Issue - meetings

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.