For the March 2021 meeting of the Council, I have submitted one question on the A10 cycle path , am proposing one motion on bus subsidy cuts and am seconding another motion on councillor allowances and a suggested fund for transport for young people.

Written question: A10 cycle path connecting Harston to Melbourn

The council’s 2012 bid to the Local Sustainable Transport Fund is confined to the council’s ‘Growth Diamond’ in the Alconbury-Huntingdon-Cambridge-Ely area, with much focus on the Guided Busway corridor. The Guided Busway has already seen an unprecedented expenditure of public money, including a continuing £1 million annual draw from the Local Transport Plan budget for a contingency account in relation to the council’s unresolved legal dispute with the contractor.

Cycling infrastructure on the A10 between Harston and Melbourn is dangerous in many places and, and non-existent for several hundred metres on the incline between Melbourn and the Hertfordshire border.  Cyclists depend on this A10 south corridor for commuting to work and college and for travelling between villages for local needs.  What is the council’s strategy for enhancing cycling infrastructure along the A10 south corridor, given that this area falls outside of the council’s ‘Growth Diamond’?

Response from the Cabinet Member for Growth and Planning, Councillor I Bates

The Council’s strategy for increasing cycle use is outlined in the Local Transport Plan, and our aim is to make cycling safer and more attractive to encourage users.

However, investment has to be focused where it will achieve the most in terms of increasing the number of people cycling and where reductions in car use will provide the greatest reductions in congestion and pollution.  People are most likely to take up cycling for relatively short trips in and around built up areas.  New cycling infrastructure has therefore been targeted on the market towns, for example Willow Bridge in St Neots, in Cambridge, and in linking the villages close to Cambridge to the City.  Recent figures show that this investment has been very effective in achieving the Council’s aims with an increase in cycling of 8% across the county in the last year alone.

Whilst the Council is committed to further developing cycle infrastructure, the current economic climate and level of funding we receive means that there are currently no plans for improvements to the section of the A10 noted in this question.  However, should funding become available, it could then be considered.  An alternative would be for the Parish Council to raise the funding for the scheme for which the County Council would then be pleased to assist with delivery.

Motion: halt cuts to bus subsidies

Motion: Use funds set aside for councillor allowance increase to provide free transport for young people

For the February 2012 meeting of the Council, I  submitted the following question:

Question from Councillor S van de Ven to the Cabinet Member for Children and Young People’s Services, Councillor D Brown

“What is the council’s strategy for public transport to rural children’s centre, bearing in mind the anticipated reduction in rural outreach work and the need to reach those people who need children’s centre services most?”

Response from the Cabinet Member for Children and Young People’s Services, Councillor D Brown

The total budget headline figure for Children’s Centres within the Early Intervention Grant is £7,275,206.  From this total children’s centres have to make a £300,000 in 2012-13 saving.  The funding formula developed to distribute the funds for 2012/13 has been developed to ensure the sustainability of the existing portfolio of 40 centres in Cambridgeshire.  Funding has been allocated proportionately using the same formula as is used to distribute funding to Locality teams in Enhanced and Preventative Services, using the Index of Multiple Deprivation as the source of data for demographic profiles.  In addition an allowance has been made in the formula for the significant population growth and increase in the number of children under 5 which have taken place in the last two years, and also the projected population increases for the next two years.

Whilst children’s centres will have to allow for the reduction in funding in their service planning it is considered that all centres remain viable, whilst also having the scope to ensure that services including rural outreach services, are more clearly targeted to need. Services will be specifically targeted to families in the following groups.

• Very young parents
• Children on the Early Support Programme and their parents
• Children under 5, and their parents/carers, with SEN
• Children accessing free nursery places for 2 year olds, and their parents
• Children under 5, and their parents/carers, with a CAF
• Children under 5, and their parents/carers, subject to a child in need or child protection plan
• Looked after children

All children’s centres will additionally provide some universal services including stay and play groups, health services provided by health visitors and midwives, information, guidance and signposting to services.

Each children’s centre in the county will ensure that the services which are provided are suited to the reach area population and are accessible to that population.  Some services will be delivered within the children’s centres, others will continue as now to be offered in outreach facilities, eg community buildings and schools.  An element of protection has been factored in to children’s centres budgets taking the largest cut in funds in order to provide a longer time to make necessary adjustments to services and find solutions which will ensure that services are accessible.

The planned reductions in funding will not necessitate a specific review of transport arrangements, the focus of children’s centres will continue to be to provide local services in venues and locations that are accessible to those that need the support the most.

*****************************************************************************************************

 At the December 2011 meeting of the County Council, I submitted a written question concerning the need for the council to undertake systematic research on residents’ transport needs, and I proposed a motion that the council release to community transport providers a government grant intended for community transport providers.

Written Question: Transport Research

Question from Councillor S van de Ven to the Cabinet Member for Growth and Planning, Councillor I Bates

Cambridgeshire is now in a huge transitional time in terms of the future of public transport provision.  Why has the county council not therefore undertaken systematic and comprehensive research on the transport needs and prospects of its residents, similar to that conducted elsewhere, for example by Hertfordshire County Council (Bus Strategy 2011-31 and Intalink Strategy 2011-2016), and Gloucestershire County Council and Fenland District Council (GIS mapping)?

Response from the Cabinet Member for Growth and Planning, Councillor I Bates

The County Council prides itself on its robust policies and it is therefore wrong to suggest that systematic research to inform its transport policies has not been undertaken.  For example, over a number of years the County Council has undertaken a significant amount of research and study into the accessibility problems that face its residents.  As part of the development of the second Cambridgeshire Local Transport Plan 2006-11 (LTP2), comprehensive GIS mapping of accessibility issues was undertaken for the entire county, looking at a range of services including health care, employment, education and town / retail centres.  This was part of a wider evidence base that informed the accessibility strategy in LTP2.  This mapping assessment was updated to inform the development of the third Cambridgeshire Local Transport Plan 2011-26 (LTP3), and remains relevant today.

It is easy to identify additional study work that could be undertaken out of general interest, but before this is done, it must be clear that this will have a useful purpose that is not duplicating current knowledge, which is the approach we take.  In this context, in the last two years, the County Council has for example, provided targeted accessibility advice to:

• Assess the impact of proposed changes to the locations from which out of hours health care provision is provided, for NHS Cambridgeshire.
• Inform the development and review of Market Town Transport Strategies.
• Provide annual assessments of the accessibility of new development to key services for the District Councils.
• Provide accessibility mapping of access to key services to inform the Cambridgeshire Future Transport programme.
• Inform the NHS Cambridgeshire / County Council Joint Strategic Needs Assessment phase 5 (Prevention of Ill Health in Adults of Working Age).

The experience with LTP2 also showed that whilst the comprehensive evidence base is useful, the real value is added when work is undertaken at a local level to dig down into the issues and problems, and identify local solutions.  So whilst we do have a wide scale evidence base, we are clear that it is the local knowledge that is far more likely to identify deliverable and sustainable solutions than further high level study work.

Motion: Community Transport funding

•  Cabinet unanimously agreed the reallocation of the Local Public Service Agreement funds earmarked for the Care Network’s development of new community car schemes in South Cambridgeshire, reassigning that funding instead to the development of high speed Broadband, and has proposed no replacement funds for this collection of new community transport schemes.

Written Question: cycle training charge:

Question from Councillor S van de Ven to the Cabinet Member for Community Infrastructure, Councillor S Criswell

Cycle training for primary schools has been offered for many years through the County Council’s Safer Cycling programme, in which local volunteers are trained up by the County Safer Cycling Team to deliver training to Year Six pupils.  There has been no cost to schools.  Often the volunteers are school teachers themselves.

During the years of government funding for Cambridge Cycling Town, an additional option of ‘Bikeability’ training has been available for schools in Cambridge and within the six mile radius of Cambridge Cycling Town.  Bikeability is professionally run and involves a higher standard of training.  Now, Bikeability is available to all primary schools in Cambridgeshire, and full funding is available from central government.

At the start of this school year, primary schools have received a letter from the County Council offering two types of cycle training for Year Six pupils – Safer Cycling, and Bikeability, both at a cost of £15 per head.

Schools have said they find the letter confusing and inadequate because: 1) the basis for the charge is unclear 2) the distinctions and advantages of the two types of training are unclear and 3) schools cannot afford the cost of £15 per head and may not take up either option.

Can the Cabinet member explain the charging system and why Bikeability training, fully funded by government, is being offered with a charge payable to County Council?

Response from the Cabinet Member for Community Infrastructure, Councillor

S Criswell

I am pleased to provide further information, which I hope will clarify the County Council’s plans for the future delivery of child cycle training services in Cambridgeshire schools from September 2011.

For over 30 years, the Cambridgeshire County Council has successfully funded and delivered, free of charge, its own cycle training scheme Safer Cycling to the county’s 10/11 years olds.

Approximately 4,000 primary school pupils are trained each year by an army of local volunteer instructors, e.g. parents, school staff, etc.  This is the single, determining factor in the success of Cambridgeshire’s cycle training scheme, compared to other schemes.

Discussions about the County Council’s longer term ability to continue funding the delivery of free child cycle training, have been ongoing, since 2009.  This was due to:

(a)        the longer term budget pressures facing the Council

(b)       the advent of the Bikeability national standards training scheme and the opportunity provided by the Cambridge Cycling Demonstration Town (CDT) project, for the Council to trial free Bikeability training, in the city schools, funded by the Department for Transport (DfT) Bikeability Grant.

This has now been successfully delivered in the CDT area schools, at similar levels of training to that in the Safer Cycling scheme, which has continued in the remainder of the county.

Since 2009, increasing budget pressures have meant that the Council now has to offset some of its operational costs, including those for the provision of cycle training, through income generation.

As outlined in Cambridgeshire County Council’s Integrated Plan 2011 – 2014, child cycle training has to be deliverable at a neutral cost to the Council, within the next couple of years.  We are currently in a transitional period working towards this.  For now, the Road Safety Service has a base budget for staff costs, but this will be phased out, as part of this process.

Despite the funding challenges, the Council remains committed to maintaining access to child cycle training in all Primary schools.  In recognition of the success of both the Bikeability and the Safer Cycling schemes, we are now offering schools the option of participating in either scheme.

The funds required to achieve this will be found from a combination of the introduction of small school training charge, (approximately £150 per school) reduced County Council budget and the DfT Bikeability Grant.  Both training schemes will be charged at the same price, to contribute towards our administration costs.

Training charges for all cycle training courses will be billed directly to the school, as a school activity.  It will then be up to the individual schools to decide how much, if any, of the training charge they might wish/need to pass onto parents/guardians.  Any potential individual pupil hardship issues will obviously be part of the school decision making process, which schools are best placed to make.

Our proposed training charge is at the lower end of the range of charges, currently being levied by other authorities.  Their experience has shown a short term reduction in participation of around 10-20%, following the introduction of charging, but that this recovered within 1-2 years.  We will closely monitor the impact in Cambridgeshire and would hope to manage any negative effects accordingly.

In time, we may well want to move towards ‘in-house’ delivery of ‘Bikeability’, which may allow us to reduce overall costs, in which case we would be able to reconsider the level of the training charge.

The ‘Bikeability’ Grant is protected until 2015 by the current coalition Government.  With no reassurance it will continue beyond then, the Council is working towards a cost effective way to deliver cycle training, should the grant cease.

Our new approach means that schools are now able to choose which training scheme best suits their needs.  We are currently consulting with schools to identify the exact demand for either cycle training scheme next academic year.

I believe our new approach is the most viable way for the Council to sustain affordable child cycle training in the long term.