Report of the Town Clerk – Members will be asked to consider the ToR/frequency of meetings and suggest any changes,
Members’ received a report of the Town Clerk relative to the annual review of the Board’s Terms of Reference.
Officers suggested two amendments to the terms of reference, as follows:
Members discussed the governance arrangements for the Markets Co-Location Programme (MCP). It was confirmed that, should the MCP be approved as a major capital buildings project, it would automatically become the responsibility of the Capital Buildings Board, with the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the Markets Board joining Capital Buildings Board as ex-officio members for the duration of the project.
The Chairman expressed his view that the Board should have greater operational input into the project. A Member agreed that the Board should make clear that it would be available and willing to provide expertise on the detail of the project as it progressed.
A Member said that they were disappointed that consideration was not being given to alternative approaches for delivering the project, and suggested the creation of a corporate entity, responsible to the Markets Board, to oversee it.
Other Members advised that it was important to have clarity on the relationship between the two Boards and their respective to avoid clashes. Another Member agreed and said that the Capital Buildings Board had a project management role, while the Board could make available the market expertise.
The Chair of the New Spitalfields Tenants’ Association said that the market tenants do not have the same relationship with the Capital Buildings Board as they do with the Markets Board. Another Member said that the proper relationship would be between the tenants and the officers delivering the project, and that the role of the Capital Buildings Board was to provide oversight and ensure the project was delivered in accordance with strategy and to deadline.
The Chief Operating Officer said that there would be a transition period where current operations and future operations overlapped, and suggested that this would be the point where the Board would want to feed in.
A Member said that the Markets Board had a strong membership and felt it should have greater control over the MCP as the project went into an important new phase. They did not feel that the Capital Buildings Board had been effective. Another Member replied to clarify that the Capital Buildings Board had not been responsible for the project thus far, and therefore should not be held culpable for any delays.
RESOLVED, that – Members: