A huge amount of power is concentrated in the three councillors who are voting members of the Greater Cambridge City Deal board. The three councillors have all the powers of the Cambridge City, Cambridgeshire County County, and South Cambridgeshire District Councils delegated to them to use for the purposes of the City Deal projects.
Exactly what this delegation means in practice is currently being discussed. I have submitted the following public question to the Greater Cambridge City Deal board’s meeting on the 3rd of March 2016 in the hope of prompting greater clarity:
The councils in the Greater Cambridge City Deal area have agreed to delegate powers to the board to the extent the board requires them to pursue its objectives.
Cambridgeshire County Council are currently in the process of clarifying which powers it considers have been delegated to the board.
Does the board expect similar clarity over which powers Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council consider to have delegated?
I suggest the board itsself makes clear which powers it considers it holds, and which powers it intends to exercise in relation to particular schemes and circumstances. This is important so that those interested can understand and follow the decision making process and focus campaigning and lobbying appropriately.
I’m interested in if the board consider powers relating to decisions on tree works, including felling, have been delegated to it.
Specifically, for example, I’d like to know if the board will be consulting and taking decisions on tree works and felling relating to the Milton Road proposals or if decisions relating to the trees will be made following the current practices involving the local councils.
Background
The Greater Cambridge City Deal Board’s terms of reference, which have been approved by each council, state:
The three Councils agree to delegate exercise of their functions to the Executive Board to the extent necessary to enable the Board to pursue and achieve the objectives of the Greater Cambridge City Deal and to undertake any actions necessary, incidental or ancillary to achieving those objectives, and, accordingly, the three Councils shall make the necessary changes to their respective schemes of delegation. The Executive Board may further delegate to officers of the three Councils.
Cambridgeshire County Council is currently considering clarifying what powers have been delegated in what circumstances and have identified the following specific powers as delegated in relation to City Deal Infrastructure schemes:
- Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs)
- Compulsory Purchase Orders (CPOs)
- Side Roads Orders (SROs)
- Transport and Works Act Orders (TWAOs)
- Grant of Planning Consent
The County Council are proposing clarifying which schemes this delegation will apply to, stating:
A City Deal infrastructure scheme is one arising from the Greater Cambridge City Deal which has all of the following characteristics:-
- Has been and remains designated by the Greater Cambridge City Deal Executive Board as a City Deal infrastructure scheme.
- Is, or has been funded in whole or in part by funds received by the County Council under the auspices of the Greater Cambridge City Deal or allocated to the Greater Cambridge City Deal Executive Board by participating Authorities.
My View
I would rather have one council for Greater Cambridge, giving us democracy in depth, rather than concentrating all local government powers in three individuals.
33 responses to “Greater Cambridge City Deal Board Powers”
Given the time constraints I should try and get what I want to say down to the minimum:
Sorry Richard, it is about more than just trees – it is about junctions, blocking off roads, ‘No Right Turns’, bus lanes, everything even partially funded by City Deal.
At the Highways and Communities Infrastructure Committee of the County Council on Feb 29th, some councillors were confused as to what powers they had already delegated to City Deal in December 2014 – part of which you show above. To me the most worrying part is the final sentence – ‘The Executive Board may further delegate to officers of the three Councils’
At the moment if a change to the highway is proposed, we can make representations to our County Councillor, who generally knows the area well, and who can be ejected at the next election.
These ‘clarifications’ will have to go to a full meeting of the County Council for approval. If the select group on the Highways Committee don’t understand what is being given away then the full Council will not have a hope. If they (full Council) approve the latest set of changes, the power could / will probably be delegated to the officers. The only course of action will then will be to compress all our objections into a single one-minute question to City Deal Exec – not easy if the whole of Milton Road is dealt with in one Traffic Order.
Time to make our feelings know to the full Council, I suggest.
I’ve never suggested this is only about trees.
Sorry – wrong date. HCIC meeting was on 1 March.
I attended the Greater Cambridge City Deal Board meeting on the 3rd of March 2016 to put my question.
I obtained an assurance that the board would publish details of which powers it intended to exercise in relation to each project.
Officers said the position in respect of taking decisions on the trees was complicated and they couldn’t say at the meeting who would take the decision.
See Also
The Greater Cambridge City Deal Board Terms of Reference as agreed by the councils in the area state only the three councillors on the board have a vote and the Cambridge University and Local Enterprise Partnership members are non-voting members.
At the 3 March meeting however the non-voting members did put their hands up and appeared to take part in voting. When the M11 bus-only slip road was debated the chair stated the Cambridge University representative may hold the casting vote:
The Cambridge University rep did take part in the vote; but the three councillor members were in agreement in any case.
The board’s terms of reference require it to operate on the basis of consensus. It’s pretty clear that this statement relates to the voting of the three councillor members, but it could perhaps be interpreted to extend to seeking the consent of the University and Local Enterprise Partnership. The University’s “vote” could be seen as giving consent. Ultimately the decision making powers of the board are exercised via a vote of the majority of three councillor members. I think there is a need for clarity; perhaps this is something councillors at each council which has delegated its powers to the board will review.
The Greater Cambridge City Deal board have pointed me to a document they have now published, a “Summary of infrastructure decision making”. It states:
According to The County Council’s website the officer with holding the powers is Graham Hughes.
Mr Hughes is the officer who answered my question at the Greater Cambridge City Deal meeting and didn’t at that point know where the powers lay!
I think it is appalling that councillors have delegated such important decisions about the city’s environment to an officer.
There are no upcoming meetings of the County Council’s planning committee. I find it hard to believe they had powers over delegated decisions on highways trees in the first place, never mind delegated them to an officer, but if I spot an upcoming meeting in time I will seek to raise the matter via a public question
http://www2.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/CommitteeMinutes/Committees/Committee.aspx?committeeID=64
I asked the assembly to recommend the board formally consider the “Summary of infrastructure decision making” document, they didn’t take up my proposal:
http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/milton-road-officer-proposals.html#comment-112458
I also asked the Greater Cambridge City Deal Board themselves, in June 2016, to formally consider their “Summary of Infrastructure Decision Making” document:
http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/milton-road-officer-proposals.html#comment-112527
I spoke at the City Deal board on this point on the 1st of September. The officer responding, and the board chair, indicated the published document is inaccurate. I suggested it be corrected.
I have reported the exchange in detail at:
http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/milton-road-update-0916.html
I raised my concerns about such a key contentious decision being delegated to an officer at the North Area Committee on the 31st of March 2016. This prompted a rather incomprehensible argument between a Liberal Democrat and Labour councillor and a number of statements irrelevant to the point I had made.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GL96JUgNsUM
Cllr Scutt undertook to return to the next North Area Committee with a response to my concern about the delegation of contentious decisions on trees to an officer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GL96JUgNsUM&t=4m14s
Cllr Scutt gave a reply but it had no connection to my question.
I used another public question to re-state my original question. Cllr Scutt promised to take the question to the City Deal Assembly and Board (as I have already done).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpsOA0rv_BU
I understand as part of the city deal, pro-EU Cambridge will be allowed to cooperate with the EU.
Much better (rational), analysis from David Allen Green [FT]:
https://twitter.com/DavidAllenGreen
During the Cambridgeshire County Council full council meeting on the 19th of July 2016 Cllr Ian Manning described my quoting from the cited Greater Cambridge City Deal “Summary of infrastructure decision making” as a rumour I was perpetuating on Twitter. Cllr Manning said:
Direct link to Cllr Manning’s statement during the meeting
I asked Cllr Manning immediately to apologise:
Cllr Manning later persisted misrepresnting my actions when all I have done is quoted from referenced Greater Cambridge City Deal Document.
Cllr Manning has not apologised, and bizarrely suggested I should apologise to him:
I reiterate that all I have done here is publish a quote from the Greater Cambridge City Deal “Summary of infrastructure decision making” document, while with providing a link to that document on the City Deal website.
I am considering asking the Cambridgeshire County Council chair to offer Cllr Manning the opportunity to apologise at the next full council meeting, and if he fails to do so, asking the chair to make a statement along the lines of:
I would hope that Cllr Manning would apologise in a manner which will reach others who will have heard or read his remarks, both in the council chamber and subsequently.
may have shaped U.S., NATO, Ukrainian
and Russian behavior before the war
provides a useful framework for assessing
can undermine the observation and orientation
stages of that model. The potential
effect of preemptively declassifying intelligence to
disrupt the enemy’s OODA Loop—forcing
him to reobserve and reorient
again and again because of a
predicted that cyber operations would play a decisive
role in Russia’s strategy. For
reasons that have been hotly
Among them, Arizona Secretary of State
Adrian Fontes told a podcast
great ataylor