Issue - meetings

Report of the Executive Director of Community and Children's Services.

The Committee received a report of the Executive Director, Community and Children’s Services in respect of the projects proposed for years 1-5 of the Barbican Estate Major Works Programme.

The Chair stressed the importance of the Corporation’s approach to the Barbican as whole; i.e. - the Climate Action Strategy,  historic data, the need for more intrusive and comprehensive surveys, combining projects to achieve economies of scale and working with the Barbican Centre on their long-term strategy.  The Assistant Director had noted the challenge to the final costing, which would be clarified after the various surveys and as the projects develop. 

Members then noted the following resolution from the RCC and it was RESOLVED, that – the following be noted and agreed.

The RCC is concerned that there are many outstanding comments and questions still to be answered about the Major Works Five-Year Asset Management Programme before work should begin, as set out in the minutes of the RCC meeting of 4th September 2023. The immediate concern is the appropriate governance of such a high cost, complex and inherently risky programme which requires resource with the capability and capacity to deliver the programme successfully. The RCC is therefore calling for preliminary work to be undertaken, involving resident nominees, to establish a formal Programme Board of stakeholders; terms of reference; authority framework, programme/project management methodology etc, taking expert advice as necessary, before any other work on the programme begins.

RESOLVED, that – the report be noted.

Report of the Executive Director of Children’s Services.

The committee received a report of the Executive Director of Community and Children’s Services.

The committee expressed disappointment that a series of outstanding questions and comments from the Asset Maintenance Working Party had not been answered nor referred to in the report as presented. The questions and comments were tabled by the Chair, to which officers agreed to provide written responses following the meeting:

Process and management approach

1.     Greater detail is required on the City’s proposed approach to managing this programme of potential works, including:

2.     Who will be responsible for delivery? Is the intention to recruit a programme director? And if not, why not?

3.     What is the proposed governance structure? We presume there would be a programme board, including key stakeholders and resident representatives.

4.     What is the intended programme and project reporting cycle and approach?

5.     Who is the programme sponsor?

6.     What project and programme management methodology will be applied? E.g. Prince2, MSP.

7.     What is the proposed approach to ensuring lessons are captured, learn, and applied through the programme and through phases from one block to the next?

8.     What other specialist project and programme resource requirements have been identified?

9.     Has a gap analysis been carried out to identify what capabilities are present within the City’s current resources and what additional resources will need to be brought in?

10. What is the proposed project gate approach? We note reference to the City’s gateway process but understand this is primarily financial, rather than a project governance methodology.

11. We note the City’s gateway process is currently under review. When is this review expected to complete and when will updated processes be shared?

12. Can details of the current process that applies in the meantime be shared?

13. Has engagement has been carried out with