Agenda item

The Joint Assembly discussed and noted the Quarterly Progress Report, including Budget Setting for 2018/19

Members of the Joint Assembly asked for updates at future meetings on the Housing Development Agency and Smart Places.  Additionally there was a request for future reports on delivery of affordable homes to include a break down of types of homes completed and tenure. 

The Joint Assembly received an update on the Independent Economic Assessment Panel with particular reference to the need to increase the budget for Government appointed consultants to work with the GCP for the next 18 months on the evidence to be part of the Outline Evaluation Plans for each Locality Framework, as outlined in part 1 of the progress report since the last report. 

The Joint Assembly requested that the GCP Risk Register be added to the progress report in future.

The Joint Assembly received and noted the Quarterly Progress Report, including Budget Setting for 2018/19.

In introducing the report, the Strategic Programme and Commissioning Manger drew particular attention to:-

(a)  The GCP Budget Setting report, as set out in Appendix 1; and

(b)  The update provided on the Independent Economic Assessment Panel, as set out in Appendix 2.

During discussion on the report:-

·         Councillor Tim Bick referred to his understanding that the Housing Development Agency (HDA) was currently only executing housing development schemes on behalf of one of the three partners within the Greater Cambridge Partnership, rather than all three partners as originally intended.  He commented that the GCP had previously agreed to provide funding to the HDA and indicated that he would welcome submission of a report on the operation of the HDA to the Joint Assembly.

·         Councillor John Williams  spoke on affordable housing and highlighted research which indicated that over a third of households in Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire had less than £30k per annum gross income and could only afford a 1 bedroom property in the private rental market. He noted that no breakdown was given in the report of the types of homes being provided; the extent to which these were affordable social homes and how the new build programme was addressing housing needs in the area.

·         Councillor Bridget Smith:-

o   commented on the strong performance in respect of apprenticeships in Greater Cambridge, bucking national trends, but noted that the skills working group felt it was important to look at other skills work and asked whether there would an opportunity to review the budget for skills.  The Sanger Institute had highlighted the need to address the skills gap in the area, which was expected to increase owing to the impact of Brexit, and Councillor Smith felt that the GCP, working with the LEP, could make a contribution to addressing the skills gap and to generating the workforce locally;

o   requested that the Joint Assembly receive an update on the “Smart Places” workstream; and

o   asked for an explanation of the significant increase in the costs relating to the Independent Economic Assessment Panel.

·         Councillor Noel Kavanagh was pleased to note the good progress achieved by the cycling project team and commended them on their performance. 

Responding to the points raised in discussion, the Strategic Programme and Commissioning Manager:-

·         Agreed to bring a report on the current position with the HDA to the Joint Assembly. In so doing, she noted that the GCP had provided seed funding of £200k to support the start up of the HDA, the last payment of which had just been released.

·         Indicated that future reports on delivery of affordable homes would include a break down of types of homes completed and tenure.

·         Explained the current position with the skills budget, particularly in respect of work on apprenticeships, but noted that there should be an opportunity for the working group to work up a case for inclusion of additional funding in the Future Investment Strategy (FIS) in respect of GCP’s wider activity on skills.

·         Confirmed that an update would be submitted to the Joint Assembly on “Smart Places” in the next progress report as part of the planned six monthly update..

·         With respect to the Independent Economic Assessment Panel update, noted that in July 2017 phases 1b (co-production of local evaluation frameworks) and 1c (development of outline evaluation plan) had not been sufficiently progressed to be able accurately to estimate the costs.  Officers had worked to reduce the costs and would continue to liaise with the consultants and the Government to ensure the evaluation process progressed to time and budget. 

The Chief Executive outlined various activities going on in the “Smart Places” workstream and indicated that more information on this would be shared with the Joint Assembly in the next progress report..

With reference to the budget for 2018/19 at Appendix 1, the Joint Assembly’s attention was particularly drawn to:-

·         Additional funding requested for cross city cycling and for Chisholm Trail cycle links; and

·         Paragraph 6 of the report which highlighted a budget shortfall which would be funded from a first call on the next phase of City Deal grant funding.  Given that the majority of the scheme expenditure occurred in later years, this reduced the financial risk and it was therefore considered appropriate to develop Tranche 1 on the assumption of the release of future funding. If grant funding was not released, schemes would need to be reprioritised.

With reference to paragraph 6, Councillor John Williams asked why the Joint Assembly did not see the GCP’s risk register. The Chief Executive confirmed that there was a project risk register and that this could be included in future progress reports.

Helen Valentine reflected that previously less firm assumptions appeared to have been made about receipt of future grant funding.  In response, the Strategic Programme and Commissioning Manager acknowledged that there was no guarantee of future funding but noted that officers worked closely with the relevant consultants and Government; had a good understanding of the benefits the Government expected the GCP to achieve and that there was reason to expect that the GCP would continue to be regarded as a safe investment.

The Joint Assembly broadly supported the proposals to be submitted to the GCP Executive Board, with their views to be incorporated into the Chairperson’s report to the Board.