Issue - meetings

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

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

Question by Antony Carpen

Antony Carpen asked what plans the City Deal authorities had in place for organising events specifically targeted at young people, such as children at schools and colleges, and how they planned on improving the coordination of consultations with other important consultations going out at the same time, such as the consultation on devolution in Cambridgeshire and site specific works like the Chisholm Trail.

In addition, he asked whether Councils would be receptive to community groups and individuals that wanted to host consultation events in Council owned buildings and waive booking fees for such public meetings.

Tanya Sheridan, City Deal Programme Director, reported that the City Deal Partnership was using parent mail in respect of young people at schools to ensure that children and parents were aware of the City Deal’s key messages and updates.  Social media was also being used more widely to ensure that a broader audience could be reached.  She agreed that this group of people was a very important audience and said that the Partnership aspired to increase engagement in this respect. 

In terms of consultations, Tanya Sheridan reported that the three partner Councils did liaise with one another in respect of the publication and launch of consultations to ensure that, where possible, they did not clash and that they were coordinated.  She added her support, in principle, to community events but highlighted that there would be costs that needed covering in terms of facilities, especially after working hours.

Councillor Lewis Herbert, Chairman of the Executive Board, agreed that there needed to be wider engagement with young people and said that he would be willing to meet with Mr Carpen to discuss putting together an event focussed on young people and how this issue could be taken forward.  Professor Nigel Slater added that the University would support such an event if it took place.

Question by Wendy Blythe

Wendy Blythe referred to the meeting of the Joint Assembly held on 7 July 2016 in respect of the Smart Cambridge project where Dr Ian Lewis of the University of Cambridge was quoted as saying “we will know whether building a bus lane down Milton Road actually improves the journeys of the bus on the road or not”. 

Additionally, Wendy Blythe made reference 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.”

Wendy Blythe said that other ideas could include investment in rail, regional travel hubs, smart traffic signals and greater investment in South Cambridge projects to collect high quality data and provide personalised travel information.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4

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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4