To elect a Chairman of the Greater Cambridge Partnership Executive Board for 2017/18.

Councillor Francis Burkitt was ELECTED Chairperson of the Greater Cambridge Partnership Executive Board.

Councillor Francis Burkitt was ELECTED Chairperson of the Greater Cambridge Partnership Executive Board.

To elect a Vice Chairman of the Greater Cambridge Partnership Executive Board for 2017/18.

Councillor Lewis Herbert was ELECTED Vice Chairperson of the Greater Cambridge Partnership Executive Board.

Councillor Lewis Herbert was ELECTED Vice Chairperson of the Greater Cambridge Partnership Executive Board.

To receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Mark Reeve.

Apologies for absence had been received from Mark Reeve.

To receive any declarations of interest from members of the Executive Board.

NOTED declarations of interest from Executive Board members.

The following declarations of interest were made:

·         Professor Allmendinger declared a non-pecuniary interest in relation to agenda item 10 [Milton Road and Histon Road Improvements] as a resident of Gilbert Road.  He also referred to those items set out in his published register of interests.

·         Councillor Ian Bates indicated he had no interests to declare, other than those set out in his published register of interests.

·         Councillor Lewis Herbert declared a non-pecuniary interest in relation to item 13 [Cross City Cycling] as he was a resident of Hills Road and the report contained proposals to introduce a Traffic Regulation Order in that area.  He also referred to other matters referred to in his published Register of Interests.

·         Councilor Francis Burkitt referred to his declaration made at the meeting on 13th October 2016; which he intended to repeat as it was the beginning of a new civic year, but did not intend to repeat in future.  His Register of Interests was lodged with South Cambridgeshire District Council and was available for viewing on its website. He had no other matters to declare, had not predetermined on any matter and intended to participate in the discussion on all agenda items.  Councillor Burkitt was of the view, however, that it was good practice to remind people of the following items which he, the Legal Officer and the Chief Executive felt were 'interests' that would not disbar him from participating in discussions, including that on the Cambourn to Cambridge busway scheme:

-        he was a District Councillor for Coton and Madingley, villages through which that busway may or may not go and therefore knew many people in those villages;

-        when the Cambourne to Cambridge public consultation was launched, and in his capacity as a District Councillor, he coordinated and published a response to the public consultation that was branded as CambridgeBOLD.  At that time he was a Member of the City Deal Joint Assembly, which was an advisory body with no decision-making powers.  When he became a Board Member, with decision-making powers, he ceased doing any CambridgeBOLD work, and the initiative lapsed at that time and effectively ceased to exist, except that it remained on public record as one of the consultation responses;

-        he was a Member of Cambridge Past, Present and Future, was a patron and had been a Board Member for four years.  This organisation owned the Coton Countryside Reserve and, separately, some of the field in Coton adjacent to Cambridge Road that stretched up the hill;

-        he had been at Trinity College Cambridge and had sat on its Finance Committee, with the College owning Moor Barns Farm in Madingley;

-        he and his employer had undertaken work as a debt advisor to the University and certain colleges.  In 2012 his employer advised the University on a £350 million bond issue and in 2013 it advised 17 colleges on a £150 million debt private placement, for which the firm received fees.  These transactions were in the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

To confirm the minutes of the previous meeting held on 8^th March 2017 as a correct record.

APPROVED the minutes of the meeting held on 8^th March 2017 as a correct record.

The minutes of the meeting held on 8^th March 2017 were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chairperson.

RECEIVED and responded to public questions as part of items 9, 10, 12, 13 and 15.

The Chairperson informed the Executive Board that 25 public questions had been submitted, 22 of which would be taken at the meeting under agenda items 9, 10, 12, 13 and 15.   He reported that, in line with Standing Orders and the public questions protocol, he had exercised Chairperson’s discretion and would, on this occasion, only accept questions which related to items on the agenda and where the questioner was able to attend the meeting.  This meant 3 questions would not be received at the meeting, but those concerned would receive a written response.  One question had been submitted previously to the Joint Assembly and would not receive another response. Given the number of questions received, questioners had been asked to limit their contribution to one minute.  A number of local Member requests to speak had been received and these would also be taken at the start of the relevant agenda item.

The Chairperson noted that some of the questions submitted exceeded the 300 word limit.  He had not refused questions on that basis but gave notice he would in future be enforcing this, except in exceptional circumstances.

NOTED this item had been included on the agenda in error, as petitions were referred to the Joint Assembly.

The Chairperson reported that this item had been included on the agenda in error, as petitions were referred to the Joint Assembly.

RECEIVED a report on decisions made at the meeting of the Greater Cambridge Partnership Joint Assembly held on Wednesday 19^th July 2017. 

The Chairperson reported that unfortunately neither the Chairperson or Vice Chairperson of the Joint Assembly were able to attend the meeting, but referred to the report setting out decisions made at the meeting of the Greater Cambridge Partnership Joint Assembly held on Wednesday 19^th July 2017.  Reference would be made to the Joint Assembly’s decisions at the relevant agenda items.

To consider the attached report.

The Executive Board AGREED unanimously:

a)    To commission a high quality, independent strategic options appraisal study into rapid, mass transport options for Cambridge City and the surrounding travel to work area in conjunction with the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority to deliver by November 2017.

b)    A total budget allocation of £150,000 in 2017/18 for the delivery of the strategic options appraisal study.

Amendment to officer recommendations shown in italic text.

The Executive Board considered a report seeking approval to proceed with a Strategic Options Appraisal into rapid, mass transport options for Cambridge City and the surrounding travel to work area in conjunction with the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority.

The Chairperson reported that the Joint Assembly had supported the proposal but had suggested amendments to the recommendations, which had been agreed unanimously and are show in italics below:

a)    Commission a high quality, independent strategic options appraisal study into rapid, mass transport options for Cambridge City and the surrounding travel to work area in conjunction with the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority to deliver by November 2017; and

b)    Agree a total budget allocation of £150,000 in 2017/18 for the delivery of the strategic options appraisal study.

The Chairperson reported that Councillor Rod Cantrill had asked to speak on this item as local member and invited him comment on the proposals.  Councillor Cantrill referred to his question, which had been submitted in advance of the meeting and included in the list of public questions set out as Appendix A to the minutes and indicated he had no further comments to add.

At this stage in the proceedings the Chairperson invited Roger Tomlinson to ask his question, which had been submitted in line with the provisions of Standing Orders.  He explained that a response to the questions asked would be covered in the officer presentation on the report.  Details of the questions and answers are set out in Appendix A to the minutes.

The Interim Transport Director explained that it was proposed to appoint a consultant to provide expert independent advice on the most appropriate form of rapid, mass transit for Cambridge City and the surrounding travel to work area.  Work would involve a strategic options appraisal of a range of underground and over ground rapid transport modes, including light rail, monorail, bus rapid transit and affordable very rapid transport.  This would enable the GCP Executive Board and Combined Authority to determine the most appropriate form of rapid, mass transit to meet Greater Cambridge’s future transport needs.  The cost was estimated to be in the region of £150,000, half of which was expected to be met by the Combined Authority.  The cost to the GCP would therefore be approximately £75,000. [Later in the meeting it was confirmed that the Combined Authority, which was also meeting that morning, had approved the proposal and agreed to fund half of the cost.]

The Executive Board was invited to consider and comment upon the proposals, taking into account feedback from the Joint Assembly and questions from a local Member and the public and officer responses.  The response to questions of clarification and main points of discussion are summarised below:

·         In response to a question from Councillor Bates, it was confirmed that the work would be completed in time for the report to be presented to the November meeting of the Executive Board.

·         With reference to the map on page 18 of the agenda pack, the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

To consider the attached report.

The Executive Board AGREED unanimously to:

a)    Note the prioritisation of delivery of the Milton Road project ahead of the Histon Road scheme;

b)    Note the Milton Road Local Liaison Forum resolutions set out in Appendix B and agree the responses set out therein;

c)    Approve the ‘Final Concept’ design shown in Appendix D as a basis for detailed design work and the preparation of an interim business case to facilitate further public and statutory consultation;

d)    Note that wherever highway space permits, opportunities to adopt further aspects of the ‘Do Optimum’ design will be taken as part of the detailed design process;

e)    Support further engagement with the Milton Road LLF to help inform the detailed design process;

f)     Support discussions with relevant property owners to explore interest in a joint funding approach to potential streetscape and public realm improvements on land outside the public highway outside local shops along Milton Road;

g)    Note the revised project timelines shown in Appendix H and the next steps in project delivery set out in the report; and

h)    Supplement development of this scheme with further consideration of means of achieving modal shift to public transport.

Amendment to officer recommendations shown in italic text.

The Executive Board considered a report on future delivery priorities and project timelines for the Milton Road and Histon Road projects.

It was noted that the Joint Assembly had agreed to support the recommendations but with the addition of a further recommendation as set out below:

h)    Supplement development of this scheme with further consideration of means of achieving modal shift to public transport.

This had been passed with nine members voting on favour, none against and four abstentions.

The Chairperson invited Councillor Damien Tunnacliffe to read out the following statement from Councillor Ian Manning:

I cannot support the Milton Road scheme as presented and neither should the board.

The original objections and controversy around the scheme came from the removal of trees.  Despite repeated attempts at clarity we still do not have precise information on what replacement trees we can expect.

The consultants have repeatedly failed to model the effect of walking and cycling trips on traffic levels & therefore are unable to take this into account into the design.  The greater Cambridge partnership should not just be going with the UK "industry standard" but should be demanding a higher standard appropriate to Cambridge.

The inability to consider Dutch Style roundabouts and lack of imagination around junction design are further reasons to reject this scheme.

New York style trialing should be built into the project from this early stage, but despite repeated support for this concept at the LLFand local meetings, it STILL doesn't appear.

There are enough City Deal schemes going forward, this one should not be given the go ahead at this stage.

Please make sure it is noted that I support NOT banning parking 24/7 outside the Hairdresser and Fish and Chip shop on Green End Road.

Although I'm no longer the local member as the Divisions changed in May, I was during the scheme development and it was me that originally proposed the entire scheme via S106 feasibility study.

The Chairperson invited Councillor Jocelyne Scutt, Chairperson of the Milton Road Local Liaison Forum (LLF) to presented feedback on the Forum’s views on these proposals.  She referred to pages 38-45 of the agenda pack which set out the resolutions agreed by the Forum and the officer responses.  Councillor Scutt paid tribute to the work of the LLF, residents and officers who had put a huge amount of time and effort into engaging in the debate on the proposals. 

Councillor Scutt commented upon the recommendations being presented to the Executive Board and suggested adding the words ‘bearing in mind resolution (d)’ to the beginning of recommendation (c).  She also suggested the deletion of the word ‘process’ from the end of resolutions (d) and (e).  Councillor Scutt clarified that she had not been formally delegated to propose these amendments on behalf of the LLF, but was making these suggestions as its Chairperson.

The Chairperson in responding to Councillor Scutt’s comments paid tribute to the work of the LLF and the constructive way they had contributed to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

To consider the attached report.

The Executive Board AGREED unanimously to:

a)    Approve a net increase in the operational budget of £104k to be funded from drawing additional funding from the New Homes Bonus resource [Para. 3-5 of the report];

b)    Approve an increase of the budget for the independent economic assessment panel work by £30k from drawing additional funding from the New Homes Bonus resource [Appendix 4 to the report]; and

c)    Delegate authority to the Interim Chief Executive, in consultation with the Chairperson of the Executive Board and the Economy and Environment Portfolio Holder, to sign off the Locality Evaluation Framework and Outline Evaluation Plan [Appendix 4 to the report].

The Executive Board considered a report on progress across the GCP programme since March 2017.  The report covered:

·         The 2016/17 end of year financial outturn report;

·         Financial monitoring to May 2017;

·         A six-monthly report on Smart Cambridge;

·         An update on the independent economic assessment panel;

·         An update on the implementation of the Mouchel report recommendations; and

·         The Executive Board forward plan of decisions.

The Chairperson drew attention to progress with accelerating housing delivery.  274 new homes were completed in 2016/17, which exceeded the Housing Development Agency target of 250.  With reference to the delivery of additional affordable homes it was estimated that the target of completing 1,000 by 2031 would be met, as 792 had already been identified on the basis of decisions on specific planning applications.  As potential Housing Portfolio Holder, Councillor Herbert welcomed progress made.  He also drew attention to the Combined Authority’s plan to set aside £150,00 for a strategic non-statutory Spatial Plan for the whole of Cambridgeshire.  It was important to clarify how Greater Cambridge would fit within that.  Clearly  there was a lot of integration to do with this and also the Transport Strategy.  Councillor Bates welcomed the Combined Authority’s decision to put that amount of money into strategic planning, which he considered crucial going forward.  Professor Allmendinger stated that what was not mentioned here was the work done by the task and finish group on the governance work.  He had been involved in the group looking at housing which had examined what the GCP’s role was and clarified there was a real role to play.  This included helping unlock difficult sites and remove barriers to delivery, helping the market deliver affordable housing.

With reference to skills, good progress was being made against agreed targets, although use of SETUP had not been as successful as was hoped.  Work was being done to see how to address this.  The Chairperson drew attention to the need to look at progress with monitoring apprenticeships and suggested this was something the Skills Task and Finish Group should address urgently. Councillor Bates asked when a more detailed report on skills would be presented to the Joint Assembly and Board.  He also referred to an LGA report on skills which had recently been published and asked that this be addressed as part of the next update. In response the Chairperson confirmed the six monthly report was due to come to the September meeting.  He suggested that it may be appropriate for future reports to be submitted every three months. 

The Programme Director for the Connecting Cambridgeshire and Smart Cambridgeshire Programme reported that overall progress was good and work was within budget.  There had been a significant amount of activity over a relatively short period of time.  She drew attention to the Intelligent City Platform, launched in March, which was being used to provide real time information for a variety of applications.  Wide support across all sectors had enabled the programme to progress quickly.  The MotionMap travel app, commissioned by GCP was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

To consider the attached report.

The Executive Board AGREED unanimously to:

a)    Note the progress to date on the scheme development and agrees that while the mass transit options appraisal takes place, work must continue in parallel to develop existing proposals to connect people between homes and jobs in Greater Cambridge, while ensuring they are future proofed so that they can be adapted for new solutions as they emerge;

b)    Approve a short list of Park and Ride (P&R) sites for further development work to enable a decision to be made at the September Board for a preferred site or sites to be consulted on;

c)    That further work be undertaken in respect of an Option 6 alignment; and

d)    Approve the next steps/ timetable detailed in the report.

Amendment to officer recommendation shown in italic text.

The Executive Board considered a report on progress with the A428/A1303 Better Bus Journeys Scheme.  The report included an assessment of potential park and ride sites along the Cambourne to Cambridge corridor.  Based on the outcome of this review, the Executive Board was being asked to identify a short list of sites for further development work.

The Chairperson reported that the Joint Assembly had supported the proposal but had suggested an amendment to recommendation (b), which was agreed with 13 votes in favour and 1 abstention and is show in italics below:

Agree a short list of Park and Ride (P&R) sites for further development work, excluding the site at Crome Lea Farm, to enable a decision to be made at the September Board for a preferred site or sites to be consulted on.

The Chairperson reported that Councillor Lina Joseph had asked to speak on this item as local Member and invited her comment on the proposals.  Councillor Joseph expressed concerns about the future proofing of the A428 Busway Scheme and made the following statement:

Given the preferred 3a route is quite likely to run right along the entire length of both Hardwick and Coton villages, and given such future-proofing seems quite likely to involve buses travelling at 100+ mph, I can only imagine that the infrastructure required to keep our communities safe will be visually very significant indeed. I therefore ask you to release details of what the worst-case scenario could be.

This is a major change from the scheme that has been consulted upon, so any decision that rules out alternatives should not be taken in September.  In any case, no decision should be made until the true facts are known.

The Chairperson then invited Helen Bradbury, Chairperson of the A428 LLF, to present feedback on the Forum’s views on these proposals.  She highlighted six issues and associated questions, details of which are summarised below:

·         The GCP is requested to defer decisions on the A428 Busway until such time as the both the high level mass transit study and the feasibility study on light rail has been completed and published, with adequate time given to allow the public to review and comment on  these proposals. To proceed as before regardless of these developments would be on the basis of insufficient evidence and lack of knowledge of alternative options that could be brought forward and would demonstrate a lack of co-ordination in terms of transport strategy.  If we proceed otherwise we may end up with something incompatible, irreversible and having cost the taxpayer dear.

·         The LLF does not consider option 3a to be a suitable alignment for rapid mass transit given its proximity to rural communities, the amount of infrastructure that would be required to keep those communities safe and its impact on sensitive green belt areas.  The LLF asked that consideration was given instead to developing a more suitable alignment.  She added this future proofing was a significant departure from the original proposals and something the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.

To consider the attached report.

The Executive Board AGREED to:

a)    Note the objections and comments received;

b)    Approve the orders and notices as advertised;

c)    Inform the objectors accordingly; and

d)    Receive in future only those Orders that have received objections.

The Executive Board considered a report seeking approval for a number of Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs) associated with the five Cross City Cycling Schemes approved by the Executive Board in June 2016.  It was noted that TROs and formal notices had been advertised for the following scheme elements:

·         Fulbourn Road (Robin Hood junction to ARM main entrance), no waiting at any time;

·         Hills Road (Purbeck Road to Addenbrooke’s roundabout), a loading ban operating 07.00-10.00 and 16.00-19.00, Monday to Friday, and an extension of no waiting at any time into the length between Long Road and Addenbrooke’s main entrance;

·         Green End Road (Scotland Road to Water Lane and Evergreens to Kendal Way), no waiting at any time with short length of waiting limited to 2 hours outside the shops;

·         Green End Road, proposed ‘speed cushions’; and

·         B1047 Fen Ditton, proposed ‘raised table’ junction.

The Chairperson reported that the Joint Assembly had supported these proposals.

At this stage in the proceedings the Chairperson invited members of the public to ask questions relating to this item, which had been submitted in line with the provisions of Standing Orders.  He explained that a response to the questions asked would be covered in the officer presentation on the report.  Details of the questions and answers are set out in Appendix A to the minutes.

In introducing the proposals the Cycling Projects Team Leader drew the Executive Board’s attention the objections received to the Hills Road and Green End Road proposals, details of which were set out in the report.

The Executive Board was invited to consider and comment on the proposals, taking into account feedback from the Joint Assembly, public questions and officer responses.  The response to questions of clarification and main points of discussion are summarised below:

• Councillor Herbert confirmed he had discussed the Green End Road proposals with local members and was of the opinion it should proceed but be kept under review.  If problems emerged that it could be revisited.  He pointed out that not allowing parking would have a significant impact on businesses and their ability to trade.  Alternative options, such as that suggested by Mr Jenks could be considered should problems emerge.

• Councillor Bates suggested that a review take place 9 months after the new arrangement were introduced.  By that time the impact of Cambridge North Station would be clearer and residents could be invited to comment on the impact of the new arrangements.  This approach was supported by the Executive Board.

The Executive Board AGREED to:

a)    Note the objections and comments received;

b)    Approve the orders and notices as advertised; *

c)    Inform the objectors accordingly; and

d)    Receive in future only those Orders that have received objections.

*     Councillor Herbert had declared an interest in the Hills Road TRO as a Hills Road resident and abstained from voting on this proposal.  He voted in favour of the other TROs which were approved unanimously.

To consider the attached report.

The Executive Board AGREED unanimously to:

a)    Note the updates;

b)    Note the feasibility studies and receive further reports in September on the findings and recommendations in respect of:

                      i.        Use of Electric/ Hybrid buses; and

                     ii.        A review of the Cambridge Traffic Signal network;

c)    Agree to carry out further consultation and engagement with residents and the business community in both Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire on their transport needs and issues, as part of a wider ‘Travel Diary’ exercise, to help understand existing travel patterns, issues and incentives to change; including working with businesses to understand needs of employees from travel to work areas outside of the Greater Cambridge area; and

                      i.        To determine local transport priorities that could receive funding were a Workplace Parking Levy (WPL) to be introduced, building on employers’ evidence of transport needs and in coordination with the Greater Cambridge Partnership;

                     ii.        To coordinate with and, if feasible, form part of the GCP and the Local Enterprise Partnership’s broader engagement with the business community;

                    iii.        To develop and provide practical support for employers and schools looking to manage their parking demand and provision working closely with Travel for Cambridge;

and report back the findings to a future meeting of the Board; and

d)    Agree that the Director of Transport continues to negotiate a potential funding contribution for a Rural Hub Park and Ride service to be located at the soon-to-be-closed Papworth Hospital serving the Cambridge Biomedical Campus; and that a report be brought back to the next meeting.

The Executive Board considered a report which detailed progress and direction of travel with the City Access Strategy which aimed to reduce traffic flows through the City with the provision of more sustainable alternatives.

In introducing the recommendations the Interim Transport Director referred to the results of the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) survey which were imminent.  It was unfortunate that they had not been available in time for inclusion in this report.  He confirmed that they would be included in the September Executive Board report.  He clarified that the cameras recognised number plates and could contact the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVL) who would identify vehicle type.  He emphasised that DVL would not identify who the vehicle belonged to, which he acknowledged had been a matter of some concern for residents.  The survey identified where vehicles had come from and where they went, which would help inform work on City access and demand management.

The Interim Transport Director also outlined plans to send a Travel Diary questionnaire to all properties within the Greater Cambridge area.  This would seek views on current travel, what people would like to do and what was stopping them from doing this.  Responses would enrich current information by including details of what people would like the opportunity to do.  From late September/October a number of consultation exercises in Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire to allow people to come forward and explain their issues and frustrations.  

The Chairperson reported that the Joint Assembly had supported these proposals.

The Executive Board was invited to consider and comment on the proposals and the response to questions of clarification and main points of discussion are summarised below:

• The Chairperson drew attention to the significant amount of good work that was being done in response to the Strategy.

• In response to a question from the Chairperson, it was confirmed that the data from the ANPR study would be widely available in graphical, easily understood formats.  It was hoped to make the raw date available for others to use.

• Councillor Bates asked if the ANPR date would include school journeys.  In response the Interim Traffic Director confirmed that the exercise was done at the beginning of June so this would be the case.  The ANPR survey would not be able to identify specifically school journeys, although routes may indicate potential journeys to schools.  The travel diary data would help with this.

• With reference to paragraph 11 on page 185 of the agenda pack, Professor Allmendinger asked what baseline was used when measuring reductions in traffic flows.  In response, the Interim Transport Director explained that the baseline was based on measurements taken in 2011.  The aim was to reduce traffic flows, including any increases over the interim period up to 2031 by 10-15%.

•  In response to a question on Workplace Parking Levy (WPL), the Interim Transport Director reported a lot of work had been done to look at Nottingham, which was the only place that had adopted WPL.  They were very clear  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14.

To consider the attached report.

The Executive Board AGREED unanimously to:

a)    Approve the Portfolios, the generic portfolio role description and their allocation between Board members (Appendix 1);

b)    The creation of the five, portfolio-themed informal Board and Joint Assembly Working Groups to bring the energy and expertise of Joint Assembly members to strategy and project development earlier and agrees their membership and terms of reference (Appendix 2), subject to Councillor Lewis Herbert joining the Transport Working Group to support Councillor Ian Bates as the Transport Portfolio Holder;

c)    Agrees Board meetings should be 2-monthly during 2018, with a review of frequency midway through the year;

d)    There should be a longer interval between the Assembly and Board of around 3 weeks as soon as practicable and notes the proposed reporting improvements of that advice at appendix 3;

e)    Agrees the principles for officer delegations and scheme of delegation for the Greater Cambridge Partnership in Appendix 4;

f)     Note and endorse the principles for the setting of the Joint Assembly work programme in Appendix 5;

g)    A review of governance arrangements commencing a year after implementation, to consider how effective the changes have been; and

h)    Note other actions taken to improve public questions and ensure all Executive Board member declarations of interest are up to date.

The Executive Board considered a report seeking approval of a package of proposals to strengthen governance arrangements of the GCP.  The aim was to make better use of the expertise of Joint Assembly members earlier in the project and programmedevelopment lifecycle; to strengthen pre-decision scrutiny and clarify roles and responsibilities.  The report also set out how the public questions process was being improved and stakeholder engagement strengthened. 

The Chairperson reported that the Joint Assembly had supported these proposals and confirmed its support for the draft principles for setting its Work Programme.  It had also nominated representatives to sit on the proposed Working |Groups, in anticipation of the Executive Board approving the recommendations contained in the report.

At this stage in the proceedings the Chairperson invited Wendy Blythe to ask her questions relating to this item, which had been submitted in line with the provisions of Standing Orders.  He explained that a response to the question would be covered in the officer presentation on the report.  Details of the question and answer are set out in Appendix A to the minutes.

In introducing the proposals the Programme Director explained that the Executive Board and Joint Assembly had been reflecting on a number of aspects of the programme, including governance.  A task and finish group had developed a package of proposals which aimed to preserve the identified strengths of the governance arrangements but also identified areas for improvement.  It was proposed to adopt a portfolio holder approach, to provide clear Executive Board member leadership of the various aspects of the programme.  Working Groups would be set up, chaired by the relevant Portfolio Holder.  This would engage with Joint Assembly members much earlier in the policy and planning process, making full use of their expertise.  Reporting arrangements would improve and there would be a longer gap between Joint Assembly and Executive Board meetings.  It was proposed to review the new arrangements about a year after implementation to endure they had met the objectives.   

The Executive Board was invited to consider and comment on the proposals, taking into public questions and officer responses.  The response to questions of clarification and main points of discussion are summarised below:

• Responding to Wendy Blythe’s comments about the SYSTRA Study [page 205 of the agenda pack], the Interim Transport Director confirmed that consultants were given a full remit to look at everything.  He clarified that this was not a GCP study, but had been undertaken on behalf of all partners by the University.  He explained that SYSTRA had picked up on a separate review of potential bus layover sites and that is what led to the suggestion of Silver Street as a possible bus terminus site.  This was a statement of fact and not a conclusion, proposal or recommendation.
• Councillor Herbert recognised the strength of feeling and offered to talk to FeCRA on a number of these issues.  He dismissed any suggestion that the City was being trashed as nonsense.  There was a lot to be proud  ...  view the full minutes text for item 15.

To note that the next meeting will take place at 4.00 p.m. on Wednesday 20^th September 2017.

The Executive Board NOTED that the next meeting would take place at 4.00 p.m. on Wednesday 20^th September at South Cambridgeshire Hall, Cambourne.

The Executive Board NOTED that the next meeting would take place at 4.00 p.m. on Wednesday 20^th September at South Cambridgeshire Hall, Cambourne.