Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Decision details
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for External Partnerships
Decision status: Recommendations Approved
Is Key decision?: No
Is subject to call in?: No
To enable the Committee to scrutinise the Council's representative on the Combined Authority.
Matter for Decision
The Officer’s report provided an update on the activities of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority since
the 25 March Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee.
Decision of Executive Councillor for Strategy
and External Partnerships
i.
Noted the update provided
on issues considered at the meetings of the Combined Authority held on the 27
March and 29 May and 26 June 2019.
Reason for the Decision
As set out in the Officer’s report.
Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected
Not applicable.
Scrutiny Considerations
The Committee
received a report from the Chief Executive.
The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:
i.
Referred to p95 of the agenda, which noted that the
non- statutory spatial framework had been withdrawn. Asked whether this would
impact on the City Council’s Local Plan process.
ii.
Referred to p97 of the agenda and queried whether
the work being done on skills by the Combined Authority was the same as that
done by the Greater Cambridge Partnership (GCP).
iii.
Expressed their view that the City Council did not
need to be part of a Combined Authority to bid for Housing Infrastructure
Funding (HIF).
iv.
Expressed concern regarding the speed and progress
of Combined Authority projects. From
March 2019 a significant number of projects that the Combined Authority was
involved with were still at an early stage.
v.
Commented that the Combined Authority had spent a
lot of money on consultants and that limited progress appeared to have been
made ‘on the ground’.
The Executive Councillor said the following in response to Members’
questions:
i.
Understood that the non-statutory spatial framework
was due to go back to the Combined Authority Board in September. This was not a
binding document. The Combined Authority needed to be clearer what its
ambitions were regarding housing.
ii.
Work undertaken by the Combined Authority on skills
was a wider skills strategy, they were putting more funding into further
education. Their growth company was going to bid for a further £2 million
funding. The GCP tended to focus more on apprenticeships.
iii.
Commented that if members looked in detail at large
HIF bids, only a Combined Authority were allowed to bid for this level of
funding. ie: over £100
million. The City Council would not have been able to bid for that level of
funding had it not been part of a Combined Authority.
iv.
The Combined Authority had big ambitions; some
delays were as a result of the amount of time that Central Government was
spending on Brexit. There was no dialogue regarding Cambridge South train
station, this was meant to be completed by 2025 but Central Government and
Network Rail were silent. Cambridge
needed the Cambridge South train station and proof could be given by the
success of Cambridge North train station.
v.
To be effective in securing funding, the Combined
Authority still needs to do much more work on prioritising projects.
The Committee noted the update.
The Executive Councillor noted the update.
Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor
(and any Dispensations Granted)
No conflicts of interest
were declared by the Executive Councillor.
Publication date: 27/08/2019
Date of decision: 01/07/2019