Agenda item

To consider a report by Chris Malyon, Chief Finance Officer (Cambridgeshire County Council), scheduled for consideration by the Executive Board on 3 March 2016.

The Joint Assembly RECOMMENDED that the Executive Board:

(a)        Notes the briefing note appertaining to the future of New Homes Bonus.

(b)        Approves the budgetary provision for the 2016/17 operational budget, subject to more information being made available on the further spending items, including the City Deal Programme’s staffing structure.

(c)        Requests that more detailed proposals be brought forward in respect of the additional investment in Housing and Intelligent Mobility.

(d)        Approves the provisional profiling for the remainder of Phase 1 of the programme, subject to the inclusion of reconciliation in respect of the apparent slippage of some schemes.

(e)        Agrees that the unallocated New Homes Bonus pooled resource be retained to facilitate the successful delivery of Phase 1 of the programme.

(f)        Considers a further report on the strategy for the redistribution of unallocated monies before the end of the year.

The Joint Assembly considered a report setting out the Greater Cambridge City Deal programme and operational proposed budgets for the 2016/17 financial year.  It also provided the Assembly with an opportunity to consider the continued pooling of New Homes Bonus for 2016/17 and how unallocated resources should be utilised.

Chris Malyon, Chief Finance Officer at Cambridgeshire County Council, presented the report and highlighted the operational budget which set out the expenditure required to support the City Deal Programme.  He highlighted two specific issues in relation to housing and intelligent mobility, as follows:

·         there were significant stresses in the Greater Cambridge Housing market and a small amount of funding was sought to better understand the demands and to define distinct housing products that could potentially meet this need.  Funding was also sought to develop new partnership models to tackle these issues.  Once these studies had been carried out, they may indicate opportunities for further work and investment to tackle housing market issues, as well as create an improved supply chain;

·         running in parallel with the existing hard infrastructure schemes which formed part of the City Deal programme, there was an opportunity to establish a workstream to deliver the first steps towards intelligent mobility with four interlinked work packages.  These were in addition to the ‘Smart City Platform’ proposal.

Mr Malyon reported on the City Deal’s pooled resource and stated that, although the New Homes Bonus position had been clarified for the 2016/17 financial year, there was uncertainty over the future of the funding stream.  In agreeing the projected operational budget set out in the report, a sum of £7.8 million would remain uncommitted by the end of Tranche 1 of the City Deal Programme.  He recommended that, given the uncertainly around the future of New Homes Bonus, it would be inappropriate for the Joint Assembly and Executive Board to consider making any commitments beyond the resource envelope that the City Deal had at its disposal.  A briefing note on the New Homes Bonus, together with details of the Government’s consultation into proposed changes to the funding stream, were appended to the report.

It was also highlighted that the level of funding received by Government for the first five years of the City Deal Programme, £100 million for Tranche 1, would be insufficient to cover the approximate £160 million of schemes included within it.  Mr Malyon said that other funding streams, such as developer contributions, would need to be secured. 

Discussion ensued by Members of the Assembly, further to which the following points were noted:

·         consideration should be given to returning any unspent New Homes Bonus monies back to the three partner Councils.  Mr Malyon responded by saying that this was an option the Executive Board could consider, although, in his view, he felt that it was too premature to make such a decision at this stage;

·         there was a relatively high increase in budgets for central co-ordination and communications across 2016/17 and these costs should be kept to a minimum.  It was noted that the Programme Director, having been in post for a few months, had identified the resources required in order to effectively deliver the programme which had previously relied on officers from the three partner Councils supporting the City Deal in addition to their respective jobs;

·         there was an additional line in the budget for affordable housing, specifically for housing research.  In view of the extensive experience both District  Councils had in relation to the housing market, a question was asked as to what additional research may be necessary that the Council’s officers would not be able to provide.  Mr Malyon reported that the City Council had requested this additional piece of research, which was outside of the expertise that the Councils had at their disposal.  The research would investigate new delivery models, given recent significant legislative changes, and establish their feasibility and practicality for the City Deal programme.  A more detailed report on the outcomes of this specific investment would be reported into the Joint Assembly and Executive Board in due course;

·         a more comprehensive explanation of the detail surrounding proposed spending in respect of the operational budget should be included.  This was unanimously supported by the Assembly.  Tanya Sheridan, City Deal Programme Director, agreed that further information would be included in future reports and explained that the original £210,000 effectively paid for three posts.  These were the Programme Director, the Project Manager and the Strategic Communications Manager.  A further increase of £281,000 would enable the City Deal to hire a graduate trainee to work on the economic and housing aspects of the programme, to employ a project/communications support officer providing administrative support to the programme across the three Councils, as well as ensuring provision for legal and other professional advice that may be required at various stages of the programme.  This additional funding would also provide a relatively small budget for strategic communications;

·         anticipated external funding streams should be identified so that it was better understood where additional funding was coming from and how much it was likely to be.  It was noted that a significant amount of external funding would be made available through developer contributions, such as through Section 106 Agreements or the Community Infrastructure Levy.  Mr Malyon was reluctant to highlight the amount required through these funding streams as this could potentially negatively impact negotiations with developers.  Various other grant funding opportunities would be available to the City Deal and, although there was no specific programme to share with the Assembly or Board at this stage, Mr Malyon agreed to set out a broad expectation of where that additional funding may come from;

·         more information should be provided on the apparent slippage of some transport infrastructure schemes.  Bob Menzies, Director of Strategy and Development at Cambridgeshire County Council, responded by explaining that the start and finish dates in the report related to construction rather than when schemes would be paid by.  Transport infrastructure schemes were complex in terms of the comparison between construction finish dates and the date that a scheme finished being paid for.  He cited examples of land transfers that sometimes took years to complete and in some cases were still ongoing once schemes had been completed and opened for use.  In terms of the A1307 scheme, there had been an initial delay in the reporting cycle but it was noted that this should not delay the scheme in accordance with the originally anticipated delivery timescale.  The Joint Assembly agreed that reconciliation in respect of the apparent slippage of some schemes should be made available to make this clearer.

The Joint Assembly RECOMMENDED that the Executive Board:

(a)        Noted the briefing note appertaining to the future of New Homes Bonus.

(b)        Approved the budgetary provision for the 2016/17 operational budget, subject to more information being made available on the further spending items, including the City Deal Programme’s staffing structure.

(c)        Requested that more detailed proposals be brought forward in respect of the additional investment in Housing and Intelligent Mobility.

(d)        Approved the provisional profiling for the remainder of Phase 1 of the programme, subject to the inclusion of reconciliation in respect of the apparent slippage of some schemes.

(e)        Agreed that the unallocated New Homes Bonus pooled resource be retained to facilitate the successful delivery of Phase 1 of the programme.

(f)        Considered a further report on the strategy for the redistribution of unallocated monies before the end of the year.