Issue - meetings

Matter for Decision

The report referred to an update on the recent developments with Central Governments project for the growth of Cambridge. The report was to note.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources.

Noted the update on the progress of the Cambridge Delivery Company (CDC) implementation.

 

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 

 

In response to Members’ questions the Leader of the Council said the following:

      i.         Noted the request to invite Peter Freeman, CDC Chair, to a future Strategy and Resources Committee meeting.

    ii.         As the Council’s representative should be held to account and would be happy to answer any questions.

   iii.         The aim of the CGC and the Advisory Council was to prepare the way for a Development Corporation, the Advisory Council should be a part of that development, as shown in the terms of reference which had previously been shared with the committee.

  iv.         Did not believe a high number of staff had currently been employed by the CGC to date, but significant employment budget had been approved.

    v.         The matter of staffing and consultancies had been raised with the Chair and other Local Authority Leaders on the Advisory Board, as had concern there could be a risk of duplication of resource and expertise that already existed within the Council.

  vi.         There needed to be a more transparent approach of the work undertaken by the CGC and prior to that delivery group. Once it was clear on what had been commissioned, recommendations could be made on as to which individuals and groups could support that work which should be done in conjunction with the local area.

 vii.         Had asked the Chair of CGC for the total number of staff employed, their roles and how the Advisory Council could become involved in the recruitment process. 

viii.         As a result of the Government’s initiative on growth in Cambridge this would exceed the current Local Plan but was yet to be determined for the future Local Plan as this was still to be resolved.

  ix.         The Government’s growth initiative needed to run alongside the emerging Local Plan and Officers look at how the two would interrelate.

    x.         The Government would be releasing funding for the Chatteris reservoir and improvements to Grafham Water reservoir. However, there was a shortage in the interim and agreed there need to be greater clarity on the outcome on the work of the Water Scarcity Group.

  xi.         The Development Corporation would provide the Government sight on the funding released for growth; it was anticipated that this would be billions.

 xii.         Development Corporation had longevity, responsibility for  the development process working and did not require political whim. It would continue if there were political changes locally.

xiii.         Stockport Development Corporation deemed a success, consisted of senior-level private sector board members,  Homes England and Greater Manchester Combined Authority and representatives from Stockport City Council’s main political parties, was which had changed from a Labour run authority to Liberal Democrat.

xiv.         It was important to determine how the Development Corporation could listen and hear the voices of local people, otherwise if run badly it become a charter for developers.

xv.         It was important to work with and facilitate discussions with external stakeholders such as AstraZeneca, while recognising their significance nationally.  

xvi.         Agreed there were pressure groups who could influence the growth programme in Cambridge, and it was important that the Council had a voice in partnership with those groups.

xvii.         An example of the City Council’s collaborative working with Cambridge leaders was shown in the published joint open letter to Government on the development of Cambridge.

xviii.         Confirmed the Greater Cambridge Partnership were involved in the growth plan for Cambridge and believed there was opportunities for further seats to be made available on the Advisory Council for external partners.

xix.         There had been one meeting of the Advisory Council and there were further discussions to be had on responsibility and accountability.

xx.         Would not agree that there had been a lot of public criticism of the Water Scarcity Group but had welcomed the fact there was a group trying to address the issues.  There may be possible criticisms that the answers had not come quickly enough, but there was a process that had to worked through. 

xxi.         The Water Scarcity Group had recommended that water efficiency fittings could be applied to existing housing and commercial stock but agreed there was a labour and skills shortage of plumbers. The Council were currently undertaking a tendering process to improve the situation.

 

The Chief Executive informed the Committee that CGC were developing a website for information, where published agendas and minutes could be found.

 

The Committee noted the report.

 

The Executive Councillor noted the report.

 

Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted)

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.