Agenda, decisions and minutes

Venue: The Meadows Community Centre, 1 St Catharine's Road, Cambridge, CB4 3XJ

Contact: Graham Watts  03450 450 500 Email: democratic.services@scambs.gov.uk

Items
No. Item

1.

Apologies for absence

To receive any apologies for absence.

Minutes:

Apologies for absence were received from Anne Constantine (Cambridge Regional College) and Councillor Tim Wotherspoon (South Cambridgeshire District Council).

 

Councillor Tim Bick, Chairman, reported that he had received a letter from Jane Ramsey of Cambridge University Hospitals giving notice of her resignation from the Joint Assembly due to work commitments.  The Assembly asked the Chairman to write and thank Mrs Ramsey for her valuable contributions.  It was noted that a nomination from the University of Cambridge would be sought to fill this vacant position on the Joint Assembly.

 

Councillor Bick took this opportunity to introduce Tanya Sheridan to the Board, who had this week taken up her role as the City Deal Partnership Director.

2.

Minutes of the previous meeting pdf icon PDF 208 KB

To confirm the minutes of the previous meeting held on 16 September 2015 as a correct record.

Minutes:

The minutes of the previous meeting held on 16 September 2015 were confirmed as a correct record, subject to the word ‘transport’ being replaced with the word ‘traffic’ in resolution (a) of minute number 7.

 

Councillor Tim Bick, Chairman, provided Joint Assembly Members with an update on the outcome of the Assembly’s recommendations following consideration by the Executive Board on 1 October 2015, as follows:

 

·         The Board had welcomed the Assembly’s intention to conduct an investigation into the leading models of traffic management to reduce congestion in the city, calling for evidence from experts and advocates of the different models.  It proposed that this ‘call for evidence’ be undertaken jointly by the Board and Assembly and that the City Deal Director and officers would produce an outline for the arrangement.  The Chairman of the Board had suggested that the chairing and organisation of the sessions would be shared between the Board and Assembly, with all Members of both bodies invited.  A report on the findings would be prepared subsequently by officers and circulated via the Assembly to the Board, leading to wider public consultation; 

·         the Board had agreed that improvements to Junction 11 of the M11 would be investigated further as an urgent standalone project with Highways England, in terms of initially assessing a business case;

·         the legislation requiring changes to facilitate the City Deal moving towards a Combined Authority had been included as part of the Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill.  At the last meeting of the Assembly it was agreed that the Chairman should write to local Members of Parliament to seek their support in progressing consideration of this issue, which the Assembly understood had been postponed by Parliament.  It was agreed, in view of this issue now forming part of the Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill, that the letter would no longer be necessary.

 

 

 

 

3.

Declarations of interest

To receive any declarations of interest by Members of the Joint Assembly.

Minutes:

No declarations of interest were made.

4.

Questions by members of the public pdf icon PDF 38 KB

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

Minutes:

Questions asked, together with any responses from Members of the Joint Assembly or officers, were noted as follows:

 

Question by Heike Sowa

 

Mrs Sowa said that one focus of the City Deal was reducing congestion on the A1307 corridor between Haverhill and Cambridge.  She said that Railfuture had analysed the 2011 census travel to work data which showed that the majority of people heading along this corridor worked in Cambridge and the cluster of Science Parks to the South-East of Cambridge.  Although some road-based improvements were proposed, she felt that it was the reinstatement of the railway which would provide the long-term and high quality permanent solution to the problem.

 

Mrs Sowa claimed that the population of Haverhill was predicted to reach 50,000 in the medium future and the reinstated railway would soon be thriving as it served not just Haverhill but all the main employment centres in Cambridge and South-East Cambridge.  She said that the trackbed of the railway was largely unobstructed, making the re-opening relatively straightforward, and added that there was a large amount of support for the scheme.

 

She acknowledged that this proposal was beyond the individual funding levels provided by tranche one of the City Deal, but was of the opinion that the City Deal could help the scheme happen.  She asked for the City Deal to fund a feasibility study to establish the prospects for rail on this corridor and enable a long-term plan to be developed.

 

Graham Hughes, Executive Director of Economy, Transport and Environment at Cambridgeshire County Council, said that the work requested by Mrs Sowa was already in hand and was one of the aspects of the A1307 study that was scheduled to be submitted to the Executive Board for consideration next year.  Mr Hughes wanted to manage expectations in relation to the outcomes of that report so made the point that a railway line would not be able to penetrate the centre of Haverhill, resulting in catchment limitations.  Whether or not the scheme included a large catchment area would be a key part of determining the viability of including railway provision.  This issue would be investigated as part of the study by the consultants, but officers were of the opinion at this stage that railway provision in this area did not immediately have the makings of a viable scheme. 

 

Councillor Tim Bick, Chairman, reiterated the point that the study requested as part of the question was already taking place, the outcomes of which would be reported to the Joint Assembly and Executive Board in the New Year.

 

Question by Matthew Danish

 

Mr Danish spoke as a resident of Histon Road and cycled along the road into Cambridge everyday.  He saw many other people cycling and his main concern was seeing them having to manoeuvre around parked cars that obstructed the road at frequent intervals, often in restricted areas.  He said that the threats not only came from the moving traffic but also from the possibility of a car door being flung  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

5.

Petitions

To consider any petitions received since the last meeting.

Minutes:

No petitions had been received.

6.

REPORTS SCHEDULED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE GREATER CAMBRIDGE CITY DEAL EXECUTIVE BOARD

6a

Histon Road bus priority walking and cycling measures: approval to consult pdf icon PDF 988 KB

To consider the attached report by Graham Hughes, Executive Director (Cambridgeshire County Council).

Decision:

The Joint Assembly RECOMMENDED that the Executive Board:

 

(a)        Notes the findings from the initial assessment and technical study.

 

(b)        Approves public consultation on the illustrative measures as set out in the report and as shown on the accompanying plans, and encourages all other ideas to be properly considered.

 

(c)        Agrees to receive a report on consultation in late spring of 2016 on a preferred set of measures.

 

 

Minutes:

Councillor Tim Bick, Chairman, agreed to facilitate the consideration of this item and the following item at minute number 6(b) in respect of Milton Road as one debate. 

 

Two reports were considered which set out a range of measures that had emerged from an initial technical study of Histon Road and Milton Road.  The reports explained the background to the development work in each case and sought approval to carry out a public consultation on these measures to inform the development of preferred proposals.

 

Stuart Walmsley, Head of Major Infrastructure Development at Cambridgeshire County Council, presented the two reports and reminded Members of the Assembly that these were well defined projects that had been within the County Council’s long term Transport Strategy for some time.  It was well known that the two routes suffered from congestion and that bus times along the routes were unreliable, with delays very frequent at bus stops and junctions.  City Deal schemes for the two routes provided an opportunity to look at them in a broader sense and consider a radical approach.  The width and geometry of the two roads changed quite dramatically, but officers were confident that they could develop options to provide the best possible mixture of solutions to support all modes of transport.

 

Mr Walmsley emphasised that these schemes would seek to include innovative and real-time ‘smart’ infrastructure and that there would be opportunities to incorporate this along the entire length of both routes.  He noted that there were issues from a public realm perspective, in terms of trees, grass verges and the environmental impact, all of which would be properly considered as part of the process moving forward.  The purpose of this initial consultation for both schemes was to understand what was achievable and acceptable along those corridors.  Subject to approval, consultation documentation was scheduled to be published in December 2015, with exhibitions to be held in January 2016.

 

Claire Ruskin proposed an amendment to recommendation (b) of both reports by adding the words ‘and encourages all other ideas to be properly considered’ at the end of the sentence to ensure that it was clear that all ideas would be given due consideration.  The Joint Assembly unanimously supported this proposal.

 

In answer to a question as to whether there was any danger of options for these schemes being unaffordable, it was noted that all options would be properly costed for delivery with the funding available.  Mr Walmsley highlighted that costs in relation to these two schemes would be high as a result of the anticipated complexities and issues that arose from working in urban areas, together with the technology and signals intended to be put in place.  Provision would be made in the costings of each option for contingencies and risk mitigation.

 

Responding to questions regarding the consultants appointed to lead these projects, Mr Walmsley reported that they had been appointed through a tendering process, with quality and cost being key specifications.  The chosen consultants had experience of working on similar  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6a

6b

Milton Road bus priority, walking and cycling measures: approval to consult pdf icon PDF 1 MB

To consider the attached report by Graham Hughes, Executive Director (Cambridgeshire County Council).

Additional documents:

Decision:

The Joint Assembly RECOMMENDED that the Executive Board:

 

(a)        Notes the findings from the initial assessment and technical study.

 

(b)        Approves public consultation on the illustrative measures as set out in the report and as shown on the accompanying plans, including consideration of further walking and cycling improvements at Mitcham’s Corner, and encourages all other ideas to be properly considered.

 

(c)        Supports the consideration of changes to the Science Park-Cowley Road junction following the completion of a wider A10 corridor transport study.

 

(d)        Agrees to receive a report on consultation in mid-2016 on a preferred set of measures.

 

The Joint Assembly AGREED that an expert or consultant on landscaping should be invited to a future meeting to discuss innovative ways in which greenery and vegetation could be maintained or replaced amongst significant transport infrastructure schemes, and asked the Chairman and Vice-Chairman to add this to the Assembly’s work programme.

Minutes:

This item was considered and debated as part of the previous item at minute number 6(a).

 

The Joint Assembly unanimously RECOMMENDED that the Executive Board:

 

(a)        Notes the findings from the initial assessment and technical study.

 

(b)        Approves public consultation on the illustrative measures as set out in the report and as shown on the accompanying plans, including consideration of further walking and cycling improvements at Mitcham’s Corner, and encourages all other ideas to be properly considered.

 

(c)        Supports the consideration of changes to the Science Park-Cowley Road junction following the completion of a wider A10 corridor transport study.

 

(d)        Agrees to receive a report on consultation in mid-2016 on a preferred set of measures.

 

The Joint Assembly unanimously AGREED that an expert or consultant on landscaping should be invited to a future meeting to discuss innovative ways in which greenery and vegetation could be maintained or replaced amongst significant transport infrastructure schemes, and asked the Chairman and Vice-Chairman to add this to the Assembly’s work programme.

6c

Smarter Cambridgeshire update and investment proposal pdf icon PDF 204 KB

To consider the attached report by Graham Hughes, Executive Director (Cambridgeshire County Council).

Decision:

The Joint Assembly RECOMMENDED that the Executive Board:

 

(a)        Notes the progress of the Smarter Cambridgeshire workstream to date.

 

(b)        Agrees, in principle, to support the investment of up to £280,000 to implement a Smart Technology Platform subject to a more detailed investment proposal in early 2016.

Minutes:

The Joint Assembly considered a report which provided an update on the progress of the Smarter Cambridgeshire workstream and outlined a proposal for the implementation of a ‘smart’ technology platform to facilitate the Smart Cities approach within the City Deal programme.

 

Andrew Limb, Head of Corporate Strategy at Cambridge City Council, presented the report and highlighted the following updates from the workstream:

 

·         the Smarter Cambridgeshire Project Board, comprising officers representing the five participating organisations, had been established and was now overseeing the multiple strands of the Smarter Cambridgeshire work stream;

·         the wider Smarter Cambridgeshire Advisory Group, with representation from both Universities and local technology companies, had met and further workshops were planned;

·         a ‘hack’ event, to encourage wider community engagement in the Smart Cities agenda, had been provisionally planned for the end of October;

·         work was progressing in support of a number of demonstrator test bed work packages, including:

-       a planning workshop for identifying the key components for a ‘Smart A14’;

-       outline agreement for station gateway way finding improvements;

-       enabling work packages to support the development of a dynamic journey planner;

·         a collaborative joint bid was being developed for the ‘Innovate UK Internet of Things’ competition, which involved joint working with Milton Keynes and Leeds City Councils, with support BT and the involvement of several other commercial organisations.

 

In terms of the Smart City technology platform, it was reported that an outline proposal had now been developed for the implementation of a platform to support the delivery of the Smarter Cambridgeshire workstream within the City Deal programme.  This comprised a city management network, a data hub and sensor deployment plan and was the result of work undertaken to create a smart architecture blueprint.  Further details relating to the platform were set out in the report. 

 

Mr Limb reported that the £280,000 of further investment being sought was to set up the foundations in order to allow the platform and related aspects of the workstream to develop further.  He said that this was a relatively small investment in terms of the wider City Deal programme and the market being invested in, however, it would be enough to ensure that things started progressing.  He reminded the Assembly that the workstream did not want to invest in the wrong technology in view of its high cost and ever-changing landscape, so it was key for the City Deal workstream to be in an agile position with regard to what it sought to invest in and implement.

 

Members welcomed the report, but asked that future reports made it clear what the funding would actually be used for, noting in this case that it would be for the procurement of necessary hardware and software.

 

The Joint Assembly RECOMMENDED that the Executive Board:

 

(a)        Notes the progress of the Smarter Cambridgeshire workstream to date.

 

(b)        Agrees, in principle, to support the investment of up to £280,000 to implement a Smart Technology Platform subject to a more detailed investment proposal in early 2016.

6d

2015/16 Quarter 2 financial monitoring report pdf icon PDF 175 KB

To consider a report by Chris Malyon, Chief Finance Officer (Cambridgeshire County Council).  Quarter two closes after the publication of this agenda, so this report will follow as soon as the financial monitoring information becomes available.

Decision:

The Joint Assembly RECOMMENDED that the Executive Board notes the report.

Minutes:

The Joint Assembly considered a report which provided an update on the financial monitoring position for the City Deal for the period ending 30 September 2015. 

 

Chris Malyon, Chief Finance Officer at Cambridgeshire County Council, presented the report and took Members of the Assembly through the City Deal programme costs incurred to the end of September 2015, together with revenue and the non-project resource pool.

 

Assembly Members noted that there was still approximately £2.2 million of funding unallocated within the non-project resources pool, which was made up of New Homes Bonus contributions from the three partner Councils.  It was reported, however, that the future of the New Homes Bonus was unclear ahead of the Comprehensive Spending Review.  It was anticipated that more clarity would be provided as part of the Autumn Statement, with any decision as to how this non-project resources pool would be used being at the discretion of the Executive Board.

 

A question was raised as to whether partner Councils would be able to retain their New Homes Bonus contributions if there was any underspend and the resource remained unallocated.  It was noted that this decision would also be at the discretion of the Board.

 

A request was made for further financial reports to reflect the additional funding that could be available for schemes within the programme, such as from developer contributions for example.  It was noted that this information would be included in the comprehensive financial report scheduled to be submitted to the Joint Assembly and Executive Board in the New Year as part of the 2016/17 City Deal budget.

 

The Joint Assembly RECOMMENDED that the Executive Board notes the report.

6e

Six-monthly report on housing pdf icon PDF 186 KB

To consider the attached report by Alan Carter, Head of Strategic Housing (Cambridge City Council).

Additional documents:

Decision:

The Joint Assembly RECOMMENDED that the Executive Board notes the report.

Minutes:

The Joint Assembly considered a report which provided an update on progress with the Housing workstream. 

 

Alan Carter, Head of Strategic Housing at Cambridge City Council, presented the report which outlined governance around the Housing Development Agency that had been established, together with information on schemes and anticipated numbers of new housing. 

 

A supplementary report was also considered, setting out the latest developments with regard to affordable housing in light of radically changing national housing, planning and welfare policy.  It was reported that the requirement for registered providers and stock retaining local authorities to reduce rents by 1% per annum each year for four years was in the Welfare Reform and Work Bill going through Parliament, with a view for the rent reductions to be implemented from April 2016.  Other government proposals, such as the extension of the Right to Buy to tenants of housing associations funded by the sale of high value Council housing, would either be introduced by Regulation or in a Housing Bill scheduled to be published in October 2015.

 

Mr Carter explained that the consequence for Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council was dramatic, with significant projected losses for both authorities from their long term housing business plans. 

 

It was noted that the Shadow Officer Board for the Housing Development Agency had recently met for the first time.  It had concluded that a ‘soft’ approach to the establishment of the Housing Development Agency as a shared service would be favourable at this stage.  This would entail current employees remaining with their respective employers with a view to moving direct to a company model by the end of 2016.  The Officer Board had welcomed the establishment of a Member Reference Group to oversee development of the Housing Development Agency.

 

Liz Bissett, Director of Customer and Community Services at Cambridge City Council, said that the City Deal’s housing workstream still had a significant programme that could be developed and delivered over the medium term.

 

A comment was expressed that there was not enough information contained within the report, in view of the fact that it was a six-monthly update.  It was agreed that future update reports on this workstream would be more comprehensive.

 

The Joint Assembly RECOMMENDED that the Executive Board notes the report.

7.

Greater Cambridge City Deal Forward Plan pdf icon PDF 72 KB

To consider the City Deal Executive Board’s Forward Plan, as attached, and the Joint Assembly’s work programme. 

 

Future meetings of the Joint Assembly are scheduled to be held as follows:

 

13 November 2015 – 2pm

17 December 2015 – 2pm

12 February 2016 – 2pm

24 March 2016 – 2pm

2 June 2016 – 2pm

7 July 2016 – 2pm

25 August 2016 – 2pm

29 September 2016 – 2pm

3 November 2016 – 2pm

1 December 2016 – 2pm

 

 

 

Minutes:

The Joint Assembly considered the City Deal forward plan and its schedule of meetings.

 

It was noted that the item on the A1307 corridor had moved from the December cycle of meetings to the January 2016 cycle of meetings. 

 

The Joint Assembly NOTED the City Deal forward plan and its schedule of meetings.