Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence had been received from Councillor Dark, Long, Middleton, Ryves, Parish

The minutes of the meeting held on 11 April 2022 were agreed as a correct record subject to page 7 second paragraph be amended to read reviewed rather than revised.

Councillor Kemp declared a non-pecuniary interest as a County Councillor and Norfolk County Council were the lead on the Multi-User Community Hub.

There was no urgent business.

There were no Members attending pursuant to Standing Order 34.

There was no Chair’s correspondence.

Click here to view a recording of this item on You Tube.

The Assistant Director, Property & Projects presented the report and explained that a variety of briefings had been held which had been open to all Members on the identified major projects.  Following that it had been requested that more information be provided, and therefore a Red Amber Green (RAG) rating had been devised.  All project leads had been asked to RAG rate their projects on Delivery, Spend and Risk.  At the end of the section there were definitions of what the RAG elements were and the numbering.  As the MMPB evolved consideration could be given to whether exception reporting was looked at and he explained how the MMPB might want to be involved.

The Corporate Projects Programme Manager had listed the identified projects by Cabinet, and it was hoped that this would help build knowledge and understanding of the projects and also help Members identify the projects they might wish to look at going forward.

The Chair added that this was an evolving process so changes would occur and provided an excellent direction of where the Council was with each major project.  It was hoped that further information could be included around money and possibility some additional ratings in addition to RAG, blue for projects which had been completed and white for projects that were being developed.  She explained that she did not envisage the MMPB focus too much on projects that were nearing completion or had been completed.

She invited the MMPB to identify projects for consideration at the next meeting.

Councillor de Whalley welcomed the RAG rating for the projects and added that this was a good way to select projects to be considered by the MMPB.  He felt that it was still important for the green rated projects to be considered by the MMPB but not so frequently.  He did consider though that de-briefs from completed projects were vital.

The Chair added that the idea was that every Board meeting would receive an overview so that the MMPB knew what was happening with all projects.

Councillor Kemp stated that it was important to have information regarding the risk of overspend and why the cost of projects had increased.  She also raised the issue of perception of projects.

Councillor Morley suggested some further amendments to the RAG rating and also stated that the risk registers needed to be consistent.  He also added that it was beneficial for the projects to roll on to make sure that the benefits and outcomes were achieved. 

The Chair explained that there was the corporate risk register, and each project had its own risk register. She suggested that it might be useful for the Project Board to see these at a future meeting.

The Corporate Projects Programme Manager agreed with the comments made by Councillor Morley in relation to the amendments to the RAG ratings and undertook to make amendments.

The Chief Executive advised that liaison would be carried out with  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Click here to view a recording of this item on You Tube.

The Corporate Projects Programme Manager explained that the purpose was for the Council to strengthen its post-project review process and explained the differences to what had happened before.  She outlined the process to the MMPB.  Included within the agenda was a draft template but it did need slight amendments to the language used within it.

It was confirmed that there was a named project sponsor for each project.  The different types of project sponsor were explained, which was dependant on the type of project.

Councillor Kemp asked that when a project was reviewed if residents could be asked if it has contributed to their quality of life.

The Corporate Projects Programme Manager explained that the project would look at outputs and outcomes of the project and were outward looking.

Councillor Blunt added that projects evolved and what was started with was not always what you ended up with.

The Assistant Director explained that any changes to the project should be documented, and it was important to get the framework and documents in place to be able to measure performance at the end of the project.

The Chief Executive added that it was the role of the MMPB to monitor projects and if there was any scope creep it was up to the sponsor / officer to make the MMPB aware.

The Chair added that there could be standard item on the agenda to report any changes to the projects.

The Assistant Director, Resources advised that officers would need to give some consideration to what the criteria would be for major project creep.

Councillor de Whalley added that in relation to the draft template which gave the impression that it was more for capital works, but the other part was the operational phase was the other half of the project which was important to ensure that the project was sustainable, and the outcomes had been achieved.

The Chair outlined the other issues which needed to be considered as part of the project citing delivery, risk, cash flow, financing and revenue or other implications as examples.

The Assistant Director, Resources added that the nature of the projects some of those would determine the timescales of where those outputs and objectives would be met, whether it was Year 1, Year 2, etc.  Also, the template did have a section for Forward Actions and that might be an appropriate area where future reviews were required, 6 or 12 months and brought back to the MMPB.

Councillor Morley asked whether there should be template covering the interim phase.

The Corporate Projects Programme Manager explained the Town Deal Board projects there was a very robust monitoring and evaluation programme in place already and there was a requirement to monitor 3 years post-delivery and that supplemented what Councillor de Whalley had asked. She agreed that Section 7 could be used.  She added that there must be an end to projects.

The Assistant Director asked the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

The MMPB had been asked to identify projects that it would like to look in more detail at the next meeting.

The following projects were identified to be considered:

Meeting scheduled for 20 July 2022

Overview of West Winch Strategic Growth Area.

Meeting scheduled for 28 September 2022

Hunstanton Bus Station and Library

To receive the minutes from the Officer Major Projects Board:

·         21 March 2022

·         22 April 2022 – MEETING CANCELLED

·         16 May 2022

·         8 June 2022

The MMPB noted the minutes.

The MMPB noted the minutes.

20 July 2022, 10 am in the Council Chamber, Town Hall, Saturday Market Place, King’s Lynn.

The next meeting was scheduled for Wednesday 20 July 2022 at 3pm in the Council Chamber, Town Hall, King’s Lynn.

To consider passing the following resolution:

“That under Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act, 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Act”.

The Assistant Director gave an update to the MMPB on the Nar Ouse Development.