Minutes:
Click here to view a recording of this item on You Tube
The Assistant Director, Property and Projects explained that this was an evolving document to help the MMPB to have oversight progress on all major projects and advised that cash flow would be included and brought to a future meeting.
The Corporate Projects Programme Manager presented the report and reminded the Board at that last meeting there had been a more cut down version of all projects listed, together with the RAG rating definitions. At the last meeting there had been discussion and debate on the financial information required and this had now been added. However, it was noted that due annual leave there had only been one day crossover between the relevant officers, and that the report had been developed, but would require further tweaks going forward. In summary, it was explained that the left hand side of the report remained the same with the RAG ratings being updated as at the end of June 2022, but that the columns to right contained new information relating to the different financial elements and an additional commentary column had been inserted.
In conclusion, the Assistant Director, Property and Projects added that this was a tool for MMPB and that officers were happy to amend and adjust if it was felt it would help the Board to do their job better and invited comments/suggestions to improve the format going forward in monitoring major projects.
The Chair commented that this was work in progress and was a step in the right direction and reminded Councillors why the MMPB had been set up. The Chair invited comments and questions from the Board and explained that the Board could provide input by emailing the relevant officers.
Councillor Morley made the following comments and stated that he recognised this was work in progress and that significant improvements had been made to the data presented:
· Financial information – Councillor Morley did not think that how the information was presented was useful and could offer suggestions to make it more useful, in particular, a link for consistency to the capital expenditure report.
· Consistency and timing - the report presented to MMPB should be as updated as possible close to the meeting date and that it should have a stop press associated with it.
· RAG assessment – red, amber, green. In his view Councillor Morley explained that he used it as a rapid assessment guide and would select a red box and ask for the reasons why this was red. Councillor Morley added that there was no confidence that green was green as currently presented. Comments should be consistent with the RAG ratings given.
· Exempt Issues – find a way of presenting the commercially sensitive information to the MMPB.
In summary, Councillor Morley added that he could discuss the above issues raised separately with relevant officers.
In response, the Corporate Projects Programme Manager explained that the report was put together as at the end of June which was the closest date to the agenda being published but highlighted that the date of the last update had mistakenly been left. With regard to the shading, the Corporate Projects Programme Manager undertook to work with Councillors as to what was required by the MMPB. The Board was advised that the RAG ratings are defined, but that the definitions had unfortunately not been attached to this report but had been attached for the previous meeting and commented that she would speak with Councillor Morley separately to develop the report.
The Assistant Director, Property and Projects added that the financial information was high level and that it was recognised that more detail would be introduced going forward. In response to comments made relating to consistency, the Assistant Director advised that project officers reported the information differently but regular meetings were held to consider the RAG ratings and a deeper dive could be undertaken by the MMPB on any major project identified.
The Chair invited views of the Board to explore the categories of the RAG rating and the possibility of a presentation to the next meeting on the RAG rating definitions which was agreed by the Board.
Councillor Dickinson commented that the Agenda for the previous meeting had an appendix setting out the definition of the different ratings and that it should have been appended for this meeting bearing in mind questions being asked by Councillors. Councillor Dickinson added that at the previous meeting it had been agreed to include blue and white ratings but had not been included. The Corporate Projects Programme Manager and the Project Accountant noted the comments and the information outlined would be presented to the September meeting.
In response to comments made by Councillor Parish on the Hunstanton Bus Station and Library site and the Southend Car Park, Hunstanton and the schemes being viable, the Assistant Director, Property and Property reminded Councillors why the OMPB and MMPB had been set up and that the OMPB had looked at a multitude of issues relating to the higher build costs of both projects and had undertaken a deeper dive to check the current position and consider if it was worthwhile continuing to pursue the projects.
The Chief Executive explained that MMPB could place any major projects on their work programme if the Board wanted to “deep dive” into a specific project which could be held in exempt session if the information was commercially sensitive.
Councillor Blunt concurred with the comments made by Councillor Morley on the timing of the report and supported a stop press section if there was a significant change following the publication of the Agenda. In response, the Assistant Director explained that an email could be sent to Project Officers the day before the meeting asking if there were any changes to report following publication of the agenda, a verbal update could then be given to MMPB.
Councillor Blunt commented that any highly significant changes should be reported to MMPB.
Councillor Middleton highlighted the reasons of the importance of a verbal update of any significant changes being reported to MMPB.
The Chief Executive explained that items could be picked up as they arose but MMPB required to be mindful as some projects involved other third parties and care would be required to ensure the information had been shared with the other parties. It would be necessary to consider how this process was to be managed.
Councillor Parish referred to the Parkway Scheme and mention in the OMPB minutes that there had been an increase in costs due to flood risk issued and added that this work should have been undertaken when scoping the project.
The Chair addressed the role of MMPB in the wider context of other meetings and well established procedures and explained this report was a snapshot in time of evolving projects, if there was a red rating the commentary should give confidence that the relevant reports would come forward through respective committees, Cabinet and potentially Full Council. Feedback should come back to MMPB to advise of the risk paper coming forward to give reassurance.
The Project Accountant advised that the financial information was
as at end June 2022 and that there had been an opportunity for
relevant officers to provide comments, these were chased up one day
prior to the publication of the Agenda/
Councillor Morley commented that the report would benefit from an additional column looking at the spend to date to ensure consistency and would give a check on process. In response the Project Accountant explained that the next report would contain the spend to date.
AGREED: A presentation on the RAG rating/categories be received at the next meeting, to include the blue and white ratings; the date of comments made to be added in brackets to commentary column.