11 responses to “Fen Road Public Meetings”

1. I attended the meeting on the evening of the 20th of March 2012.

   Key Points

   • Cllr Bates, who called for the meeting, didn’t turn up. No one explained, or even commented on his absence. This made the meeting much less useful than it could have been, as rather than engaging with person with the influence we were left talking with his officers.
   • My proposal to use constables to police the area appears to have been taken up by the police despite councillors not formally supporting it.
   • A cycle and pedestrian bridge, cantilevered from the existing railway bridge over the river is proposed and will be taken to the May 2012 North Area Committee for approval.
   • The area is being tackled in a piecemeal manner with little to no-coordination between those working on the station, those working on small improvements to the Fen Road environment, those working on the area’s local plans, and others including Network Rail and those responsible for the guided bus. There is need for leadership, direction and coordination but it isn’t present.
   • Liberal Democrat Cllr Ward, who chairing the latter element of the meeting, rejected my proposal to publicise the meetings of the group better, adding them to the councils’ meeting calendars and making sure interested groups such as rowers and the cycling campaign were aware of them. He stated wider consultation would come at the appropriate time and opted to keep the existing ~45 person email list as the way of publicising the “steering group” meetings which it was decided will be held monthly.
   • Cllr Nimmo-Smith opened the meeting, and set down an agenda of 1. Policing, focusing on driver behaviour; 2. “Fen Road 2” the new road from Milton Road to Fen Road and 3. Improvements to the safety of the current road, including the level crossing.

   Policing

   Cllr Nimmo-Smith opened the meting saying police action to tackle driver behaviour was the first thing he wanted to discuss. This was a marked departure from his, and other councillor’s stance at the 26 January meeting where policing was hardly raised as route for tackling the area’s problems.

   A PCSO who Cllr Ian Nimmo-Smith called Louisa, spoke on behalf of Cambridgeshire Police.

   She reported that an “action plan” had been drawn up to tackle the problems on Fen Road. The primary new thing which was being done, she reported, was police constables from the Neighbourhood Policing team are now patrolling the road in unmarked cars.

   Perhaps whistleblowing to a degree she reported that this work only continued to midnight on occasion, and generally only took place up to 9 or 10 pm. This is presumably as neighbourhood officers are being used. One of the key things the current Chief Constable has said he will do is breakdown the distinction between neighbourhood officers and the rest of the police, but that does not appear to have yet happened in North Cambridge.

   The PCSO reported Sgt Jason Wragg was lobbying for the deployment of traffic police officers on the road. (Councillors have previously been told that one way their priority setting can be effective is giving local sergeants more bargaining power when bidding within the police for resources to be allocated to their areas).

   The PCSO reported that the neighbourhood team and generated a long list of those cars which are causing the problems on Fen Road, she suggested the neighbourhood team now needed the help of traffic officers to stop these vehicles and deal with them.

   The PCSO finished her remarks by stressing they need the help of the public and need to be told what’s happening so they can deal with it; she urged reports to be made via the 101 non-emergency number.

   I was quite impressed with elements of the police report, however am concerned that the artificial distinction between neighbourhood officers and others is hampering their efforts and am wondering why a two months into the current priority period our local officers have not yet had the support from the traffic officers which they are seeking.

   I think if councillors set a clearer priority next time, explicitly asking for policing of the area by constables and traffic police they will assist Sgt Wragg and his team in their efforts.

   Chesterton Station

   Cllr Ian Nimmo-Smith, from the chair, asked: “How is the planing of the new station going to take account for what is going on”.

   A Cambridgeshire County Council officer named Jeremy responded. He said the station project was complex, and the current design brief was to design a station which does rule out any option for land use or future transport infrastructure in the area. He noted there were “lots of aspirations” for the area.

   Asked for more details of the time-line for the next steps in relation to the station he reported that by the end of the summer a public consultation on the options for the station would be opened. He said this would allow people’s views to be taken into account in the development of the planning application. He then said that the public would get a further opportunity to influence the plans during the formal planning consultation processes which would occur in 2013.

   “Jeremy” reported that details of access to the station would be dealt with in the station planning application, but not other suggestions for improvements in the locality. Responding to public questions “Jeremy” said that Cambridgeshire County Council would be the planning authority to which the station application would be submitted, with the Cambridge City Council – South Cambridgeshire District Council joint planning committee making the determination. He also told the group that either the County Council alone, or the County Council in conjunction with Network Rail would be submitting the application.

   A New Bridge

   County Council officers stated that a bridge over the railway would cost in the region of £8m. (They said this was the figure quoted for replacing the level crossing on the A10 in Foxton with a bridge. They also noted the much greater number of vehicles which use the Foxton crossing and said that despite the strong case for work needing to be done there, and it being on the primary A road network less than a third of the money needed had been found).

   Surprisingly Cllr Manning suggested a new bridge was not the only option he was interested in; he also proposed a new junction for the A14 with a new road serving the Fen Road area.

   Cllr Roman Znajek suggested diverting pedestrians and cyclists from Fen Road onto the hailingway, creating a new path on the site of the pill box by the railway bridge. Showing himself yet again as a man firmly stuck in the past, Cllr Nimmo-Smith said this would probably depend on the co-operation of “Railtrack“.

   Cllr Roman Znajek continued, he said the new station would generate money and the local community should make clear that “we expect to benefit from it”.

   County council officers told the meeting that Theresa Villiers MP would not give £8m for a new bridge as part of the station project, because “passenger rail” was “driving the scheme”

   Another surprising interjection from Liberal Democrat Cllr Manning saw him suggest writing to Theresa Villiers and marching on Westminster. He suggested Theresa Villiers might not be aware of Fen Road and its issues and suggested this ought be corrected. County Council officers expressed an opinion that Theresa Villiers probably was not aware of the issues on Fen Road, but cautioned Cllr Manning against his proposed course of action (while being careful to note he was of course free to do as he thought right). Officers explained the justification for the Department for Transport’s support of the Chesterton Station was that it was expected to make more money for the rail operating companies and therefore enable central government to reduce its subsidy of them by a commensurate amount. Officers expressed a view that ideally the rail companies ought be able to promote schemes like Chesterton Station themselves, but that the current fragmented and privatised arrangements didn’t make that feasible. Officers noted that Network Rail, The DfT and many other groups all had to see the project as a good deal for them to enable it to go-ahead.

   Cllr Znajek asked: “Would it be bad if we lost the station?”. This is a surprising stance given his party colleague Julian Huppert MP is seeking to take the credit for it.

   A member of the public reported that he had calculated that the Fen Road level crossing would be closed for up to fifteen minutes at a time once trains were being run to the new station. He said this would result in a lack of access for emergency services and cause traffic to be backed up onto Fen Road causing problems accessing the residential side streets.

   Officers noted there were worse cases in the county, saying the A142 in Ely will end up blocked for 52 minutes in an hour; though there alternatives are being actively pursued.

   Cllr Ward pointed to the fact if a bridge was built then the value of the land in the area would increase. He suggested that the benefits to the community could come via development taxation. He he had heard there were developers keen on building London commuter homes on the land either side of Fen Road, and added “if they can get rid of the current occupants” apparently in a reference to the travellers site. Cllr Ward reported that South Cambridgeshire District Council were not keen on these proposals.

   My view is building a road to an area to enable development is exactly what development taxes ought be used for. They should be used to enable development in places where otherwise it would have to be refused, in this case due to the inappropriate existing access via Fen Road. I think the tax is justified in this kind of case where the link to the development is direct, I don’t think it is defensible to do what the councils are currently doing – levying the taxes without any idea of what they will spend them on; treating the revenues as free money and not considering the impact on house prices and those who cannot afford a suitable place to live.

   The possibility of an underpass rather than a bridge was mentioned. Mr Bond noted the area was a flood plain and raised the risk of an area served by an underpass getting cut off following a flood.

   Cllr Ward and Mr Bond both spoke in favour investigating the option of moving the existing level crossing north of the proposed station. A modern, safer, flatter, crossing could be constructed and in this location the crossing would be open for a greater period of time (it would have to close five times fewer per hour).

   Cllr Ward noted that Network Rail was primarily a property development company and its major interests were in relation to that and not other factors.

   The potential need for parking restrictions on Fen Road and the streets off it were discussed. Ex Cllr Blair said restrictions would not be popular with the local population. County officers said there would need to be consultation on parking restrictions and noted they expected lots of comments on this during the public consultations.

   Cllr Nimmo-Smith said that Rob Fairchild, the project manager at Network Rail responsible for the new station project, would be attending the upcoming North Area committee on the 22nd of March 2012 to talk about the Chesterton Station.

   Planning

   Despite not clearly fitting into the agenda set out by Cllr Nimmo-Smith Cambridge City Council’s head of planning, Patsy Dell, addressed the meeting. She spoke about the upcoming reviews of the local plans for Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire, she claimed the authorities were working together but reported they were holding separate public consultations running to very different timescales.

   Ex councillor Clair Blair described North East Cambridge as an “unplanned area”, she said that the level of detail being discussed, things like roads, came at the level of an area master plan and said that the local plan was a higher level and this more detailed approach was needed. Blair said all other fringes of the city had these more detailed plans. The head of planning, Patsy Dell, said Blair was correct but didn’t explain how the deficiency she agreed was present would be corrected.

   Improvements to Fen Road

   County Council officer Brian Stinton addressed the meeting. He started by saying speed humps would always result in noise as a result of HGVs using the road (I don’t know why, that’s just a report!). He went on to say that there were 140 sites in Cambridgeshire where there have been five or more serious injury accidents over the last five years and Fen Road wasn’t one of them due to its length.

   I thought this an intriguing statement, and wondered if the criteria for identifying problem areas was changed, to cope with issues which are not concentrated in a very small area such as a junction, then different locations might be identified as priorities.

   Stinton was unimpressive and waffled.

   A member of the public asked if there ought be two sets of plans for the Chesterton end of Fen Road, one for if it remained in its current state and one for if the level crossing was no longer present and if it became a dead end. She noted it would be silly to spend hundreds of thousands on works rendered unnecessary by a new access. Stinton accepted this was a good idea.

   A member of the public proposed removing the terrible road cushions on the grounds they don’t do anything to reduce speeds (they are too far apart) and cause a hazard as drivers swerve to avoid them. This appeared to have universal approval from those present as an idea, though Ex Cllr Blair noted they had been installed at the request of an unelected planning inspector whose permission might have to be sought to remove them!

   A member of the public suggested adding more parking bays (permitting parking in more areas) to slow traffic. Cllr Ward noted that using parked cars in this manner was in his view successful on Histon Road.

   Cycle Bridge

   Cllr Manning reported he had met with County Council officers to discuss a £1.5m project to reduce conflict between pedestrians and cyclists on the Green Dragon bridge.

   Ex Cllr Blair questioned if he really meant the Green Dragon bridge and Manning said he did, he had met officers on the bridge, to discuss it.

   Blair said there was a plan by County Council officer “Phillip Cracks” to spend £1.5 million of the North Area Corridor transport funding on a new cycle bridge cantilevered off the existing railway bridge. (This would form a key connection on the proposed Chisholm trail cycle route). The meeting was told this proposal would be put before the North Area Committee in May 2012. Blair offered to circulate a document she had obtained describing this proposal.

   My view is that a bridge over the railway from the new station area to connect with this proposed new cycle and pedestrian bridge over the river, with decent cycle provision on each is clearly needed, and the two ought be planned together. Cllr Ward disagreed saying they were entirely separate projects and the new bridge over the river (which would connect with Fen Road) was out of the scope of matters the Fen Road steering group would consider. I thought this determined insistence on creating a piecemeal uncoordinated set of projects madness.

   There was no clarity on if this project was to be funded from the same pot as the bridge and other improvements. It was suggested that European cycling money might be involved. Cllr Ward, who was by this point in the chair, noted that no-one present knew the answers to the questions being raised, and what proposals there were for spending various pots of money which needed to be prioritised. He asked officers to obtain clarification prior to the next meeting to be held in about a month’s time.

   Reply

2. Richard – I think you may have misunderstood how this meeting was arranged as well as the next North Area.

   The next North area meeting topic (on Thursday) was set in December’s North Area meeting, and was nothing to do with January’s northa area meeting.

   The meeting tonight was always going to be a steering group for people to look at taking the points forward and was something I suggested to the Chair.

   I’m confused what you mean by “appears to be open to all” – I assumed you had moved into East Chesterton, or have you not?

   Reply

3. The next North area meeting topic (on Thursday) was set in December’s North Area meeting, and was nothing to do with January’s northa area meeting.

   I’ve not suggested otherwise. The news reported above is that Mr Fairchild from Network Rail is to attend.

   The meeting tonight was always going to be a steering group for people to look at taking the points forward and was something I suggested to the Chair.

   Cllr Bates called for the extra public meeting. The list of invitees was based on those who signed up to be told of the date of the meeting with Cllr Bates. One of the key things I expected was to hear from Cllr Bates.

   I’m confused what you mean by “appears to be open to all” – I assumed you had moved into East Chesterton, or have you not?

   I wrote: “is open to all”; this one was a public meeting albeit poorly publicised. Cllr Nimmo-Smith extended the invitation to everyone.
   I have not moved to East Chesterton.
   Many of those who use the area don’t live in it. I’ve spent a lot of time in East Chesterton while I’ve been living in Cambridge.

   Reply

4. You must have been writing your comment “1” as I wrote “2”. Your post makes sense now.

   Some corrections/comments to your write up of this evening:

   1) “The area is being tackled in a piecemeal manner with little to no-coordination between those working on the station, those working on small improvements to the Fen Road environment, those working on the area’s local plans, and others including Network Rail and those responsible for the guided bus. There is need for leadership, direction and coordination but it isn’t present. ”

   I think this is unfair – this is the point of this steering group, which has indetified the potential problem above but IS dealing with it.

   2) The officer you mention is Jeremy Smith

   3) “Surprisingly Cllr Manning suggested a new bridge was not the only option he was interested in; he also proposed a new junction for the A14 with a new road serving the Fen Road area. ”

   Why is this “surprising”? – I was merely repeating the point I made in my original paper that we should consider all options to get an alternative access road out of Fen Road.

   4) “Cllr Nimmo-Smith said that Rob Fairchild, the project manager at Network Rail responsible for the new station project, would be attending the upcoming North Area committee on the 22nd of March 2012 to talk about the Chesterton Station. ”

   No – I said this, as it was me that contacted Rob Fairchild.

   5) “The potential need for parking restrictions on Fen Road and the streets off it were discussed. ”

   Again, something I raised as it has been raised with me by residents and is a very real fear.

   6) I don’t know why you are surprised that I think contacting a minister is worth it. I did this directly in response to Jeremy Smith’s comment that it was Theresa Viller who wouldn’t sanction more money. If this is true she’s the obvious person to approach.

   I also wish that you’d mentioned my central point that we need to focus on pressing all sides on the practical situation and getting officers to report back to this steering group specific options that were considered. This, rather than focussing all efforts on sometimes high-level policies that don’t have a direct local effect, and are more appropriately dealt with elsewere.

   Reply

5. ” The meeting tonight was always going to be a steering group for people to look at taking the points forward and was something I suggested to the Chair.”
   “”
   Cllr Bates called for the extra public meeting. The list of invitees was based on those who signed up to be told of the date of the meeting with Cllr Bates. “”

   You’ve conflated two things here: Cllr Bates said he’d “attend public meetings” and didn’t call for them.

   The suggestion from the steering group came from my suggestion to Cllr Nimmo-Smith.

   Reply

6. Cllr Bates said he’d “attend public meetings”

   Well where was he then!

   (He certainly did call for a further public meeting when he attended the January event; I clearly remember the heckles and astonishment from the room – as reported in the original article above).

   Reply

7. Richard,

   I just wanted to make a small polite request.

   You say “Stinton was unimpressive and waffled”.

   I think it would be considerate if in future you directed remarks like this to elected politicians rather than council staff. Assuming the purpose of your blog is to hold politicians to account, rather than to just insult members of the public.

   Reply

8. I fully subscribe to the idea that councillors are responsible for what councils do, not their officers.

   I do regularly though comment on the quality of reports and advice which officers give. I should probably expand and explain that the meeting looked to Stinton for comment on what could be done to improve the road environment. He didn’t volunteer any options and wasn’t able to provide any comment or advice in relation to the various ideas raised including adding more parking, introducing pinch points and my favorite – narrowing the roadway and installing a two way cycleway by the Penny Ferry pub linking Water Street to the hailing-way.

   Reply

9. Bates came to the January meeting because I invited him. I agree his response was bizarre, but he didn’t call for another meeting, he just said he’d attend one.

   I’m not defending him by the way, just correcting your memory of events.

   The steering group was suggested by me to the chair as a way of taking forward the ideas at the January meeting, without bogging down every subsequent North Area meeting with a long discussion about Fen Road.

   North Area, should of course be kept informed of progress by the steering group.

   On the Brian point he took a number of actions and I expect he will give a report back to the next steering group meeting. He did make some suggestions and commented that the cost would be around the region of £150k-£300k for a major scheme but much cheaper for the option of just removing the speed cushions outside the Penny ferry.

   I do like your idea, which I’ve also considered in a slightly different form (narrowing the road so much that road traffic is split from cycle/pedestrian) re: the join between the outside of Penny Ferry and the Halingway.

   Reply

10. I concur with Cllr Manning suggestion of linking the north end of Fen Road with A14. Diverting traffic to the already congested Milton Road could result deterioration of the precious and precarious environment.

    The criteria for road/junction improvement is an anacranistic. It is regrettable that DfT and local authorities support quick death against slow death! ie the pollution related illnesses and the resulting death is almost twice as many as death related to road accident! Please ask me for further explanations.
    Regarding, pedestrian bridge alongside the existing railway bridge, I suggested to the City planning officer when the pedestrian bridge over the ditch located few meters east of the railway bridge over the river. The planning officers response there were many local objection.

    I am of the opinion for pedestrian bridge broadly similar to the one in Braith bite lock?

    Reply

11. @leilaluheshi @RTaylorUK hi, are you aware of the fen Russ steering group to discuss the £150,000 secured to.mitigate problem?

    — IanManning (@IanGManning) January 15, 2014

    @SplutterAndRoll @RTaylorUK that is one option – hope to be able to announce date of next steering group soon. are you interested ?

    — IanManning (@IanGManning) January 16, 2014

    Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.