Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Issue
17 Combined Authority Update PDF 214 KB
Additional documents:
Minutes:
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.