Agenda item

Purpose:  To provide a response to the recommendations made in the report from the Overview and Scrutiny Management Commission (OSMC) task group on the London Road Industrial Estate (LRIE) that was presented to Members of the OSMC in July 2020.

Resolved that the action plan produced in response to the recommendations raised by the LRIE Task Group be noted.

This decision is not subject to call in as:

·      Report is to note only

therefore it will be implemented immediately.

The Executive considered a report (Agenda Item 8) concerning a response to the recommendations made in the report from the Overview & Scrutiny Management Commission (OSMC) task group on the London Road Industrial Estate (LRIE) that was presented to Members of the OSMC in July 2020.

Councillor Ross Mackinnon reported that the LRIE task group had been set up in April 2019 to review the LRIE project to 2018. The aim of the task group was to review what had been learnt from the project and to report back to the OSMC. The report had been received in July 2020. An action plan had been developed in relation to each of the 15 recommendations set out in the report where appropriate. A number of the recommendations had already been addressed as the Council had clearly developed its practices over the last ten years. However, the report had concluded that the Council had not intended to act illegally and had had regard to its legal obligations and the public contract regulations. The evidence was also clear that the Council had acted reasonably after taking expert advice from external providers. The task group would not have made any different decisions regarding the proposed development of the site.

Councillor Lynne Doherty seconded the report.

Councillor Graham Bridgman referred to recommendation 5 on page 134 of the agenda in respect of each Committee/Board reviewing the Terms of Reference on an annual basis. He felt that reviewing the Terms of Reference automatically was not the right approach and felt that the recommendation should be amended to state that they should be reviewed on a regular basis. Councillor Mackinnon felt that an annual review could take place at a very high level and would therefore not be that onerous. Councillor Bridgman responded that if it was suggested that it only needed to be a very high level review then the response to the recommendation needed to be amended to reflect that.

Councillor Lee Dillon was a member on the task group and he said that it was not necessarily to review the contents of the terms of reference but when a new member came on to the Committee then they needed to be made aware of the Terms of Reference so that they were aware what they were making decisions on and whether they were a decision making group or not. What he could not see in the report in the response from the Executive was any form of apology for the poor project management that had taken place at the time and he felt that some recommendations and an apology from the Administration was required. Councillor Mackinnon agreed but an organisation of this size would always be improving their project management methodology and internal processes as time progressed. The Council would always seek to improve methodology whenever it could and he felt that the response to the recommendations had demonstrated that.   

Councillor Jeff Brooks referred to the comprehensive Project Management Methodology which had been included as an appendix to the report.  However, it did not appear to be mandated across the authority. He also referred to project creep where the price kept increasing over time. A clever budget manager would take advantage of that loophole and he would like to have some reassurance that that would be tracked early on within the sign up process. Councillor Mackinnon confirmed that the Project Management Methodology had improved a great deal over the years and he was confident that the right processes were in place. However, the same level of methodology would not be appropriate for smaller projects. In relation to project creep Councillor Mackinnon felt that budget users were acting with integrity but he would ensure that it was closely monitored.

Councillor Steve Masters stated that the remit of the inquiry had been quite tight and he asked Councillor Mackinnon if he thought that the absence of any testimony from Les Gaulton was significant and what attempts had been made to contact him at the start of the process. Councillor Mackinnon responded that he had every faith that the task group operated in a proper manner but that question would need to be answered by the task group and in particular Sarah Clarke as it was she who had led the task group.

Councillor Owen Jeffery recalled when he was last on the Executive that he had been briefed about the subject of project management and the relevant software. He now found it incredible that a project of this size and importance never received a proper project management style. He recognised that the current Leader had not been involved at that time but the Chief Executive had been and he apparently had not felt it to be appropriate to put in and run proper project management software on such an enormous and vitally important issue. The result was that public money had been wasted and he asked whether there was any action that could or should have been taken on that issue. Councillor Lynne Doherty stated that the actions that had been laid out within the recommendations were the actions that she would approve.

Councillor Lynne Doherty thanked the task group for all the hard work that they had undertaken but she felt that the priority for the residents and businesses of West Berkshire was to move forward in order to provide them with economic stability and to make West Berkshire an attractive place to come and do business. She was happy with the overall conclusions and recommendations as set out in the report.

RESOLVED that the Executive noted the action plan in response to the recommendations raised by the LRIE task group.

Reason for the decision: To consider the report and recommendations from the LRIE task group.

Other options considered: The Executive could opt to do nothing with the report and leave it as it was; however, it was important that lessons were learnt where action had not been taken already in respect of the issues raised.