Ely Southern Bypass opened

I was delighted to be part of the official party that opened the £49m Ely Southern Bypass, passing over the River Great Ouse and two railway lines in Ely, on 31 October 2018. This is an incredibly important and aesthetically pleasing piece of infrastructure, vital to alleviate the misery felt by commuters and businesses in the area.

Ely Southern Bypass is a 1.7km single carriageway with a viaduct crossing the Great Ouse and a bridge over two railway lines. It will connect the A142 at Angel Drove to Stuntney Causeway.

The bypass, which started in January 2017, has been built across a flood plain and poor Fenland soils, and is now open to traffic. It will boost the economy and transport links for local people and reduce journey times for drivers by up to 56%.

In total, around 2,092 tonnes of steel have been used, 17,000 tonnes of asphalt laid and approx. 180,000m3 of clay, over half of which was sourced from a local farm in Stuntney.

This project has been funded by Cambridgeshire County Council (£21m), East Cambridgeshire District Council (£1m), Network Rail (£5m) and the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority (£22m Growth Deal including £16m from DfT).

Exonerated and Excited

The Public Accounts Committee has finalised it’s report into the Greater Peterborough Greater Cambridge Local Enterprise Partnership (GCGP LEP). Now that it is being wound up and I have been able to step aside as Director I can expand on just how difficult but necessary a journey starting anew was. As I stated in earlier reports I had serious concerns about the governance and decision making at the GCGP LEP. However as a Director I was legally limited in my approach to publicly rectifying those and concentrated on achieving changes at board level. In what can only be described as a damning indictment by the Public Accounts committee, with comments such as “there was no misuse of public funds in this instance; however, this is due more to luck than effective oversight”. I am glad this debacle has come to an end and the Mayor and combined authority are able to put the future input of the Business community onto a more stable and respected basis.

In the report specific concerns I personally raised were quoted as part of the evidence used to support their findings.   “some decisions being made by the LEP are done so without adequate supporting documentation”, “no forward plan for future agenda items”, “board papers and minutes not properly placed on the website”, “no verbal or written report from the Chief Executive on the National Assurance Framework” and a “rushed” approach to agreeing the local assurance.

Considering the finding of the committee regarding the chairman, “We also put on record our displeasure at the conduct of the former Chair of GCGP LEP” I feel completely exonerated in my motion of no confidence in him. I hope that those that voted against my proposal have now come to realise just how far adrift from acceptable practise the GCGP LEP was. The damage to this area is recoverable but we have lost a year, according to the committee report this “meant the area missed out on over £37 million pounds of investment in 2017”.

I wish to thank Stephen Barclay MP who was able to drive forward, publicly bring focus on and bring pressure to the failings of the LEP. My chief executive Gillian Beasley, who supported me throughout and provided the evidence to Government and the Public Accounts committee, and the Mayor James Palmer and his chief executive Martin Whiteley in stepping in with forward looking proposals to bring this to an end and start with a clean sheet.

Looking at the past and the report, there were lessons for all of us to learn including the Government in its direction on governance. As to the future, the Combined authority and the Mayor have made a great start by unlocking over £40 million pounds to be invested in the GCGP LEP area. I look forward to and I am excited by the prospect of the new business board and the economic commission inputting into our work at the Combined authority. A strong voice for business with a solid evidence base is vital to help local and central Government spend public funds to drive forward enhanced economic growth in this area.

Leave Shire Hall and save Taxpayers £45million !

BRINGING SERVICES CLOSER TO COMMUNITIES BY MOVING OUT OF SHIRE HALL

I am delighted that my motion to come out of Shire Hall is apparently coming to fruition. In a report going to Council this Tuesday it describes how Cambridgeshire taxpayers will be better served by moving services out of the current Shire Hall site and bringing them closer to local communities, as well as being £45+ million better off, based on the assumptions on savings and returns over a 30-year period. This vindicates the position taken by the Conservative group in backing my motion in bringing it forward for consideration.

After nearly 1,000 years in which the county has been governed from Castle Hill, a County Council study has recommended leaving its expensive site in central Cambridge and moving to a new model in which most services will be provided in local offices, including sharing buildings with other organisations and providing more services through public libraries.

Under the proposed “hub and spoke” arrangement, most of the officers currently based in the Shire Hall site will move to locations in Cambridgeshire towns where they are closer to the people who use their services. A new, fit-for-purpose civic hub for core staff and councillors, will be built on a brownfield site that is more centrally located in the county.

The old Shire Hall site will be leased or sold for commercial uses. The heritage of the existing site, which began its civic role when William the Conqueror built a castle there, will be specially protected and made more accessible to tourists visiting the city. Overall, by realising the value of the central Cambridge site and using existing buildings more efficiently, taxpayers are expected to save £45 million over the next three decades even after the costs of a new civic building are taken into account.

The provisional decision to move was taken in December by the County Council’s Commercial and Investments Committee. Commercial negotiations are ongoing with the owners of two potential sites for the new hub. A final decision about its location will be considered at the Commercial and Investment committee in the next couple of months. It is hoped that all the new arrangements will be fully operational by the end of 2020.

Commenting on the historic decision, Cllr Josh Schumann, Chairman of the Commercial and Investment Committee said: “As Cambridgeshire is growing and thriving the time has come to recognise those changes in the way we run the County Council. It’s simply not justifiable to waste taxpayers’ money by keeping lots of services in a HQ in a very valuable central Cambridge site. By moving we will bring services closer to the people we serve, help Cambridge’s economy by making more of the tourist potential of the historic Castle Hill area and save taxpayers money. As a council we are committed to delivering better value for money and modernising ourselves: leaving the old Shire Hall shows just how serious we are about that mission. Although any final decisions will be taken when all the necessary information is available I am excited to see this project progressing and welcome the next stages which bring us closer to realising our aims and objectives around being commercial and accessible County Council”.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gaul Road Junction No Further Delays !

I am concerned at the latest application from Cannon Kirk; to do with drainage of the site on Gaul Road. It appears innocent enough, sort out drainage so that the remaining houses can be built. However in their “Planning statement” the commitment to sort out the road and the junction with the bypass is listed as jobs 13th and 14th after 12 other pieces of work connected to the drainage issue. I cannot believe that those 12 jobs are seriously affected by completing the works that are required now. I have therefore put in an objection (See below) and will do my utmost to move this forward.

Dear Sirs

I wish to object on the grounds of phasing. Under the document “Planning Statement” the phasing of works identifies at 13th and 14th in a long list.

13. Construct the proposed Junction on the A141 (approved under application ref: F/YR16/0275/F)
14. Construct Gaul Road widening (approved under application ref: F/YR16/0275/F)

Pushing the time for delivery back further and introducing 12 new reasons if accepted for further delay. The delivery of this junction improvement is clearly behind schedule. There have been a plethora of accidents at this junction including the loss of a life since it was first anticipated Cannon Kirk would deliver the safety improvements required. Cannon Kirk have steadfastly used the planning system to delay and avoid the completion of this junction at every opportunity. There is no reason that these works should be delayed further for the delivery of flooding infrastructure on nearby fields. If the phasing for the delivery of the road improvements and signalised junction are moved to one and two in the phasing, or left out of this application and dealt with immediately as planned I will remove my objection. I have ticked policy/precedent and local services although there is not a clearly identifiable partner for the following reasons.

Policy – This seeks to delay earlier identified agreements with policy in earlier approvals.

Precedent- Allowing this sets a clear precedent that developers can continue to dictate to the district how they wish to operate rather than the other way around.

Local services- The local road infrastructure affected by the existing development has not yet been delivered.

Should this planning approval be granted I believe Cannon Kirk would be able to refer to it to contest any further attempts to speed up delivery of the junction improvements. For example, “We have not completed 1 to 12 yet, which FDC accepted as necessary before delivering improvements” also “We cannot continue 1 to 12 due to weather and ground conditions being unfavourable which has a knock-on impact on the timing of the delivery of junction improvements, as agreed by FDC when they approved this application”.

If un-amended as suggested I will not accept approval by officers and will insist on this being referred to committee.

Regards Councillor Steve Count