END PROJECT REPORT

Project Title: / Yeovil Health and Social Inequalities Project
Project Reference: / SWIEP CP48
RIEP Work stream / RIEP Capital Fund
Report Author: / Natalie Ross
Date: / 29th December 2010

End project Report Purpose

The purpose of this report is to:

·  Review the Project using the PID as a baseline comparing the planned project to the actual, delivered project, and determine what has not gone to plan and the impact of this.

·  Ensure that the lessons learnt from the project have been captured, reviewed and disseminated.

·  Provide assurance that all risks, issues have been closed or transferred.

·  Confirm that hand over actions have been agreed.

·  Articulate the position with regard to draw down of RIEP funding.

·  Confirm that the project is on track to meet the desired outcomes and set a post project implementation review date.

How to Use this Document

This document contains a series of different questions which are designed to compare what the project actually achieved against what was originally planned. The questions will also capture what went well and how this learning can be shared more widely.

Any text in italics provides further guidance to help answer questions.

Please answer questions as fully as possible. Most sections will be relevant to all projects but there might be some exceptions. If you are in doubt, please contact your Programme Manager to discuss.

Table of Contents

Page

1 End Project Report History 3

1.1 Revision History

1.2 Approvals

2 Background 3

3 Reasons for closure 4

4 Project Performance 4

5 Risk analysis 6

6 Lessons Learnt 6

7 Post-Project Review 7

1 End Project Report History

1.1 Revision History

Revision date / Previous revision date / Summary of Changes / Changes marked
First issue

1.2 Approvals

This document requires the following approvals.

Internal (Local Authority) Approval

Name / Signature / Title / Date of Issue / Version
Natalie Ross / Project Manager / 21/02/11 / 1.0
Martin Woods / Project Sponsor / 21/02/11 / 1.0

SW RIEP Approval (Sign off to be managed by RIEP Programme Manager)

Name / Signature / Title / Date of Issue / Version
Programme Manager
Programme Board
SMT

2 Background

South Somerset Together and South West Regional Development Agency commissioned a study into options for delivering more effective and joined up services in areas of Yeovil exhibiting the most significant health and social inequalities.

The study concluded that functions that could have the most dramatic effect on these issues, and therefore LAA priority outcomes, are best located in the communities themselves as ‘hubs’. These hubs would enable agencies to address needs, build capacity and reduce inequality.

This has received huge public support in the Milford area of Yeovil, backed up by ward members and agencies that work in the area.

This project is to re-develop the run-down, under-used Milford Hall into a community hub from which agencies will provide outreach work such as skills training to enable residents to get better jobs, health clinics and support groups. It will enable the community association to run activities to promote enthusiasm for the area as a place to live and promote cohesion. The rebuild will take approximately 6 months and planning permission has been submitted.

If successful, the project will expand to the other deprived wards in South Somerset and the learning could be used within any community across the country.

Strategically, this project will provide the means by which partners can produce efficiencies by avoiding duplication and promoting the sharing of resources. It will provide a more effective way to deliver key LAA targets around antisocial behaviour, adults attaining basic qualifications, older people living independently, community cohesion, obesity in primary aged children and teenage pregnancies.

This project is a core proposal in the task of addressing needs, building capacity and reducing economic and health inequality within the most deprived wards in South Somerset. The idea of this hub has come from the community, during a Planning for RealÒ consultation. It will give neighbourhoods a stronger focus and sense of identity and increase awareness of local services, opportunities, knowledge and resources. It will also help residents to access training and job opportunities. Operationally this proposal will enable Police, PCT, councils, and Yeovil College to provide services directly to the community.

3 Reasons for closure

The project is being closed as the project objectives have been met.

4 Project Performance

·  State the original aim of the project:

To provide a community hub from which agencies will provide outreach work in a deprived area of Yeovil.

·  Did the project achieve what it set out to? Was it successful? If not, why and what elements weren’t successful? What is the impact of this?

The project has achieved the original aim and a community hub has been established in the Milford area. A multi-agency work plan for the area, managed by a partnership funded project worker, has been created and agreed.

The hall hiring agreement has been finalised through consultation with the community association, which has resulted in a suitable mix of outreach work, training opportunities and community use. This mix was essential to creating a good community facility.

Milestones Performance

How did the project perform against its forecast timescales. Complete the following table to illustrate how the milestones were delivered.

Key Milestone / Forecast Date / Actual Date / Impact
Project worker appointed to co-ordinate the reducing health and social inequalities work with local agencies. / 02/11/2009 / 02/11/2009
Build contractor appointed / 04/01/2010 / 27/01/2010 / Milestone delayed due to tenders being higher than forecast. Savings have since been identified so no impact to budget. Although delay may impact on the forecast timescale.
Contractor to start on site / 25/01/2010 / 22/02/2010 / Build a month behind schedule but within tolerance levels.
Build completed / 01/10/2010 / 31/10/10 / Build completed slightly later than forecast but in time for the play group to return as planned on 4th November after half-term, so within tolerance level.

Financial Performance

Overall Project Budget: £720,000

RIEP Allocation: £234,000

Actual Spend to date: £691,591

Reasons for variance: At the start of the project, the tenders were higher than expected so we had to identify areas that could be reduced to allow for any unforeseen expenditure to ensure that we had a sufficient contingency in the budget. Now that the final build cost has been received we can use the money held back in contingency to complete works such as installing noticeboards, installing protective barriers to the park to stop cars driving on to the park from the new parking spaces, outside planting etc. These were areas that we had identified at the beginning that could be reduced if the build part of the project went over budget.

RIEP Funding Outstanding to be Claimed: £50,000

Date any outstanding RIEP Funding will be Claimed: On receipt of this report

Outputs

Was the output delivered
On time / To agreed quality / Within budget
New Community Hub / No, but within tolerance / Yes / Yes
Multi-agency work programme / Yes / Yes / Yes
Community programme of events / Yes / Yes / Yes

Outcomes

·  List the outcomes that can be assessed at this stage. (Others will be assessed at the Post Project Implementation Review).

Operationally, the project has produced a ‘hub’ from which local agencies are providing outreach work for example the NHS have started a smoking cessation group at the hall and an older peoples dance class has just begun.

·  What benefits have been achieved?

It is too early to prove any benefits. However, the project should improve performance on local targets/priorities and should also make savings, as maintenance costs will be lower and the hall is now in a better state of repair and therefore less susceptible to vandalism.

·  Is the project on track to deliver the remaining planned outcomes? If not, why not? What is the impact of this to the RIEP priorities?

The project is on track.

5 Risk Analysis

Closing Project Risk Register / Handing over open risks

·  Are all the Risks identified on the Risk Register/Log/Template closed? Yes

·  For those that are not, have owners been identified actions to manage into the future? N/A

·  Have those risks that may affect the operational use of the outputs been articulated? Yes

Assessment of risk capture

·  Did any risks arise that had not been captured? No. Although we did have to increase security levels at the weekend, this had been identified as a possible risk at the outset.

6 Lessons Learnt

·  What went well?

The project board contained representation from a good selection of local stakeholders i.e the local ward members, Registered Social Landlord and Town Council. The board members therefore had the right local knowledge and very importantly, the right level of authority within their organisation to make informed decisions.

The high level of support for the project amongst both local organisations and residents helped to smooth the progress of the project, as people were able to accept the short term inconveniences caused by the project because they supported the long term aims. An example of this is the playgroup having to change venues for the duration of the build. This meant a loss of revenue for the group, as some parents didn’t want to travel the extra distance. However, the group felt it was worth it to have a better venue for the children in the future. Another example is the dedication of our design officer, who offered to manage the project to save costs when the quotes were higher than expected. The officer had produced the original designs at the concept stage of the project and had therefore experienced the level of local support and offered his time to ensure the project kept momentum rather than postpone the project while addition funds were sourced.

·  What did not go so well?

The original quotes were slightly higher than expected, which caused a month delay to the start of the project while savings were identified. This did not affect the outputs of the project but did result in a change to the proposed schedule.

·  What was lacking?

A great deal of preliminary work was undertaken to raise support for the project. Therefore the project had good support, good financial backing, local champions and media interest. The only possible aspect that could be described as ‘lacking’ is the lack of experience of the Project Manager in running such a large project. However, the Project Manager had undertaken Prince2 training and managed other smaller projects, so this lack of experience had no effect on the way the project was managed and the project has been very successful.

·  How have these been shared for the benefit of future or other projects or pieces of work within your Authority/Partnership?

We have a central lessons learned log for all our capital projects, which is managed by our finance department.

A case study for all of our partners will also be distributed on completion of the post project review.

·  Has this information been included within the completed case study for your project?

Yes.

7 Post-project Review (PPR)

Please insert date of PPR and provide information on when the various benefits will be measured, how they will be measured and who will carry out the post project review.

The PPR will take place on 22nd March 2011. The PPR will be undertaken by the Project Board and focus on the outputs and outcomes of the project.

The benefits of this project are long term such as improvements to agencies’ performance in tackling deprivation, and increased community cohesion, so they therefore need to be measured by a group that will exist beyond the life of the project board. The Local Strategic Partnership (LSP) will take on this review role until December 2012 (the current employment contract for the project worker funded by the LSP partners).

C:\Documents and Settings\NatalieR\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK1D4\SW RIEP End project.doc Page 1 of 7