Agenda and minutes

The Committee noted the evacuation and housekeeping procedure.

There were no declarations of interest.

To approve the minutes of the last meeting held on 12^th January 2026

AGREED that minutes of the meeting held on 12 January 2026 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

To consider the Action Plan for Agreed Recommendations

The Service Manager presented an action plan setting out how the agreed recommendations from the Scrutiny Review of Muslim and Faith Burial would be implemented and target dates for completion. There were two actions, the first to extend choice in burial provision by installing burial rings, and the second for officers to carry out a review of extending burial hours. 

The deadline for installation was questioned and officers informed that there was long lead in dates from ordering to the burial rings being delivered and installed. The advertising of the rings was also raised, and the Committee were informed that local funeral services had been contacted. There would be a “buy back” option for those who had already purchased a traditional plot, to sell this back to the Council and buy a burial ring plot.

The Committee thanked the officer for the action plan and suggested that an update on progress be brought backafter the rings had been installed, which was due to take place in September 2026. 

AGREED that the Action Plan be approved and a progress update be provided October 2026

To receive information from Officers in relation to this scrutiny topic

The Committee received information regarding the project documents used within the capital programme governance process. These included the Project Initiation Document (PID), The Risk, Actions, Issues, Decisions and Lessons learnt log (RAIDL), and the Highlight Report.

The PID followed the project from ideation until the project was completed and included key information on the project lead, finance lead, and other services involved e.g. legal, procurement, security. The named project executive would be a member of CMT. The PID asked whether similar projects had previously taken place and the lessons learnt from them, whether there were links with any other projects taking place, if there was a communication plan, and the risks of the project. It identified the costs and funding for the relevant gateway as well as any ongoing revenue implications that would need to be factored in. The PID recorded the Gateway stages and when the project was discussed at the different groups and boards within the capital programme governance process. It acted as a “single point of truth” and was centrally held in the Programme Management Office. Not all sections of the PID would apply to all projects, and some smaller projects did not need a steering group. When questioned it was noted that the document had only been in place for just over two years and every project had to have a PID and go through the project management governance process.

Member engagement was raised. Officers informed that there was Cabinet member engagement and, depending on the project, ward member and group engagement throughout the capital projects lifecycle and governance process.

It was questioned how often PIDs were reviewed and monitored, and officers noted that this was done at each gateway, which aligned with the capital projects lifecycle and governance process. It would also be reviewed if a change request was submitted.

Contingencies and risk management was discussed. It was noted that officers made an assessment on the risk and contingencies level. This level would differ depending on the project, and there was no set percentage of contingency to apply to projects within the Council due to the difference between the types of projects being carried out. Key Performance Indicators (KPI’s) were described as project benefits on the PID, and external funders may have their own KPI’s or standards that a project adhered to which would be included in that section. When questioned whether missing external KPI would affect future funding, officers advised that this would be determined by individual funders. Some funders included claw-back clauses but there was no set rule. If a project could not be delivered within the agreed budgets and scopes it was escalated to the appropriate governance level, including Cabinet and Council to make a decision if required, as officers did not have additional funds beyond agreed allocations.

The RAIDL included descriptions of risks and their impact, control measures, description of any issues and their impact, action needed for risks and issues, descriptions of dependencies, log of decisions made and justification of  ...  view the full minutes text for item PLA/51/25

Consideration was given to the Work Programme</AI6>

AGREED that the Work Programme be noted.