Issue - decisions

Matter for Decision

The report provided an update on the activities of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority (CPCA) since the 9 October meeting of Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Strategy and Transformation:

     i.        To provide an update on issues considered at the meetings of the Combined Authority held on 25 October, 29 November and 20 December 2017.

 

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.

 

The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:

     i.        Referred to the Rapid Transport paper, it was due to be scrutinised the following week but the Combined Authority Overview and Scrutiny Committee had still not yet received it. Asked whether it should be in the public domain.

    ii.        Made reference to section 4.3 of the report, asked whether the Mayor’s position on the Business Board would be as an observer or would have voting rights.

   iii.        Section 4.5 of the report detailed the make-up of the Business Board, asked how small the business would be and could it include shops.

  iv.        Section 4.6 of the report referred to the LEP, asked about the current status of the LEP.

   v.        Expressed support for an independent business board but raised concern over the process of appointing members with fears of a lack of transparency.

  vi.        Referred to the Chair of the LEP/Business Board and asked what their voting rights would be on the Combined Authority (CA).

 vii.        Queried why the Business Board had voting rights if they had no budget.

viii.        Made reference to associate membership and asked how the difference in footprint between the LEP and CA would impact its relationship.

  ix.        Sought clarification on whether another mayoral election would need to be held if there was a desire to widen the footprint of the CA.

   x.        Asked if the £100 million housing funding grant was targeted at providing housing in high cost areas across the geography.

 

The Chief Executive and Executive Councillor for Strategy and Transformation said the following in response to Members’ questions:

     i.        Affirmed support for scrutiny and transparency of CA decisions. Referred to the Rapid Transport paper, speculated that the original plan was for it to come to the CA and Greater Cambridge Partnership Board meeting at end of January.

    ii.        Stated that without the Terms of Reference to hand they could not confirm the voting status of the Mayor on the Business Board but they recalled that he would be able to vote.

   iii.        Stated that shops were likely to meet the criteria of being a small Business but no decision about Board membership had been made yet.

  iv.        The LEP would now become the Business Board. Support was still there for an independent business voice but there was scepticism surrounding the way the two had been merged.

   v.        The Business Board could be representative and independent; ultimately if it was not, it would be subservient and would fail.

  vi.        Confirmed that the Chair of the Business Board would have prescribed voting rights on the Combined Authority Board.

 vii.        Highlighted that although the Business Board did not have a budget, it would have some powers and would be set up as a company. It could also receive funding from the CA.

viii.        The devolution agreement and constitution of the CA allowed members to veto the introduction of any neighbouring authorities to join the CA. If there was a desire to expand, a governance review would have to be undertaken and this would involve a fresh mayoral election. Consent may need to be given by the Secretary of State.

  ix.        There was support for surrounding authorities to contribute to discussion on strategic plans but not to have a vote.

   x.        The Leader stated that he was not aware of any formal criteria regarding the geographical location of housing built with the devolution funding. So far the allocation had been based upon which area could achieve the most with the money. South Cambridgeshire had received over 40% of the allocation in the first phase.

 

The Committee noted the update.

Matter for Decision

The report provided an update on the activities of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority (CPCA) since the 9 October meeting of Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Strategy and Transformation:

     i.        To provide an update on issues considered at the meetings of the Combined Authority held on 25 October, 29 November and 20 December 2017.

 

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.

 

The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:

     i.        Referred to the Rapid Transport paper, it was due to be scrutinised the following week but the Combined Authority Overview and Scrutiny Committee had still not yet received it. Asked whether it should be in the public domain.

    ii.        Made reference to section 4.3 of the report, asked whether the Mayor’s position on the Business Board would be as an observer or would have voting rights.

   iii.        Section 4.5 of the report detailed the make-up of the Business Board, asked how small the business would be and could it include shops.

  iv.        Section 4.6 of the report referred to the LEP, asked about the current status of the LEP.

   v.        Expressed support for an independent business board but raised concern over the process of appointing members with fears of a lack of transparency.

  vi.        Referred to the Chair of the LEP/Business Board and asked what their voting rights would be on the Combined Authority (CA).

 vii.        Queried why the Business Board had voting rights if they had no budget.

viii.        Made reference to associate membership and asked how the difference in footprint between the LEP and CA would impact its relationship.

  ix.        Sought clarification on whether another mayoral election would need to be held if there was a desire to widen the footprint of the CA.

   x.        Asked if the £100 million housing funding grant was targeted at providing housing in high cost areas across the geography.

 

The Chief Executive and Executive Councillor for Strategy and Transformation said the following in response to Members’ questions:

     i.        Affirmed support for scrutiny and transparency of CA decisions. Referred to the Rapid Transport paper, speculated that the original plan was for it to come to the CA and Greater Cambridge Partnership Board meeting at end of January.

    ii.        Stated that without the Terms of Reference to hand they could not confirm the voting status of the Mayor on the Business Board but they recalled that he would be able to vote.

   iii.        Stated that shops were likely to meet the criteria of being a small Business but no decision about Board membership had been made yet.

  iv.        The LEP would now become the Business Board. Support was still there for an independent business voice but there was scepticism surrounding the way the two had been merged.

   v.        The Business Board could be representative and independent; ultimately if it was not, it would be subservient and would fail.

  vi.        Confirmed that the Chair of the Business Board would have prescribed voting rights on the Combined Authority Board.

 vii.        Highlighted that although the Business Board did not have a budget, it would have some powers and would be set up as a company. It could also receive funding from the CA.

viii.        The devolution agreement and constitution of the CA allowed members to veto the introduction of any neighbouring authorities to join the CA. If there was a desire to expand, a governance review would have to be undertaken and this would involve a fresh mayoral election. Consent may need to be given by the Secretary of State.

  ix.        There was support for surrounding authorities to contribute to discussion on strategic plans but not to have a vote.

   x.        The Leader stated that he was not aware of any formal criteria regarding the geographical location of housing built with the devolution funding. So far the allocation had been based upon which area could achieve the most with the money. South Cambridgeshire had received over 40% of the allocation in the first phase.

 

The Committee noted the update.