Agenda item

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 the Senior Policy & Performance Officer with regards to the risk registers for each project which should culminate with the overall risk register.

Councillor Blunt suggested that a separate section be created for completed projects and culminated with a list of new projects.  He added that the role of the MMPB was monitoring and reviewing and did not want to override functions of other parties.  He added that the focus should be on the projects now, not what had happened in the past or what could happen in the future.

The Assistant Director outlined what measures had been taken to improve the process to ensure that information was more readily available. 

The Chief Executive explained that in response to comments raised by Councillor de Whalley about post project reviews and the next item on the agenda dealt with that.  Councillor Kemp raised an issue regarding a project which came under the Towns Fund and as explained by Councillor Blunt there are some other entities within the process so there was an assurance framework around the Towns Fund that they had to feed into the Council’s democratic process.  There was a process for feeding these projects in and then for the MMPB to look at these projects once they had been through the relevant process,

The Chair added that it was inevitable that there would be some overlap with the MMPB and other Council bodies but would prefer to avoid unnecessary duplication.

RESOLVED:  That amendments be made to the Major Projects Programme as suggested in the meeting.