Agenda item

Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Devolution

Council is invited to consider the attached report and recommendations for consideration by Cabinet subsequent to the meeting of Council on 17 November 2016. 

 

The report recommends Cabinet to:

 

(i)         Consent to the Secretary of State making an Order to establish the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority (Appendix A).

 

(ii)        Consent to the Council being a constituent member of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority with effect from the commencement date determined by the final Order.

 

(iii)       Authorise the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Leader of the Council, to consent to the final draft Order and associated documents, specifically:

 

-       to agree minor drafting amendments to the Combined Authority Order to be laid before Parliament;

 

-       to consent to the Council being included within the draft Parliamentary Order thereby reflecting this Council’s decision.

 

(iv)       Authorise the Combined Authority to have a power to issue a levy to the constituent Councils in respect of any financial year. (This will be subject to the inclusion of a unanimity clause in the Combined Authority constitution on this specific matter).

 

(v)       Recommend to the Combined Authority that the costs of establishing the Combined Authority, holding the elections in May 2017 and running the Combined Authority (including Mayoral Office) for 2016/17 and 2017/18 are funded from the gain share grant provided by Government (as outlined the financial implications section of the report).

(vi)       Appoint Councillor Peter Topping, Leader of the Council, to act as Council's appointee to the Shadow Combined Authority and once established, to the Combined Authority.

 

(vii)      Appoint a Member of the Council to act as the substitute to the above.

 

(viii)     Note the outcome of the public consultation on the establishment of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority as outlined in paragraph 5.1 and 5.2 and Appendices 2A - 2D.

 

(ix)       Note the timetable for the implementation of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough devolution Order as summarised in paragraph 16.

 

(x)        Note the Government's response to the outline business case for Housing capital investment funds secured as part of the devolution deal as set out in Appendix 3.        

 

(xi)       Agree, in principle, for a protocol requiring the Council Leader and the representative on the Overview and Scrutiny Committee to report to each meeting of Council setting out the activities and decisions related to their respective roles within the Combined Authority.

 

(xii)      To request that the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of Civic Affairs Committee engage their fellow committee members with a view to devising and agreeing the wording of a protocol for inclusion in the Council’s constitution.

 

 

Decision:

Council ENDORSED the recommendations to Cabinet that it:

 

(i)         Consent to the Secretary of State making an Order to establish the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority (Appendix A).

 

(ii)        Consent to the Council being a constituent member of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority with effect from the commencement date determined by the final Order.

 

(iii)       Authorise the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Leader of the Council, to consent to the final draft Order and associated documents, specifically:

 

-       to agree minor drafting amendments to the Combined Authority Order to be laid before Parliament;

 

-       to consent to the Council being included within the draft Parliamentary Order thereby reflecting this Council’s decision.

 

(iv)       Authorise the Combined Authority to have a power to issue a levy to the constituent Councils in respect of any financial year. (This will be subject to the inclusion of a unanimity clause in the Combined Authority constitution on this specific matter).

 

(v)        Recommend to the Combined Authority that the costs of establishing the Combined Authority, holding the elections in May 2017 and running the Combined Authority (including Mayoral Office) for 2016/17 and 2017/18 are funded from the gain share grant provided by Government (as outlined the financial implications section of the report).

(vi)       Appoint Councillor Peter Topping, Leader of the Council, to act as Council's appointee to the Shadow Combined Authority and once established, to the Combined Authority.

 

(vii)      Appoint Councillor Nick Wright, Deputy Leader of the Council, to act as the substitute to the above.

 

(viii)      Note the outcome of the public consultation on the establishment of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority as outlined in paragraph 5.1 and 5.2 and Appendices 2A - 2D.

 

(ix)       Note the timetable for the implementation of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough devolution Order as summarised in paragraph 16.

 

(x)        Note the Government's response to the outline business case for Housing capital investment funds secured as part of the devolution deal as set out in Appendix 3.        

 

(xi)       Agree, in principle, for a protocol requiring the Council Leader and the representative on the Overview and Scrutiny Committee to report to each meeting of Council setting out the activities and decisions related to their respective roles within the Combined Authority.

 

(xii)      To request that the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of Civic Affairs Committee engage their fellow committee members with a view to devising and agreeing the wording of a protocol for inclusion in the Council’s constitution.

Minutes:

The Council adjourned its meeting on 17 November 2016 at 8.57pm. and agreed to consider this item at a reconvened meeting of Council on 21 November 2016 at 7.30pm.

 

The following Members were in attendance on 21 November 2016:

 

Councillors Sue Ellington (Chairman), David McCraith (Vice-Chairman), David Bard, Val Barrett, Henry Batchelor, John Batchelor, Anna Bradnam, Brian Burling, Tom Bygott, Nigel Cathcart, Doug Cattermole, Grenville Chamberlain, Graham Cone, Pippa Corney, Simon Crocker, Christopher Cross, Kevin Cuffley, Simon Edwards, Jose Hales, Roger Hall, Lynda Harford, Philippa Hart, Tumi Hawkins, Mark Howell, Sebastian Kindersley, Douglas de Lacey, Janet Lockwood, Mervyn Loynes, Ray Manning, Mick Martin, Cicley Murfitt, Charles Nightingale, Des O'Brien, Tony Orgee, Alex Riley, Deborah Roberts, Tim Scott, Ben Shelton, Bridget Smith, Hazel Smith, Peter Topping, Ingrid Tregoing, Richard Turner, Bunty Waters, Aidan Van de Weyer, David Whiteman-Downes, John Williams and Nick Wright.

 

Alex Colyer (Interim Chief Executive), Tom Lewis (Monitoring Officer) and Graham Watts (Democratic Services Team Leader) were also in attendance.

 

Apologies for absence for the reconvened meeting were received from Councillors Francis Burkitt, Neil Davies, Caroline Hunt, Peter Johnson, Raymond Matthews, Edd Stonham, Robert Turner and Tim Wotherspoon.

 

Councillor Sue Ellington, Chairman of Council, proposed that Standing Orders be suspended to facilitate an informal question and answer session on the proposed Cambridgeshire and Peterborough devolution deal.  This was seconded by Councillor David McCraith, Vice-Chairman of Council, and unanimously agreed by Council.

 

Questions were asked and answers provided as follows during the informal question and answer session:

 

Councillor Douglas de Lacey, Convenor of the Independent Group, referred to three documents which had been circulated setting out different voting rights for the constituent authorities in relation to Transport Plans, particularly Cambridgeshire County Council and Peterborough City Council.  He asked for some clarity on this issue.  Alex Colyer, Interim Chief Executive, confirmed that the Statutory Order set out that the majority of the Combined Authority would need to approve Transport Plans, which had to include Peterborough City Council.  He added that the document included provision for Standing Orders to be amended by the Combined Authority.

 

Councillor Alex Riley reflected on the proposed scrutiny arrangements of the Combined Authority, of which he had some concerns.  He was keen for South Cambridgeshire District Council to take a leading role on this aspect of the deal as a project in its own right in order to provide some constructive responses to some of the unresolved issues and questions that had recently arisen.  He queried, for example, the role of independent members on the Overview and Scrutiny Committee and questioned their purpose given they would not be entitled to voting rights.  Councillor Topping reminded Council that this was a collaborative effort but agreed that further work would be undertaken on this issue.

 

Councillor John Williams asked what would happen if the elected Mayor resigned or was otherwise unable to hold office.  Mr Colyer reported that an election would be called and that one of the constituent Members would be appointed by the Combined Authority on an interim basis until a new Mayor was elected. 

 

Councillor Bridget Smith, Leader of the Opposition, referred to paragraph 26 of the report in relation to the costs incurred in establishing and running the Combined Authority which said that the aim would be to keep costs at an absolute minimum, using existing resource where possible, and look to generate savings and efficiencies through public sector reform.  She felt that 'public sector reform' was a significant thing to say and asked what this meant.  Councillor Topping made the point that Council was being asked to agree heads of terms and that there would be further work to undertake which he did not dispute.  He said that the devolution deal provided the Council with an opportunity to enter into a Combined Authority and receive the benefits offered as part of that deal.  He felt that the deal would provide opportunities for activities to be taken forward in different ways and naturally provide efficiencies, citing Transport Plans as an example whereby currently Cambridgeshire and Peterborough had their own respective Plans and separate teams of officers working on them which could potentially evolve to be one team supporting one Plan, thereby delivering efficiency savings. 

 

Councillor John Batchelor asked how the Overview and Scrutiny Committee would work in terms of political proportionality.  Mr Colyer reported that constituent authorities would be allocated seats on a political proportionate basis and that Council, via political groups, would be required to put forward nominations accordingly.  He added that this may require political groups across the region to nominate collectively through negotiation but stated that the Order made it clear that there should be at least one Member from each constituent authority on the Committee and that the Committee had to be politically proportionate.

 

Councillor Sebastian Kindersley asked why the leadership had not negotiated specific provision in the deal for affordable housing to be delivered in South Cambridgeshire.  Councillor Topping referred to a letter by Sajid Javid MP, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, which stated a commitment for Greater Cambridge to receive a £100 million housing infrastructure fund to help deliver infrastructure for housing and growth, which included at least 2,000 affordable homes.  He said that the Council had led that aspect of the deal as part of its negotiations, adding that South Cambridgeshire would receive money to accelerate delivery of affordable housing in the district as part of this commitment.  It was noted that, in the same letter, a capital fund of £70 million over five years would be ring-fenced for Cambridge to meet its housing needs.

 

Councillor Lynda Harford, Portfolio Holder for Housing, reiterated that the Council had led on the inclusion of housing as part of the devolution deal and that the £100 million referred to in the letter from the Secretary of State was designed to support growth.  On that basis, any sites being put forward would be required to demonstrate that they supported growth.  She said that sites in South Cambridgeshire had already been identified for relatively quick delivery in this respect and was confident that a high proportion of the planned 2,000 affordable homes would be delivered in the district as a result of this deal.

 

Councillor Anna Bradnam questioned the likelihood of the devolution deal funding, which equated to £20 million per year over 30 years, actually being delivered, citing a potential change in Government following a General Election as an example of something that could significantly change this agreement.  Councillor Topping acknowledged that things were subject to change but that any amendment to this agreement would require a Parliamentary decision.  He added, however, that the current Government through this deal was prepared to invest in the area due to its economic prosperity and potential for significant economic growth and emphasised that the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough devolution deal represented the best deal that had been negotiated across the country. 

 

Councillor Harford reflected that the devolution deal would make constituent authorities think strategically across the region, ensuring that they worked  and negotiated collaboratively.  She acknowledged that this would be difficult to begin with but saw a directly elected Mayor as an accountable position which would play a pivotal part of facilitating this important aspect of the devolution deal.  Councillor Harford said that it was important that people understood the housing element of the devolution deal, reiterating the content of the Secretary of State's letter which she felt clearly outlined the funding that would be allocated to the city of Cambridge, together with funding that would be allocated to Greater Cambridge, which comprised South Cambridgeshire.  She repeated the point that South Cambridge District Council was already working on those sites that could be delivered through this funding on the basis of demonstrating that they would support economic growth. 

 

Councillor Tumi Hawkins asked why there was not any specific reference to housing in the Statutory Order document, when reference to other key aspects such as transport were included.  She questioned whether this could potentially prevent any funding being received for housing.  Councillor Hawkins also sought clarity regarding inflation as to whether the funding over the 30 year term would be indexed linked.  Councillor Topping explained that the Statutory Order provided the basis in legislation to establish a Combined Authority with the deal document itself containing the detail around the specific agreement, including the funding model.  Mr Colyer confirmed that the funding would be a cash sum and therefore not index linked to inflation. 

 

Councillor Deborah Roberts was of the opinion that the public were against the concept of a directly elected Mayor and questioned the reliability of the results of the survey which had been carried out, as set out in the report and appendices, stating that at least half of the respondents did not understand what they were being consulted on.  Mr Colyer informed Council that those participants who had indicated that they were not aware of the devolution principles had been provided with a briefing in order that they could respond to a further survey from a position of knowledge.  The outcomes of this further survey were also set out in the report and appendices.

 

Councillor Aidan Van de Weyer noted that the expected £600 million over the 30 year period of the devolution deal would be considerably less than that amount in real terms due to the fact that it would not be index linked to inflation.  He understood that the funding would be split by a ratio of 60:40 in respect of capital and revenue and asked what the revenue funding could be used for, anticipating that it would be used to run the Mayor's office and pay for their elections.  Councillor Topping said that the deal offered by the Government provided flexibility and cited the funding available for housing as an example of money that could be used on infrastructure by way of accelerating development if necessary.  Mr Colyer reported that capital funding would be used for building infrastructure and physical assets, whereas revenue would be used to pay for the running costs of the Mayor's office.  It was noted that revenue could also be used for debt servicing, potentially as a way of funding capital expenditure, which provided an additional element of flexibility. 

 

Councillor Nigel Cathcart was concerned that the views of South Cambridgeshire District Council as one of many constituent authorities in the Combined Authority could become diluted, especially in respect of development in the district, and may even see itself being outvoted on something that could be very damaging to residents.  Councillor Topping emphasised the point that the responsibilities of district councils as local planning authorities would not be affected by these proposals.  Councillor Harford, in agreeing with Councillor Topping, made it clear that South Cambridgeshire District Council would retain responsibility of its local planning policies and that if anything contravened local policy the Council would have a right to rule them out and ensured the Council still, therefore, maintained that element of control.

 

Councillor Sue Ellington closed the informal question and answer session and invited Council to formally debate the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough devolution deal.

 

Councillor Peter Topping, Leader of the Council, proposed the recommendations contained within the report in support of the establishment of a Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority to deliver a devolution deal with Government for the area, details of which were set out in the report and appendices.  He also proposed the appointment of Councillor Nick Wright, Deputy Leader of the Council, as the Council’s substitute on the Combined Authority.

 

Councillor Topping referred to the extraordinary meeting of Council held on 28 June 2016 when it had agreed to go out to public consultation on the prospect of a Combined Authority and devolution deal.  As part of that consultation process a range of methods had been used to gauge public opinion and he himself had attended numerous meetings of Parish Councils, listening to residents put forward their views where he had heard arguments both in support and against the proposition.  He referred to the poll that had been carried out, as set out in the appendices to the report, where he said that the majority of people supported the principle of a devolution deal, including the establishment of a Combined Authority with a directly elected Mayor.  He took that as a mandate from the public to pursue this proposition further, hence putting forward the motion to Council that it supported the devolution deal and a Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority. 

 

Councillor Topping added that there would be no direct cost to residents in setting up these arrangements since this would be funded via Government grant rather than through Council Tax.  He also made the point that the Combined Authority would report back to the Council regularly with a high degree of openness and transparency and emphasised the benefits that would be delivered to the people of South Cambridgeshire as a result of entering into this deal with the Government.  Councillor Topping closed by reiterating that this was the best deal that had been offered by Government elsewhere in the country and was the only deal open for consideration.

 

Councillor Nick Wright, Deputy Leader and Portfolio Holder for Corporate and Customer Services, seconded the motion.

 

Councillor John Williams referred to a similar situation two years ago in relation to the A14 improvement scheme where the Council was told by the Government that if it did not agree to support a proposed toll as part of the scheme then the A14 would not be improved or rebuilt.  He said that with this particular issue it became obvious that the Government would not ignore this key part of the country's economic growth and subsequently a revised proposition came forward for the improvement scheme, without a toll.  Councillor Williams felt that it was the same with the devolution deal and the proposal for a Combined Authority with a directly elected Mayor.  He firmly believed that the Government would not refuse to enter into a revised devolution deal that did not include a directly elected Mayor if the growth of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough area was so vital and dependent to the country's economy. 

 

Councillor Williams also disagreed that a directly elected Mayor was needed to facilitate partnership working between the constituent authorities and said that in the past year there had been noticeable co-operation between councils in the wider region.  He cited shared services and joint service arrangements as examples of where councils could work together and did not believe that a directly elected Mayor was necessary to help with that.

 

In respect of the survey, Councillor Williams was of the opinion that the online responses were more telling as they represented the views of people who had taken the time to understand what the proposals meant.  He noted that the majority of online responses had indicated that they were in support of a devolution deal, but not a deal that included a directly elected Mayor.

 

Councillor Deborah Roberts also reflected on the consultation responses and highlighted that the public did not want to see an additional layer of bureaucracy put in place which, in her view, was exactly what was being proposed.  She did not agree with one person having so much power, seeing this as corruptible and undemocratic.

 

Councillor Philippa Hart noted that the main justification put forward in favour of supporting the devolution deal, from this Council's perspective, was that it comprised of new money which would be used to deliver affordable housing to South Cambridgeshire.  She was highly dubious, however, that this could be controlled or managed when the devolution deal was region-wide. She referred to Police and Crime Commissioners who had been elected across the country, which she called ineffective and a waste of public money nationwide, and expected this directly elected Mayor to be the same.  Councillor Hart did not think that the salary being offered would attract the right candidate to manage the power and patronage a role such as this comprised of. 

 

Councillor Hart queried whether the Government really believed affordable housing could not be delivered in South Cambridgeshire without a devolution deal, and whether the Government would really walk away from a deal if it was refused solely because of the inclusion of a directly elected Mayor.  She was of the opinion that the price of this deal was too high to pay if it meant being forced to have a governance structure which included a directly elected Mayor, something she felt the public were not enthusiastic about.

 

Councillor John Batchelor agreed with views previously made that this proposal created another layer of government and bureaucracy, with too much power being delegated to one person.  He did not feel that this represented true democracy and effectively took power away from wider local government and the wider electorate.  He questioned how the funding would be used, claiming that the Mayor’s office and the running of its committees could cost approximately £800,000 to £900,000 a year with the election process itself expected to cost in the region of £700,000.  Councillor Batchelor reflected on some of the key elements included as part of the devolution deal, including the proposed University at Peterborough, and said that the deal itself together with its proposed governance arrangements amounted to the most inefficient and costly way of managing local government.

 

Councillor Sebastian Kindersley was concerned that the establishment of a Combined Authority in the way proposed would effectively silence the democratic way in which the constituent authorities had conducted themselves for many generations.  He was disappointed with the way in which the consultation had been carried out, claiming that many people and bodies such as Parish Councils had been caught out by its timing.  Councillor Kindersley did not agree with the concept of a directly elected Mayor and felt that the Government had seen an opportunity to give power to one person so that it had a single point of contact, rather than having to consult or negotiate with a number of local authorities.  He therefore strongly opposed the proposal.

 

Councillor Aidan Van de Weyer acknowledged that the directly elected Mayor was highly likely to be a representative of the same political party as the majority of constituent councils in the region, and was therefore concerned that he or she would be answerable to Members of their own political group.  He agreed with the sentiments that the proposed Combined Authority created another level of local government, which he did not feel supported democracy or engagement with the electorate.

 

Councillor Henry Batchelor agreed with a comment previously put that the responses to the online survey were likely to more accurately represent the public’s views and was of the opinion that the majority of people were against the establishment of a Combined Authority and a directly elected Mayor.

 

Councillor Douglas de Lacey, Convener of the Independent Group, queried why the outcomes of the poll that had been undertaken were so different from the views he had gathered from residents of the villages he represented.  He claimed that the wording of the survey regarding the section on the directly elected Mayor was extremely misleading and did not properly explain the implications of having such a position imposed. 

 

Councillor Bridget Smith, Leader of the Opposition, questioned why a directly elected Mayor was necessary and what this role could do which the constituent authorities could not do themselves, stating that she had not seen any evidence to suggest that a Mayor was needed as part of these proposals.  She reflected on the Mayor’s salary, the cost of running their office and the cost of holding the elections and was very concerned about the risk that this position could precept Council Tax and directly cost the district’s residents more money.  Councillor Smith claimed that the salary being offered would not attract a high enough calibre of person to ensure that the position was effective and agreed with points made previously that so much power should not be given to one person.  She said that there were no guarantees that the funding for the devolution deal would continue to be delivered and reiterated that it would not be index linked to inflation, meaning that the £600 million would be significantly less in real terms at the end of the 30 year term of the deal.  Questioning why the Government was insisting on the inclusion of a Mayor, Councillor Smith surmised that it was so that the Government only had one person to control rather than all of the different councils in the region.  She said that a directly elected Mayor was too high a price to pay and therefore called for the Council to reject this proposal.

 

Councillor Lynda Harford, Portfolio Holder for Housing, reflected on comments made during the debate which hinted that by refusing this devolution deal a better deal could be negotiated with the Government.  She fundamentally disagreed with this and said that this offer would come once and once only.  Councillor Harford also disagreed that the Combined Authority created an extra layer of local government, since it would be taking over responsibilities from authorities such as Cambridgeshire County Council.  Regarding affordable housing, Councillor Harford emphasised how urgently this needed to be accelerated and thought that the proposed devolution deal was an effective way of delivering that.  She made the point that South Cambridgeshire District Council had led on the housing element all the way through the negotiations for the devolution deal and had been key to ensuring that it was included as part of the final deal.  She reminded Council that this was the first time housing provision had been included in any devolution deal with the Government.

 

Councillor David Bard questioned the argument that the concept of a directly elected Mayor was undemocratic, making the point that this person would not be appointed by the constituent councils of the Combined Authority but would in fact be directly elected by the electorate.  He reiterated Councillor Harford’s comments regarding housing and saw the devolution deal as an opportunity to bring forward its delivery.  Councillor Bard agreed that it was a unique offer, with the inclusion of housing being a significant achievement.

 

Councillor Alex Riley did not support the concept of a directly elected Mayor, but believed that the Government was serious when stipulating that a deal could only be agreed if it included a directly elected Mayor.  He made the point that all other constituent authorities that had considered the proposed devolution deal, to date, had agreed to it.  Councillor Ryley highlighted that South Cambridgeshire was in desperate need of local infrastructure to support delivery of additional affordable housing so was supportive of that aspect of the devolution deal.

 

Councillor Simon Edwards, Portfolio Holder for Finance and Staffing, reflected on the young people living in his electoral ward and made the point that they had no interest in whether the Combined Authority was established with or without a directly elected Mayor.  He said the only thing they were concerned about was having somewhere to live, reiterating the significance of affordable housing in the district.

 

Councillor Roger Hall said that the area was embarking on a technical revolution and that the directly elected Mayor needed to be someone who could represent the region’s views and influence Government.  He was very confident about the future of the region if the devolution deal was agreed, as proposed.

 

Councillor Cicely Murfitt did not support the concept of a directly elected Mayor, agreeing that too much power for one person could lead to corruption or bullying.  She was supportive of the affordable housing element of the deal, but did not think that this should be at any cost.

 

Councillor Tumi Hawkins said that this Council had not helped itself regarding delivery of affordable housing, citing the 20% ratio at the Northstowe development as an example of where the authority had failed to negotiate a higher rate, adding that every time consideration was given to a large development the rate of affordable housing was always negotiated down.  She saw the deal as a bullying tactic by the Government and questioned how 2,000 affordable houses could realistically be delivered with £100 million which equated to £50,000 per house. 

 

Councillor Christopher Cross was supportive of the devolution deal proposals and said that it provided a real development opportunity for Cambridge to build on its strengths, improve the expertise in the area and generate more momentum and money for the whole region.  Councillor Cross reiterated the point that the Mayor would be an elected position and could be a representative of any political party.

 

Councillor Des O’Brien questioned whether support for the devolution deal should rest solely on the affordable housing offer.  He said that the key consideration should be why the devolution deal as a whole was good for the region.

 

Councillor Ray Manning could understand the concerns around the devolution deal in view of it being a big step for all constituent authorities involved.  He highlighted the significant opportunity the deal presented regarding affordable housing, but made the point that this was not the reason why the proposals should be supported.  Councillor Manning said that this was the very beginning of the process and that consideration should not be based solely on what was included as part of this devolution deal, but on what could be achieved as a result of subsequent deals with the Government. 

 

Councillor Topping reflected on the passionate discussion that had taken place on this item.  He said that South Cambridgeshire District Council did work well with other authorities, but he was also keen for it to work closer with Government and that the Combined Authority proposed as part of the devolution deal was a model which helped achieve this alongside all constituent authorities.

 

In response to comments on the cost of running the directly elected Mayor’s office, Councillor Topping highlighted that this equated to 2% of the grant.  He was keen for this and the wider deliverables of the devolution deal to continue to be challenged and committed to ensure that regular update reports were submitted to the Council for consideration. 

 

Councillor Topping supported the views expressed by Councillors Edwards, Harford, Hall and Manning in particular, calling for the Council to look forward and support the devolution deal as proposed.

 

Councillor Nick Wright, Deputy Leader and Portfolio Holder for Corporate and Customer Services, agreed that this was a unique opportunity for the Council and the wider region.  He looked forward to the prospect of further deals, highlighting that Manchester had already successfully negotiated four devolution deals, and emphasised that the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough devolution deal was the best deal in the country.

 

Voting on the motion, with 30 votes in favour and 18 votes against, Council ENDORSED the recommendations to Cabinet that it:

 

(i)         Consent to the Secretary of State making an Order to establish the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority (Appendix A).

 

(ii)        Consent to the Council being a constituent member of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority with effect from the commencement date determined by the final Order.

 

(iii)       Authorise the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Leader of the Council, to consent to the final draft Order and associated documents, specifically:

 

-       to agree minor drafting amendments to the Combined Authority Order to be laid before Parliament;

 

-       to consent to the Council being included within the draft Parliamentary Order thereby reflecting this Council’s decision.

 

(iv)       Authorise the Combined Authority to have a power to issue a levy to the constituent Councils in respect of any financial year. (This will be subject to the inclusion of a unanimity clause in the Combined Authority constitution on this specific matter).

 

(v)        Recommend to the Combined Authority that the costs of establishing the Combined Authority, holding the elections in May 2017 and running the Combined Authority (including Mayoral Office) for 2016/17 and 2017/18 are funded from the gain share grant provided by Government (as outlined the financial implications section of the report).

(vi)       Appoint Councillor Peter Topping, Leader of the Council, to act as Council's appointee to the Shadow Combined Authority and once established, to the Combined Authority.

 

(vii)      Appoint Councillor Nick Wright, Deputy Leader of the Council, to act as the substitute to the above.

 

(viii)      Note the outcome of the public consultation on the establishment of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority as outlined in paragraph 5.1 and 5.2 and Appendices 2A - 2D.

 

(ix)       Note the timetable for the implementation of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough devolution Order as summarised in paragraph 16.

 

(x)        Note the Government's response to the outline business case for Housing capital investment funds secured as part of the devolution deal as set out in Appendix 3.        

 

(xi)       Agree, in principle, for a protocol requiring the Council Leader and the representative on the Overview and Scrutiny Committee to report to each meeting of Council setting out the activities and decisions related to their respective roles within the Combined Authority.

 

(xii)      To request that the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of Civic Affairs Committee engage their fellow committee members with a view to devising and agreeing the wording of a protocol for inclusion in the Council’s constitution.

 

Enough Members as prescribed by Council’s Standing Orders requested a recorded vote.  Votes were therefore cast as follows:

 

In favour

 

Councillors David Bard, Val Barrett, Brian Burling, Tom Bygott, Grenville Chamberlain, Graham Cone, Pippa Corney, Simon Crocker, Christopher Cross, Kevin Cuffley, Simon Edwards, Sue Ellington, Roger Hall, Lynda Harford, Mark Howell, Mervyn Loynes, Ray Manning, Mick Martin, David McCraith, Charles Nightingale, Des O’Brien, Tony Orgee, Alex Riley, Tim Scott, Ben Shelton, Peter Topping, Richard Turner, Bunty Waters, David Whiteman-Downes and Nick Wright.

 

Against

 

Councillors Henry Batchelor, John Batchelor, Anna Bradnam, Nigel Cathcart, Doug Cattermole, Jose Hales, Philippa Hart, Tumi Hawkins, Sebastian Kindesley, Douglas de Lacey, Janet Lockwood, Cicely Murfitt, Deborah Roberts, Bridget Smith, Hazel Smith, Ingrid Tregoing, Aidan Van de Weyer and John Williams.

Supporting documents: