Agenda, decisions and minutes

To appoint a Chairman for the Joint Assembly

Councillor Tim Bick was APPOINTED as Chairman of the Greater Cambridge City Deal Joint Assembly.

Councillor Tim Bick was APPOINTED as Chairman of the Greater Cambridge City Deal Joint Assembly.

To appoint a Vice-Chairman for the Joint Assembly

Councillor Tim Wotherspoon was APPOINTED as Vice-Chairman of the Greater Cambridge City Deal Joint Assembly.

Councillor Tim Wotherspoon was APPOINTED as Vice-Chairman of the Greater Cambridge City Deal Joint Assembly.

To receive any apologies for absence

An apology for absence was received from Claire Ruskin (Cambridge Network).

To receive any declarations of interest from Members of the Joint Assembly in respect of any items on this agenda

No declarations of interest were made at this stage of proceedings.

To receive any questions from members of the public.  The standard protocol to be observed by public speakers is attached

Questions were asked and answered as follows:

Question by Jim Chisholm

Mr Chisholm set out the health benefits of walking and cycling and stated that they had not been included as part of the report or appendices published with the agenda for this meeting in respect of the prioritised infrastructure investment programme.  He therefore asked:

“Why were these benefits from such active travel not included in the assessment?”

Graham Hughes, Cambridgeshire County Council’s Executive Director of Economy, Transport and Environment, agreed that the health benefits of activities such as walking and cycling were well recognised and important.  He explained, however, that the purpose of the appraisal for the prioritised infrastructure investment programme was to focus on the economic dimension of the schemes as the City Deal was primarily about growing the local economy.  He emphasised that this approach in no way took away from those schemes any of the health benefits Mr Chisholm had referred to.

Question by Jim Chisholm

Mr Chisholm referred to the Chisholm Trail appearing high on the list of prioritised schemes.  Reflecting on the original Chisholm Trail, which took cattle to slaughter in Chicago, he understood that it was proposed for a different name to be used when submitting applications for funding.  Mr Chisholm therefore asked:

“Is there an agreement of the proposed formal name to be used, even if it fails to roll off the tongue in the same way as ‘Chisholm Trail’?”

Mr Hughes answered the question and recognised that there was a need to think of a more strategic sounding name for the scheme, especially since it involved bidding for money from the Government.  The revised name would need to reflect the characteristics of the scheme as well as making it clear what the scheme was seeking to deliver.

Question by Julian Huppert MP 

Julian Huppert, Member of Parliament for Cambridge, welcomed the City Deal as a huge opportunity but was particularly interested to know how the Joint Assembly and Executive Board would make sure it protected the character of Cambridge as well as support the sense of community that made Cambridge what it was.

He made specific reference to a scheme at Milton Road that had been included in the prioritised infrastructure investment programme and highlighted some sensitivities regarding historical proposals to cut down trees for the introduction of a dual-carriageway. Julian Huppert MP asked what assurances could be given for any proposals put forward to ensure that the tree-lined boulevard aspect of Milton Road would be kept in place.  He was also keen to ensure that any proposals did not sever communities, acknowledging how important it was to retain community interaction.

Mr Hughes responded by saying that the character of the area would be recognised and taken into account in the development of any proposals relating to the prioritised infrastructure schemes .  No proposals had currently been developed, but it was the intention, subject to the views of the Assembly and Executive Board, to take forward a process in relation to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

To consider any petitions that have been received

No petitions had been received.

To consider the attached report

The Joint Assembly RECOMMENDED the prioritised infrastructure investment programme to the Executive Board, as set out in table 1 and explained in paragraphs 50-52 of the report, subject to the following amendments:

(a)          The removal of the Bourn Airfield / Cambourne busway scheme (scheme number 11) from the tranche 1 priority programme as a priority scheme, assuming that capital expenditure for delivery of this scheme does not occur in the first five years of the City Deal programme but that the technical evaluation work can still be undertaken on the full corridor.

(b)          The removal of the heading ‘reserve schemes’ so that the table includes all schemes and does not refer to any as reserve schemes.

(c)          The estimated cost of the Foxton level crossing and interchange scheme (scheme number 22) being amended from £14 million to £0, to reflect that this will be funded by an external source and not from City Deal funding.

(d)          The amendment of the title of the A1307 bus priority / A1307 additional Park & Ride scheme (scheme number 14) to read “A1307 corridor to include bus priority / A1307 additional Park & Ride”.

Consideration was given to a report which provided the Joint Assembly with an opportunity to consider proposals for the transport infrastructure investment programme for delivery from 2015/16 to 2019/20 as part of the Greater Cambridge City Deal.

Graham Hughes, Cambridgeshire County Council’s Executive Director of Economy, Transport and Environment, firstly delivered a presentation on the concept of the Greater Cambridge City Deal and the infrastructure investment programme.  He highlighted that the Greater Cambridge area was a truly internationally competitive city and region, that it had unique characteristics known commonly as the ‘Cambridge Phenomenon’ and that it had a global scale concentration of high-tech industries but  that future growth was threatened by congestion and housing. 

The vision of the City Deal was noted as being to realise the economic potential of the area, to unleash the next wave of the ‘Cambridge Phenomenon’, to improve connectivity and enhance reliability of journeys.

The infrastructure investment programme had been drawn from Local Plans and the Transport Strategy and City Deal funding would be delivered in three tranches over 15 to 20 years.  In terms of the first five years of investment, the focus would be on maximising network benefits, maximising economic benefits and deliverability.  Key principles of the investment were noted as being:

·         a major axis of movement, north to south in the city;

·         a major axis for early housing growth, particularly along the A428 corridor;

·         smaller schemes to deliver wider benefits.

Members of the Assembly were invited to make any general comments at this stage of proceedings prior to consideration of individual schemes within the infrastructure investment programme.  The following points were noted:

·         flexibility and regular reviewing had to be built into this process so that individual projects not delivering as anticipated could be changed or stopped altogether if necessary and replaced with new projects;

·         the city centre was in danger of being overwhelmed, with it being very difficult to get into the city by any means whether that be via private car or public transport;

·         the city and its surrounding areas needed to be looked at in conjunction with the schemes in the infrastructure investment programme to ensure that people could move around the city, but that as much traffic as possible was kept out of the city centre itself;

·         there needed to be assurances that the development of schemes did not move problems or create problems elsewhere;

·         in terms of the Bio-Medical Campus, 10,500 additional jobs were about to be created that had not been included in the weighting set out in the report.  It was vital that these additional jobs in that area were reflected;

·         the triggers for the next wave of funding were yet to be agreed with Government, yet the Assembly and Board were being asked to consider priority schemes at this moment in time.

Mr Hughes agreed that flexibility was crucial, however, there was a need to commence with delivering schemes.  He expected there to be a number of instances where schemes would be re-considered and reviewed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

To consider the attached report

The Joint Assembly RECOMMENDED to the Executive Board that:

(a)        The pooled resources of the three local authorities be used to fund those specific items set out in section 6 of the report for 2015/16.

(b)        A more detailed budget for 2015/16 be considered by the Joint Assembly at its next meeting.

(c)        The three local authorities be requested to make initial budgetary provisions within their respective medium term financial strategies in line with the contents of the report.

(d)        The Chief Finance Officer of the County Council be given delegated responsibility to incur any essential expenditure pending the agreement of a detailed budget appertaining to the functions contained within the report, subject to a cap of £150,000.

(e)        The Executive Board is asked to consider additional opportunities for the use of pooled resources at a future meeting.

The Joint Assembly considered a report which sought agreement, in principle, to the pooling of local authority resources in order to provide the necessary resources to support the delivery of the programme that could not be capitalised through individual projects.

Chris Malyon, Cambridgeshire County Council’s Chief Finance Officer, presented the report and referred Assembly Members to the table in the report which set out the current projections of receipts that would derive from New Homes Bonus funding from the three partner Councils and could be made available for pooling purposes.  It was emphasised that the allocation of these sums would be subject to the ratification of the respective Councils during their forthcoming budget deliberations and approvals.

At this stage, the following costs had been identified as non-project relating activity that would require funding to ensure the successful delivery of the City Deal programme:

·         central coordination;

·         strategic communications;

·         economic assessments/triggers.

It was reported that the detailed resource requirements for the above functions had not been fully evaluated, but a detailed set of budget proposals would be developed and set out in a future report to the Joint Assembly and Executive Board.  An initial budget would be available for reporting to the next meeting of the Assembly.

Other non-project costs that were already being, and would continue to be, absorbed by the three partner Councils were noted as follows:

·         democratic governance;

·         legal and audit services;

·         financial services;

·         programme leadership.

The Joint Assembly unanimously agreed that there should be a limit or cap on any essential non-project relating expenditure incurred, and recommended a cap of £150,000.

The Joint Assembly RECOMMENDED to the Executive Board that:

(a)        The pooled resources of the three local authorities be used to fund those specific items set out in section 6 of the report for 2015/16.

(b)        A more detailed budget for 2015/16 be considered by the Joint Assembly at its next meeting.

(c)        The three local authorities be requested to make initial budgetary provisions within their respective medium term financial strategies in line with the contents of the report.

(d)        The Chief Finance Officer of the County Council be given delegated responsibility to incur any essential expenditure pending the agreement of a detailed budget appertaining to the functions contained within the report, subject to a cap of £150,000.

(e)        The Executive Board is asked to consider additional opportunities for the use of pooled resources at a future meeting.

To receive a presentation by Alex Colyer, South Cambridgeshire District Council’s Executive Director (Corporate Services)

Alex Colyer, South Cambridgeshire District Council’s Executive Director (Corporate Services), provided the Joint Assembly with a presentation on affordable housing delivery.

It was noted that access to housing, especially affordable housing, was a barrier to economic growth and there was an implicit target to deliver up to 13,000 extra homes in the period to 2031.  Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council were also planning to provide up to 4,000 new council houses by 2045.  Both Councils were keen to deliver more, however, it was not possible for the Councils to raise new borrowing to finance this.  As part of City Deal negotiations the Government was asked to remove the debt cap, however, the Government had a clear priority to reduce national debt and since all local authority borrowing counted as national debt, the cap had remained in place. 

In terms of the offer within the City Deal, partners had committed to provide an additional 1,000 affordable units on rural exception sites which were in addition to the numbers included in the Local Plans.  These would be built on windfall sites, predominantly or wholly within South Cambridgeshire. 

The following new vehicles for local solutions to housing delivery were noted:

·         Property management, consisting of:

-       a limited company structure;

-       investment in and management of stock directly;

-       acquisition of sites for development;

-       the provision of loan and equity finance from partners;

-       the transferring of land holdings in exchange for equity by partners;

-       the charging of rent to cover operational and financing costs.

·         A strategic housing delivery vehicle, which would:

-       identify specific sites;

-       appraise schemes;

-       consult with local communities and residents;

-       undertaken design and planning;

-       commission building works;

-       be paid for from a charge per unit.

It was reported that 27 new homes had been delivered to the end of 2013/14, including 20 new apartments for older people, with 69 new homes due to be complete by the end of March 2014/15 on a mix of garage and small in-fill sites including the redevelopment of existing poorest standard housing.  In addition, 83 further homes were due to be completed by the end of 2015.

Sites where housing had already been delivered or was planned for delivery included Linton, Swavesey, Bourn and Foxton.  Assembly Members also noted that the development at Northstowe would include investment in a Joint Venture with the Homes and Community Agency to develop a proportion of affordable housing on-site.

South Cambridgeshire District Council’s housing company, called Ermine Street Housing, had been established and was now operating in the private rental market.  The University had also committed £30 million to in-principle investment in the City Deal Housing Joint Venture.  Exception sites were already being identified by the partner Councils, with the first site confirmed as coming forward at Littlington. 

The Chairman thanked Mr Colyer for the presentation and in view of the lengthy duration of the meeting it was AGREED that debate on this item  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

To discuss the Joint Assembly’s work programme and schedule of future meetings

It was AGREED that items on affordable housing delivery and skills would be included on the agenda for the next meeting of the Joint Assembly.