Agenda, decisions and minutes

Greater Cambridge Partnership Joint Assembly
Wednesday, 19 July 2017 1.00 p.m.

Venue: Council Chamber - South Cambs Hall. View directions

Contact: Wilma Wilkie, Democratic Services  03450 450 500 Email: democratic.services@scambs.gov.uk

Items
No. Item

1.

Election of Chairperson

 

To elect a Chairperson of the Greater Cambridge Partnership Joint Assembly for 2017/18.

Decision:

 

Councillor Kevin Price was ELECTED Chairman of the Greater Cambridge Partnership Joint Assembly.

Minutes:

Councillor Kevin Price was ELECTED Chairperson of the Greater Cambridge Partnership Joint Assembly.

2.

Election of Vice Chairperson

 

To elect a Vice Chairperson of the Greater Cambridge Partnership Joint Assembly for 2017/18.

 

Decision:

 

Councillor Tim Wotherspoon was ELECTED Vice-Chairman of the Greater Cambridge Partnership Joint Assembly.

Minutes:

Councillor Tim Wotherspoon was ELECTED Vice-Chairperson of the Greater Cambridge Partnership Joint Assembly.

3.

Apologies for Absence

 

To receive any apologies for absence.

Decision:

 

Apologies for absence were received from Mark Robertson.

 

The Chairman reported the following membership changes and welcomed the new representatives to their first meeting:

 

Councillor Grenville Chamberlain had been appointed to represent South Cambridgeshire District Council (replacing Councillor Tim Wotherspoon who had been appointed to represent the County Council); and

Councillors John Williams and Tim Wotherspoon had been appointed to represent Cambridgeshire County Council (replacing Councillor Roger Hickford and former Councillor Maurice Leeke).

 

Minutes:

Apologies for absence were received from Mark Robertson.

 

The Chairperson reported the following membership changes and welcomed the new representatives to their first meeting:

 

Councillor Grenville Chamberlain had been appointed to represent South Cambridgeshire District Council (replacing Councillor Tim Wotherspoon who had been appointed to represent the County Council); and

Councillors John Williams and Tim Wotherspoon had been appointed to represent Cambridgeshire County Council (replacing Councillor Roger Hickford and former Councillor Maurice Leeke).

 

4.

Declarations of Interest

To receive any declarations of interest from members of the Joint Assembly.

 

Decision:

 

The following declarations of interest were made:

 

Andy Williams declared a non-pecuniary interest in relation to agenda item 13 [City Access Strategy], recommendation 4, which referred to funding for a potential Rural Hub Park and Ride site serving the Cambridge Biomedical Campus.  Mr Williams indicated he would not take part in the discussion or vote on this matter.

 

Sir Michael Marshall declared a non-pecuniary interest ……

 

Councillor Bridget Smith declared a non-pecuniary interest in relation to agenda item 11 [A428/B1303 Better Bus Journey Scheme] as she was vice-chairman of the A428/B1303 Action Group.

 

Dr John Wells declared a non-pecuniary interest in relation to to agenda item 11 [A428/B1303 Better Bus Journey Scheme] as a resident of Hardwick.

 

Minutes:

The following declarations of interest were made:

 

·         Councillor Kevin Price declared a non-pecuniary interest in relation to agenda item 9 [Milton Road and Histon Road Improvements] as a resident of Milton Road.

·         Councillor Dave Baigent declared a non-pecuniary interest in relation to agenda item 9 [Milton Road and Histon Road Improvements] as a member of the Cambridge Cycling Campaign.

·         Councillor Bridget Smith declared a non-pecuniary interest in relation to agenda item 11 [A428/B1303 Better Bus Journey Scheme] as she was vice-chairman of the A428 Local Liaison Forum.

·         Dr John Wells declared a non-pecuniary interest in relation to agenda item 11 [A428/B1303 Better Bus Journey Scheme] as a resident of Hardwick.

·         Councillor Grenville Chamberlain declared a non-pecuniary interest in relation to agenda item 11 [A428/B1303 Better Bus Journey Scheme] as a resident of Hardwick.

·         Andy Williams declared a non-pecuniary interest in relation to agenda item 13 [City Access Strategy], recommendation 4, which referred to funding for a potential Rural Hub Park and Ride site serving the Cambridge Biomedical Campus.  Mr Williams indicated he would not take part in the discussion or vote on this matter.

·         Sir Michael Marshall declared a non-pecuniary interest in relation of agenda item 13 [City Access Strategy], in particular reference to a Work Place Levy as he was a Cambridge employer.

 

5.

Minutes of Previous Meeting pdf icon PDF 317 KB

 

To confirm the minutes of the previous meeting held on 8th March 2017 as a correct record.

Minutes:

The minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday 1st March 2017 were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chairperson, subject to the following amendments:

 

·         The inclusion of Helen Valentine in the list of those present;

·         The deletion of Andy Williams from the list of those present; and

·         Replacing the word ‘advised’ with ‘commented’ in the summaries of comments made by Claire Ruskin on pages 9 and 11.

 

6.

Questions from Members of the Public pdf icon PDF 174 KB

 

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

Additional documents:

Decision:

 

The Chairman informed the Joint Assembly that seventeen public questions had been submitted, fifteen of which would be received at the relevant agenda item.  He reported that, in line with the public questions protocol, he had exercised the Chairman’s discretion and would, on this occasion, only accept questions which specifically related to items on the agenda and where the questioner was able to attend the meeting.  This meant two questions would not be received at the meeting, but those concerned would receive a written response.

 

Minutes:

The Chairperson informed the Joint Assembly that seventeen public questions had been submitted, fifteen of which would be taken at the meeting under agenda items nine, eleven and fourteen.  He reported that, in line with Standing Orders and the public questions protocol, he had exercised Chairperson’s discretion and would, on this occasion, only accept questions which specifically related to items on the agenda and where the questioner was able to attend the meeting.  This meant two questions would not be received at the meeting, but those concerned would receive a written response.  Given the number of questions received, questioners were asked to limit their contribution to one minute.

 

7.

Petitions

 

To note that no petitions for consideration by the Joint Assembly have been received since the last meeting.

Minutes:

It was noted that no petitions had been received.

 

8.

Rapid Mass Transport Strategic Options Appraisal pdf icon PDF 245 KB

 

To consider the attached report.

Decision:

 

The Joint Assembly RECOMMENDED that the Executive Board:

 

a)    Commission a high quality, independent strategic options appraisal study into rapid, mass transport options for Cambridge City and the surrounding travel to work area in conjunction with the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority to deliver by November 2017.

 

b)    Agree a total budget allocation of £150,000 in 2017/18 for the delivery of the strategic options appraisal study.

 

Minutes:

The Interim Transport Director introduced a report to be presented to the next Executive Board meeting, seeking approval to proceed with a strategic appraisal into rapid, mass transport options.  This was a combined proposal to be undertaken on behalf of the GCP and the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority.  It involved the appointment of a consultant to provide expert independent advice on the most appropriate form of rapid, mass transit for Cambridge City and the surrounding travel to work area.  Work would involve a strategic options appraisal on a range of underground and overground rapid transport modes, including light rail, monorail, bus rapid transit and affordable very rapid transport.  This would enable the GCP Executive Board and Combined Authority to determine the most appropriate form of rapid, mass transit to meet Greater Cambridge’s future transport needs.

 

It was noted that the total cost was estimated to be in the region of £150,000, half of which was expected to be met by the Combined Authority.  The cost to the GCP would therefore be approximately £75,000.

 

The Joint Assembly was invited to consider and comment on the recommendations being presented to the Executive Board.  The main points of discussion are summarised below:

 

·           There was general support for the proposal, but there were some concerns about the objectivity of the options appraisal.  Councillor Bick sought reassurance that we were looking at a level playing field for this exercise.  He noted that this was a joint proposal and recalling comments about addressing Cambridge transport problems made by the Mayor as part of his election campaign, asked whether this would influence the scope of this work.  In response the Interim Transport Director confirmed that the Mayor had been involved in developing the proposals and that the brief required a full appraisal of all options.  He added that the Mayor would also be mindful of the need to comply with the assurance framework which required a full options appraisal.

 

·           Councillor Bick indicated that, from an economic point of view, the feasibility and viability of many of the potential options would in part depend on complimentary measures outside the scope of this review.  He asked how that would be handled and added he would like to have seen an invitation for the consultants to tell us about the potential impact, positive or negative, of other things we could do to make a difference to these choices.  The Interim Transport Director agreed that this would be critical.  The aim was to future proof all existing schemes and new schemes would need to be seen in the context of other relevant factors.  He reminded members that the Board was already looking at a Future Transport Strategy for Greater Cambridge which would be presented to members in due course.

 

·           Some members expressed concern that this work had not been done before now.  The Chairperson urged members to put these concerns to one side and look forward.

 

·           Councillor Bridget Smith challenged the suggestion that schemes currently being developed were being future  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

9.

Milton Road and Histon Road: Bus, Cycling and Walking Improvements, Delivery Priorities, Local Liaison Process and Design Principles pdf icon PDF 2 MB

 

To consider the attached report.

Additional documents:

Decision:

 

The Joint Assembly RECOMMENDED that the Executive Board:

 

a)    Note the prioritisation of delivery of the Milton Road project ahead of the Histon Road scheme;

 

b)    Note the Milton Road Local Liaison Forum resolutions set out in Appendix B and agree the responses set out therein;

 

c)    Agree the ‘Final Concept’ design shown in Appendix D as a basis for detailed design work and the preparation of an interim business case to facilitate further public and statutory consultation;

 

d)    Note that wherever highway space permits, opportunities to adopt further aspects of the ‘Do Optimum’ design will be taken as part of the detailed design process;

 

e)    Support further engagement with the Milton Road LLF to help inform the detailed design process;

 

f)     Support discussions with relevant property owners to explore interest in a joint funding approach to potential streetscape and public realm improvements on land outside the public highway outside local shops along Milton Road;

 

g)    Note the revised project timelines shown in Appendix H and the next steps in project delivery set out in the report; and

 

h)    Supplement development of this scheme with further consideration of means of achieving modal shift to public transport.

 

Minutes:

The Joint Assembly considered a report to be presented to the next Executive Board meeting on future delivery priorities and project timelines for the Milton Road and Histon Road projects.

 

At this stage in the proceedings the Chairperson invited members of the public to ask questions relating to this item, which had been submitted in line with the provisions of Standing Orders.  He explained that a response to the questions asked would be covered in the officer presentation on the report.  Details of the questions and answers are set out in Appendix A to the minutes.

 

CouncillorJocelynne Scutt, Chairperson of the Milton Road LLF, attended the meeting and presented feedback on the Forum’s views on these proposals.  Having reflected on the outcomes of a number of workshops, the LLF had prepared 12 resolutions, many of which related directly to the ‘Do Optimum’ alternative design, whilst others focused on measures to tackle congestion and delays in Cambridge.  Details of the resolutions and officer comments were set out in Appendix B to the report.  Referring to the recommendations being presented to the Executive Board, Councillor Scutt welcomed the fact that the LLF’s alternative design had been used as the basis for the final concept design, but highlighted the fact that the bus lane proposals contained in the final concept remained the sticking point with residents.  She also raised outstanding concerns about the siting of trees and cyclist safety.  She welcomed confirmation from officers that there would be further engagement on these issues. 

 

With reference to recommendation (c) in the report to the Executive Board, Councillor Scutt referred to an alternative recommendation suggested by the Milton Road Alliance; which if agreed by the Executive Board would be supported the LLF.  However, she suggested an alternative amendment to this recommendation by adding the words ‘Bearing in mind resolution (d)’ to the beginning.  She also suggested the deletion of the word ‘process’ from the end of resolutions (d) and (e).  In response to a question, Councillor Scutt clarified that she had not been formally delegated to propose these amendments on behalf of the LLF, but was making these suggestions as its Chairman.

 

The Joint Assembly noted that the Milton Road and Histon Road schemes supported the priority of achieving efficient and reliable movement between key existing and future housing and employment sites.  The projects would support the delivery of new housing at Northstowe, Waterbeach and on the northern fringe of Cambridge and would provide improved links with employment sites, such as the Science Park and Cambridge North Station, benefitting residents, commuters and businesses.  The projects aimed to provide enhanced infrastructure for busses, to improve service reliability and journey times and encourage greater patronage.  They also aimed to enhance the quality and safety of cycling and walking facilities, whilst also enhancing the quality of the streetscape and public realm areas.  To avoid creating undue pressure on the road network in Cambridge, it was proposed that the projects would be constructed consecutively rather  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

10.

Greater Cambridge Partnership Quarterly Progress Report pdf icon PDF 762 KB

 

To consider the attached progress report.

Decision:

 

The Joint Assembly RECOMMENDED that the Executive Board:

 

a)    Approve a net increase in the operational budget of £104k to be funded from drawing additional funding from the New Homes Bonus resource [Para. 3-5 of the report];

b)    Approve an increase of the budget for the independent economic assessment panel work by £30k from drawing additional funding from the New Homes Bonus resource [Appendix 4 to the report]; and

c)    Delegate authority to the Interim Chief Executive, in consultation with the Chairperson of the Executive Board and the Economy and Environment Portfolio Holder, to sign off the Locality Evaluation Framework and Outline Evaluation Plan [Appendix 4 to the report].

Minutes:

The Joint Assembly considered a report to be presented to the next Executive Board meeting on progress across the GCP programme since March 2017.  The report covered:

 

·         The 2016/17 end of year financial outturn report;

·         Financial monitoring to May 2017;

·         A six-monthly report on Smart Cambridge;

·         An update on the independent economic assessment panel;

·         An update on the implementation of the Mouchel report recommendations; and

·         The Executive Board forward plan of decisions.

 

The Joint Assembly was invited to consider and comment on the recommendations being presented to the Executive Board.  The main points of discussion are summarised below:

 

·         Councillor Tim Wotherspoon noted reference to plans to hold a Future of Transport conference in Cambridge and asked if dates had been set.  He also expressed interest in being involved in the Economic Assessment Panel’s discussions on measuring additionality of interventions in local economic growth.  In response, the Strategic Programme and Commissioning Manager reported that the dates for the conference had yet to be confirmed, although the 12th November had been proposed.  Details would be sent to members in due course.  She undertook to discuss involvement in the Panel’s discussions with Councillor Wotherspoon outside the meeting. 

 

·         Councillor Bridget Smith asked about reference to apprenticeships and noted the report referred to an 18% increase against the preceding year.  She felt it was inappropriate to imply that this might be due to the GCP’s activity on skills given she had attended a meeting where it was made clear there was no way of measuring the impact of the GCP’s work.  Councillor Smith asked if there was any information on national trends in apprenticeships to enable members make some judgement about how much of that 18% was down to national trends and how much might be down to us; whether that be the work of the Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) or the GCP.  In response, the Strategic Programme and Commissioning Manager undertook to make it clear that correlation did not equal cause and to include national comparisons in the next version of this report.

 

·         Councillor Bick referred to extending the interim appointments of GCP staff and asked how decisions on the cost associated with those appointments were made.  He suggested this had been done via delegated powers given neither the Joint Assembly or Executive Board had been involved in this.  In response, the Section 151 Officer stated that provision for an Interim Chief Executive was built into the budget for the year and that it was a decision of the Executive Board that this should be a finite resource.  Given the formation of the Combined Authority and other governance issues, he had consulted with the Executive Board, which was of the view that the time was not right to terminate the current interim arrangements.  Mr Malyon had therefore used his delegated powers to extend the appointments to the end of this financial year.  In response Councillor Bick expressed his hope that the Executive Board would soon be in a position to take a decision  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

11.

A428/A1303 Better Bus Journey Scheme - further scheme development update pdf icon PDF 505 KB

 

To consider the attached report.

Additional documents:

Decision:

The Joint Assembly RECOMMEND that the Executive Board:

 

a)    Note the progress to date on the scheme development;

 

b)    Agree a short list of Park and Ride (P&R) sites for further development work, excluding the site at Crome Lea Farm,  to enable a decision to be made at the September Board for a preferred site or sites to be consulted on;

 

c)    Agree if further work is to be undertaken in respect of an Option 6 alignment; and

 

d)    Agree the next steps/ timetable detailed in the report.

Minutes:

The Joint Assembly considered a report to be presented to the next Executive Board meeting on progress with the A428/A1303 Better Bus Journeys Scheme which was key to meeting the GCP objectives supporting economic growth and the submitted Local Plans.  It was noted that the report included an assessment of all potential park and ride sites along the Cambourne to Cambridge corridor.  Based on the outcome of this review, the Executive Board was being asked to identify a short list of sites for further development work.

 

Helen Bradbury, Chairperson of the A428 LLF, attended the meeting and presented feedback on the Forum’s views on these proposals.  She reported that the LLF had invited Mayor James Palmer to a meeting on Monday evening to discuss where the Cambourne to Cambridge Busway Scheme played into his plans for the future.  Following his speech the LLF was concerned that it was unclear how the A428 proposals sat within the strategic vision and with that in mind had made a number of comments and resolutions which are summarised below:

 

·         The GCP was requested to defer decisions on the A428 Busway until such time as the high level mass transit study, as proposed by the GCP and the feasibility studies and light rail options as proposed by the Combined Authority had been completed and published, with adequate time being allowed for the public to review and comment on these documents.  To proceed as before regardless of these developments would be on the basis of insufficient evidence and a lack of knowledge of alternative options that could be brought forward and would demonstrate a lack of co-ordination in terms of transport strategy.  To proceed otherwise may lead to something incompatible, irreversible and having cost the taxpayer dear.

 

·         With reference to plans to future proof schemes for possible implementation of a form of future mass rapid transit, the GCP was asked to clarify the size and extent of infrastructure that would be required to keep communities safe.  The LLF did not consider Option 3a to be suitable for rapid mass transit given its proximity to communities, the infrastructure that would be required to keep those communities safe and its impact on sensitive Green Belt areas.  The LLF asked that consideration was given instead to developing a more suitable alignment

 

·         The LLF was of the opinion that the Cambourne to Cambridge busway project should constitute no more than a low intervention solution, along the lines of LLF option 6, including smart transport measures.  This would allow those living West of Cambridge to access the City quickly and reliably, yet would be far less expensive and offer greater flexibility if /when rapid mass transit decisions were made.  Improvement would be immediate, inexpensive and potentially reversible.

 

·         The LLF wished GCP to note its serous concerns about the Consultant’s scoring in Table 15 of the report and suggested that the scoring of options 1, 3a and 6 were heavily skewed in favour of option 3a.  The scoring process had been hugely  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

12.

Cross-City Cycling - Determination of Traffic Regulation Orders pdf icon PDF 2 MB

 

To consider the attached report.

Decision:

 

The Joint Assembly RECOMMENDS that the Executive Board:

 

a)    Note the objections and comments received;

 

b)    Approve the orders and notices as advertised;

 

c)    Inform the objectors accordingly; and

 

d)    Receive in future only those Orders that have received objections.

Minutes:

The Cycling Projects Team Leader introduced a report to be presented to the next Executive Board meeting seeking approval for a number of Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs) associated with the five Cross City Cycling Schemes approved by the Executive Board in June 2016.  It was noted that TROs and formal notices had been advertised for the following scheme elements:

 

·         Fulbourn Road (Robin Hood junction to ARM main entrance), no waiting at any time;

·         Hills Road (Purbeck Road to Addenbrooke’s roundabout), a loading ban operating 07.00-10.00 and 16.00-19.00, Monday to Friday, and an extension of no waiting at any time into the length between Long Road and Addenbrooke’s main entrance;

·         Green End Road (Scotland Road to Water Lane and Evergreens to Kendal Way), no waiting at any time with short length of waiting limited to 2 hours outside the shops;

·         Green End Road, proposed ‘speed cushions’; and

·         B1047 Fen Ditton, proposed ‘raised table’ junction.

 

Details of objections, comments and letters of support were set out in the report.

 

The Joint Assembly was invited to consider and comment on the recommendations being presented to the Executive Board.  The main points of discussion are summarised below:

 

·           Councillor John Williams confirmed that the Fulbourn Road proposals had the support of the Parish Council.

 

·           Helen Valentine expressed strong support for the Hills Road proposals.  She noted recommendation (d) referred to receiving in future only Orders that had received objections and asked for further information.  In response the Cycling Projects Team Leader clarified that for these schemes, in addition to the objections, members would also receive details of comments and letters of support, so the TRO could be considered in the context of all feedback received.

 

The Joint Assembly agreed to RECOMMEND unanimously that the Executive Board:

 

a)    Note the objections and comments received;

 

b)    Approve the orders and notices as advertised;

 

c)    Inform the objectors accordingly; and

 

d)    Receive in future only those Orders that have received objections.

 

13.

City Access Strategy pdf icon PDF 1 MB

 

To consider the attached report.

Decision:

 

The Joint Assembly RECOMMEND the Executive Board:

 

a)    Note the updates;

 

b)    Note the feasibility studies and receive further reports in September on the findings and recommendations in respect of:

 

                      i.        Use of Electric/ Hybrid buses; and

                     ii.        A review of the Cambridge Traffic Signal network;

 

c)    Agree to carry out further consultation and engagement with residents and the business community in both Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire on their transport needs and issues, as part of a wider ‘Travel Diary’ exercise, to help understand existing travel patterns, issues and incentives to change; including working with businesses to understand needs of employees from travel to work areas outside of the Greater Cambridge area; and

 

                      i.        To determine local transport priorities that could receive funding were a Workplace Parking Levy (WPL) to be introduced, building on employers’ evidence of transport needs and in coordination with the Greater Cambridge Partnership;

                     ii.        To coordinate with and, if feasible, form part of the GCP and the Local Enterprise Partnership’s broader engagement with the business community;

                    iii.        To develop and provide practical support for employers and schools looking to manage their parking demand and provision working closely with Travel for Cambridge;

 

and report back the findings to a future meeting of the Board; and

 

d)    Agree that the Director of Transport continues to negotiate a potential funding contribution for a Rural Hub Park and Ride service to be located at the soon-to-be-closed Papworth Hospital serving the Cambridge Biomedical Campus; and that a report be brought back to the next meeting.

Minutes:

The Interim Transport Director introduced a report to be presented to the next Executive Board meeting detailing progress with delivery of the City Access Strategy, which aimed to reduce traffic flows through the city, with the provision of more sustainable alternatives.  He drew attention to plans to carry out further consultation and engagement with residents and the business communities in Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire.  This would focus on their transport needs and issues and would form part of a wider Travel Diary exercise and inform further work on demand management.  The report contained information on ongoing discussions about the implications and potential impact of a Work Place Levy (WPL) and studies commissioned to look at electric hybrid busses; a traffic signals review and on-street parking.  The Interim Transport Director also highlighted ongoing proposals for a Rural Hub Park and Ride service to be located at the soon to be closed Papworth Hospital, serving the Biomedical Campus. 

 

The Joint Assembly was invited to consider and comment on the recommendations being presented to the Executive Board.  The main points of discussion are summarised below:

 

·         Councillor Tim Bick, while welcoming the diverse report, commented that it demonstrated that when it came to having an overall strategy for the city center, there was much more work to be done.  Members had heard from the professionals time and time again there was a need for carrots and sticks and it was clear stronger leadership was required to take the difficult decisions needed.  He welcomed plans for electric busses which he saw as an interesting and exciting development.  While this wouldn’t in itself solve the problem it would make the congestion ‘more healthy’ and also perhaps make the public transport option more attractive for people to take.  He asked for more discussion on the commissioning model before this was adopted and suggested there were benefits of getting a mix of models and manufacturers.  Councillor Bick drew attention to reference to locating a charging point at Drummer Street and questioned whether this was appropriate given Drummer Street was already exceeding maximum capacity.  Alternative options on the perimeter of the network should be sought.  He asked for clarification of reference to the proposed Papworth bus service being a planning requirement.  Responding to the questions raised the Interim Transport Director confirmed that the task and finish working group would look at other demand measures and a report on this would be presented to the Joint Assembly and Executive Board in due course.  He agree that Drummer Street was not a suitable option, but noted this suggestion had come from the consultants.  Other possible sites were being investigated.

 

·         Councillor Bridget Smith asked about Nottingham’s WPL.  She also highlighted the importance of letting employers know what they were getting in return for the levy.  With reference to the Papworth bus service she stressed it was important to recognise that the proposals were based on the needs of existing staff which would change over time.  This should therefore be seen as  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.

14.

Improving Greater Cambridge Partnership Governance pdf icon PDF 126 KB

 

To consider the attached report.

Additional documents:

Decision:

 

The Joint Assembly RECOMMEND that the Executive Board:

 

a)    Agrees the Portfolios, the generic portfolio role description and their allocation between Board members (Appendix 1);

 

b)    Agrees to the creation of the five, portfolio-themed informal Board and Joint Assembly Working Groups to bring the energy and expertise of Joint Assembly members to strategy and project development earlier and agrees their membership and terms of reference (Appendix 2);

 

c)    Agrees Board meetings should be 2-monthly during 2018, with a review of frequency midway through the year;

 

d)    Agrees there should be a longer interval between the Assembly and Board of around 3 weeks as soon as practicable and notes the proposed reporting improvements of that advice at appendix 3;

 

e)    Agrees the principles for officer delegations and scheme of delegation for the Greater Cambridge Partnership in Appendix 4;

 

f)     Notes and endorses the principles for the setting of the Joint Assembly work programme in Appendix 5;

 

g)    Agrees to a review of governance arrangements commencing a year after implementation, to consider how effective the changes have been; and

 

h)    Notes other actions taken to improve public questions and ensure all Executive Board member declarations of interest are up to date.

 

The Joint Assembly AGREED that, subject to the Executive Board’s decision on the package of measures to strengthen governance and member involvement (as summarised in recommendations a – h above), to:

 

a)    Agree its nomination of members to the proposed Portfolio Working Groups as set out below:

 

Housing and Strategic Planning

 

Councillor Lewis Herbert *

Councillor Kevin Price

Councillor Tim Wotherspoon

Councillor John Williams

Andy Williams

 

Transport

 

Councillor Ian Bates *

Councillor Tim Bick

Councillor Noel Kavanagh

Sir Michael Marshall

Dr John Wells

Councillor Kevin Cuffley

Helen Valentine

Councillor Bridget Smith

Skills

 

Mark Reeve *

Councillor Bridget Smith

Sir Michael Marshall

Mark Robertson

Councillor Kevin Price

Councillor Kevin Cuffley

 

Smart Places

 

Councillor Francis Burkitt *

Claire Ruskin

Helen Valentine

Andy Williams

Councillor Tim Wotherspoon

Councillor John Williams

Councillor Dave Baigent

 

Economy and Environment

 

Professor Phil Allmendinger *

Councillor Tim Bick

Claire Ruskin

Dr John Wells

Councillor Noel Kavanagh

Councillor Grenville Chamberlain

Councillor Dave Baigent

 

* proposed Portfolio Holder/Executive Board Member;

 

b)    Agree the draft principles for setting its Work Programme (at appendix 5 to the report), which set it within the overall Greater Cambridge Partnership governance framework; and

 

c)    Agree to a Joint Assembly work shop on the work programme, to be scheduled around the turn of the year.

Minutes:

The Joint Assembly considered a report to be presented to the next Executive Board meeting seeking agreement of a package of proposals to strengthen governance arrangements of the GCP.  The aim was to make better use of the expertise of Joint Assembly members earlier in the project and programme development lifecycle; to strengthen pre-decision scrutiny and clarify roles and responsibilities.  The report also set out how the public questions process was being improved and stakeholder engagement strengthened. 

 

At this stage in the proceedings the Chairperson invited members of the public to ask questions relating to this item, which had been submitted in line with the provisions of Standing Orders.  He explained that a response to the questions asked had been included in the officer presentation on the report.  Details of the questions and answers are set out in Appendix A to the minutes.

 

The Chairperson reported that this was the last meeting Tanya Sheridan, Programme Director would attend.  He thanked Tanya for the support and advice she had provided to him during his time as Vice Chairman; sentiments he was sure would be shared by the former Chairman.  He also thanked Tanya on behalf of the Joint Assembly and wished her well for the future.

 

The Joint Assembly was invited to consider and comment on the recommendations being presented to the Executive Board.  The main points of discussion are summarised below:

 

·         Councillor Bridget Smith who had been involved in the Working Group commented that she would be abstaining on this matter as there had been an opportunity to do something far more radical.  Her main concern was that too much power was in too few hands . However, having said that she confirmed she was happy to do her best to make this work and help make it a success.  She was pleased to see plans for a review in 12 months time.  Councillor Smith also expressed her thanks to Tanya for her work over the past two years.

 

·         Councillor Tim Bick commented that there were some good things being proposed and he welcomed the move to a Portfolio Holder arrangement; although he had some reservations that the portfolios were very unequal in size.  He also welcomed plans for the Joint Assembly to control its own work programme. He was worried about the private nature of the proposed working groups; in particular the risk of driving underground the discussion of options.  Councillor Bick considered he and other members had a role to play in making sure this didn’t happen and to ensure that all the options were meaningfully debated in public.  He commented that there was a functional problem in that the public expected and deserved to see deliberative decision  making, which was not possible under current arrangements where the deliberation took place in one forum and the decision making happened in another.  Councillor Bick was of the opinion that Executive Board meetings were very sterile in nature and likened proceedings to a series of supreme court judges announcing  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14.

15.

Date of Next Meeting

 

To note that the next meeting will take place at 2.00 p.m. on Wednesday 13th September 2017.

Decision:

 

The Joint Assembly NOTED that the next meeting would take place at 2.00 p.m. on Wednesday 13th September 2017 at the Guildhall, Cambridge.

Minutes:

The Joint Assembly NOTED that the next meeting would take place at 2.00 p.m. on Wednesday 13th September 2017 at the Guildhall, Cambridge.