cambridge North and potential for Cambridge South station – rail links have got to be exploited and are not being exploited at present.North of 20,000 vehicles per 24 hrs plus Hauxton Meadows development Reduction could be achieved by intercepting some of the commuters.Traffic exiting at J11 have to cross A10 already overcrowded potential to cause further major distribution on A10. Trains and shuttle bus provision adds traffic to J11Concept over focus on Cambridge city issues does not address major traffic flow through Harston and SCambs villages, Flawed concept should not go ahead.Similarities A428 – issues regarding A428 Trumpington/Foxton strategic issue

JL: Proposed resolution: Agree that as a general principle new transport infrastructure should not be allowed to urbanise villages around the city.

TW: Planning policy gives a different weighting to housing and transport in the greenbelt.

SC: Incorrect to say transport is permissible in the

Greenbelt. We have been taking legal advice – it is only ok if no acceptable alternative exists.

LN: Proposal to hear all information on all junctions prior to making resolutions

Question from the floor: Suggestion for 2 P&R provision on both rail lines to encourage rail transport.

NO’B: Business case needed for Foxton.

TS: Location of P&R City deal and CCC perception that you think P&R has to be close – need a change of mindset and look at ways to encourage people to use P&R further out. Preservation of greenbelt and to look further afield.

NO’B: Similarities between Madingley Mulch/Scotland Farm and proposed Hauxton site noted.

5 Junction 12 Tim Watkins, CCC Project ManagerOutcomes of J12 Park & Cycle workshop

TW: Survey undertaken regarding willingness to change from car to bike. Locations suggested. None preferred.

SNRA: All sites in greenbelt.

BS: Concern congestion at junction 12 helps city congestion but doesn’t help congestion in Barton - still a traffic jam.

LN: P&C different proposal crucial group of people to discuss the site with are cyclists.

Question from the floor: Would it be lit?

TW: Part of consultation and welcome people’s thoughts.

SC: Need for graphics of proposals e.g. removal landscaping.

Question from the floor: Concern over potential future conversion of P&C to P&R.

AH: Need to consider intercepting northbound traffic on the M11. Absolute growth. Will need intervention close to J11 unless have provision at J12 Modelling from Cambridge Strategic Regional Model.

EL: P&R on the north side south of Trumpington to replace existing. Proposed land exchange with Grosvenor site re sporting village.

TW: CBC Travel Forum have shared travel plan information includes AstraZeneca and Adenbrookes including origin and destination.

AS: ANPR cameras in Cambridge and parts of South Cambs which will supplement model along with mobile phone data knowledge likely to be available in the Autumn.

Resolution 2: Would like more information prior to making any recommendation on the point of P&C at J12

- where from- where to- distance people are

prepared to cycle- -extra car movements in

Barton 25 in favour0 againstCARRIED

WB: The LLF would like more information on the park & cycle before making a decision.

6 Junction 13 Tim Watkins, CCC Project ManagerImprovements to entry/exitsOptions and constraints

HB: Query: Vehicles not able to join at J13?

TW: Assessment to be undertaken.

Question from the floor: Will City Deal Board have information on WO slip roads re decision for A428?

TW: Information will be available to them.

AH: Decision making next June.

WB: Query regarding relation to Local Plan.

LJ: Suggestion to involve someone from Combined Authority Mayor’s office.

HB: Mayor has been invited to next meeting.

Lillian Rundblad, Histon Road LLF: Concern City Deal piecemeal approach to corridors and propose cooperation across LLF areas. Would like to hear about WO development link.

TW: Route of bus priority through Cambridge North West and Darwin Green already been agreed in planning applications. Offer meeting.

HB: Offer of meeting with Lillian Rundblad.

7 LLF Housekeeping, All

8 Date of next meeting – Monday 17 July and 2 further meetings in September