Agenda item

Improving Greater Cambridge Partnership Governance

Meeting of Greater Cambridge Partnership Executive Board, Wednesday, 26 July 2017 10.00 a.m. (Item 15.)

To consider the attached report.

Decision:

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.

Minutes:

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 of and he drew attention to the listening and engagement that had formed part of the Milton Road scheme. The GCP had learned a lot from the LLFs and this type of engagement. The focus was on delivering major improvements for this City, linking homes and jobs.
Professor Allmendinger stated that Ms Blythe’s general portrayal of the GCP was not one he recognised. He had been a Board member since February and he did not see it working in the way she describes its approach and methods of working. With reference to comments made about the SYSTRA report, he confirmed that the University had simply managed this because it had people working for it in transport. He knew Silver Street well and any proposal for a bus terminus there was not part of the University’s plans, it was not the University’s land. He was not entirely sure why that line was put in the report, did not recognise why that proposal was there or where it was going.
The Chairperson expressed concern about reference to Silver Street and referred to people commenting about ‘fake news from FeCRA. He stressed that no attempt had been made to raise concerns with him of with the former Chairperson or to check facts before making a statement. The same applied to FeCRA’s recent statement about cobbles. The Chief Executive reported that she had met with Ms Blythe and was keen to try and develop an effective working relationship with FeCRA. However, she drew attention to an article in the Cambridge Independent by a resident of Milton Road reflecting that they never did have faith in consultation, but that view had changed as a result of the approach taken to that scheme. For balance, she wanted to register that GCP was going out of its way to try to engage more constructively with residents and reflect their views.
With reference to the revised governance arrangements, Councillor Herbert recalled a conversation about the amount of work involved in the Transport area and a suggestion that a second Executive Board member would be identified to contribute to that. Councillor Bates, as potential Transport Portfolio Holder confirmed that he would welcome Councillor Herbert’s involvement in this work.

The Chairperson reported that this was the last meeting Tanya Sheridan, would attend, after two hard working years as Programme Director. He recalled that Tanya had been instrumental in the formation of the City Deal and getting it up and running. On behalf of the Executive Board and officers he expressed enormous appreciation for the hard work Tanya had put in during easy and difficult times.