Issue - meetings

To consider examples of comparative partnership delivery and public investment, to determine which model for scrutiny would be most appropriate and effective for the West End Partnership (WEP).

5.1       In response to a request made at the last meeting of the Commission, Muge Dindjer (Policy & Scrutiny Manager) presented examples of comparative partnership scrutiny of public investment, to determine which model for scrutiny would be most appropriate and effective for the West End Partnership (WEP). The request had been made in the context of the bid to government for a Tax Increment Financing Initiative (TIF) for the West End.

5.2       The Commission noted the advantages and disadvantages of the different models, and considered how these could be applied to the WEP should it become responsible for overseeing the delivery of significant amounts of public funding. 5.3 The Commission considered three options:

1          To continue to receive regular updates from the Leader for the time being, until the WEP received more significant funding and was much more in delivery mode.

2          To scrutinise the WEP on an ad hoc exception basis at key times in the project timetable, if it became responsible for substantial additional sums of public money.

3          To act as a core for the purposes of looking at the WEP in more detail on an annual basis. This approach could be more suitable at a later stage when there was more public funding, and programmes were being delivered.

5.4       It was noted that the WEP currently controlled low levels of public money, and that governance arrangements for the City Council and TfL already included an element of scrutiny. It was agreed that the level of scrutiny of the WEP needed to be proportionate, and be linked with the level of public money that was being spent. It was also recognised that Scrutiny had an important role with regard to transparency of WEP activities.

5.5       The Commission recognised the need for any scrutiny of the WEP to add value and coherence, and to avoid the duplication of any work already undertaken by partners. It was noted that the GLA Transport Committee on pedestrianising Oxford Street had published recommendations in September 2016 to which the Mayor had responded. The Commission agreed that any scrutiny of the WEP should avoiding duplicating work, but could provide coherence for any gaps that there may be.

5.6       Although no significant public funds had yet been received, the Chief Executive highlighted the potential benefits of a separate review by the City Council of the TIF bid process, and what it had achieved.

5.7       Members considered the options for scrutiny that had been suggested, and agreed that until the WEP took on responsibility for the co-ordination of substantial additional sums of public money, or there was a significant delivery of projects or the nature of the work of the partnership change, the Commission should continue to receive regular updates from the Leader and Chief Executive.