Agenda item

The Executive Director of Resources introduced the report which set out the concept proposals for consideration and comment by the Committee prior to their presentation to the CPCA Board on 4 September 2024.

.

During discussion the following points were discussed:

a)    Members generally supported the concept paper for Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Impact but felt that trends and indicators would be more useful rather than numbers that went into too much detail and could not be substantiated.

b)    Growth coaching did not always have very clear and easy measures of impact and probably a better measure and more relevant ambition, when talking about social enterprises, was how many people it engaged with, rather than its increased turnover or the introduction of a product to Market.

c)     The CPCA team met regularly with Economic Development colleagues from the constituent councils who were actively involved in the development of the proposal.

d)    The Chair and other members discussed the value of social enterprises, emphasising that they often filled gaps where traditional businesses might not operate, particularly in local towns and villages. The importance of community engagement through volunteers and the unique role of social enterprises in regional development was highlighted.

e)    Some members argued for greater trust in the providers of support to social enterprises, suggesting that rigid KPIs might limit the flexibility needed to meet the evolving needs of these organisations. There was also a suggestion to align these initiatives with broader regional strategies, such as the Market Towns Initiative, and to explore alternative funding methods, such as social bonds and capital investment.

f)      The discussion emphasised the importance of involving existing local umbrella organisations in the delivery of social enterprises, particularly in smaller, rural communities and market towns. The goal was to avoid "reinventing the wheel" by leveraging established infrastructures that already supported voluntary organisations and social enterprises.

g)    The inspirational nature of social enterprises, which often helped individuals gain confidence, learn new skills, and transition from unemployment to employment was highlighted.

h)    Overall, the Digital Connectivity proposal was well-received, with comments focussed on ensuring it fitted into the broader regional strategy and incorporated feedback from various stakeholders. The proposal was seen as a continuation of the success of the “Connecting Cambridge" initiative over the past four years.

i)      The Business Board had been actively engaged in discussions about the proposal, particularly focusing on its long-term plan and alignment with broader digital connectivity goals. This ongoing engagement was highlighted as a crucial factor in the proposal's development.

j)      Concerns were expressed about the timing and integration of these projects into the broader business planning cycle. Typically, the business planning process began in the autumn, followed by decisions in the spring regarding the budget. The introduction of these projects at this stage, without prior discussion about other potential projects that could fall into the same category, raised questions about how these and other projects would be assessed and prioritised within the overall business planning process.

k)     A Member commented on the potential risks of projects remaining in the pipeline without secured funding, which could lead to a lack of discipline in budget allocation. The need for careful consideration of what projects were added to the pipeline to avoid unfunded commitments was emphasised.

l)      Officers explained that the SAF, which governed the process for bringing forward concept papers and business plans, was still in the early stages of implementation.

m)   Last year’s MTFP introduced the concept of over-programming the capital program, leading to the creation of thematic funding pots. These pots were intended for investment in projects that were considered good investment opportunities, and which were identified by the Combined Authority in collaboration with constituent councils.

n)    The process involved submitting concept papers, which, if approved as a priority by the Board, would lead to the development of detailed business cases. These business cases would outline the expected benefits and address any concerns raised by board members.

o)    Approved business cases would return for final approval before any investment decision was made.

p)    The officer acknowledged that there was a challenge with the timing of project proposals in relation to the MTFP. Projects may need to be prioritised against other initiatives already in the program or within the thematic pots. A review was currently underway to assess the capital budget’s capacity, considering projects in progress and those yet to start. This review would inform future discussions and decisions on project prioritisation.

q)    The officer elaborated on the concept of a "pipeline" for projects. Projects that were not currently funded or included in the MTFP would be placed in this pipeline, to be considered when future funding became available. The officer confirmed that for projects not currently in the MTFP, alternative funding sources, such as reserves or underspending, may be explored on a one-off basis. This applied particularly to projects requiring immediate investment.