My question on what assessment the GCP had made of Rail Future’s consultant’s report on Rail Haverhill was declined by the Board.
I wanted to see whether the GCP had considered the recent consultants’ report commissioned by the Rail Future Campaign
I asked:
“What assessment has the GCP made of the Rail Future-commissioned report “A big role for Haverhill Rail” published in April 2024 (See https://www.railfuture.org.uk/East-Anglia-Haverhill) by Jonathan Roberts Consulting.
This was in anticipation of a discussion about Cambridge South East Transport – which is one of the items in the GCP Board Papers of 02 Oct 2024 at item 10.
“Unfortunately, your question isn’t related to any of the agenda items being discussed, so the Chair has decided it won’t be asked.”
GCP to me 27 Sept 2024
While I strongly contest their judgement that rail alternatives to their project for a short roadway with signs indicating for buses only between Addenbrooke’s and the A11, the GCP as an institution has demonstrated that they are not prepared to listen anymore, and are going to plough ahead with as much as they can before the clock strikes midnight – or somewhere in 2030, at which point, ‘time’ vanquishes the partnership.
Ministers must commission an in-depth, independent evaluation of the Greater Cambridge Partnership
Because £500million that was budgeted is not a small amount of money, and neither is the 15 year time period a short time frame. Furthermore, such expenditure on such a one-off programme justifies the expenditure covering a wide range of subjects. During my civil service days I worked at the back end of the New Deal for Communities Programme. That had a significant research and evaluation component run by Sheffield Hallam University – with the findings still relevant to today. They should have been read by Michael Gove and team when they came up with their ‘Levelling Up’ programme.
The expenditure for such a research and evaluation programme won’t be nearly as extensive – the NDC evaluation had to cover 39 different communities across England along with the work of Whitehall and of the regional government offices. Evaluating the GCP only covers one city. One of the major points of research is how structures and institutions deal with party political instability. Only when the GCP was established, there was no Combined Authority. When the first mayor (James Palmer for the Conservatives) was elected, he was highly critical of county transport officers despite his party having regained full control of the council from minority leadership with minor party backing. Then followed the electoral changes that resulted in changes of party political control in two of the three member councils, followed by a change of mayor and party political leadership in the Combined Authority – followed finally by the recent general election.
With the GCP winding up in the medium term, Cambridgeshire’s politicians need to start planning *now* for what the post-2030 transport improvements need to be
And if the planned housing expansion already announced is anything to go by, then any transport infrastructure will need to be of a much higher standard (and involve far better co-operation at design stage with communities) than what is being proposed by the GCP and its busways.
Food for thought?
If you are interested in the longer term future of Cambridge, and on what happens at the local democracy meetings where decisions are made, feel free to:
- Follow me on BSky <- A critical mass of public policy people seem to have moved here
- Like my Facebook page
- Consider a small donation to help fund my continued research and reporting on local democracy in and around Cambridge.
The Cambridge Town Owl 