Agenda item

REPORT OF THE SCRUTINY OFFICER

 

To consider the report of the Task and Finish Group on the Council’s Management of Larger Projects.

            RESOLVED:

 

(1)     That the Task and Finish Group on the Council’s Management of Larger Projects be requested to consider the comments made by this Committee regarding the recommendation contained in the report paying particular attention to the following:

 

Recommendation 1

Members suggested that the recommendation be amended to reflect the need to move forward and the need to assess risks and recognise when a project should be stopped.

 

Recommendation 2

Members queried whether this recommendation applied to only one project and therefore should be clarified as such, or whether this was something that should be applied generally and maybe be re-worded.

 

As a point of clarification the recommendation should be to be clearer about its tender invitations and then put it out to tender.

 

Recommendation 9

It was suggested that the recommendation be amended to reflect that the Council should not embark on a project unless they were confident that proper and meaningful consultation had been undertaken, but it was important to continue to engage with the public at stages throughout project.

 

                   Recommendation 10

          It was suggested that the recommendation be amended to ensure that use of the Competitive Dialogue Process was not excluded, but that it was used appropriately and not used on highly sensitive and visible projects.

 

(2)       That the Task and Finish Group on the Council’s Management of Larger projects be requested to consider whether the comments made and documents presented in public participation would add any value to their discussions.

 

REASON FOR DECISION: To enable the Overview and Scrutiny Committee to consider the Task and Finish Group on the Council’s Management of Larger Projects report prior to consideration by Cabinet.

Prior to consideration of this item, the Chairman drew attention to the second submission from Keep Hitchin Special that had been made available to Members at this meeting. She noted that it contained some additional suggestions regarding recommendations and gave Members time to read this document.

 

Councillor Michael Weeks, Chairman of the Task and Finish Group on the Council’s Management of Larger Projects, presented the report of that Group.

 

Councillor Weeks thanked those who had assisted and taken part in the Task and Finish Group.

 

Seven reviews were carried out over a four month period being one major regeneration project, one initiative to collaborate with other district councils in Hertfordshire, one internal reconstruction scheme, two public facility enhancements and two town centre enhancements.

 

The content of the report was supported unanimously by all members of the group.

 

The Task and Finish Group was not intended to be an enquiry body looking to criticise past projects, nor was it intended to be a scrutiny exercise. Instead it was an exercise to see what the Council could learn from its past projects.

 

It would appear that the four public speakers aimed to criticise the Churchgate project, using the Task and Finish Group as a vehicle to do so. This sort of criticism was not part of the Task and Finish Group brief and it was primarily for this reason that public participation was refused during the early stages of the review, when considering Churchgate.

 

Councillor Weeks explained that in reviewing these projects the Task and Finish Groups aim was to identify aspects that should be avoided in future projects.

 

He then summarised the reviews undertaken for each project and explained the evidence and reasoning behind each recommendation, as detailed in the report.

 

Points of Clarification

Prior to Councillor Weeks guiding the Members through the recommendations of the Task and Finish Group several points of clarification were raised.

 

A Member queried whether that Task and Finish Group had asked for any evidence that the Prince II process had been followed, when used on projects.

 

The Scrutiny Officer advised that there were very detailed documents regarding the Churchgate project, but for most of the projects there was little evidence produced regarding the use of Prince II. An officer had commented that they had used Prince II appropriately, but there was no need to use all aspects and therefore used what was useful and did not use aspects that were bureaucratic or deemed as unnecessary.

           

A Member asked for clarification regarding whether the Overview and Scrutiny Committee could amend the recommendations of the Task and Finish Group if it so wished.

 

The Chairman confirmed that the Overview and Scrutiny Committee could amend recommendations of Task and Finish Groups.

 

The Chief Executive advised that one option was for the Overview and Scrutiny Committee to ask the Task and Finish Group to reconvene in order to consider any comments and reformulate its recommendations.

 

Councillor Weeks informed Members that the recommendations made by the Task and Finish Group were as follows:

 

Recommendation 1

The Council needs to be more decisive about what it wants from larger projects and once it decides, it needs to get on with them.

 

The Task and Finish Group considered the effect of the economic downturn during the course of the Churchgate project and the delays in making a decision regarding the outcomes for the Council Office refurbishment, both of which had resulted in increased costs. They concluded that, once a decision had been taken, projects should be progressed as soon as possible as delays only served to increase costs. The Council should also be aware of the wider picture and act accordingly including ceasing a project if necessary.

 

Members acknowledged that that there could be a perceived conflict between the need to progress projects and the need for consultation, however these were and should be different stages. The Council should consult and then make a decision based on the consultation.

 

Just because the Council consulted on something, did not mean that everyone would get what they wanted, particularly in areas where different sections of the community want different things.

 

It was for the Council to make a decision about how to deal with outcomes of consultation, but having made a decision, they must be clear and realistic about its objectives and not delay.

 

A Member commented that it was important to get on with a project, but the Council must be aware of any potential issues such as Judicial Reviews and not just plough on regardless. It was equally important not to be over cautious and stop work on a project because of the slightest threat to it.

 

It was important for the Council to know when to stop a project.

 

Members suggested that the recommendation be amended to reflect the need to move forward with a project, following meaningful consultation, and the need to assess risks and recognise when a project should be stopped.

 

Recommendation 2

The Council should not introduce unnecessary complexity into its tenders because it is unclear about its preferred outcome. It should decide what it wants and then tender for it.

 

The Task and Finish Group noted that, in respect of the District Council Office Refurbishment, the uncertainty regarding the finished outcome resulted in a complex tender, which received no bidders. They concluded that outcomes should be clear about what it wanted, which could then be reflected in the tender documents.

 

Members queried whether this was a systematic issue or reflected the experience with one project.

 

Councillor Weeks advised that this recommendation resulted mainly from the evidence regarding Churchgate.

 

The Strategic Director of Finance, Policy and Governance advised that, in respect of the Office Accommodation project the Council had identified a base scheme and then there were a number of options that were around affordability.

 

In respect of Churchgate the Council provided a planning brief that formed that basis of the Competitive Dialogue Tender. This was sent out to the bidders asking them to come forward with their schemes.

 

The Council made clear that there was not the expertise in-house and called on the expertise of the development industry.

 

It was a requirement of the Competitive Dialogue process that details were kept confidential as the process progressed which meant that the Council was not in a position to explain to the public what was happening until the end of the process.

 

The winning bid was about demonstrating that the bidder had the capacity and capability to develop the project, the idea submitted was not the actual scheme.

 

It was then moved on to consultation with the public to develop a planning application.

 

There was some confusion regarding the fact that the initial scheme was purely about what Simons was capable of.

 

Members commented that giving too many options for projects increased the costs for those tendering and possibly increased the quotations for each aspect as different choices from a pick and mix scheme could result in greater costs for the contractor. The Council needed to be clear about what it wanted.

 

Members queried whether this recommendation applied to only one project and therefore should be clarified as such, or whether this was something that should be applied generally and maybe be re-worded.

 

As a point of clarification the recommendation should be to be clearer about its tender invitations and then put it out to tender.

 

Recommendation 3

The Council’s financial information should be comprehensive and presented in the form of accounts so the extent of profits and losses can be easily understood.

 

The Task and Finish Group considered that it was important that financial information be more comprehensive and that, if presented in the form of accounts, supported by graphs, the extent of profit and loss for each project would be easily understood.

 

Members agreed with this recommendation.

 

Recommendation 4

When exception reports are produced by project boards, they should be circulated to all members of Council through the Members’ Information Service or by e mail.

           

The Task and Finish Group considered that all Members should have been kept appraised of the progress of and financial issues with projects on a regular basis, which could be achieved by circulating the exception reports that were produced for the project board, to all Members.

 

Members agreed with this recommendation.

 

Recommendation 5

Projects are constrained by the resources that the Council has available. Planning a substantial project on the basis that part of it will be done in a member of staff’s spare time allows no contingency. The Council should ensure that large projects are properly resourced.

 

Members acknowledged that officer’s often took on these projects in addition to their normal work load and commented that it was unsurprising that absence targets were missed and that stress levels for officers were increased.

 

It was clear that the Council did not always have the resources available for projects and it was important that when this occurred it was recognised and decisions regarding how to deal with the lack of resources were taken rather than muddling through.

 

Recommendation 6

The Council needs to have clear, documented objectives before it embarks on projects.

 

The Task and Finish Group considered that the method used in the Churchgate project of initially setting out very broad objectives, which would be honed by a developer into a specific project and the variety of options given for the refurbishment of the District Council Offices were unsuccessful. They agreed that the Council needed to have clear and documented objectives at an early stage, certainly before embarking on the project.

 

A Member commented that, in respect of Churchgate, the groups in Hitchin engaged with the Churchgate Liaison Forum and that the consultations that took place were not a sham exercise, as had been claimed. He praised the contributions made by Simons and officers. However, as the project progressed the public of Hitchin had lost total confidence in the Council to be able to produce an acceptable project. The public had lost all trust for the Council and this was not only as a result of the Competitive Dialogue Process, but also due to an earlier draft proposal, which lead to demonstrations. This history meant that recommendations 6, 7 and 9 were so important.

 

The Strategic Director of Finance Policy and Governance confirmed that the role of the liaison forum was to consult with the public. The Competitive Dialogue Process had been used to identify a developer, and with hindsight the scheme that Simons had presented to demonstrate their capabilities should not have been put into the public arena as this was misinterpreted as the actual scheme that would be developed. The Liaison Forum’s role was to meet the developer, speak to the public, challenge and come forward with a planning submission, but this role got lost and the project never got to the stage of a planning application.

 

Members agreed with this recommendation.

 

Recommendation 7

Large scale projects should have a champion to drive them forwards.

           

The Task and Finish Group agreed that better leadership may have helped many of the projects and that this could be addressed by having a champion to oversee all aspects of a project and drive it forward.

 

A Member queried whether a Champion was needed and/or beneficial for every project.

 

The Chief Executive advised that this recommendation could work for all projects, as long as it was interpreted in the right way. It would be necessary to identify what the sensitive issues were in order to address them and user membership on project boards was an attempt to address this issue.

 

Members commented that a champion could take different forms, it could be a team or an individual and therefore the recommendation did not need amending.

 

They felt that the appointment of a champion to a project would ensure that the other recommendations were carried through as this would be part of their remit. The champion on large projects should not be an additional duty for an officer, it should be a dedicated person.

 

Recommendation 8

The Council should be more flexible about membership of project boards

 

The Task and Finish Group concluded that Project Boards should not predominantly be made up of local Members, but should instead have a membership that was spread across the spectrum of all Councillors.

 

Members agreed with this recommendation.

 

Recommendation 9

The Council should improve its consultation and engagement with the public.

           

The Task and Finish Group concluded that the Council was not the best at communicating. It was acknowledged that communication had been difficult with Churchgate, given the nature and the number of factions involved and that consultation and engagement regarding the Royston Town Centre enhancement was more successful. However the Council needed to improve in this area and the Group noted that the engagement of a consultant designer with extensive public engagement experience had paid dividends during the Baldock Town Centre enhancement and that this had probably been the best investment of the project.

 

            Following some debate it was suggested that the recommendation be amended to reflect that the Council should not embark on a project unless they were confident that proper and meaningful consultation had been undertaken, but it was important to continue to engage with the public at stages throughout project.

 

            Recommendation 10

The Council should not use the Competitive Dialogue process in future projects.

           

The Task and Finish Group concluded that this process, with its secrecy aspects, was not suitable for use in the Churchgate project. It was not the best method for use by the Council for any project and was said to be unpopular for developers.

A Member asked whether there were any circumstances in which the Competitive Dialogue Process may be the best method to use and, if this was not to be used, what would take its place.

 

The Strategic Director of Finance, Performance and Governance advised that the Competitive Dialogue Process could work for specific projects and that Members should be clear that that they were not stopping something that may work in another circumstance or setting.

 

The Competitive Dialogue Process was unpopular because of the required confidentiality, however Hertfordshire County Council used the process when appointing Joint Venture Partners and it was deemed as the most appropriate process to use in that circumstance.

 

Members were concerned that this recommendation would prevent use of the Competitive Dialogue Process completely when there may well be circumstances when this process was the most appropriate to use. However this process should be used with caution and not used on highly sensitive and visible projects.

 

It was suggested that the recommendation be amended to ensure that its use was not excluded, but that it was used appropriately and not on highly sensitive and visible projects.

 

Councillor Weeks expressed concern that the recommendations of the well considered Task and Finish Group may be amended. He felt that the Group had received the evidence and that the recommendations were sound and should not be amended too much.

 

The Chairman requested that the Task and Finish Group consider whether the documents from the public participation would add value to their discussions.

 

The Scrutiny Officer advised that he would gather together the comments made at this meeting and circulate them to the Members of the Task and Finish Group for their comments. The report would then be brought back to this Committee in July for consideration before being presented to Cabinet.

 

The Chairman invited the speakers to make final comments.

 

Mr Dartington stated that the reason that the public lost faith with the Churchgate Liaison Forum was that they had be presented with a planning brief that identified the areas to be developed and which had been consulted on, but following a period of silence those areas were expanded into areas that the public had specifically stated it did not want. It was therefore not the scheme that caused issued, but the approach.

 

The Strategic Director clarified that the Council did go to the market to seek a developer and the initial scheme from that developer showed development on the expanded sites. They then had to go through a process to get to a planning application however this never happened because when an explanation was presented as to why the smaller scheme was no longer a feasible option, they were shouted down. It may well have been that, if everyone had engaged with them, they may have reduced the scale of the proposal and when Simons made a presentation to Council they stated that they would reduce the scale.

 

The lesson to learn from this experience was that the consultation and engagement with the public regarding Churchgate did not work and in future need to be clear about the decisions made and then move on to the next stage. If this approach had been taken it was possible that the project would have come to fruition.

 

Councillor Billing commented that, even when the Town Centre Strategy was being developed the Chairman of Hitchin Committee was being bellowed at by large numbers of people, so it wasn’t just at the time that the initial scheme was presented that things went wrong.

 

The Chairman thanked everyone for a full debate and confirmed that the comments of SMT regarding the Task and Finish Group’s report would be available at the next meeting.

 

            RESOLVED:

 

(1)     That the Task and Finish Group on the Council’s Management of Larger Projects be requested to consider the comments made by this Committee regarding the recommendation contained in the report paying particular attention to the following:

 

Recommendation 1

Members suggested that the recommendation be amended to reflect the need to move forward and the need to assess risks and recognise when a project should be stopped.

 

Recommendation 2

Members queried whether this recommendation applied to only one project and therefore should be clarified as such, or whether this was something that should be applied generally and maybe be re-worded.

 

As a point of clarification the recommendation should be to be clearer about its tender invitations and then put it out to tender.

 

Recommendation 9

It was suggested that the recommendation be amended to reflect that the Council should not embark on a project unless they were confident that proper and meaningful consultation had been undertaken, but it was important to continue to engage with the public at stages throughout project.

 

                   Recommendation 10

          It was suggested that the recommendation be amended to ensure that use of the Competitive Dialogue Process was not excluded, but that it was used appropriately and not used on highly sensitive and visible projects.

 

(2)       That the Task and Finish Group on the Council’s Management of Larger projects be requested to consider whether the comments made and documents presented in public participation would add any value to their discussions.

 

REASON FOR DECISION: To enable the Overview and Scrutiny Committee to consider the Task and Finish Group on the Council’s Management of Larger Projects report prior to consideration by Cabinet.