Minutes of the Last Meeting (CHDP)

Minutes

Meeting Title: Strategic Infrastructure Board

Date: 30 June 2010

Time: 13.00-15.00

Location: Council Chamber, Carrick House

Chaired by: Terry Grove-White Terry Grove-White, Corine Dyke, Versha Koria, Adrian Welsh, Ian Attendees: Parsons, Alice Ordidge, Andy Davies, Alison Ward, Colin Jarvis, Kate McCavana, Nigel Tipple, Nigel Blackler, Neil Lindsey, Peter Swain, Garth Weaver, Miriam Hoole-Jackson (taking minutes) Apologies: Tom Flanagan

Minutes Action

1 Introduction  TGW opened the meeting with introductions and an overview of the Board’s role. 2 Minutes of the last meeting (CHDP)

Item 2 & 3 – Overview of the Groups’ role and Terms of Reference  It was noted that Thelma Sorenson had not been invited to attend the meeting and this would be rectified for future TGW/MHJ meetings.

 TGW advised that it was the intention to extend the invite to other agencies to attend future meetings i.e. Education, Environment Agency, GOSW, Utilities and Natural England, and requested input from the Board as to other agencies felt to be appropriate.

 TGW informed the Board of the role of the newly set up Infrastructure Providers Group and explained their role, with the focus on setting the prioritisation of work and ensuring it flows to the Strategic Infrastructure Board. Minutes Action

Item 7 – Hayle update

 KMc advised that the commissioning of colleagues in RDA to undertake a traffic assessment of St Erth roundabout had been put on hold, and that Matt Sidney, Strategic Projects Manager, was currently looking at a scoping paper to see if it was fit for purpose.

 The Highways Agency advised that the two projects for the traffic assessment (i) reactive and (ii) proactive were moving forward.

 It was noted that the Harbour project has gone to the UAG today for approval. 3 Change from Highways Development Partnership to Strategic Infrastructure Board (changes to role of the group, membership and Terms of Reference)  TGW advised that it was more appropriate for a Cornwall Wide Group and it would be sensible to look at other infrastructure providers in order to widen the role, and this TGW would be looked into.

 TGW asked for views on the TOR and/or the general principle.

 General discussion ensued, focussing on the need for clarity on the infrastructure issues i.e. surface water drainage, whether there would be a need for a working sub-group i.e. Highways Providers Group, and where this board sits with regards to having detailed discussions.

 The question was asked “What is meant by Infrastructure Delivery Plan Project”?

 TGW advised that it is a broad spectrum of issues around roads and drains, along with social and economic elements. There are also issues on education and green infrastructure.

 It is a raft of different information from providers advising what it should be i.e. social/green infrastructure, and the Board would need to work out a process to sift through the information and prioritise in the case of infrastructure appropriately.

 It is key that the Board understands the need to resolve the issues coming from the Highways Agency, and will possibly

of 8 Minutes Action have to also look at drainage issues.

 It was noted that the Place Shaping Board (PSB) were due to meet shortly with Sandra Rothwell, Head of Economic Development, and will take forward projects. 4 Items from last meeting – updates on: Local Investment Plan

 TGW advised that the report, which set out the Economic White Paper has been to Cabinet for approval of delegation.

 Work is currently ongoing with the HCA, GOSW & SWRDA to assess and put together a list of projects.

 Information has begun coming in from providers which will be assessed.

 It is the intention for the Board to have a draft list ready for the HCA by the end of July, but it was felt more time would probably be required.

 The Board were asked for comments/information of any priority projects coming in from other agencies, as it would be good to have input for the Board’s discussion.

 NT felt that it was critical that the Board look at funding.

 TGW advised that there is a framework for how to assess projects, and would need to put in other elements and grade as to what is to be achieved i.e. (i) value for money (ii) deliverability, which is key (iii) opportunity projects.

 It was suggested that the Board could come back to NT’s suggestion regarding funding after looking at other projects as there would have to be a balance on funding.

 NT raised concern about projects that are critical in the investment strategy that will need funding, but will not be completed for several years.

 AD commented there has to be practical issues of how to deliver the project, and there would need to be a clear set of priorities/criteria to work through.

 It was noted that this would be going wider than the SIF Review and care would need to be taken not to run over this.

 AD advised that there are other prioritisation processes going

of 8 Minutes Action on at present, and advised that the Local Investment Plan (LIP) was a constantly changing project, lasting for approximately three years and there would have to be a clear sense of what to achieve and what the key priority projects are.

 He also advised that he was attending a LIP Priority Proforma meeting straight after the Board meeting today to look as ways to move forward on the project.

 TGW advised that the leaders on the projects would need to provide information to the Board, and would need the backing of the Departmental Leadership Team (DLT).

 It was noted that the LIP went to Cabinet in March 2010 with priorities which came out of the White Paper, and these would be looked at.

 TGW noted that there would be criteria based assessment process phased approach to deliver projects which can be delivered within one to three years, which would need commitment from the Director in order to move forward with the process.

 A proforma and prioritisation process should be available at the end of July, which will be sent out for completion, to obtain feedback to assist in the transparency of the process.

 It was noted that we should start to see the impact of the Government’s proposals on funding streams by October 2010.

 It was noted that if the extremes of impact of funding go down, it may still be possible to achieve the projects, but would need to have an understanding of all the scenarios TGW before alternative plans could be looked at. Feedback will be provided at the next meeting.

GVA Grimley

 A meeting/workshop was held at the end of May 2010 which considered the GVA Grimley report and concluded that areas needed further work.

 The priorities raised included looking at a managed approach, Chiverton roundabout and how to make better use of the junctions at Hayle

 KMcC noted that this is a time-critical project and the RDA had confirmed match funding.

of 8 Minutes Action

 This should be complete by 31 March 2011 and the issues for match funding would need to be discussed and a process agreed so as not to compromise the project.

 KMcC advised that an application and business case was currently being completed and it was hoped to send out by September/October 2010.

DaSTS Process

 AW advised the DaSTS project was aimed at identifying transport and non-transport intervention priorities for the far South West peninsula for the period 2014-19 and beyond.

 Phase 1 of the project tested the options against strategic criteria: improved reliability and resilience of the strategic corridors, aided delivery of development, value for money and minimised carbon emissions.

 The following interventions in Cornwall are recommended to be taken forward to Phase 2 for detailed appraisal:

- dualling of A30 Temple to higher Carblake - CPR junction improvements on A30 - Sustainable travel towns in Peninsula SSCTs

 A workshop was held in May and clarity on the outcome would be required to develop the strategies and Core Strategy. A further workshop may be required in order to move forward.

 It was noted that South West Councils drove this forward but may not continue.

 Newquay branch line – there are key options for interventions for future work, but are not keen to move forward. DaSTS are keen to keep moving forward, and more proof is needed on the value of the study and the option for continued development.

 SR advised that the RFA does not have a life past 2014, and studies in the RFA i.e. A30 studies show that DaSTS studies overtake RFA’s beyond 2014.

 TGW asked what was left to formalise to put this into a new structure in the form of a bidding document.

- local advantage to take forward

of 8 Minutes Action - national guidance is awaited

 It was noted that the Cornwall Partnership is no longer ongoing, but the strategy is still central to what the Board is doing.

 NB advised that the Local Transport Plan (LTP) is due out next month, which is sought to strengthen the strategy.

 Active partnership working is required to deliver the infrastructure projects i.e. IDeA and RDA.

 TGW advised that a bidding document could be a useful tool and could be formalised, although it was suggested that this would need to be done before the CSR comes out, to show we have a single set of priorities.

 It was felt that having clarity on our priorities would assist the LTP.

Key outcome

 Workshop required

 NB noted that DaSTS work could have disadvantaged Cornwall if not concluded, but positive things are emerging from it i.e. Partnership working, but this will not influence our future funding.

Economy White Paper

 SR advised that the Economy White Paper was endorsed by Cabinet in April 2010 and sets out the immediate and medium term future of Cornwall’s economy.

 There are five key issues which need to be pursued if we are to deliver the impacts outlined within the Paper.

- Leadership in the economy - Business transformation leading to high productivity - Cornwall connectivity - Place shaping - Low carbon economy

 Cornwall connectivity picks up on issues such as Newquay Airport.

 A Port Masterplan is in the process of being produced.

of 8 Minutes Action  Movement between places to support strategic gateway priorities in Cornwall i.e. the Eco Town and rail improvements, and are being fed into the LIP.

 The Group is focussing on delivery aspects and where money can be sourced from i.e. investment to deliver this, possibly looking at the private sector.

 NT advised that the Board would need to look at vehicles to obtain funding and would need to look at other initiatives

 As this is an evolving process as with the LIP, the Board would need to ensure it is geared up with other partners to have the ability to deliver this.

Infrastructure Delivery Plan & Priorities for overall 5/6 infrastructure delivery

 It was noted that the project had started and the Board is to act as Secretariat.

 The focus should be on the infrastructure rationale for the Core Strategy and will need to back this up with the Infrastructure Plan.

 With regard to the financial element, would need the IDP to be the basis for Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL), although the new Government may have a different approach.

 Work has begun on looking at the capacity for infrastructure providers, and it was noted that gaps currently exist, i.e. in education.

 The Board would need to set standards of Infrastructure provision and ask other providers what standards they work to, with information to be received by September 2010, with a view to formalise by mid 2011.

 There is an issue regarding the timescales for delivery and the Board would have to manage the delivery of the project.

 TGW advised that a brief could be sent out to all the critical partners to advise of the prioritisation of the project.

 The board would need to understand the scope of funding, identify what its priorities are i.e. infrastructure provision, education etc and what projects to invest in.

 It would then need to separate the core infrastructure

of 8 Minutes Action providers with the need to take ownership, starting with Members next week and how to move forward from the RSS.

 The Board would need to identify where there is capacity for infrastructure and infrastructure and value will be a key driver.

 It was noted that the project originally came out of the Core Strategy and this would need to move forward.

 AOB 7  None

8 Date of next meeting  30 September 2010 – Grenville Room, NCH (13.00 – 15.00)