Agenda, decisions and minutes

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 from Joint Assembly Members

Minutes:

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Maurice Leeke (Cambridgeshire County Council), Sir Michael Marshall (Marshall Group) and Jane Ramsey (Cambridge University Hospitals).

2.

Minutes of previous meeting pdf icon PDF 231 KB

To authorise the Chairman to sign the minutes of the previous meeting held on 12 January 2015 as a correct record

Minutes:

The minutes of the previous meeting held on 12 January 2015 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 Joint Assembly in respect of any items on this agenda

Minutes:

Claire Ruskin declared a non-pecuniary interest in item 18(a) with regard to inward investment and her role as Chief Executive of the Cambridge Network.

4.

Questions by members of the public pdf icon PDF 38 KB

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

Minutes:

The following questions were asked, the answers to which the Chairman felt would be provided as part of debating item 7(c) at this meeting:

 

Question by Jim Chisholm

 

Mr Chisholm made the following points in presenting his question:

 

·         on 2 March 2015 an Office of the Duty Prime Minister press release cited research showing that if this country had levels of cycling similar to Denmark it could save the NHS £17 billion within 20 years, reduce road deaths by 30%, increase mobility of the nation’s poorest families by 25% and increase retail sales by a quarter;

·         travel for Cambridgeshire surveys showed that the average length of cycle commutes was nearly six kilometres;

·         the 2011 census stated that 10% of commuting trips in South Cambridgeshire were by cycle, with 2,400 over 5 kilometres and 650 more than 10 kilometres;

·         cycle trips across the boundary from South Cambridgeshire to the city had increased by 89% in the last nine years, whereas numbers of car trips were relatively stable;

·         over half the benefits of new cycle schemes under Cycle Ambitions Grants were from improved health, which had big economic benefits;

·         36% of households in the lowest quintile income group in East Anglia had no access to a van or car.

 

Mr Chisholm asked what the Joint Assembly, and the general public, could do to ensure that the Board was better aware of this and similar information.

 

Question by Gareth Bevans

 

Mr Bevans asked whether the Joint Assembly could include the following legacy, financial and social impacts as part of its consideration of longer distance foot and cycle paths in the Greater Cambridge area:

 

  • the social and health benefits of providing safe access to the countryside for city dwellers as well as those living along these corridors; 
  • the enhanced social wellbeing created by enabling and encouraging families and friends of all ages who were dispersed along these corridors to affordably, safely and routinely use these paths to interact with each other;
  • the opportunity cost of inactivity on an individual’s personal health, and the associated savings to health services should road users be given a walking or cycling alternative;
  • the economic and strategic benefits of completing the links between the Research Parks south of the City at Hinxton, Little Chesterford, Great Abington, Babraham and Addenbrooke’s, and also of linking them to the residential areas south of the city;
  • increased opportunities for tourists to extend their stay in Cambridge and explore and experience the surrounding countryside, towns, villages and attractions;
  • present and future road congestion, particularly given the housing planned for Uttlesford and settlements to the South of Cambridge;
  • the pay back period achieved on the road maintenance budget of road users who had switched transport modes to cycling and walking.

 

Question by Susan van de Ven

Susan van de Ven spoke as the County Councillor for Melbourn, Foxton, Shepreth and Meldreth, which made up a large chunk of the Cambridge to Royston corridor and part of an intensely interconnected cluster of employment centres and residential  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

5.

Petitions

To consider any petitions received since the last meeting of the Joint Assembly

Minutes:

No petitions had been received.

6.

Public transport in Greater Cambridge

To receive a presentation from a representative of Stagecoach

Minutes:

Andy Campbell, Managing Director of Stagecoach East, provided the Joint Assembly with brief presentation on his perception of the congestion problems in the Greater Cambridge area.

 

He commenced by stating that Cambridgeshire County Council had a proven track record of implementing effective transport solutions and cited the introduction of the five Park and Ride sites with bus lanes either into or out of the city as an example.  Car traffic had been held to manageable levels with the various phases of the core scheme, although each of these phases had proved successful by reducing traffic flows in the city centre itself which improved the environment and safety of Emmanuel Street.  A consequence of that success, however, was that more traffic currently flowed on the roads surrounding the core schemes.

 

The Busway and Park and Ride projects had both required additional vehicles to cope with demand, which accounted for seven million passenger journeys a year.  As a result of this proactive approach to public transport, Mr Campbell reported that Cambridge had seen significantly higher levels of investment by Stagecoach.  However, he also highlighted that some more recent projects had resulted in increased traffic congestion and made bus operation more difficult.  These included 20mph speed limits on some bus routes, the reduction of traffic lanes on Hills Road Bridge, additional traffic lights following the rail station development and the Catholic Church junction alteration which reduced the time given to motor vehicles and increased junction blocking following the removal of the yellow box.  Further reductions to the road space were also planned on Hills Road and Huntingdon Road with the floating bus stop scheme.

 

Mr Campbell fully supported the segregation of cyclists to encourage more people to cycle more safely in Cambridge, but he felt strongly that this should not be done at the expense of traffic flows throughout the city.

 

Referring to the parking charges at Park and Ride facilities, Mr Campbell saw this as a reverse congestion charge which penalised those motorists actually reducing congestion whilst making travel into the city free to those motorists who caused it.  He was therefore of the opinion that those motorists helping to reduce congestion by using the Park and Ride services should not be charged to park their vehicles.  He added that the future expansion of Cambridge had to be linked to an effective transport system that managed traffic flows but did not bar motorists from the city centre. 

 

Mr Campbell was supportive of the proposal for the improvements to the main arterial routes, although he accepted that some would be more difficult than others to achieve.  For a number of years he had requested green routes for Cambridge that were enforced, similar to the red routes in London.

 

He closed by saying that, in his view, the most effective project that would deliver an instant improvement was Hills Road from the city centre to Addenbrooke’s hospital.  He did, however, appreciate that this would be politically difficult but warned that if this section could  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

7.

REPORTS SCHEDULED FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE GREATER CAMBRIDGE CITY DEAL EXECUTIVE BOARD

7a

Proposal to establish a Greater Cambridge City Deal Housing Development Vehicle pdf icon PDF 213 KB

To consider the attached report by Alex Colyer, Executive Director (Corporate Services) at South Cambridgeshire District Council

Decision:

The Joint Assembly RECOMMENDED to the Executive Board that it approves funding, in principle, of £200,000 in 2015/16 and £200,000 in 2016/17 to support the establishment of a City Deal Housing Development Vehicle, subject to further details being made available on the business case and the specification of personnel required to establish the Joint Development Vehicle.

Minutes:

The Joint Assembly gave consideration to a report scheduled for submission to the Executive Board on 27 March 2015 which set out a proposal to establish a Greater Cambridge City Deal Housing Development Vehicle.

 

Liz Bisset, Director of Customer and Community Services at Cambridge City Council, presented the report which outlined how the proposed Housing Development Vehicle would deliver the City Deal’s commitment to deliver an additional 1,000 dwellings on exception sites by 2031.  She stated that the establishment of a Housing Development Vehicle would enable the effective and efficient delivery of the various new build programmes associated with the City Deal, including:

 

·         the development of County Council land holdings;

·         Housing Revenue Account developments for South Cambridgeshire and Cambridge City, including the recent proposal for the City Council to invest General Fund capital in housing;

·         Ermine Street Housing;

·         other City Deal Joint Ventures or Special Purpose Ventures.

 

This would ensure good project management and control over costs, as well as generate a potential revenue surplus for the City Deal partners.  It was noted that a Housing Development Vehicle would maximise the benefits of both Council’s Housing Revenue Account build programmes and other new build programmes financed through the General Fund, and would share resources and expertise.

 

The proposal included the cost of funding a team for the first two years, by which time the Housing Development Vehicle should operate on a self-funded basis.  Without this investment in the Housing Development Vehicle it would take much longer for each respective Council to deliver the City Deal’s housing development objectives.  It was noted that the proposal sought to bring together expertise, but that this would not take anything away from each Council in respect of their respective governance arrangements and development programmes.  Clarity was also given that the Development Vehicle was about delivery and would therefore not be an asset holding.

 

In answer to a question about the delivery of additional homes, it was noted that the Housing Development Vehicle would have to distinguish between housing that each Council was developing and development that each Council was enabling.  The different roles of the Housing Development Vehicle and the Councils would need to be made very clear, and it would also be necessary for the Development Vehicle to act fairly towards other developers offering affordable housing.

 

Concern was expressed that this proposal should have been considered by the three partner Councils before being submitted to the Executive Board.  It was also highlighted that this proposal was only one model of delivery and other models, together with options appraisals and alternatives, should have been included for consideration.  An example of Cambridge Horizons was cited and clarity was sought as to how the proposed approach differed from the Cambridge Horizons model.

 

Liz Bisset explained that this proposal was being reported throughout the City Deal arrangements because of the significance of housing provision on the economy and the need to meet the City Deal’s commitmentwith regard to additional affordable homes.  With regard to the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7a

7b

Greater Cambridge City Deal partnership budget 2015/16 pdf icon PDF 234 KB

To consider the attached report by Chris Malyon, Chief Finance Officer at Cambridgeshire County Council

Decision:

The Joint Assembly RECOMMENDED to the Executive Board that:

 

(a)     The following options in relation to the functions set out in the report be adopted and that budgetary provision be made within the 2015/16 Greater Cambridge City Deal non-project costs budget for:

 

·      central coordinating functions in the sum of £150,000 per year for two years;

·      strategic communications in the sum of £60,000 for two years;

·      economic assessments in the sum of £10,000 per year for two years;

·      Smart City in the sum of £20,000 per year for two years;

·      inward investment team to a maximum sum of £150,000, subject to the conditions set out in that section of the report;

·      support for the delivery of additional housing in the sum of £200,000 per year for two years.

 

(b)                    The City Deal budget for non-project costs as set out in section 6 of the report be approved for the financial year commencing 1 April 2015.

 

(c)                    The currently unutilised funding, as set out in section 8 of the report, be retained for other needs that are expected to arise to progress the City Deal objectives, including potential investment in infrastructure schemes, and be carried forward at the year-end subject to any further demands that may be agreed by the Board within the financial year.

 

(d)       These allocations be reviewed at the mid-year point and any amendments to these sums or additional elements be made at that point.

Minutes:

Consideration was given to a report scheduled for submission to the Executive Board on 27 March 2015 which sought approval of a budget for non-project costs for the 2015/16 financial year. 

 

Chris Malyon, Chief Finance Officer at Cambridgeshire County Council, presented the report and stated that the funding in relation to the Housing Development Vehicle had been included in the budget, but that the Assembly’s ‘in principle’ support would be taken into account when presented to the Executive Board.

 

Mr Maylon clarified that non-project costs were those costs associated with delivering the broad range of City Deal outcomes beyond the capital costs of delivering the infrastructure investments.  These included the delivery of additional affordable housing in the Greater Cambridge area, the creation of over 400 new apprenticeships, exploration of smart or digital solutions to the area’s economic barriers, assessment of the economic impact of the City Deal programme and the co-ordination, leadership and communication of the initiative overall. 

 

In going through each section of the report, discussion ensued as follows:

 

Central leadership and co-ordinating functions

 

Clarification was sought as to whether this section of the report was essentially seeking permission to fund the recruitment of two posts by way of a Programme Director and a Project Manager.  Members of the Assembly noted that that this was correct, with the draft roles of both posts set out in Appendix A of the report.  Furthermore, it was intended that the Programme Director would report to one of the three partner Council Chief Executives, whichever was supporting the Chairman of the Executive Board.  The overarching role of the Programme Director would principally be to deliver the objectives of the City Deal.  Joint Assembly Members expressed the importance of ensuring that the Executive Board gave significant thought to the sort of person it wanted appointing as Programme Director, emphasising how crucial it would be to get the right person in place.

 

Reassurance was given to Members of the Assembly that, in supporting delivery of the City Deal, the Programme Director and Project Manager posts would support the work of the Joint Assembly.  This was also the case for any officer working on any aspect of the City Deal.

 

Strategic communications

 

It was noted that this section of the report also sought permission to recruit.

 

The Chairman stated that the Joint Assembly would also need some support in this area to assist in the promotion of its work and the communication of key messages.

 

Skills and economic assessment

 

The skills aspect of the report would be considered as part of a separate item at this meeting.  The economic assessment section was noted.

 

Smart Greater Cambridge

 

Clarification was sought as to what the proposed £20,000 would be spent on.  The notion was that this money would be made available to buy-in expertise, run events and potentially run pilot schemes, as well as potentially take advantage of other funding streams.

 

Inward investment

 

Cambridge Network was leading development of a project to promote Greater Cambridge as a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7b

7c

Proposals for developing the next stages of the Greater Cambridge City Deal transport programme and city centre congestion pdf icon PDF 207 KB

To consider the attached report by Graham Hughes, Executive Director: Economy, Transport and Environment at Cambridgeshire County Council

Decision:

The Joint Assembly RECOMMENDED to the Executive Board that it:

 

(a)        Approves the process for developing the transport programme for the next stage of the City Deal and to address congestion in Cambridge.

 

(b)        Approves the process to commence the development of proposals to address congestion in Cambridge.

 

The Joint Assembly welcomed the success of the County Council’s bid to the Cycling City Ambition Fund and noted that it should enable parts of the rural cycling projects, considered at the last meeting, to proceed independent of the City Deal.  It also RECOMMENDED to the Executive Board that the originally tabled cycling infrastructure schemes (or parts of them) that are not funded from the Cycling City Ambition Fund or any other external source should be treated as reserve projects within tranche 1 of the City Deal programme, due to the acknowledged high risk of many of the bigger prioritised schemes, the cycling projects’ attractive value for money in terms of enabling economic growth, their deliverability and ‘spade ready’ status and the role they can play in connecting people with jobs within the specific demographic of the Cambridge technology cluster.

 

Minutes:

The Joint Assembly considered a report scheduled for consideration by the Executive Board on 27 March 2015 which outlined the proposed process for developing the transport programme for the next steps of the City Deal.  In addition it sought to identify how the Cambridge congestion issues would be dealt with in the context of the wider transport strategy for the Greater Cambridge area.

 

Developing the next stages of the City Deal transport programme

 

Graham Hughes, Executive Director of Economy, Transport and Environment at Cambridgeshire County Council, presented the report and reflected on the process that had been followed in respect of the first tranche of priority schemes.  The prioritised tranche one infrastructure programme to be worked up in further detail was agreed by the Executive Board at its meeting on 28 January 2015.  Within that prioritised programme was an allocation for programme development in years six to ten, recognising the importance of working up detail around the schemes to be delivered from 2020 onwards as well.  It was noted that tranche two of the City Deal funding would amount to £200 million in five annual instalments from 2020/21 to 2025/26. 

 

It was proposed that all of the transport schemes not included as part of the tranche one prioritised list be reconsidered using the same prioritisation tool that had been used previously as developed by Cambridge Econometrics and SQW.  This assessment would take account of the schemes that had already been prioritised and the planned developments emerging through Cambridge City and South Cambridgeshire District Councils’ Local Plans.  This work could be undertaken over the summer and be reported back to the Joint Assembly for consideration in the Autumn before proceeding to the Executive Board.

 

Councillor Bridget Smith referred to the contributions made earlier in the meeting as part of questions from the public with regard to rural cycling schemes.  She proposed that the original reserve list as part of the tranche one prioritisation exercise be re-established, and put forward the following proposition:

 

“The Joint Assembly welcomes the success of the County Council’s bid to the Cycling City Ambition Fund and notes that it should enable parts of the rural cycling projects, considered at the last meeting, to proceed independent of the City Deal.  It also recommends to the Executive Board that the originally tabled cycling infrastructure schemes (or parts of them) that are not funded from the Cycling City Ambition Fund or any other external source should be treated as reserve projects within tranche one of the City Deal programme, due to the acknowledged high risk of many of the bigger prioritised schemes, the cycling projects’ attractive value for money in terms of enabling economic growth, their deliverability and ‘spade ready’ status and the role they can play in connecting people with jobs within the specific demographic of the Cambridge technology cluster.”

 

The following points were noted in discussing this proposition:

 

·         one of the reasons for some schemes not being included as priorities was because other sources of funding were available,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7c

8.

REPORT FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE GREATER CAMBRIDGE CITY DEAL JOINT ASSEMBLY

8a

Greater Cambridge City Deal skills proposals pdf icon PDF 196 KB

To consider the attached report by Graham Hughes, Executive Director: Economy, Transport and Environment at Cambridgeshire County Council

Decision:

The Joint Assembly RECOMMENDED to the Executive Board that it:

 

(a)        Approves the principle of the Skills Service model as the basis for achievement of the City Deal objective on skills and requests a further report containing the detailed proposals for the Skills Service for submission to the June meetings of the Joint Assembly and the Executive Board.

 

(b)        Establishes an informal group of Joint Assembly Members to meet and work with  officers, key partners and stakeholders, that will feed into the report for submission to the June meetings of the Joint Assembly and Executive Board.

 

(c)        Allocates a minimum of £250,000 per annum, in principle, as the estimated gross cost of funding the model and the availability of contributions towards this from the County Council (£50,000) and the Local Enterprise Partnership (£75,000), therefore approving, in principle, a minimum net budgetary provision of £125,000 per annum.

Minutes:

A report was considered which outlined for the Joint Assembly the potential means by which the skills element of the City Deal could be achieved, and to seek views on whether this or another mechanism was the most appropriate way forward.

 

Graham Hughes, Cambridgeshire County Council’s Executive Director of Economy, Transport and Environment, presented the report which set out examples of existing training provision with regard to funding received through the Adult Learning and Skills Grant, training offered by further education institutions and private training providers, as well as the training opportunities provided by some of the county’s larger employers.  Also included in the report was an overview of the role of the National Careers Service, the Skills Service provided by the Local Enterprise Partnership, the Cambridge Area Partnership and the Huntingdonshire ‘skills hub’.

 

It was noted that through the negotiations on the City Deal, the skills element was agreed with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and this included a Skills Service model to bridge the gap between employer needs and aspirations of learners.  Mr Hughes indicated that young people in Cambridgeshire were currently making choices about their development, further education and future careers that could not necessarily be supported by the local economy in terms of potential employment opportunities.  As part of the City Deal,  partners had also committed to deliver a further 420 apprenticeships in the first five years of the Deal.

 

The report set out a proposed way forward for delivering these requirements, mirroring what was currently being delivered by the Local Enterprise Partnership through its Skills Service model.  This would involve the formation of a team of people who would:

 

·         visit schools and colleges and work with their internal careers services and young people to explain what opportunities there were in the area in terms of training and employment;

·         work with businesses to understand their needs and relay this back to young people and training providers, both in terms of needs currently and needs in the future;

·         connect with training providers to assist in developing and providing appropriate courses to meet the needs of local businesses;

·         undertake research into current and future needs;

·         market the opportunities available in terms of apprenticeships.

 

In discussing the proposed Skills Service model, the following points were noted:

 

·         the Cambridge Area Partnership representation should continue working on building links with employers;

·         work on the skills agenda was already taking place.  It was important to recognise that and note that the proposed Skills Service model would be building on work already undertaken;

·         colleges were already doing a lot to provide people with appropriate skills meaning that they would soon be ready to enter into employment in the Greater Cambridge area;

·         there were lots of examples of apprenticeships happening across the Greater Cambridge area;

·         work already undertaken on the skills agenda should be brought together so that it was clear where the real gaps were and that clear outcomes were articulated about what was seeking to be achieved;

·         it was unclear  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8a

9.

Work programme and schedule of meetings pdf icon PDF 45 KB

To consider the attached work programme.

 

The Joint Assembly is recommended to:

 

-       Agree that the next meeting of the Joint Assembly will be held on 3 June 2015 at 2pm

 

-       Delegate confirmation of the schedule of meetings for the remainder of 2015 to the Democratic Services Team Leader at South Cambridgeshire District Council, in consultation with the Chairman

Minutes:

The Joint Assembly:

 

(a)        NOTED its work programme for 2015, subject to the inclusion of further items agreed during consideration of previous items at this meeting.

 

(b)        AGREED that the next meeting of the Joint Assembly would be held on 3 June 2015 at 2pm.

 

(c)        DELEGATED confirmation of the schedule of meetings for the remainder of 2015 to the Democratic Services Team Leader at South Cambridgeshire District Council, in consultation with the Chairman.