Agenda, decisions and minutes

Members apologies were noted as above.

None.

None.

None.

A report was received to summarise the governance arrangements for the Infrastructure Board, to clarify the reporting obligations, and propose dates for future meetings.

It was questioned why all Boards have the same £2m scheme spending limit given that some Boards will be considering much larger schemes than others. It was noted the ‘rules’ have been set by the MCA and LEP.

Members asserted a desire to not be asked to consider or vote on a scheme that is not already well known to them. Officers provided assurances appropriate information would always be provided as schemes progress through the pipeline.

Members questioned the reference to Board quoracy and whether named officers are included in the quorum.

Action: Craig to quantify what the rules are for thematic board quoracy

RESOLVED, that the Board:

1.      Notes the governance arrangements, reporting obligations and proposed future dates

2.      Agrees for Board meetings to be scheduled in accordance with     the proposal set out in paragraph 2.2

A report and presentation were received to provide a summary of the areas of activity that the Infrastructure Board will have responsibility for.

It was noted that within the SCR context, infrastructure covers a wide variety of work areas inclusive of energy, planning, blue and green infrastructure, digital connectivity and the public estate in addition to major projects (unless under the oversight of an alternate thematic board).

Members requested more information to provide a breakdown of the infrastructure investment programme to explain what schemes are in contract, in pipeline or currently unfunded. It was agreed this would be a substantive item at the next meeting.

Action: Mark / Colin to present a breakdown of the infrastructure investment pipeline to the next meeting.

Regarding digital connectivity, it was questioned what the SCR can actually do with limited funding to support the substantial work being undertaken by the private sector. It was suggested there are a number of ways the SCR can act as an ‘enabler’ to assist the private sector’s implementation of new digital infrastructure.

The presentation concluded with details of the timelines for delivery of the existing programme of work

Members questioned whether the reporting dashboard is fit for purpose. It was acknowledged there is a significant amount of data to present but requested a simplified means of confirming ‘how a scheme is doing’ be provided more clearly.

Action: Colin to address the Board’s comments for future programme reporting.

Cllr Cheetham noted the importance of recognising the lessons learnt from past regional digital connectivity projects.

RESOLVED, that the Board:

1.    Notes the current SCR strategic infrastructure activities being undertaken, which fall within the role and remit of the Infrastructure Board

2.   Notes the Dashboard proposals to monitor progress on both the           Infrastructure Board’s activities and the SCR Local Growth Fund scheme investments

A report and presentation were received to provide an update on delivery against the objectives of the SCR Integrated Infrastructure Plan

Members were asked to consider and agree a process for bringing forward short, medium and long term infrastructure priorities.

Members were reminded the SCR Integrated Infrastructure Plan 2015-2025 (IIP) was published in 2015 to set out the potential scale and geographical extent of infrastructure investment required in the SCR to support the delivery of the SCR Strategic Economic Plan through the remaining 6 years of the plan and beyond.

It was noted a key principle of the IIP is to deliver an integrated package of infrastructure investment in order to unlock investable growth opportunities.

It was suggested that developing a robust project pipeline in this way, will enable a more strategic and proactive approach to infrastructure investment that is aligned with both the scale and timing of growth in different priority ‘places;’ rather than be reactive to just an open call of schemes at any given time. It will also enable a greater understanding of how limited resources, including project management type resources, could be better employed and when to maximise impacts in bringing forward strategic schemes for development.

The Board was informed that to develop this project pipeline, it is proposed to hold initial ‘place’ workshops over the Summer with districts, with the sessions covering all elements of infrastructure including energy, digital, green infrastructure and transport. This exercise will also be used to review the validity of the existing IIP spatial packages in light of the SEP refresh and the Local Industrial Strategy Review.

Members recognised the importance of this piece of work and urged officers to not limit forward programming to known funding sources. It was agreed this is a great opportunity to champion the scale of the SCR’s ambition.

Members considered what we can ‘do differently’ to achieve this ambition.

It was acknowledged there is a discussion to be had to determine how preparatory work to develop schemes is funded given revenue budget constraints.

This report summarises the work programme being developed by the SCR Heads of Planning Group and presents a draft Statement of Common Ground, for endorsement by Board members.

RESOLVED, that the Board:

1.      Note the progress to date made in delivering the SCR Integrated Infrastructure Plan.

2.      Supports the proposed approach to developing the Infrastructure Pipeline including holding more detailed ‘place’ conversations with districts, and potentially other key bodies over the Summer around infrastructure projects to support growth.

A report was received to summarise the work programme being developed by the SCR Heads of Planning Group and to present a draft Statement of Common Ground, for endorsement by Board members.

The importance of this being undertaken was acknowledged and it was recognised that roads don’t stop at borders and major schemes in one district have cross border effects in others.

Members requested the Statement attain appropriate political support in each Local Authority ahead of its formal adoption by the SCR.

Members questioned why this matter was being brought before the Infrastructure Board given the existing ‘duty to co-operate’ which already prescribes how the districts will work together on planning matters. It was noted the purpose of the Statement is essentially to enforce that approach and would support Local Plans and support Local Planning Authorities at Local Plan Examinations.

It was suggested the Statement will essentially be a mechanism via which the MCA and LEP can be assured planning positions are collectively supported by all Local Planning Authorities.

RESOLVED, that the Board:

1.      Notes and supports the work programme being developed by Heads of Planning

2.      Notes the requirement to prepare a Statement of Common Ground and its purpose to both support Local Plans and support Local Planning Authorities at Local Plan Examinations

3.      Supports the draft Statement of Common Ground and requests that Local Planning Authorities are requested to consider endorsing and being a signatory to the Statement.

Members were acquainted with the processes that would be adopted for scheme approvals going forward.

None.