Cambridge East Delivery Board
14.00 – 16.00, 21st April 2009
South Cambridgeshire District Council
A G E N D A
Introduced by:
1.
Welcome and Apologies
AP
2.
Minutes of last meeting and matters arising
AP
- Terms of Reference
3.
Correspondence between Marshall Aerospace and
Cambridgeshire Horizons
AP, JB
4.
Process for decision on relocation - options assessment,
SS
timeframes
5.
Scoping Paper & Work Programme
AP
5.
Structure of reports to Horizons Board
AP
6.
Communications
7.
AOB All
8.
Date of next meeting - tbc
Board Members:
Alex Plant
Cambridgeshire Horizons
Graham Hughes
Cambridgeshire County Council
Peter Studdert
Director for Joint Planning
Gareth Jones
South Cambridgeshire District Council
John Williamson
GO-East
Jonathan Barker
Marshall Aerospace
Steve Sillery
Marshall Aerospace
Paul Mumford
Cambridgeshire Horizons
Michelle Hawker
Cambridgeshire Horizons
Dr Lincoln Sargeant
NHS Cambridgeshire
Liz Bisset
Cambridge City Council
Simon Payne
Cambridge City Council
Paul Sutton
Cheffins (rep White family)
Also in attendance
Jane Green
South Cambridgeshire District Council
Laura Halstead
Cambridgeshire Horizons
Julian Adams (For Liz Bisset)
Cambridge City Council
1
Apologies:
Jo Mills
South Cambridgeshire County Council
Liz Bisset
Cambridge City Council
2
Cambridge East Delivery Board Meeting
14.00 – 15.30 Tuesday 21st April 2009
Council Chamber, South Cambridgeshire District Council
Minutes
Board Member Attendees:
Alex Plant
Cambridgeshire Horizons
Paul Mumford
Cambridgeshire Horizons
Graham Hughes
Cambridgeshire County Council
Simon Payne
Cambridge City Council
Peter Studdert
Director of Joint Planning
Dr Lincoln Sargeant
NHS Cambridgeshire
Steve Sillery
Marshall Aerospace
Jonathan Barker
Marshall Aerospace
Paul Sutton
Cheffins (White family representative)
John Williamson
Government Office for the East of England
Board Member Apologies:
Liz Bisset
Cambridge City Council
Jo Mills
South Cambridgeshire District Council
Steve Hampson
South Cambridgeshire District Council
Other Attendees:
Jonathan Condor
Marshall Aerospace
Gareth Jones
South Cambridgeshire District Council
Keith Miles
South Cambridgeshire District Council
Julian Adams
Cambridge City Council
Laura Halstead
Cambridgeshire Horizons
Michelle Hawker
Cambridgeshire Horizons
Item Discussion
Action
1.
Welcome and Apologies
2.
Minutes from previous meeting and matters arising
Minutes of the last meeting where agreed.
It was agreed that the terms of reference may need to be revised and
should be suspended until the next full Delivery Board meeting.
3.
Correspondence between Marshall Aerospace and Cambridgeshire
Horizons; Process for decision on relocation
AP outlined the exchange of correspondence between Marshall
Aerospace and Cambridgeshire Horizons. A response from Marshall to
Sir David’s letter of 9th April is due in the week commencing 27th April.
SS
AP commented that a difficult challenge faced all parties and commented
on the importance of a clear process. Suggested that Marshall
Aerospace consider local options first rather than more distant options.
- -
1
SS welcomed opportunity to work in partnership. SP commented that all
parties have a great opportunity to progress the relocation and
Cambridge East development and that the ongoing review of the
Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) brought a tight timescale to the work (if
no progress is made by September 2009, Local Authorities will need to
consider the deliverability of Cambridge East through the RSS review).
Given the two local options under current consideration (Wyton and
Waterbeach), it was agreed that Huntingdonshire District Council and
Defence Estates be invited to future meetings.
AP and JW to contact David Olney at Defence Estates to discuss the
letter sent to Marshall Aerospace in November 2008 and to seek
reaffirmation of Defence Estates’ involvement and engagement with
Marshall’s relocation. AP to seek update on progress towards Heads of
AP,
Terms from Defence Estates.
JW
4.
Scoping paper & Work Programme; Structure of report to Horizons
Board (30th June)
Agreed that a progress report would be made to the Horizons Board
meeting on 30th June. Noted that Horizons Board meets in public
session. Once a response has been received from Marshall to Sir
David’s letter of 9th April, AP is keen to work with JC to set out the
options assessment process.
5. Communications
The Board agreed that an update on progress made could be released
onto the Cambridgeshire Horizons Website, subject to the content being
agreed by all parties.
LH
6. AOB
Agreed that PS would write to JB setting out list of material to accompany
a planning application. JB commented on need for clarity around
significant (S106) costs. PS and AP commented that these requirements
will become clearer over time, particularly in relation to a transport
strategy for the development.
There was a discussion around Building Schools for the Future and
whether this could contribute to education infrastructure. GH stated that
BSF was not, at this time, an option for funding Cambridge East.
7.
Date of Next Meeting
Cambridgeshire Horizons to set a date for the next meeting, to focus on
relocation, for the 2nd week in May.
MH
- -
2
9th April, 2009
Martin Broadhurst
Chief Executive
Marshall of Cambridge Aerospace Limited
The Airport
Cambridge
CB5 8RX
From the Office of Sir David Trippier
Dear Martin
Thank you for your letter of 12 March in reply to mine of 5 March.
As you know, Cambridgeshire Horizons and its local authority partners are sensitive to the
challenges facing the company concerning relocation and your desire to follow a process that
provides you with greater and earlier certainty that any site you may identify as suitable for
relocation can be delivered, to avoid a repeat of the Mildenhall situation.
I certainly understand that desire, but I do not believe that the approach outlined in your letter
presents the best way to proceed, and the feedback I have had from my local authority
colleagues confirms my view.
The need for quick progress, and for a clear process that can take us to a decision in principle
on relocation within a reasonable timeframe, is key for Horizons and our local authority
partners.
As you are aware, the Cambridge East development is a fundamental part of the
development strategy. But equally we cannot wait indefinitely for a decision on relocation. The
deliverability of Cambridge East will increasingly be questioned and tested through the plan
making process as time moves on if there is no firm solution found to relocation.
The period between now and September is critical in this regard, as the County and the other
Local Authorities will need to include a view on the deliverability of Cambridge East as part of
their response to the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) consultation. We therefore need a
process that leads us to a clear position on relocation within these timeframes so that the
affected local authorities can take a view on whether they can rely on Cambridge East to
deliver the 12,000 homes expected, or whether to conclude this is not reliable. They will then
need to work through how best to reallocate those numbers elsewhere, and consider
returning the airport site to the green belt.
Cambridgeshire Horizons Ltd is a company limited by guarantee, registered in England. Company Registration number 05201320.
Whilst there is universal recognition that Cambridge East provides the best possible location
for sustainable development, and a truly exciting possibility for the development of a new
quarter for Cambridge, if the delivery of the site cannot be counted on then there will be no
option but for Horizons to advise the local authorities of this situation so that the implications
of this can be addressed as set out above.
Tender Process
You suggest that Marshall may seek to undertake a very wide tender process, across the
whole of the UK, to identify possible sites.
I am extremely concerned that this approach could undermine the previously stated position
of the company about retaining its operations within easy travelling distance of the current
site, and explicitly creating the possibility of Marshall of Cambridge losing its historic
connection with the local area, something which is supported by the local authority partners.
You heard at our meeting at the Guildhall, the strong desire from all parties to avoid losing a
very valuable local employer, and with it all the significant wider benefits to the economy, and
particularly the hi-tech and equine clusters, that flow from the business aviation operations
that your company facilitates. Setting up the possibility of relocation to more distant parts
would not necessarily result in the best outcome for Marshall or the local area and would I
think change the level of support for Cambridge East.
For these reasons, I would request that you do not go forward with a wider tender process at
this stage, and instead allow a short period of time to explore the local options, which I hope
you would agree would still be a preferable (and potentially much quicker) solution.
I am aware that South Cambridgeshire District Council and Huntingdonshire District Council
stand ready to explore the most obvious local options of Waterbeach and Wyton with you,
and I know that Defence Estates and Go-East are also ready to assist with any such review,
and to play a full part in the Delivery Board process that I sketch out below and which I hope
you will agree provides a solid platform for taking these issues forward.
Process
As was agreed at the meeting in February at the Guildhall, it is important that we have a
clear, shared, transparent and time-bound process for taking this work forward.
I would therefore request that you agree a scoping paper and work programme that identifies
how these local options for relocation can be assessed and evaluated. The paper and work
programme should also set out the level and type of engagement with partners, key amongst
whom would seem to be: Cambridgeshire Horizons, the City Council, County Council, South
Cambridgeshire District Council, Huntingdonshire District Council, GO-East and Defence
Estates.
All of this should be coordinated through the Cambridge East Delivery Board, which is in any
case meeting on 21 April .
I would suggest that the Delivery Board also agrees an appropriate format for the report to the
Horizons Board in June, which should then lead through to a further report to the Board in
September, where I would hope that there could be a decision in principle on relocation to
one of the available local sites.
Planning Issues
In the latter half of your letter you raise some planning-specific issues. Most of these issues
are properly for the local planning authorities to respond to in due course, so I will keep my
Cambridgeshire Horizons Ltd is a company limited by guarantee, registered in England. Company Registration number 05201320.
comments brief.
It is important that the company is aware that the local authorities are committed to their
objectives of achieving a sustainable community in Cambridge East. The commitment to
achieving 40% affordable housing, subject to viability, is a key part of this, and needed to
address the severe shortfall in affordable housing, as evidenced by the Strategic Housing
Market Assessment.
You also raise some more specific points in relation to the potential S106 package. Talk of
negotiating a S106 package is premature at this stage. Until detailed proposals have been put
forward and the extent of necessary physical and social infrastructure understood, together
with mitigation measures, we cannot begin to have those discussions.
However, with substantial and complex developments such as this, it is highly likely that in
due course we will need to work in partnership with all stakeholders to develop an investment
framework to establish how we will fund those requirements. Viability will be an important
consideration and all the stakeholders are likely to need to use whatever means and
opportunities they each have to ensure that our shared objective of securing a high quality
sustainable community at Cambridge East is achieved, including looking at flexible funding
solutions, and drawing in support from other sources as necessary and appropriate if a
funding gap is identified.
The Way Forward
I remain hopeful that we can still work together to deliver what I think could be a wonderful
urban extension to Cambridge, providing the city with the room to grow sustainably, and
serving as a permanent landmark to the long and proud association of Marshall with
Cambridge.
However, time is of the essence. We must move this work on now to inform the stance taken
by the Local Authorities to the ongoing RSS review. If more certainty cannot be achieved
about the relocation I will have no choice but to advise the authorities that they will have to
look elsewhere, and as the development strategy moves on and potentially reduces the
relocation options, I fear this magnificent opportunity will be lost.
I look forward to your early reply.
Yours ever,
Cambridgeshire Horizons Ltd is a company limited by guarantee, registered in England. Company Registration number 05201320.
STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL
Martin Broadhurst
Chief Executive
Marshall of Cambridge Aerospace Limited
The Airport
Cambridge
CB5 8RX
5th March 2009
Dear Martin,
Firstly, may I reiterate my thanks to you and your colleagues for taking the time to
come to the meeting at the Guildhall last Tuesday.
May I start by saying how much we all appreciate the difficult situation you have
found yourselves in with regard to Mildenhall, but also the importance of achieving
greater clarity as to how we can now move forward on the plans for delivering
Cambridge East, which is perhaps the most critical single element of our spatial
strategy.
I should also add that there is universal appreciation of the important role that
Marshalls plays in the economic life of the sub-region, and indeed the much wider
economic benefits that business aviation brings for the technology and equine
clusters in the area.
There are a number of points which emerged from the meeting with you and our
subsequent discussion with local authority colleagues which I set out below.
Links to the RSS Review and delivery of spatial strategy
The local authorities remain of the view that Cambridge East is by far the most
sustainable and suitable location for major growth in the area and wish to work in
partnership with you to achieve what I am sure we all agree has the potential to be
an exciting and vibrant new quarter of the existing city.
However, through the RSS Review process, the local authorities are facing a number
of proposals from other developers, who could seek to use the reduced certainty of
delivery of Cambridge East as an argument for their development to be favoured
ahead of Cambridge East.
Similarly, if the local authorities were to reach a position where they no longer had
confidence in the deliverability of Cambridge East, they would need to explore other
options, and indeed may have to start some contingency work on this basis.
It is simply not possible for the current lack of clarity to continue indefinitely, both in
terms of our ability to deliver the spatial strategy for the Cambridge sub-region, but
also, no doubt, for the ability of the company to have a clear business plan which
removes the uncertainty about timing and location of your activities in the future.
All of this means there is a need now for a clear and agreed process, one which is
shared with the media and the wider public, and which can get us to a point where
we all know what is planned in relation to Marshall’s relocation and on what
timeframe.
Process
We agreed that it was important to give greater clarity as to ‘next steps’, and to
assure both local Members and the wider public that there is a clear process which
all relevant players are committed to. I would therefore ask if you could confirm the
following:
a) That you are now looking again at available alternative locations, in the light of the
Mildenhall position, and that you will report back on your conclusions in time for the
Cambridgeshire Horizons Board Meeting on June 30th.
b) That the process beyond this initial 3-4 month period should also be considered,
with a view to reaching a clear conclusion on relocation by the end of this calendar
year.
c) That we should manage this process through the Cambridge East Delivery
Board, which already has representation from Government Office and the Local
Authorities, and which could be extended to include Defence Estates.
d) That you will set out this process and timeframe in a press release, which would
be agreed with Government and Cambridgeshire Horizons in advance.
Masterplan
Finally, there was some discussion about the draft Masterplan, and whether you
could consult on this as part of the process set out above. Again, it would heighten
public confidence if this could be put in the public domain sooner rather than later,
and I would appreciate your comments on this point too.
As you would imagine I stand ready to discuss any of these points with you further.
I am copying this letter to local authority colleagues, to Tim Freathy at the
Government Office, and to David Olney at Defence Estates.
Yours ever
Sir David Trippier
Chairman
TAKING FORWARD THE DELIVERY OF A MAJOR ARTS AND
CULTURAL VENUE
1. PURPOSE
1.1
This briefing note was circulated in September 2008 to update lead members
on the findings of consultants’ reports on the provision of a Community
Stadium and a Major Arts and Cultural facility for the Cambridge area, and to
consider how to take forward the projects.
1.2
It followed a meeting of the Chief Executives of Horizons, the County Council,
Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council; with
sports and culture lead officers, held in August 2008 to consider the emerging
findings of the reports.
2. BACKGROUND
2.1
Over the past year work has been undertaken on two major cultural facilities
projects for the Cambridge area. Following completion of the Major Sports
Facility Strategy and the Arts and Culture Strategy, studies were
commissioned by Horizons, in liaison with the local authorities, to assess the
potential and viability of a Community Stadium and an Arts and Cultural major
facility. The Community Stadium report was published in August (available
from
www.cambridgeshirehorizons.co.uk) and received positive press
coverage. The Arts and Cultural Facilities report is currently being finalised
and has not yet been released into the public domain.
2.2
Common issues highlighted in both reports include the need to confirm
ownership, develop leadership, develop the vision and business proposition,
confirm the capital and revenue funding required, assess the level of political
support and consider and resolve planning issues.
3.
ARTS AND CULTURAL FACILITY
3.1
Major Arts and Cultural venues are often a major element of inward
investment strategies. There are many examples of varying sizes and
specification throughout the country. However, some of the better-known
venues, such as The Sage in Gateshead and Bridgewater Hall in Manchester,
serve much larger population catchment areas than Cambridge. Maybe a
more comparable example is the Bournemouth International Centre.
3.2
Cambridge is in a unique position, with major planned growth in the area,
good access from Stansted and London, and a wide and economically
successful catchment area, which is inadequately served with major cultural
facilities. An earlier report identified that within the East of England, only
Cambridge offered the potential for a major Arts and Cultural venue.
3.3
A major Arts and Cultural facility was identified as a priority in the Sub-
Regional Arts and Culture Facilities Strategy. A concert hall/events venue
would form part of the cultural infrastructure required to satisfy the needs of
the new communities in the sub-region while a large-scale conference centre
would put Cambridge on the conference organizers map and create a positive
economic impact.
3.4
The study considers:
-
Success factors of existing large scale facilities
-
Optimum mix of facilities to satisfy potential markets
-
Best locations taking into full account planning issues
-
Costs involved in developing and running such a facility
-
Potential income and other funding streams
-
Interdependencies of a concert hall and a conference centre
The study is positive about the potential for a new conference facility and
suggests that there could be a positive business case for a major arts facility
if it replaces the Corn Exchange. However, further work is needed to firm up
the financial implications.
3.5
The study concludes that the most viable option is a multifunctional large-
scale conference centre able to attract larger conferences, together with a
concert hall designed to offer a varied and enhanced cultural programme.
The study considered a range of site options and concluded that the option
offering the most potential is Cambridge East, although Northstowe may be
an attractive medium term option if funding was made available for a key
piece of community infrastructure. Note: current proposals for Northstowe
include provision of a “BigSmall Hall” facility in the new town centre.
3.5
A major Arts and Cultural facility has the potential to be delivered through the
masterplanning and implementation of Cambridge East. Marshalls have
indicated their support for such a proposal. Given that the airport site is not
expected to be available for development until 2016 and critical infrastructure
would need to be in place, especially access roads and a high quality public
transport link to the station / city centre, a realistic delivery timescale would be
the latter part of the next decade / early 2020s.
3.6
The report sets out three options for further exploration, of which the second
and third are closest to the stakeholders’ aspirations. The consultant does not
favour the first, more basic proposal. The second option includes a
conference centre with a 1200 seat auditorium designed to complement the
Corn Exchange programme. The third, a more ambitious facility, includes a
minimum 1200 seat high specification flexible space auditorium capable of
accommodating the Corn Exchange programme, an additional divisible
auditorium, 10 meeting rooms, and up to 5000m2 flexible exhibition space
capable of providing banqueting for 1200 delegates and hosting events (e.g.
pop/rock concerts). The second and third options would require a thorough
analysis of the impact on existing city centre entertainment facilities such as
the Corn Exchange.
3.7
The cost of a combined concert hall/conference centre facility is difficult to
estimate without a more precise vision for the building. However, estimating a
capital budget of in excess of £40 million, it must be recognised that direct
revenue generated by similar venues is typically insufficient to service the
debt and meet ongoing operational costs and these losses have to be borne
by tax contributions or cross subsidies. If the facility were designed to replace
the Corn Exchange, then current public sector funding could be switched
making a contribution to its running costs and/or capital costs.
3.8
At the Chief Executives’ meeting, it was considered that a major Arts and
Cultural facility offers considerable potential in supporting cultural and
business growth in the area. Current facilities were considered inadequate,
with limited potential for improvement, thereby leaving the Cambridge area at
a disadvantage, especially with a growing population. It was also considered
that such a facility would be appropriate for a growing area, that the special
character and unique selling point of Cambridge as a seat of learning and
business excellence would provide a strong foundation for such a facility,
which in turn would enhance economic advantage.
3.9
The study identifies the next steps to be:
-
Undertake a full funding analysis to identify appropriate funding streams
and public sector partners will need to consider the implications for capital
and revenue funding
-
Undertake a more detailed assessment of future conference centre
demand and develop a hypothetical events calendar.
-
Undertake a full detailed market feasibility study and economic impact
analysis that assesses land costs, site requirements and build costs as
well as the impact on existing facilities.
-
Prepare a sustainable travel plan for any proposed venue/site.
-
Secure high-level leadership of the project.
Furthermore we are also looking to develop a business case for the project,
understanding key costs, business drivers and possible revenue streams.
3.10 Clearly, such a project would be a major boost to cultural provision in
Cambridge and to the economy and tourism through the provision of
conference facilities for corporate business. A development at Cambridge
East would be consistent with planning policies to create a major new
commercial and cultural quarter in this area. This would need to be linked to
investment in infrastructure, especially transport infrastructure. Provision of
high quality sustainable access would be a key requirement for a new venue
outside the city centre.
3.11
The Chief Executives’ meeting considered that, subject to member views, the
project should be pursued, initially led by Horizons. One option is for the Arts
and Culture Implementation and Development group (ACID), which was set
up to oversee the implementation of the Arts and Culture Strategy, to
continue to oversee the next stage of this work. An alternative option is to
establish a dedicated project group with membership comprising Horizons,
EEDA, the GCP, local authorities and Arts Council representatives.
4.
WIDER CULTURAL AGENDA ISSUES
4.1 In strategic terms, it is appropriate to consider the major cultural facilities
proposals together. A report prepared for the County Council has suggested a
suite of steering and delivery arrangements to develop and implement a
cultural strategy, including establishing a high level public / private / academic
“champions” group, a local authority led “director” level board and a wider
stakeholder group. Further work is needed to firm up these proposals and to
confirm integration with the emerging LAA structures. The proposed interim
arrangements for taking forward the two major projects are consistent with
these wider proposals.
4.2
In taking forward the findings of the studies, it is evident that there are strong
linkages and possible interchangeable elements between a Community
Stadium and a major Arts and Cultural venue, suggesting that we need to
maintain strong links between the projects. It will also be essential to develop
member engagement at leader / portfolio holder level and provide updates
and engagement with local and other members.
4.3
The work that has taken place sets the scene for an exciting and challenging
agenda of delivering major cultural facilities. It is well established that
Cambridge punches above its weight economically and academically. With
substantial forecast population growth in the East of England, and the
Cambridge area in particular, there is potential for greater markets for cultural
facilities, which would support economic growth and provide wider benefits for
the growing community.
4.4
New facilities must be seen as part of the sustainable growth of Cambridge
and a positive response to the challenge of addressing climate change.
4.5
Provisional funds have been identified in the Housing Growth Fund budgets
for the current year for undertaking the next stage of work on the two projects.
Cambridgeshire Horizons
Cambridge East Delivery Board
April 2009
CAMBRIDGE EAST DELIVERY BOARD
DRAFT TERMS OF REFERENCE
Aims of the Delivery Board
By 2021, good progress made towards delivering high quality homes in Cambridge
East according to the housing trajectory, within a development of international
excellence for sustainability, promoting low carbon lifestyles and inspiring people to
want to live and work there.
Objectives
• To manage key risks and issues on delivery (these are likely to be risks
requiring member involvement, policy changes or organisational
barriers)
• To approve the development of, and any revisions to, the Cambridge
East Delivery Plan, and to monitor progress against the Plan
• To liase with Government on progress of Cambridge East
• To set clear aspirations for Cambridge East (either through targets
and/or PIs)
• To oversee the Strategic Communications and Community
Engagement Framework for Cambridge East
• To manage organisational barriers as they arise and as appropriate
• To challenge poor performance and low aspirations
• To identify future funding opportunities to support the long term delivery
of Cambridge East
Accountability
Reporting to the Senior Officer Board and from there to the Joint Strategic Growth
Implementation Committee and the Cambridgeshire Horizons Board.
Membership
• Cambridgeshire Horizons, Alex Plant (Chair) and Paul Mumford
• Director for Joint Planning, Peter Studdert
• Cambridgeshire County Council, Graham Hughes
• Cambridge City Council, Simon Payne and Liz Bisset
• South Cambridgeshire District Council, Steve Hampson and Jo Mills
• Government Office for the East of England, John Williamson
• Marshall Aerospace, Jonathan Barker and Steve Sillery
• White family, represented by Cheffins, Paul Sutton
• NHS Cambridgeshire, Lincoln Sargeant
Note: John Onslow, Director for Development, Cambridgeshire Horizons to
substitute for Alex Plant as Chair when necessary. Cambridgeshire Horizons will
administer and prepare minutes of meetings. Additional attendees may be invited for
specific meetings or items as appropriate and agreed by Chair.
1
Cambridgeshire Horizons
Cambridge East Delivery Board
April 2009
Roles of individual Board members
• To own the aspiration of high quality homes, good supporting
infrastructure, low carbon lifestyles and community cohesion
• Preparedness to work to remove organisational blockages
• To take personal ownership of major risks
• To act as enthusiastic advocates for Cambridge East
• To feed back to relevant organisation
• To attend meetings, or in extremis send a deputy
• To be open and honest with other Board members so as to create an
environment that facilitates productive challenge of poor aspirations
and performance.
Responsibilities of members
• To attend meetings or in extremis to nominate a deputy to attend
• To ensure strong communications between Board members
• To create an environment that facilitates productive challenging of poor
aspirations and performance and contributes to the success of the
project
• Openness, honesty, commitment to the shared endeavour and a
supportive attitude towards colleagues
Frequency of meetings
• Quarterly, and additionally to suit planning needs.
Distribution of papers and minutes
In addition to Board members and support staff, the following officers will receive
copies of papers, minutes and general correspondence relating to the Delivery
Board.
Officer Organisation
Kathy Baldwin
Cambridgeshire County Council New Communities
Joseph Whelan
Cambridgeshire County Council New Communities
David Carford
Cambridgeshire County Council New Communities
Caroline Hunt
South Cambridgeshire District Council Planning Policy
Keith Miles
South Cambridgeshire District Council Planning Policy
Jane Green
South Cambridgeshire District Council Major Developments
Tom Barrance
South Cambridgeshire District Council
Glen Richardson
Joint Urban Design Team
David Roberts
Cambridge City Council
Janine Richardson
Cambridge City Council Major Developments
Sharon Brown
Cambridge City Council Major Developments
Ken Hay
Cambridge City Council Community Services
Sara Cass
Cambridge City Council Planning Policy
Tim Wetherfield
Cambridge City Council
2
Document Outline
-
- Minutes Cambridge East Delivery Board 210409.pdf
- 20090409_SDTReply_Marshall.pdf
- 20090409_SDTReply_Marshall.pdf
- Cambridge East Delivery Board Terms of Reference Apr 2009.pdf
