Minutes:
Jonathan Cox (JC) from Stantec presented to the Forum.
He explained that Stantec have been commissioned by the CPCA to explore some of the barriers that may or may not be holding back planned housing and employment growth in the CPCA area. He explained that as part of the project there is engagement with local authorities, developers, outside bodies who are responsible for providing water and energy and his remit covers four key subject areas, including transport, energy, water supply quality and flood risk and green and blue infrastructure including BNG and digital connectivity.
JC added that the project is exploring what sites and what areas there is planned housing and employment growth across the CPCA area and looking into the detail with regards to what infrastructure maybe required in order to assist with the delivery and also to get a better understanding of the barriers with regards to delivering the infrastructure.
Members of the Forum made the following comments.
JM stated that primary driving force for his attendance at the forum was with regards to the proposed traffic improvements around Wisbech which originated in a £10,000,000 fund which was handed to the CPCA to administer and then appeared to be delayed in terms of its availability. He added that the West Norfolk EAP is ongoing at the current time and the Inspector has raised additional questions with regards to when the Broadend Road roundabout is going to become available as it had been stated previously that work was due to commence in 2023 and the land has already been purchased. He asked for an update with regards to who now controls the funding and what is the process for ensuring the project can be delivered.
JC explained that he is working for the CPCA and therefore he does not have the insight into the pots of money and his role at the meeting is to gather information for the particular study. He added that he will feed back the issues raised by JM and those aspects may be raised when the necessary infrastructure review takes place in order to deliver growth in the region. JC explained that he is not in a position to comment on the funding issues that JM had raised.
NH asked JM whether he was attending the EAP when that particular issue was discussed, and he asked who the question was directed at. JM explained that the EAP recommence on 16 March, and it is for additional questions that Inspectors have posed that will be discussed on 17 March in the context of confirming the East Wisbech allocation and the West Norfolk part remains sound and should stay within the plan. He added that the funding was all lined up and the land has all been purchased and there are other improvements to consider such as Elm Hall roundabout where all the necessary land has been purchased to enable the improvements which unlock an awful lot of the proposed additional development in the southern part of Wisbech including all of the industrial areas and there appears to be a delay possibly because of revenue considerations. JM added that there a number of applications coming through which are likely to obtain consent this year with a view to build out next year, and the finance does need to be made available.
Simon Jackson, the Economic Growth Manager at FDC made the point that it appears to be a very useful piece of work which JC is undertaking. SJ explained that his focus is on housing as part of the economic growth function but also on the employment side of things. He asked what the timescale is with regards to the piece of work and how does it breakdown in terms of consultation and draft reporting. SJ also expressed the view that consideration also needs to be given to solutions to the problems which are identified. SJ made reference to the presentation screen and added that the slide states to identify interventions the CPCA could make to overcome the barriers and he asked JC to explain what is meant by interventions.SJ stated that apart from money most of the issues are third party solutions as it involves energy and water and it is all about providing funding to get those people involved in the actual project to do things. SJ reiterated that it is going to be very important to identify what funding is required and if it is CPCA funding or from anywhere else it is going to be essential to get an understanding of where it is going to come from.
Councillor Mrs Dee Laws (DL) stated that she would contact colleagues to obtain further information in order to assist JM and SJ.NH added that the challenge for Fenland from a developers point of view due to the viability challenges it is a big ask to bring sites forward where there is a huge infrastructure cost and therefore the schemes do not come forward and when it comes to the availability of funding from the various organisations that supply funding , they cannot be accessed because we do not have sites with planning permission that are ready to go. NH advised JC that from the perspective of Fenland we would expect the CPCA not to have too sharp a focus on the authorities who do not have the challenges that Fenland has in the northern part of Cambridgeshire as it compounds the disadvantages that Fenland has. NH explained that for Homes England funding their model when considering the support of sites is geared around to how quickly is their money going to be recouped and what is the surety of getting their money back and what is the gearing ratio. He explained that because the build out rates here are slower and the rate of return is lower it is apparent that our schemes never qualify for Homes England funding and the funding goes towards those other parts of Cambridgeshire. NH added that with regards the challenges around the supply of energy to sites in order to be able to bring them forward, there is currently a project being undertaken by CCC which is looking at that issue in a silo way and it is not looking more broadly in the context of the other considerations which need to be taken into account when delivering development and is only looking at the most advantageous place to bring forward from a development point of view in terms of being able to get power to the site, whilst ignoring all of the other factors when allocating land for development in the various local plans throughout the county.
NH asked the forum how they wish to feedback to Stantec their observations and feedback.
SJ stated that consideration needs to be given with regards to where the document is going to end up and he raised the point of decision-making concerning resource and what weight will the report findings have when considered by the CPCA decision making structure.
JC explained that over the next couple of months he will be working to finalise matters with a view to have a draft report ready for the CPCA to review at the start of April. He added that the current plan for the CPCA is to take the report to the Environmental and Sustainable Communities Committee in July. JC added that from his perspective the CPCA are putting considerable weight on this and they are looking forward to receiving the report as they feel it will be valuable tool for them to understand the links between some of the infra structure barriers that are in existence across the CPCA area and what the levels of housing and employment that may unlock.
JC made the point that there are barriers that are beyond the four subject areas which are the funding elements to things and the different elements which are being handled in a siloed way and maybe a more joined up approach is needed and the work he is undertaking may seek to recommend a few actions which are beyond the initial work he is undertaking.
SJ questioned what will the report tackle if there is no detailed level of information about what the actual barriers are at a particular site. He added with regards to energy and electricity, most local authority areas will be struggling with new demand for electricity and the cost that people are being quoted to provide additional electricity capacity and sub stations which can be a very substantial cost and a significant barrier. He made the point that if the level of information is not present at a particular location will there be the option to fill that void or just report back that the information is not available.
JM asked for the contact details in order to be able to submit the information to JC.
NH asked whether the level that JC is working to is also looking at the challenges around bringing the parcels of land forward for development or is it about improving the attractiveness of an area more broadly in order to facilitate development. NH added that with regards to the A47 whilst improvement to the A47 would not necessarily open up a parcel of land it would make Fenland a much more attractive area potentially for economic development and housing development which in turn might improve viability so that more development sites can be brought forward independently rather than be dependent on assistance.
JC added that with regards to voids in information there is going to have to be some limitations with regards to the level of detail and that will have to be handled accordingly. Some of the subject matter may not be able to be site specific and he is looking at aspects where there is planned growth locations at the moment although there is an element of future growth which are potentially unlocking future development within the planned growth for the region. JC explained that consideration is being given to cover it in both ways so that there is a site-specific element to it but also an area wide potential for unlocking further growth whilst also noting the limitations.
He added a coordinated repose would be welcome and NH agreed to collate the responses.
SJ made the point that when considering the information that is available in each of the authorities within Cams and Peterborough then Fenland will be a very poor relation in that regards generally speaking as there are a number of other areas will have masses of information and intelligence into all of the aspects that JC is reviewing. He added that Fenland is not in the same league with regards to the level of information and is already at a disadvantage. He added that the CPCA also wants to reduce inequalities and therefore he when the CPCA Transport Committee is going to review the benefits that could accrue from investment, in his opinion, the benefits need to be reviewed and look at reducing some of the inequalities and not just looking at the return on investment from a financial perspective.
NH stated that he recalls that the CCC undertook a piece of work about three years ago with regards to utilities infrastructure and he asked Graham Hughes (GS) whether he recalls that. GS stated that NH is correct and there are conversations taking place with the CCC and with officers who carried out that original piece of work and therefore there is the historic and updated data. GS explained that as well as the team who are looking at the development aspect of the project there are also others within Stantec who energy and water experts and they are speaking to the utility companies and reviewing the published data and from that information there should be a pretty good outcome of what the plans are and what needs to be done.
DL confirmed that she has emailed the appropriate officers at the CPCA along with the Leader. She added that she supports the views of SJ and stated that the north of Cambridgeshire has not had its fair share of investment and the area is behind compared to other parts of the County.