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 report provided an update on the activities of the
Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority (CPCA) since the 3 February
2020 meeting of Strategy & Resources Scrutiny Committee.
Decision of Executive Councillor for Strategy and External Partnerships
Noted the update on issues considered at the meetings of
the Combined Authority held on 25 March, 29 April and 3
June 2020.
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
presented by the Executive Councillor for Strategy and External Partnerships.
Matter for Decision
The report provided an update on the activities of the
Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority (CPCA) since the 3 February
2020 meeting of Strategy & Resources Scrutiny Committee.
Decision of Executive Councillor for Strategy and
External Partnerships
Noted the update on issues considered at the meetings of
the Combined Authority held on 25 March, 29 April and 3 June 2020.
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
presented by the Executive Councillor for Strategy and
External Partnerships.
The Committee made the following comments in response to the
report:
i.
Agreed the Mayor’s approach to the transport
projects in relation to the Greater Cambridge Partnership (GCP) was not
positive for public accountability or public understanding of the issues that
were involved which was regrettable.
ii.
The GCP had just completed their first five
years of project delivery and had recently been awarded the next tranche of
government funding, therefore the GCP clearly the right organisation to
undertake the transport project work.
iii.
Asked if the capital grants scheme had been
widely advertised and if the criteria to apply for a grant was clear. It was
vital there was transparency to show where and how public money had been allocated,
particularly as funds were being dispersed into the private sector.
iv.
Questioned if the Mayor understood the need for
affordable housing in Cambridge, any delivery was welcome.
v.
Highlighted an article in the local press
regarding affordable housing being delivered by the Combined Authority Mayor.
It also referenced that he had negotiated £100 million as part of the
devolution deal. The council had also taken part in the negotiations and
believed a proportion of funding had been allocated to the city for affordable
housing. Questioned how the income stream was allocated.
vi.
A recent Savills report highlighted the lack of affordable
housing in the city; the median house price to median income ratio was 13 times
the average income, compared with the national average of 7.8.
vii.
Queried the £40million rolling fund the Combined
Authority had, which the same newspaper article referred to.
viii.
Asked how the Mayor decided what the funding
criteria was for strategic projects as this did not appear to be clear. Provided the example of Lancaster Way
Roundabout on the outskirts of Ely and noted there were projects that required
more urgent works.
ix.
Queried the Mayor’s declarations of interests at
meetings at they did not seem to be consistent.
x.
Requested an update on the CAM metro policy.
xi.
Asked for an update on Alconbury Weald as had
read the lease was being surrendered.
The Executive Councillor for Strategy and External
Partnerships and the Strategic Director said the following in response to
Members’ questions:
i.
Understood there had been a widespread publicity
campaign regarding the grant scheme for the first round. Comments made by the
committee overlapped the concern expressed outside of the committee regarding
the governance of the business board. It was important for the board to remain
accountable and to report on their spending.
ii.
Having reviewed the grant applications these had
been submitted by a diverse selection of businesses.
iii.
The grants awarded were to those organisations
who needed the funding to protect jobs.
iv.
The capital grant funding had been linked to the
previous growth hub funding in terms of innovation specifically linked to
COVID-19, shared by the economic sub-groups and had been promoted very
strongly.
v.
Acknowledged the hard work and support that had
been undertaken and given during the COVID-19 pandemic by the Combined
Authority.
vi.
With regards to the CAM metro it did feel that
the Mayor was trying to create ‘banana skins’. The Mayor’s recent actions and
comments were not compatible with the Local Transport Plan agreed at the GCP
January meeting.
vii.
Suggested the Mayor could be invited to a future
meeting of the Strategy and Resources Committee.
viii.
The Alconbury Weald lease was expensive and
unnecessary, the Mayor proposed to relocate but no future strategy had been
provided where this would be.
ix.
The revolving fund of up to £40million could be
used for projects which would achieve an outcome and bring a return.
x.
£10million of the revolving fund had been allocated
to a development on Histon Road on the former squash
club site, four of the nine units would be affordable homes (£100,000 homes).
Up to one thousand people had registered an interest in this scheme.
xi.
Believed that more could be achieved with the
revolving fund.
xii.
Questioned the allocation of funding of projects
and if the best outcome had been achieved; would suggest working with the
committee to look in detail at the work going forward.
xiii.
Suggested that members read the annual finance
report to look at the money spent and what had been delivered.
The Committee resolved unanimously to note the
report.
The
Executive Councillor approved the recommendation.
Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor
(and any Dispensations Granted)
No conflicts of interest
were declared by the Executive Councillor.
Publication date: 24/09/2020
Date of decision: 06/07/2020