Agenda, decisions and minutes

Greater Cambridge Partnership Executive Board
Thursday, 1 September 2016 2.00 p.m.

Venue: The Guildhall, Cambridge

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:

No apologies for absence were received.

2.

Minutes of the previous meeting pdf icon PDF 248 KB

To confirm the minutes of the previous meeting held on 7 July 2016 as a correct record.

Minutes:

The minutes of the previous meeting held on 13 July 2016 were confirmed and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

3.

Declarations of interest

To receive any declarations of interest from Members of the Executive Board.

Minutes:

No declarations of interest were made.

4.

Questions by 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.

Minutes:

Questions by members of the public were asked and answered as follows:

 

Question by Charles Nisbet

 

Charles Nisbet asked for assurance that the Greater Cambridge City Deal had the legal authority to spend any part of its funding on providing trees to replace those that it intended to remove from Milton Road or Histon Road.

 

Graham Hughes, Executive Director of Economy, Transport and Environment at Cambridgeshire County Council, confirmed that the City Deal Executive Board did have the legal authority to spend part of its funding on replacing trees as part of a transport infrastructure scheme.  The County Council, as highways authority, had delegated its powers to the City Deal Executive Board in respect of City Deal transport infrastructure schemes and Mr Hughes confirmed that landscaping would form an integral part of these schemes and that the Board would be approving such details.

 

Question by Dr James Smith

 

Dr Smith asked what health impact assessment of the City Deal transport projects and proposals had been undertaken to date and what, if any, further health impact assessment was expected.

 

Mr Hughes confirmed that health impacts had been considered at a strategic level as part of the Strategic Environmental Assessment of the third Cambridgeshire Local Transport Plan, from which the City Deal schemes were drawn.  Further detailed assessments of individual schemes would be undertaken as part of the statutory processes that governed the delivery of major transport infrastructure schemes.

 

Councillor Lewis Herbert, Chairman of the Executive Board, reflected on air pollution in the city and highlighted that partners would continue to investigate solutions and any funding that may be available to help address the issue.  He added that this would include working with bus and taxi operators.

 

Councillor Ian Bates reminded the Board that public health was a County Council responsibility and an integral part of the work that Cambridgeshire County Council was doing across the county.

 

Question by Antony Carpen

 

Antony Carpen asked why the Executive Board’s risk management framework had not been signed off under the Shadow Assembly and Board, or at the first meetings of both bodies. 

 

Tanya Sheridan, City Deal Programme Director, gave an assurance that risk had been managed since the inception of the City Deal Programme.  She said that the fact that there had not been a single consolidated Risk Management Framework specifically for the City Deal up to now should not be taken as a reflection that the discipline of risk management had not been taking place.  This had been guided by the principle enshrined in the Executive Board’s Terms of Reference that the processes of the lead Council for a certain function should be followed for that specific function. 

 

Now that the Programme was moving into a delivery phase it was right that clearer political oversight was brought into the process and the proposed Risk Management Framework scheduled for consideration at this meeting at a later item sought to facilitate this.

 

Antony Carpen also asked what assessment Cambridge University and its colleges had made  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

5.

Petitions pdf icon PDF 257 KB

To consider the attached report.

Decision:

The Executive Board:

 

(a)        NOTED the report and the comments raised by County Councillors during consideration of a petition at the meeting of Cambridgeshire County Council on 19 July 2016.

 

(b)        NOTED the resolutions agreed at the Milton Road Local Liaison Forum meeting held on 9 August 2016.

 

(c)        NOTED the Joint Assembly’s request to confirm its commitment to having an aspiration for an avenue of mature flowering trees in green verges on each side of Milton Road, consistent with bus reliability and high quality cycling infrastructure provision.

 

(d)        AGREED, further to (a), (b) and (c) above, to provide a written response within two weeks confirming the Board’s position with regard to the content of the petition itself, the Milton Road Local Liaison Forum resolutions and the request by the Joint Assembly.

 

Minutes:

Consideration was given to a report which set out the views expressed by County Councillors at the meeting of Cambridgeshire County Council at its meeting on 19 July 2016 in relation to a petition opposing the City Deal plan to widen Milton Road to four lanes of traffic. 

 

It was noted that the Joint Assembly and Executive Board had received a petition from the same petitioner entitled ‘save the trees and verges on Milton Road’ at their meetings on 2 June 2016 and 9 June 2016, respectively.

 

In addition to the petition, County Councillor Joceylnne Scutt presented the following resolutions from the Milton Road Local Liaison Forum held on 9 August 2016 in respect of Oaktree Avenue and Hurst Park Avenue:

 

“The Milton Road Local Liaison Forum calls upon the City Deal Board to:

 

(i)         remove double bus lanes from its proposals for the section from Hurst Park Avenue to Oak Tree Avenue – that is, to revert to a minimum of three motorised lanes instead of four;

(ii)        remove the diagram/plan from the City Deal website which represents there being a four lane carriageway, or make it clear beyond doubt where it appears that this diagram/plan has no relevance to the proposal;

(iii)       confirm that independent, paid consultants expert in the field of public realm, landscaping, trees and verges will be appointed immediately to the City Deal project, and be an equal part of the Milton Road project as the engineers;

(iv)       consistent with (iii), appoint a firm of independent urban architects to develop new design options for the Milton Road streetscape.”

 

Councillor Roger Hickford, Chairman of the Joint Assembly, reported that the Joint Assembly at its meeting on 25 August 2016 had noted the content of the petition, and noted and supported resolutions (i) and (iii) above from the Milton Road Local Liaison Forum.  In addition, the Joint Assembly had recommended that the Executive Board made a commitment to having an aspiration for an avenue of mature flowering trees in green verges on each side of Milton Road, consistent with bus reliability and high quality cycling infrastructure provision.

 

The Executive Board:

 

(a)        NOTED the report and the comments raised by County Councillors during consideration of a petition at the meeting of Cambridgeshire County Council on 19 July 2016.

 

(b)        NOTED the resolutions agreed at the Milton Road Local Liaison Forum meeting held on 9 August 2016.

 

(c)        NOTED the Joint Assembly’s request to confirm its commitment to having an aspiration for an avenue of mature flowering trees in green verges on each side of Milton Road, consistent with bus reliability and high quality cycling infrastructure provision.

 

(d)        AGREED, further to (a), (b) and (c) above, to provide a written response within two weeks confirming the Board’s position with regard to the content of the petition itself, the Milton Road Local Liaison Forum resolutions and the request by the Joint Assembly.

6.

Reports and recommendations from the Joint Assembly

To receive any reports or recommendations following the meeting of the Joint Assembly held on 25 August 2016.

Minutes:

Councillor Roger Hickford, Chairman of the Joint Assembly, confirmed that he would provide a report on the Assembly’s recommendations further to its meeting on 25 August 2016 at the relevant item at this meeting.

7.

City Deal Forward Plan pdf icon PDF 133 KB

To consider the attached City Deal Forward Plan.

Decision:

The Executive Board NOTED the Forward Plan.

Minutes:

The Executive Board considered its Forward Plan.

 

Tanya Sheridan, City Deal Programme Director, presented the document and highlighted that the ‘Western Orbital – consultation results’ item, scheduled for consideration by the Board at its meeting on 10 November 2016, would include an update on the M11 Junction 11 work.  An item on the Smart Cambridge project would also be considered at that meeting.

 

Councillor Francis Burkitt referred to the item regarding the selection of preferred options for Cambourne to Cambridge, scheduled for consideration at the meeting of the Board on 13 October 2016.  He asked whether at that meeting the Board would be asked to make a decision on a preferred option.  Graham Hughes, Executive Director of Economy, Transport and Environment at Cambridgeshire County Council, was not in a position to be able to answer the question but agreed to consult with his team.

 

Regarding the item on skills, Councillor Burkitt was of the understanding that reports would be presented back to the Board on a quarterly cycle rather than six-monthly as set out in the Forward Plan.  Councillor Herbert expressed his concern with reports submitted back to the Board on a quarterly basis, which he felt was too frequent, and agreed to discuss this issue with Councillor Burkitt outside of the meeting.

 

Councillor Burkitt referred to a letter he had sent to all District Councillors and Parish Council Chairmen and Clerks regarding bus hubs and intended to bring a report, for information, to the meeting of the Executive Board on 10 November 2016.  In addition, he had identified other items for scheduling into the Forward Plan for future meetings of the Board, as follows:

 

·         update on the cross-city cycling project;

·         update on the Cambridge City greenways project;

·         residents’ parking in Cambridge and liaison with Councils;

·         Park and Ride improvements;

·         a City Deal Annual Report for the 2016/17 year.

 

Tanya Sheridan noted these suggestions and reported that the items on residents’ parking and Park and Ride sites would be included as part of the Cambridge access and congestion item scheduled to be considered by the Board at its meeting on 25 January 2017

 

The Executive Board NOTED the Forward Plan.

8.

City Deal progress report pdf icon PDF 322 KB

To consider the attached report.

Decision:

The Executive Board NOTED the progress report.

Minutes:

The Executive Board considered a progress report on the City Deal Programme.

 

Tanya Sheridan presented the report, which set out progress to date of each of the Programme’s workstreams.

 

In addition to the information contained within the report, it was noted that the planning application in relation to the Chisholm Trial was expected to be considered in December 2016.

 

The Executive Board NOTED the progress report.

9.

Monitoring delivery of 1,000 extra new homes on rural exception sites pdf icon PDF 176 KB

To consider the attached report.

Additional documents:

Decision:

The Executive Board:

 

(a)        ENDORSED the approach to monitoring set out in paragraphs 11 to 23 of the report.

 

(b)        NOTED progress towards delivery as set out in paragraph 18 of the report.

 

(c)        AGREED that it treats as the same figure of 33,500, the housing supply (both through actual housing completions and through predicted completions from permissions, allocations and windfalls) required in the submitted Local Plans for Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council, and the commitment in the City Deal agreement.

 

(d)        AGREED to define the City Deal agreement on affordable housing as follows:

 

"All affordable homes (as defined by the National Planning Policy Framework) constructed on rural exception sites, and on sites not allocated for development in the local plans and outside of a defined settlement boundary.”

 

(e)        AGREED that due consideration be given to the housing needs of local people;

 

(f)         REQUIRED Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council to identify and record eligible planning permissions and completions, and the forecast and actual years in which they are built, as set out in Appendix 1 of the report (Figure 2), detailing also the cumulative total so that the delivery of the 1,000 additional homes can be identified.

Minutes:

The Executive Board considered a report in relation to monitoring delivery of 1,000 additional new homes on rural exception sites. 

 

Caroline Hunt, Planning Policy Manager, presented the report and reminded the Board that this issue was considered in the last cycle of meetings by the Joint Assembly and Executive Board.  The focus of discussion at both meetings was on the definition of eligible homes to count towards the 1,000 additional homes.  Reflecting current circumstances and the extensive discussion by Joint Assembly and Executive Board Members previously, Mrs Hunt explained that it was appropriate to interpret the City Deal agreement to count the affordable housing on sites coming forward in the rural area as exceptions to the normal Local Plan policies.  The following definition was therefore proposed:

 

“All affordable homes (as defined by the National Planning Policy Framework) constructed on rural exception sites, and on sites not allocated for development in the local plans and outside of a defined settlement boundary”.

 

She felt that this revised definition reflected the Assembly and Board’s aspiration to follow local expectations at the time of the Deal’s consideration that homes were affordable homes, as per the majority of homes delivered through rural exception site policy.

 

Councillor Roger Hickford, Chairman of the Joint Assembly, reported that the Joint Assembly had considered this report at its meeting on 25 August 2016.  Following extensive debate and discussion, the Joint Assembly had:

 

(a)        NOTED progress towards delivery as set out in paragraph 18 of the report.

 

(b)        RECOMMENDED that the Executive Board endorses the approach to monitoring as outlined in paragraphs 11 to 23 of the report.

 

(c)        RECOMMENDED that the Executive Board:

 

(i)         treats as the same figure of 33,500, the housing supply (both through actual housing completions and through predicted completions from permissions, allocations and windfalls) required in the submitted Local Plans for Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council, and the commitment in the City Deal agreement;

 

(ii)        defines the City Deal agreement on affordable housing as follows:

 

"All affordable homes (as defined by the National Planning Policy Framework) constructed on rural exception sites, and on sites not allocated for development in the local plans and outside of a defined settlement boundary.”

 

(iii)       requests that due consideration be given to the housing needs of local people;

 

(iv)       requires Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council to identify and record eligible planning permissions and completions, and the forecast and actual years in which they are built, as set out in Appendix 1 of the report (Figure 2), detailing also the cumulative total so that the delivery of the 1,000 additional homes can be identified.

 

Councillor Bridget Smith, Member of the Joint Assembly and South Cambridgeshire District Councillor, said that it was imperative that the definition was as close to the principles originally signed up to as possible, particularly in respect of meeting local need.  She highlighted that another option could be to state that the objective set out in the original agreement  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

10.

Cambridge Promotions Agency update pdf icon PDF 211 KB

To consider the attached report.

Decision:

The Executive Board NOTED the update report and REQUESTED a meeting involving a representative of the Board, the Cambridge Promotions Agency and the Greater Cambridge Greater Peterborough Enterprise Partnership to discuss the future of the Agency.

 

Minutes:

Tanya Sheridan, City Deal Programme Director, presented a report which provided an update on the progress and direction of the Cambridge Promotion Agency.

 

It was noted that whilst the Agency was making a positive difference, it was unlikely to become self-sustaining financially within the next year.  No funding contribution had been received by the Local Enterprise Partnership or University to date and visiting investors did not expect to make financial contributions to the Agency on the way in, partly due to the fact that they were entertained lavishly in other competing regions.

 

Mark Reeve referred to a meeting of the Joint Assembly Local Enterprise Partnership Members that was scheduled to take place on 5 September 2016 and felt that further dialogue with the Local Enterprise Partnership and the Cambridge Promotions Agency would be useful in order to discuss possible expansion beyond its current remit.  Councillor Lewis Herbert, Chairman of the Executive Board, welcomed such a meeting.

 

It was noted that the investment already put into the Agency by the City Deal Partnership had been provided through the New Homes Bonus contributions of the three partner Councils.  Councillor Burkitt referred to the minutes of the meeting of the Board held on 6 March 2015, when the decision regarding this investment was made, and highlighted that it had been stated at that meeting that no further investment would be necessary.  He therefore concluded that contributions from the City Deal were likely to end after the two year period of the initial investment.

 

The Executive Board NOTED the update report and REQUESTED a meeting involving a representative of the Board, the Cambridge Promotions Agency and the Greater Cambridge Greater Peterborough Enterprise Partnership to discuss the future of the Agency.

11.

City Deal Risk Management Framework pdf icon PDF 136 KB

To consider the attached report.

Additional documents:

Decision:

The Executive Board:

 

(a)        APPROVED the draft Risk Management Framework, to apply across the City Deal Programme.

 

(b)        AGREED to receive reports on the City Deal strategic risk management on a six-monthly basis and would otherwise consider risks only by exception should they be new red risks or significantly increased risks.

 

Minutes:

Consideration was given to a report which provided the Executive Board with an opportunity to agree a Risk Management Framework to apply across the City Deal Programme.

 

Aaron Blowers, City Deal Project Manager, presented the report and outlined the proposed key principles of the Framework, noted as follows:

 

·         separate strategic and project-specific risk management, allowing detailed risks to be managed at a detailed level and strategic risks to be managed at a strategic level, with cascading and escalation between the two;

·         Strategic Risk Register to be owned by the Executive Board, advised by the Programme Board as the senior officer management group;

·         quarterly Strategic Risk Register reporting to the Executive Board and Joint Assembly.

 

Mr Blowers emphasised that risk management had been taking place in the City Deal Programme since its inception, but that this had been undertaken without the guidance of a single point of reference document resulting in ad hoc reporting arrangements.  Adopting a City Deal Risk Management Framework therefore provided robust guidance to officers managing risks across the Programme, including implementing a process of escalating and cascading risks that reflected good programme and project management discipline. 

 

Councillor Roger Hickford, Chairman of the Joint Assembly, reported that the Assembly had recommended approval of the draft Risk Management Framework.  He added, however, that he only saw the need for the Joint Assembly, as a distinct from the Board, to consider the Strategic Risk Register annually but had requested that consideration be given to specific risks on a by exception only basis should they be new red risks or significantly increased risks.

 

Discussion ensued on the frequency of reports back to the Board in respect of risk management, with some Members preferring quarterly and some Members opting for six-monthly.  It was agreed that reports should be received by the Board on a six monthly basis, but with the same provision as agreed by the Joint Assembly with regard to reports by exception should they be new red risks or significantly increased risks.

 

The Executive Board:

 

(a)        APPROVED the draft Risk Management Framework, to apply across the City Deal Programme.

 

(b)        AGREED to receive reports on the City Deal strategic risk management on a six-monthly basis and would otherwise consider risks only by exception should they be new red risks or significantly increased risks.

 

12.

2016/17 Quarter 1 financial monitoring report pdf icon PDF 266 KB

To consider the attached report.

Decision:

The Executive Board NOTED the financial position as at 31 July 2016.

Minutes:

The Executive Board considered a report which provided the Board with the financial monitoring position for the period ending 31 July 2016 in respect of the City Deal Programme.

 

Sarah Heywood, Head of Finance and Performance at Cambridgeshire County Council, presented the report and highlighted a request at the Joint Assembly meeting held on 25 August 2016 for more detail to be added to future reports regarding changes in costs and any slippage in scheme delivery.  She confirmed that this would be reflected in future reporting.

 

Councillor Lewis Herbert, Chairman of the Executive Board, noted the table in paragraph 4.2.3 of the report which outlined the actual expenditure incurred as at the end of July.  He understood that some money had been spent which was not reflected in the table, but it was reported that some invoices had not yet been received and so could not be accounted for in this table for actual expenditure.

 

Councillor Francis Burkitt asked for clarity over the amount of New Homes Bonus available to the City Deal each year and how much of this funding had already been spent.  Sarah Heywood reported that this information would be included in a financial strategy reported scheduled for consideration at the Executive Board on 10 November 2016.  It was agreed that the Forward Plan would be amended to reflect that the Board would receive both a financial monitoring report and the financial strategy report at its meeting on 10 November 2016.

 

The Executive Board NOTED the financial position as at 31 July 2016.