Agenda item

Cemetery and Crematorium – Ken Dale

(Members to consider the PID and decide how and when they want to scrutinise the project)

Ken Dale, the Business Development Manager, introduced the Project Initiation Document for the Cemetery and Crematorium, which was an important issue for the Council.  As background to the issue, he explained that the previous project relating to the cemetery and crematorium had been reviewed by a scrutiny task group, who had made a number of recommendations which were noted by Cabinet.  Subsequently, a Cabinet Member Working Group was established to look at the longer term issues and its membership included a number of members who had been involved in the scrutiny task group.  To date the working group had been involved in reviewing the brief and the process for appointing the consultant, had received regular updates on operational issues and advised on how any consultation should be approached.  There were two strands to the project.  The immediate focus had been on stabilising the current operational situation.  Some positive work had been done and whilst there were still some associated risks, progress had been good.  The second strand was the feasibility study.  The selection of a consultant had been concluded and a consultant had been appointed, details of which would soon be shared with members. 

The Chairman felt that there were two conclusions that would need to be reached by the committee as a result of any discussions; what scrutiny needed to be undertaken on this project, if any, and how did members want to deal with PIDs in the future. 

The Business Development Manager provided the following responses to member questions;

•    Consideration was given to whether an options appraisal of the service delivery model was required but priority, at this time, was given to stabilising the facilities and agreeing the approach to their future development. The REST project was running concurrently and the cemetery and crematorium fell within this review. 

•    The Operational Programmes Board (OPB) was in fact the Senior Leadership Team (SLT) rather than it being another term for the Project Board, which included the Cabinet Member.  Any verbal updates provided to Executive Board were merely a supplement to the written reports which were produced for the OPB (SLT) every 4 weeks and which were also considered by the Project Board.

•    The Project Board had a defined role for providing assurance, currently filled by Bryan Parsons, the Corporate Governance, Risk and Compliance Officer. OPB (SLT) and the Cabinet Member Working Group were also able to support the assurance process by asking critical questions.

•    There was an overall time and budgetary constraint, which was set out in the Project Brief and a report would be tabled with the Project Board should any increase be required at any time.  This approach had been adopted rather than having any tolerances of 10% or otherwise.

•    The initial procurement process had taken longer than anticipated, though a consultant would soon be appointed.  Once the appointment was made, the timeline would be revisited and revised as necessary, but there was still an expectation that the feasibility study would be concluded no later than summer. 

Some members queried why the wider issue of a service delivery model was being considered in isolation by the REST Project rather than in conjunction with this project.

One member felt that those that conducted services at the Cemetery and Crematorium should be included as stakeholders and that the PID should clearly set out who was involved in each of the groups referenced in the PID (OPB, Exec Board, etc). 

Councillors McCloskey and Ryder, both of whom had been members of the original scrutiny task group, spoke in support of the Cabinet Member working group of which they were now members.  Both reassured members that the working group was maintaining a close watching brief over the project and thanked the Cabinet Member for the open and transparent way in which he was sharing information with the group.  They also thanked staff at the cemetery and crematorium for their hard work in delivering some of the recommendations made by the task group. 

The Committee was satisfied that the Cabinet Member working group was working well and therefore did not see any requirement for additional scrutiny of this project.  They also concluded that consideration would be given to PIDs in the future as a means of assessing how it wished to scrutinise a particular project.  The Business Development Manager explained that there were approximately 40 projects in progress at any one time and suggested that it would be sensible for the Committee to focus on high value, high risk projects.  He would send details of the criteria used to define a major project to the Lead Members for scrutiny. 

The Chairman thanked the Business Development Manager for his attendance.

There were no recommendations.