Agenda and minutes

No apologies were received.

No declarations of interest were made.

As no decisions could be made at this meeting the approval of the minutes was deferred to the next meeting.

There were no public questions.

Matter for Discussion

This is a regular report to the Scrutiny Committee each cycle providing an update on the activities of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority (CPCA) Board since the last meeting of the Scrutiny Committee on 3 July.

Informal Debate

The Council’s representative on the Combined Authority Board Councillor A. Smith provided a verbal report:

      i.         Would go to audit on bus reform business case.

    ii.         Phases one and two of the CPCA bus network review would go ahead. Would investigate current subsidised routes.

   iii.         Introduced new Cambridgeshire & Peterborough Combined Authority Chief Executive Rob Bridge who was present and who introduced himself to Members.

The Council’s representative on the Combined Authority Board A. Smith and Cambridgeshire & Peterborough Combined Authority Chief Executive Rob Bridge said the following in response to Members’ questions.

      i.         The special measures put in place for the CPCA were put in place by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUC) for 12 months. Would meet with DLUC in January to ascertain if special measures would continue. Was hopeful these measures would be ended in January.

    ii.         The current Local Transport Connectivity Plan (LTCP) was still in effect. Had hoped the new local transport plan was passed by the CPCA Board at the last meeting however it was not.

   iii.         Would need to explore next steps regarding the LTCP. Expected a government announcement regarding that and would review next steps then.

  iv.         Had a finite set of funds to subsidise bus routes.

    v.         Did not just want to keep the bus routes that were profitable, would look at routes that the public needed and if were not subsidised would not run.

  vi.         It was not a franchise network.

 vii.         There would be a community led investigation regarding bus routes.

viii.         The CPCA did need to step in and save routes that had been cut.

  ix.         Had been looking at routes that were not currently running to see if any that were needed could be added.

    x.         A statement had been put out by the CPCA regarding the number 18 bus route.

  xi.         Franchising may be a good solution to bus routes as franchising could cross subsidise from successful to struggling routes.

 xii.         Audit of franchising was the first step.

xiii.         The number 18 bus route was currently subsidised.

xiv.         The DLUC auditor recognised that progress had been made at the CPCA.

xv.         There were political differences in the Chamber of the CPCA. However felt that there had been improvements.

xvi.         Was aware of issues with the A-bus route and that local people were having issues. This was not a subsidised route. Stagecoach were able to do what they like however were in conversation with Stagecoach.

xvii.         There were opportunities in the future for Cambridge City Council to be more involved in the CPCA in the future.

xviii.         Recognised there were challenges around water scarcity. There would be a new Fenland reservoir which would have an effect on the area. The CPCA was heavily involved.

Informal Debate

The Asset Development Manager introduced the report.

The Asset Development Manager and the Development Manager and said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.         There were no major risks, there was just a short period of time to but contract out to tender.

    ii.         There was a financial risk in not securing a contract in time. Could go over budget if not found.

   iii.         Current employees were Cambridgeshire based.

  iv.         This would be advertised on the Council website, therefore there were opportunities locally and nationally.

    v.         There did not need to be a consultation with the Executive Councillor regarding the end of the previous contract.

  vi.         It would be difficult to pause the process now as the current process may time out and we would be left with no service.

 vii.         A decision could be taken at a later date if Members wished to consider bringing this back in-house.

viii.         The Executive Councillor stated that he did see an early draft of this report however due to timescale no other option than to proceed with Officers recommendation. However does agree that Members should have been advised well in advance so an informed debate could have taken place.

  ix.         There was 1 full time toilet cleaning attendant at Lion Yard and a mobile team that clean the other 14 sites. There were 6 workers in total. There were also supervisors who oversaw the cleaners.

    x.         Monthly KPI monitoring meetings took place with the contracting company.

  xi.         For the actual asset itself, any repairs that were necessary were managed by the Operations Team.

The Chair asked the Committee informally if they were able to make a decision today what would their response have been. The response was that 8 Members would have approved the recommendation and that 1 Member would have abstained.

Information note:

This Scrutiny Meeting was an informal meeting as the agenda was not published in time to meet the legal requirement for 5 clear days’ notice of a meeting.

The decision on the Building Cleaning Contract would be taken by the Executive Councillor for Finance & Resources after the (informal) meeting, who would consider all the points raised in the debate. The decision would be reported to the next Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee in November. 

The decision was available to view here.