Agenda item

RESOLVED:            That the content of this report be noted and the revised Terms of Reference for the Member Major Projects Board be approved.

Reason for Decision

The Terms of Reference for the Member Major Projects Board needed to be reviewed to provide greater clarity in respect of its purpose and function.  It is important that the format and function of the Member Major Projects Board does not impinge, or impact upon the role of the existing Panels and Committees of the Council.

Click here to view the recording of this item on You Tube

Cabinet considered a report which explained that the Council set up a Member Major Projects Board (MMPB) during 2019 to provide more formal over-sight and monitoring of the delivery of the Council’s major projects and the programme of major projects.

The report explained that the operation and effectiveness of this Board had been hampered particularly by the Covid-19 pandemic, with many projects being stalled or delayed and Board meetings being cancelled.

The Council’s Cabinet recognised the important role projects had in helping to deliver its aims and objectives and wanted to ensure that these projects were delivered successfully and in an appropriate way.  Cabinet considered that a Project Board comprising a broad spectrum of Members/Councillors would help to provide greater over-sight and management of the Council’s programme of major projects.

The report sought to provide a greater degree of clarity in respect of the role of the MMPB and particularly its relationship with other existing Panels and Committees within the Council.  To this end revised Terms of Reference for the Member Major Projects Board were set out within the report

The Member Major Projects Group had considered the draft report and agreed the amendments.

The Corporate Performance Panel had considered the report and did not support the recommendations.

Under standing order 34 Councillor Moriarty addressed the Cabinet and commented that he felt consideration should be given to the scrutiny structures through a body such as the former Governance Task Group.

Under standing order 34 Councillor Kemp addressed the Cabinet and did not support the proposals put forward.  She considered there should be more members on the Board.

Under standing order 34 Councillor Joyce suggested that the names of Cabinet members be used as opposed to positions to enable subs to be appointed if required.

Under standing order 34 Councillor Ryves addressed the Cabinet commenting that he felt the issue of conflicts of interest of Audit and Scrutiny members on the Board was not an issue as they would be fresh eyes looking at projects.

Cabinet debated the proposals and agreed that the outcome of the Board would report to the Panel/s as required in order for scrutiny to take place. Members attention was drawn to the definition of Major Project. It was agreed that this review of the project process was needed, and maintained a transparency with having the opposition members on the Cabinet Sub Committee.  Once the new process was set up consideration could be given to monitoring processes.

RESOLVED:            That the content of this report be noted and the revised Terms of Reference for the Member Major Projects Board be approved.

Reason for Decision

The Terms of Reference for the Member Major Projects Board needed to be reviewed to provide greater clarity in respect of its purpose and function.  It is important that the format and function of the Member Major Projects Board does not impinge, or impact upon the role of the existing Panels and Committees of the Council.