Agenda item

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

Sir Michael Marshall had submitted a request for an update on the City Deal and

its funding in light of the result of the EU Referendum and devolution proposals.

Tanya Sheridan, City Deal Programme Director, firstly addressed the issue of devolution, stating that this was additional to the City Deal and that it comprised of new money with funding in relation to the City Deal agreement between the Government and partners having not changed.  The next step for the devolution deal was a public consultation on the proposed Mayoral Combined Authority.  She reminded the Joint Assembly that the City Deal was a partnership programme with joint governance arrangements and that City Deal partners would need to decide how it would fit with a new Combined Authority.  There were significant links and it would be important that the City Deal and devolution deal delivered sustainable economic growth for the benefit of local communities.

In respect of the EU Referendum, the outcome was having very significant consequences nationally and in the Greater Cambridge area.  Tanya Sheridan said it was too early at this stage to say exactly what the implications were nationally or locally, or for the City Deal.  Papers for this meeting had highlighted that the risk of a recession was much higher as a result of the outcome of the Referendum, which would mean a slower rate of housing delivery with implications for some City Deal funding streams.  She added that there was also some evidence already of implications for skills, but committed to continue monitoring the situation closely.

In terms of the security of City Deal funding, Tanya Sheridan clarified that the agreement with Government committed funding for Tranche 1 of the City Deal, with Tranches 2 and 3 on the basis of independent economic assessments.  She emphasised that the commitment from the Government in that respect had not changed but highlighted that the City Deal must be able to demonstrate that it was able to deliver and that benefits were realised in order to unlock future funding allocations.  It was noted that, to date, £40 million had been received through two instalments and the balance of Tranche 1 funding was due to be paid in three instalments of £20 million in April 2017, April 2018 and April 2019.  Assuming funding was made available for Tranches 2 and 3, following the independent economic assessments that would be undertaken in 2019 and 2024, those payments would be received in equal instalments each April.  In the case of Tranche 2 this would be in 2025-2029, with Tranches 2 and 3 both expected to make available up to £200 million each with the precise amount dependant on the outcome of the independent economic assessments.

The following questions by members of the public were asked and answered as follows:

Question by Robin Pellew

Robin Pellew was not in attendance at the meeting but asked, on behalf of Cambridge Past, Present and Future, whether the City Deal would share its traffic modelling of the effects of a 10-15% traffic reduction on the journey times of buses along the main arterial roads, particularly Histon Road, Milton Road and the A1303, both with and without the proposed new bus lanes.

Councillor Roger Hickford, Chairman of the Joint Assembly, asked officers to provide Mr Pellew with a written response.

Question by Wendy Blythe

Wendy Blythe referred to a recent public meeting where over 200 people from Cambridge and local villages voted overwhelmingly to support the following motion:

“We have no confidence in the City Deal’s bus lane proposals, and consider the consultations and decision making processes to be flawed and lacking in transparency and the decision making processes to be non-evidential.

We call upon the City Deal to consider instead better, smarter ideas, such as those already suggested by experts and residents.”

She reported that a subsequent comment was that the City Deal leaders needed to go back to the Government and ask for more time to come up with better ideas that the whole community could support. 

Wendy Blythe therefore asked what the Assembly’s response was in respect of the above resolution and the request that more time be allocated to improve City Deal proposals.

Councillor Hickford made the point that the Joint Assembly could not debate the issue at this meeting, since the required notice for such a debate had not been given with the agenda for the meeting.  It was also noted that the agenda had already been published for the Executive Board meeting on 14 July 2016, so it too would not be able to debate the motion.  Councillor Hickford agreed to consider this as an agenda item for the next meeting of the Joint Assembly.

Tanya Sheridan reminded the Joint Assembly that priority schemes for the City Deal had derived from the Joint Transport Strategy for Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire and the Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire Local Plans, all of which had been extensively consulted upon.  The Executive Board had adopted the Tranche 1 programme at its meeting in January 2015 based on a range of factors undertaken as part of assessing the priority of schemes.  This encompassed strong support for a range of measures which included demand management as well as improving public transport, cycling and walking.  She added that a consistent theme in the call for evidence sessions in respect of city centre congestion was improving public transport.  There were lots of aspects to improving public transport, but improving journey times and reliability would be key parts of that. 

Councillor Hickford did not agree with the suggestion of going back to the Government and requesting more time.  He said that the City Deal had to use the money allocated to it as wisely as possible, with any request for additional time potentially likely to negatively impact future City Deal funding.    

Question by Helen Bradbury

Helen Bradbury welcomed the establishment of Local Liaison Forums by the Executive Board as part of its commitment to greater transparency and public engagement. 

She reported that the first meeting of the Western Orbital scheme took place on 14 June 2016 where twenty three elected representatives had attended from communities affected by the scheme.  Ten key issues were debated and resolutions adopted almost unanimously in every case, which she felt was a powerful representation of public opinion and collective resolve.  She was therefore concerned as to how the views of the Local Liaison Forum fed into the decision making process and sought assurance from the Joint Assembly that these views would not simply be dismissed, particularly in view of the fact that Assembly Members did not currently receive minutes from these meetings and they did not form an agenda item for discussion at meetings of the Joint Assembly.  Helen Bradbury therefore asked for consideration to be given to this issue.

Councillor Hickford referred to an item on delegated powers safeguards scheduled to be considered later at this meeting where it was recommended that the Chairman of each Local Liaison Forum be invited to speak at meetings of the Joint Assembly or Executive Board when consideration was being given to that particular scheme.  He also requested that Members of the Joint Assembly and Board received notification of Local Liaison Forums meetings, together with copies of the minutes from those meetings.  Councillor Hickford added that he would personally seek to attend as many Local Liaison Forums relating to City Deal schemes as he could.