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.

Minutes:

An apology for absence was received from Councillor Steve Count (Cambridgeshire County Council).  Councillor Ian Bates was in attendance as Councillor Count’s substitute.

2.

Minutes of the previous meeting pdf icon PDF 304 KB

To confirm the minutes of the previous meeting held on 4 August 2015 as a correct record.

Minutes:

The minutes of the previous meeting held on 4 August 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 Executive Board.

Minutes:

No declarations of interest were made.

4.

Public questions pdf icon PDF 39 KB

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

Minutes:

Questions asked or statements made, together with any responses from Members of the Executive Board or officers, were noted as follows:

 

Question by Mal Schofield

 

Mr Schofield presented a document entitled ‘issues concerning growth and modal shift – travel to work to 2021’ which set out statistical information relating to:

 

·         travel to work in Cambridge City by mode in terms of trends in travel behaviour from 2001 and forecasts up to 2021;

·         travel to work in terms of numbers, destination and mode of transport based on 2011 census data;

·         travel to work, actuals and forecasts for the next census in 2021.

 

As part of presenting this information he welcomed the findings of the Capacity Study and asked the following questions:

 

“There was a commitment to switch road capacity in the city, from cars to other modes.  How will that be achieved?”

 

“Travel to work by public transport has stayed more or less consistent, around 7% since 2001.  Is this modest percentage expected to continue?  If not, what figure is forecast in relation to planned further investment in dedicated busways?”

 

“This analysis is a first attempt at providing a ‘route map’ for commuter patterns. A detailed forecasting and modelling is essential.  Is that intended?”

 

“As cycle traffic increases, so does the need for segregation from pedestrians on major routes through the City.  What is the planned target for dedicated cycleways?”

 

Councillor Lewis Herbert, Chairman of the Executive Board, thanked Mr Schofield for this additional analysis.

 

Graham Hughes, Executive Director of Economy, Transport and Environment at Cambridgeshire County Council, agreed with the comments Mr Schofield had made in light of the data and findings of the recent Capacity Study that had been carried out, originally commissioned by the County Council. 

 

Councillor Herbert acknowledged the questions and noted that they covered a range of topics which represented real challenges for the Board to face.  He said that the Board’s initial focus would be to tackle congestion at peak times, aiming for a 20% reduction in vehicle usage, which would also improve capacity on radial routes.  Councillor Herbert added that the list of measures set out in Mr Schofield’s documentation were part of that, but said that there would be other things to consider as well. 

 

In terms of bus usage, Councillor Herbert said that there was currently very little incentive for people to use buses instead of private vehicles as they themselves were often held up in traffic.  Referring to the Chisholm Trail, he reflected that there was lots planned in tranche one for cycleways and was conscious that there had to be a focus on on-road issues as well.

 

Question by Lynn Hieatt

 

Lynn Hieatt referred to the outline proposals for the Madingley Road corridor and said that, in speaking to literally hundreds of people, she had not found enthusiasm for them. 

 

She reflected on a number of innovative proposals that had been suggested over the last few months, some of which, in her view, were quite imaginative and aimed at  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

5.

Reports and recommendations from the Joint Assembly pdf icon PDF 81 KB

Councillor Tim Bick, Chairman of the Joint Assembly, will be in attendance to present the recommendations from the meeting of the Assembly held on 16 September 2015.

Decision:

The Executive Board AGREED:

 

(a)        That the Chairman of the Board would meet with the City Deal Director and other officers to produce an outline of how the Board and Assembly could work together, in liaison with the Chairman of the Joint Assembly, to prepare proposals to secure ideas from members of the public and organisations to address congestion in Cambridge.

 

(b)        That an update report on this piece of work be submitted to the January meeting of the Board and preceding meeting of the Joint Assembly.

Minutes:

Councillor Tim Bick, Chairman of the Joint Assembly, presented a report on the recommendations from the Assembly’s last meeting held on 16 September 2015.  It was agreed that those recommendations relating to specific items on the agenda for this meeting would be presented at the relevant point of the meeting.

 

His report provided an overview of the main topics covered as part of public questions received at the meeting.  Councillor Lewis Herbert, Chairman of the Executive Board, responded to a point about a Communications Manager not having yet been recruited and said that this appointment was a priority that he hoped would be progressed shortly.

 

Councillor Bick reported that the Joint Assembly, in discussing its contribution to the developing City Deal agenda, had emphasised the importance of engagement with local people about the innovative suggestions and ideas being put forward to reduce congestion in Cambridge.  The Joint Assembly therefore agreed that it would investigate the leading models of transport management to reduce congestion in the City, with any recommendations being passed onto the Executive Board, and asked the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Assembly to liaise with officers to pursue consideration of this issue. 

 

Councillor Herbert welcomed this suggestion but thought it was important that the Board and Assembly worked together to facilitate this piece of work in order that it could feed into proposals going forward.  It was therefore AGREED that the Chairman of the Executive Board would meet with the City Deal Director and other officers to produce an outline of how the Board and Assembly could work together, in liaison with the Chairman of the Joint Assembly, to prepare proposals to secure ideas from members of the public and organisations to address congestion in Cambridge.

 

It was also AGREED that an update report on this piece of work be submitted to the January meeting of the Board and preceding meeting of the Joint Assembly.

6.

M11 bus-only slip-roads feasibility report pdf icon PDF 1 MB

To consider the attached report by Graham Hughes, Executive Director (Cambridgeshire County Council).

Additional documents:

Decision:

The Executive Board:

 

(a)        AGREED that improvements to Junction 11 of the M11, as set out in the options of the feasibility report, be investigated further as an urgent standalone project with Highways England in terms of initially assessing feasibility and whether a business case would be likely to be viable and that an update on progress with this issue be submitted to the next meeting of the Board.

 

(b)        NOTED the findings of the technical report.

 

(c)        NOTED that the outcome of the A428/A1303 (Madingley Rise and Madingley Road) corridor and Western Orbital scheme development work will be the key determinant in considering the future recommended bus priority options in the locations set out in the report, in respect of Junction 13 of the M11.

Minutes:

Councillor Tim Bick, Chairman of the Joint Assembly, provided the Board with a report following consideration of this issue at the meeting of the Assembly held on 16 September 2015. 

 

Councillor Bick informed the Board that Assembly Members discussed the report and had noted the advice from officers to return to these schemes when considering options for the Western Orbital scheme, the process for which was scheduled to commence in December 2015.  A number of Assembly Members were impatient with progress, in particular with changes to the M11 southbound exit at Junction 11 which they had regarded as a relatively inexpensive project that could be easily delivered.  Some Assembly Members had reservations about advancing one potential component of a Western Orbital scheme.  The Assembly agreed, however, that the Executive Board be requested to accelerate improvements to Junction 11 of the M11 as soon as possible, as a standalone project.  It also supported the other recommendations contained within the report, but only in respect of Junction 13 following the Assembly’s recommendation in respect of Junction 11.

 

Stuart Walmsley, Head of Major Infrastructure Delivery at Cambridgeshire County Council, reported that the Executive Board on 17 June 2015 requested a high-level feasibility report on a number of scenarios with regard to Junctions 11 and 13 of the M11, following a recommendation by the Joint Assembly.  He emphasised that the report made no recommendations and was solely a technical report or study on some options from an illustrative perspective for the Board’s consideration.  He referred to early advance work that was taking place around the Western Orbital scheme, scheduled to be reported to the Board at its meeting on 3 December 2015.  It was reported that a more detailed study of the whole corridor would take place in due course, subject to Board approval, which would provide an opportunity to look at these Junctions in more detail as part of that process.

 

Mr Walmsley also pointed out that, at this stage, the future of Junctions 11 and 13 of the M11 were unknown in the context of the City Deal and the Western Orbital scheme.  Options and proposals coming forward for the scheme may not mirror what had been included or identified as part of the high-level feasibility report so, if work progressed on this as a standalone project, it could be that some of the work may not be required as part of the Western Orbital scheme, resulting in it being aborted and the resources being wasted in the longer term.

 

The following points were made during discussion:

 

·         a project seeking to make improvements to Junction 11 should go ahead, despite there being a risk that in the longer term the works may not feature as part of plans or proposals for the City Deal Western Orbital scheme;

·         commencement of this project would indicate to people that the Board was listening, that it was working together with the Joint Assembly and that it was trying to do something to improve problems at that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

7.

Greater Cambridge City Deal financial monitoring pdf icon PDF 200 KB

To consider the attached report by Chris Malyon, Chief Finance Officer (Cambridgeshire County Council).

Decision:

The Executive Board:

 

(a)        NOTED the financial position as at 31 August 2015.

 

(b)        AGREED to the funding of the on-going revenue commitments, as set out in the report, for the first five years of phase 1 of the Programme.

 

(c)        AGREED to the proposed framework for considering new proposals to be funded from the non-project resource pool.

 

(d)        AGREED that a detailed financial report for the 2016/17 City Deal budget be presented to the Board early in 2016.

Minutes:

Consideration was given to a report which provided the Executive Board with the financial monitoring position for the period ending 31 August 2015.

 

Chris Malyon, Chief Finance Officer at Cambridgeshire County Council, presented the report and took Members through the capital programme for the first five years of the City Deal Partnership, revenue expenditure via the three partner Councils’ New Homes Bonus contributions and expenditure from the non-project pool.  The report highlighted that there was a degree of uncertainty around whether the New Homes Bonus would survive the forthcoming Comprehensive Spending Review.  It had therefore been agreed to adopt a relatively prudent approach to the utilisation of this pooled resource and not to exceed commitments beyond the availability of the relative New Homes Bonus for 2015/16. 

 

Mr Malyon explained that profiling for a capital programme of £180 million, which was in excess of the resources available, over the life of the first tranche of funding had provided some initial challenges.  He was confident, however, that more accurate projections would be available early next year.

 

Reflecting on the lower than anticipated rate of expenditure from the non-project pool of funding, it was noted that this was due to slight delays in making appointments to key positions such as the Communications Manager role.  Progress was now being made in the recruitment process for these key roles.

 

Councillor Tim Bick, Chairman of the Joint Assembly, reported that the Joint Assembly at its meeting on 16 September 2015 had supported the recommendations contained within the report.  A number of suggestions put forward at the Assembly meeting had been reflected in this report to the Board.

 

Councillor Lewis Herbert, Chairman of the Executive Board, said that financial position would be much clearer after the Autumn Statement, particularly with regard to the New Homes Bonus.  He proposed that a detailed financial report for the 2016/17 budget be submitted to the Board early in 2016. 

 

The Executive Board:

 

(a)        NOTED the financial position as at 31 August 2015.

 

(b)        AGREED to the funding of the on-going revenue commitments, as set out in the report, for the first five years of phase 1 of the Programme.

 

(c)        AGREED to the proposed framework for considering new proposals to be funded from the non-project resource pool.

 

(d)        AGREED that a detailed financial report for the 2016/17 City Deal budget be presented to the Board early in 2016.

8.

Greater Cambridge City Deal workstream update pdf icon PDF 71 KB

To consider the attached update report from each of the Greater Cambridge City Deal workstreams.

Minutes:

The Executive Board considered a briefing note which provided updates on each of the City Deal workstreams.

 

Referring to governance, Councillor Tim Bick, Chairman of the Joint Assembly, reported that this issue had been discussed at the meeting of the Assembly on 16 September 2015 in the context of the legislation relating to the City Deal moving to a Combined Authority.  It was the understanding of the Joint Assembly that consideration of the legislation requiring changes to facilitate this move had been postponed by Parliament.  The Assembly therefore asked the Chairman to write to local Members of Parliament to seek their support in progressing consideration of this legislation.  Councillor Bick reported that, since the Assembly meeting, he understood that the legislation behind the establishment of Combined Authorities would be included as part of the Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill.  In view of this he therefore felt it unnecessary to write to Members of Parliament on this issue.

 

The Executive Board NOTED the updates from City Deal workstreams.

9.

Greater Cambridge City Deal Forward Plan and schedule of meetings pdf icon PDF 77 KB

To consider the attached Greater Cambridge City Deal Executive Board Forward Plan.  Future meetings of the Board are scheduled to be held as follows:

 

3 November 2015 – 2pm

3 December 2015 – 2pm

15 January 2016 – 2pm

3 March 2016 – 2pm

8 April 2016 – 2pm

16 June 2016 – 2pm

22 July 2016 – 2pm

8 September 2016 – 2pm

13 October 2016 – 2pm

17 November 2016 – 2pm

15 December 2016 – 2pm

 

Minutes:

The Executive Board considered its Forward Plan and schedule of meetings.

 

It was noted that a supplementary paper would be circulated in time for consideration at the Joint Assembly’s meeting on 7 October 2015 in relation to the six-monthly report on housing, which would provide more information on affordable housing.

 

The Forward Plan for the meeting of the Board and associated Joint Assembly scheduled to be held on 8 April 2015 would be reviewed due to this falling within the election period, with a view to cancelling these meetings.

 

The Forward Plan and schedule of meetings were NOTED.