Agenda, decisions and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence.

There were no apologies for absence.

There were no apologies for absence.

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

There were no declarations of interest.

There were no declarations of interest.

To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 19^th July 2017.

The minutes of the meeting held on 19^th July were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairperson, subject to correcting two typographical errors and on page 17 of the agenda pack, deleting the second and third paragraph of the second bullet point, to be replaced with ‘It would be more prudent to evaluate busses using grid average Green House Gas emissions’.

The minutes of the meeting held on 19^th July were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairperson, subject to correcting two typographical errors and on page 17 of the agenda pack, deleting the second and third paragraph of the second bullet point, to be replaced with ‘It would be more prudent to evaluate busses using grid average Green House Gas emissions’.

Three public questions had been submitted, two of which were taken at the meeting under agenda item six.  The third question did not relate to an item on the agenda and would be resubmitted to the November meeting. 

Three public questions had been submitted, two of which were taken at the meeting under agenda item six.  The third question did not relate to an item on the agenda and would be resubmitted to the November meeting. 

No petitions were received.

No petitions were received.

To consider the attached report.

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

(a)          Agree, based on the considerations in the report, to undertake further public consultation on the Park and Ride options and route alignments identified in Appendix 4 for the Cambourne to Cambridge Better Bus Journey scheme as part of the ongoing development of the Full Outline Business Case, subject to a further meeting with the LLF Technical Group to further refine option 6; and the consultation including further detail on the connectivity to key employment sites and on the connection to the M11 subject to work with Highways England; and

(b)          Agree the timetable in the report.

The Joint Assembly considered a report to be presented to the next Executive Board meeting, which provided an update on further assessment work carried out on the proposed Cambourne to Cambridge Better Bus Journey Scheme and proposed an approach to the next stage of public consultation.

Helen Bradbury, Chairperson of the Local Liaison Forum (LLF) attended the meeting and presented feedback on the Forum’s views on the proposals.  As part of her presentation, Ms Bradbury summarised the following recommendations that were agreed at the LLF meeting on 11^th September 2017:

• The LLF welcomed the removal of Crome Lea as a potential site for a new park and ride, but was concerned that another site on Madingley Hill had been included in the shortlist.  The LLF did not consider Madingley Hill as a suitable location because of poor accessibility, poor connectivity, the unacceptably high environmental damage caused by a site there and the fact that it was located after congestion began, so would worsen, not alleviate local traffic problems.  The LLT therefore recommended that all options for a perk and ride site on Madingley Hill in the vicinity of the Madingley Mulch roundabout be dropped.
• The LLF rejected claims made at the Executive Board meeting on 26^th July 2017 that it was seeking to block all work.  It was concerned that projects were being set up in a sequence that was not cumulative and which could be contradictory and could result in excessive sums of money being allocated to schemes that may have a short operative duration.  The LLF proposed that the Executive Board should differentiate at the time of its approval between short term and long term measures. 
• The LLF did not consider that option 6 had been fairly presented in the documentation to date and asked that before the next public consultation the GCP instruct officers to work with the LLF to develop option 6 so that the best on-road alternative was presented to the public.
• The LLF did not agree with the scoring of the Enhanced Multi Criteria Assessment Framework (MCAF) which it regarded as illogical and biased in favour of option 3a.  It asked the GCP to instruct officers to work with the LLF Technical Group over the next six months to prepare the final business case documentation for the three options under consideration and to conduct the next public consultation. 
• The LLF sought urgent clarification of the logic of choosing Grange Road on the western edge of the City as an end point for the proposed bus route and a detailed explanation of how busses will journey between the key city centre locations of Bridge Street and Drummer Street bus station.
• The LLF remained concerned that the environmental impact of a park and ride site on Madingley Hill and the off-line 3a busway were being significantly underplayed in the documentation and asked that these assessments were re-analysed, with the possible future impacts of future proofing considered. 
• The LLF asked that the timing  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

To consider the attached report.

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

(a)          Note the progress to date;

(b)          Delegate to the Chief Executive in consultation with the Chairperson a response to Highways England (HE) supporting:

·         the inclusion of an M11 Smart Motorway upgrade within the next Highways England Route Investment Strategy whilst ensuring that local impacts are fully assessed through the business case development process; and

·         the upgrade of the functionality and the ‘all movement’ accessibility of the Girton Interchange subject to full impact assessment;

(c)          Agree to increase the number of spaces at the Trumpington Park and Ride site subject to necessary planning permissions being obtained;

(d)          Agree to undertake a more detailed business case analysis as set out in this report in relation to medium term Park and Ride expansion and Park and Cycle options and associated junction improvements; and

(e)          Agree the next steps/ timetable detailed in the report.

The Joint Assembly considered a report to be presented to the next Executive Board meeting which provided information on further assessment of the Western Orbital project undertaken since December 2016.  It was noted that this project had a number of specific work streams including park and ride expansion and engagement with Highways England (HE) on the strategy for the M11 corridor to improve access to key growth sites and bus priority.

Helen Bradbury, Chairperson of the Local Liaison Forum (LLF) attended the meeting and presented feedback on the Forum’s views on the proposals.  Ms Bradbury expressed concern about the time available for the LLF to consider proposals in advance of GCP meetings and drew attention to the fact that over half its members represented Parish Councils and had to consult their members in advance of LLF meetings.  On the specific proposals she reported that she had two Western Orbital meetings to report back on.  The first on 21^st June 2017 had resolved that:

Park and Ride should be sited before congestion begins and as a general principal new transport infrastructure should not be allowed to urbanise villages surrounding the City or damage the City’s Green Belt.  The LLF requested that the City Deal:

·       Investigate sites south of Harston.

·       Prioritise rail.

·       Consider a heavy rail park and ride at Foxton.

The second meeting took place on 11^th September 2017 and looked specifically at the proposals being considered today about the expansion of the current park and ride site.  On behalf of Trumpington Residents Association the LLF asked:

·         That a full risk assessment of the proposed expansion be undertaken recognising it was located in a residential area and was located next to a school. 

·         That the expansion include additional landscaping and a wooded screening area between the park and ride site and the primary school right next to it.

·         What evidence supported the statement that the existing road network could cope with yet more demand as a result of this expansion.

With reference to the upgrading of the M11 to a Smart motorway, the LLF asked for more information on what this would entail; what the safety implications were; and how this would be accommodated by the County.

The Executive Director of Economy, Transport and Environmental Services in introducing the report drew attention to the fact this was an update report.  He explained that a range of issues were being discussed with HE and reassured the Joint Assembly that this was very much being linked to associated proposals for the A428 and Madingley Road.  Work included Girton Interchange, its relationship to the current A14 scheme and also links to a potential expressway scheme.  There were no absolute conclusions to those discussions yet, but officers were challenging HE to identify things that could be done sooner rather than later.  Work on Junction 11 was continuing with the aim of getting a direct route into the park and ride site and Design Teams were working to prepare detailed proposal for this.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

To consider the attached report.

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

(a)          Develop a 10 year Future Investment Strategy (FIS) and the process set out in paragraphs 11-15 of the report for agreeing priorities; and

(b)          Undertake a significant engagement exercise (called Our Big Conversation) in order that the views of stakeholders, residents and businesses can be included in the development of the FIS.

The Joint Assembly considered a report to be presented to the next Executive Board meeting, which outlined a proposed process for developing a ten year Future Investment Strategy for the GCP.

The Interim Chief Executive in introducing the report drew attention to the need for the GCP to focus its ambition on its long term vision for economic growth and to align its resources accordingly.  This would build on progress made to date, but would also articulate a longer term view of how it was planned to prioritise the use of available funding.  She outlined plans to hold a ‘Big Conversation’ with stakeholders, residents and businesses to assist in developing proposals for investment over the longer term. 

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

·         Sir Michael Marshall supported the proposals and asked how Joint Assembly members could help with the planned Big Conversation.  In response the Interim Director explained that, subject to the Executive Board’s decision next week, there would be a wide range of events and Joint Assembly members were welcome to participate in as many as they were able to. 

·         Councillor Bridget Smith reported that she had asked for information on how successful the GCP had been in attracting matched funding and suggested that it might have been useful to have had that information to inform this discussion.  In response, it was confirmed that a response to Councillor Smith’s question was being prepared.  In addition this information would be covered as part of the budget report to be presented to the November meeting.

·         Claire Ruskin commented that she had been asked by LEP colleagues to point out that in paragraph 12 of the report there was no mention of the Strategic Economic Plan and the Strategic Economic Evidence Base.  She suggested that it may be appropriate to include reference to these.  With reference to the planned Big Conversation, Ms Ruskin was supportive of this, but highlighted the importance of making sure that the GCP showed some leadership in the process rather than just asking a range of open ended questions.

·         Councillor Tim Bick supported Claire Ruskin’s comments about the need for leadership and focus in the proposed Big Conversation.  He commented the need to be clear what priorities were being discussed and asked for confirmation that these were the various interventions that were discussed in the task and finish groups.  In response the Interim Chief Executive confirmed that that was the case.  She commented that the intention was to report back to the Joint Assembly and Executive Board on the outcome of these conversations so it would be important to ensure the discussions were structured accordingly.

·         Andy Williams supported the proposals but emphasised the need to use individuals who were experienced in engaging with the public to ensure the conversations were meaningful. 

The Joint Assembly considered the officer recommendations and agreed unanimously to RECOMMEND that the Executive Board:  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

To consider the attached report.

The Joint Assembly agreed by 7 votes to 6 to RECOMMEND that the Executive Board:

Agree to withdraw the report and defer consideration of this item so it can be discussed the Skills Working Group, with the outcome of this being reported back to the next meeting of the Joint Assembly and Executive Board in November.

The Joint Assembly considered a report to be presented to the next Executive Board meeting, which set out progress with the skills work stream and recommended next steps. 

The Strategic Programme and Commissioning Manager, in introducing the report confirmed that the skills work stream had so far secured good progress across its involvement in a number of activities and current projects had been delivered on time and within budget.  However, the work stream had not yet been able to demonstrate a direct and fully evidenced link between the work agreed to date and the 420 apprenticeship target agreed as part of the City Deal Agreement.  A number of proposals were being recommended to address this issue, including setting up a GCP apprenticeship matching/brokerage service with a focus on STEM based apprenticeships. 

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

·         Councillor Bridget Smith expressed concern about the proposals, which she saw as the GCP’s exit strategy from direct involvement in skills work.  While she accepted that the LEP and the Combined Authority had significant roles in this area, she stressed the fact that the GCP was the only body looking specifically at provision in South Cambridgeshire and Cambridge City and if the GCP pulled out there was no guarantee that anyone else would fill the void.  Councillor Smith was also concerned that the proposed solution had not yet been discussed by the newly formed Skills Working Group and was of the opinion that the report should be withdrawn until such time as the Group had been afforded an opportunity to consider it.  That aside, Councillor Smith commented that she had very serious concerns about what the paper was proposing and suggested that the idea of a brokerage scheme was being proposed without any evidence to suggest it would address the problem or was what people wanted.  She was surprised that it was planned to only promote STEM apprenticeships when previously it had been agreed to promote construction. 

·         Helen Valentine was also skeptical that the proposals were the right solution as she was not at all sure that the GCP had a valid role to play in skills.  She was anxious that there would not be a good return on money spent on this proposal. She accepted this was part of the original bid but saw no problem in admitting after stage one to agree that as a result of work to date the GCP was not best placed to deal with skills matters. 

·         Councillor John Williams commented that he disagreed with the proposed focus on STEM and reiterated the need to focus on construction.  There was a desperate need to train up a local workforce to undertake this type of work.

·         Councillor Grenville Chamberlain supported Councillor Smith’s suggestion that the Skills Working Group be asked to look at this in more detail and report back.  Mark Robertson also spoke in support of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

To consider the attached report.

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

(a)          Note the quarterly progress report and its appendices;

(b)          Agree to redefine the target completion date for Chisholm Trail cycle links Phase 2, to reflect experience of the planning process for Phase 1 [see para. 17of the report]; and

(c)          Endorse the scope and key objectives of the Greenways and Rural Travel Hubs schemes [see Appendix 2 of the report].

The Joint Assembly considered a report to be presented to the next Executive Board meeting, which detailed progress across the GCP programme since the last report presented in July 2017.  The report covered the following:

• Financial Monitoring.
• Greenways and Rural Travel Hubs.
• The GCP Strategic Risk Register.
• Forward Plan of Executive Board Decisions.

The Strategic Programme and Commissioning Manager in introducing the report drew attention to the fact that in response to questions asked at the last meeting, the report now contained information on where affordable homes were being built and would in future include reference to national trends on apprenticeships. 

The Joint Assembly considered the officer recommendations and agreed unanimously to RECOMMEND that the Executive Board:

(a)          Note the quarterly progress report and its appendices;

(b)          Agree to redefine the target completion date for Chisholm Trail cycle links Phase 2, to reflect experience of the planning process for Phase 1 [see para. 17of the report]; and

(c)          Endorse the scope and key objectives of the Greenways and Rural Travel Hubs schemes [see Appendix 2 of the report].

To note the following:

Thursday 2^nd November 2017, Council Chamber, South Cambridgeshire Hall, Cambourne

Thursday 18^th January 2018, Kreis Viersen Room, Shire Hall, Cambridge

Wednesday 28^th February 2018, Council Chamber, South Cambridgeshire Hall, Cambourne

Thursday 14^th June 2018 *

Thursday 20^th September 2018 *

Thursday 15^th November 2018 *

All meetings to commence at 2.00 p.m.

* Venue to be confirmed

The Joint Assembly noted arrangements for future meetings:

·         Thursday 2^nd November 2017, Council Chamber, South Cambridgeshire Hall, Cambourne

·         Thursday 18^th January 2018, Kreis Viersen Room, Shire Hall, Cambridge

·         Wednesday 28^th February 2018, Council Chamber, South Cambridgeshire Hall, Cambourne

·         Thursday 14^th June 2018 *

·         Thursday 20^th September 2018 *

·         Thursday 15^th November 2018 *

All meetings to commence at 2.00 p.m.

* Venue to be confirmed

The Joint Assembly noted arrangements for future meetings:

·         Thursday 2^nd November 2017, Council Chamber, South Cambridgeshire Hall, Cambourne

·         Thursday 18^th January 2018, Kreis Viersen Room, Shire Hall, Cambridge

·         Wednesday 28^th February 2018, Council Chamber, South Cambridgeshire Hall, Cambourne

·         Thursday 14^th June 2018 *

·         Thursday 20^th September 2018 *

·         Thursday 15^th November 2018 *

All meetings to commence at 2.00 p.m.

* Venue to be confirmed