To receive a verbal overview of the TIP Sub-Group of the Crewe Town Board.
(Simon Yates to present-10 Minutes).
Minutes:
Simon Yates attended the virtual meeting and gave a verbal update in respect of the TIP Sub-Group. Within his update he reported on the following matters:-
(i) To act as a means of quick and efficient engagement for Hatch (External Advisors for the TIP);
(ii) To strengthen the relationship between Board members and Hatch;
(iii) To focus on the delivery success of the TIP;
(iv) To act as a sounding board on issues and challenges;
(v) To facilitate discussions between Board Members and Hatch by people more readily available to Hatch
(vi) To have an oversight of Hatch’s performance so that the Sub-Group could report directly back to the Board on how well Hatch was performing.
Evidence review and narrative
Strategic consultations
Strategic framework
List of projects and priorities
Engagement & Communications Plan
Approach to TIP document design/look
Timescales
In respect of the evidence review and narrative Hatch provided information on the progress made so far. Travel patterns were highlighted as an important issue in terms of determining how people were arriving into Crewe to work and then leaving to go home and based on discussions with Cheshire East Council officers it was clear further evidence around transport data was required.
In-depth discussions took place on whether the TIP should put in a bid at £25,000,000 or to go up to £50,000,000. The Chairman was concerned that a view might be formed that Crewe wasn’t ambitious enough if the higher figure wasn’t aimed for particularly given the allocation of the HS2 hub station.
Kim Cooper from ARUP advised that the TIP had to demonstrate that it was exceptional in order to achieve the higher amount. In addition it had to be seen to be transformative both at regional and national levels. Members felt it was important to see examples of the £50,000,000 projects being put forward by other towns in order to get a feel for the type of projects being put forward. The Board were advised that once the heads of terms from cohort one had been signed off shortly it might be advisable to delay making a decision until then. Once the heads of terms had been agreed the TIP would be published online and therefore the projects would be in the public arena.
In addition to this it was commented that the decision about how much money to ask for from Government needed to be driven by the quality and range of projects developed and put forward. It was felt that there was an opportunity to produce a holistic plan for Crewe with a broader investment plan but the Board should be more selective as to what went into the TIP. It was suggested that a gap funding approach should be considered and adopted whereby contributions to specific schemes were requested rather than asking for funding for the total cost of each project.
Kieran Mullen MP welcomed the comments and advised it was important to keep in mind the overall funding available from central Government from under other sources. In terms of the provision of funding for bridges he felt Network Rail and the DfT should be stepping in and funding for these projects should be pursued through separate funding bids.
As Cheshire East Council was the accountable body the Chairman asked for officers thoughts on the amount to bid for. In response the Executive Director-Place agreed with the consensus that there was a need for Crewe’s ambition to be bold, but it was important to get a clearly defined programme in place as this would then set the bid level.
It was agreed that it was too early to make a decision in respect of the amount and as Hatch were not present further discussions outside of the meeting were necessary in order to keep them informed of the views of the Board. Clearly members needed to see what was on the table in terms of a list setting out examples of projects to enable them to come to a firmer view on what would be the appropriate amount to ask Government for.
It was queried if a list had been produced in terms of examples of smaller £1,000,000 projects which other towns had put forward. In response examples were given of smaller projects relating to lighting of natural assets, creation of skills/health hubs and improving crossings around dual carriageways and so forth. It was agreed a full list of would be circulated to Members outside of the meeting along with a list providing examples of larger projects. Concerns were raised these projects may have revenue implications and it was agreed that this was an issue and guidance was in the process of being produced as several questions had been asked around that issue.
In terms of the strategic framework there had been a lengthy debate on the strapline, and it was agreed this would be placed on hold for a few weeks and that the objectives for the TIP which had been produced were not in priority order.
In terms of the list of projects and priorities, Hatch had been capturing as much as information as possible. A number of the schemes on the list that Hatch had devised were schemes which either appeared in the future high street fund or in bids to the heritage lottery fund thus it was acknowledged that there was a considerable amount of work to be done in order to avoid repetition. It was agreed this list would be circulated by Simon Yates after the meeting.
There were further discussions on the boundary for the TIP which was considered important because any projects submitted had to be within the boundary plan. A boundary plan had recently been circulated and it was clear that a further discussion was required to review this.
In terms of timescales any ideas for projects had to be submitted to Hatch by 3 November and outcomes from these submissions would be brought to the next TIP Sub-Group meeting on the 6November and then to the Board meeting the following week. As the timescales were short discussions needed to take place with Hatch in respect of the mechanism for shortlisting the projects. With regard to the submission of project ideas it was queried as to how defined Hatch were expecting them to be. In response it was advised there had to be some pragmatism around the detail of any projects put forward. Further to this clarification was sought as to what factors made projects more attractive and if was there any guidance available?
In response the Board were advised it was less about the type of project but more about responding to evidence-based need and what the needs of Crewe were. A golden thread of a narrative was seen as key to being successful.
Finally, in respect of engagement, a press pack was in preparation and ready for circulation, a matrix of contacts had been identified and the next stage was to identify any gaps.
The TIP Sub-Group had agreed the Chairman should approach the Council with a view to spending some of the funding on creating a website and this should be done as soon as possible. It was agreed that this would be discussed in more detail under the next item.
RESOLVED
That the update be noted.