Accessibility settings

In order to remember your preferences as you navigate through the site, a cookie will be set.

Color preference

Text size

Agenda item

Corporate Risk Register

To consider the risks contained within the Corporate Risk Register and assurance that the risks are being effectively managed. 

Minutes:

36.1          The report of the Head of Corporate Services, circulated at Pages No. 51-73, asked Members to consider the risks contained within the corporate risk register and assurance that the risks were being effectively managed.

36.2          The Head of Corporate Services indicated that little had changed in terms of strategic risks since the last report to the Committee in September but the key updates were set out at Page No. 53, Paragraph 3.1 of the report.  Three areas were awaiting decisions: Ref. 1 - Financial Sustainability - the Head of Finance and Asset Management was hoping to receive confirmation of the government settlement the following day and that would be used to inform the budget and Medium Term Financial Statement moving forward; Ref. 13 – Ashchurch Bridge Project – the outcome of the judicial review was still awaited; and Ref. 17 – Waste Transfer Station – this was due to be considered by Gloucestershire County Council’s Planning Committee in January 2022.

36.3          With regard to Appendix 1, the Member noted there were several amber and red risks within the register and she asked what the expectation was in terms of Members when considering the report.  The Head of Corporate Services explained that the Audit and Governance Committee had a responsibility to challenge that risk was being managed and improvements being made.  In response, the Member noted that the lack of a five year housing land supply had not been included in the register and she perceived this to be a risk as it made the borough more vulnerable to developers winning appeals.  The Head of Corporate Services undertook to raise this with Management Team which reviewed the corporate risk register on a regular basis.  A Member questioned whether Development Management itself should be included as part of the risk as there were a number of vacancies and difficulties being experienced within the service currently.  The Borough Solicitor confirmed that Management Team would think about the general impact of the planning service and whether it should be highlighted as a risk.

36.4          With regard to Ref. 3 – ICT network, a Member recognised there were huge threats to the security of the Council’s systems which was reflected in the decision to create a new post within the ICT team with specific cyber responsibilities and she asked when this would be recruited to.  The Head of Corporate Services advised that a Network Officer had recently left the authority and that role had been re-scoped.  Management Team had recently approved the request to fill so the role would be advertised shortly.  Another Member drew attention to Pages No. 70-71 of the report and Ref. 15 in relation to climate change and asked whether the appointment of the Carbon Reduction Programme Officer should be included under mitigating controls. The Head of Finance and Asset Management confirmed that an appointment had now been made and the Officer would be starting in March; there were a lot of other challenges in terms of funding and delivery but a full-time resource was a step forward so the current risk score could probably be updated and the mitigating controls amended to reflect that.

36.5          With regard to Ref. 13 – Ashchurch Bridge, a Member noted that the project had a time limit of March 2022 for funding drawdown but that had been formally amended and she asked for clarification as to what it would mean if the judicial review was lost, for instance, did the money have to be given back, would the Garden Town not go ahead.  In response, the Borough Solicitor explained that if the judicial review was lost it meant that planning permission would be quashed and it would be for the Council to redetermine the application.  The successful renegotiation of the deadline for funding drawdown showed there was a willingness from Homes England to allow the project to proceed and there had been no indication that any funds would have to be paid back.  The Member drew attention to Ref. 6 – ineffective emergency planning - and raised concern that it was very focused on flooding when emergency planning covered a whole host of other things, for instance, the recent gas leak in Cheltenham – she noted that some emergency planning items, such as the pandemic, had their own headings within the risk register and she asked for some clarity on this.  The Head of Community Services indicated that emergency planning was something which was done really well in Tewkesbury Borough, and Gloucestershire as a whole, as evidenced by the strong relationship with the Local Resilience Forum.  Emergency planning had been included as a cover all when the risk register was established and it felt that risks were well-mitigated so this could potentially be removed with any remaining risks being picked up separately.

36.6          In relation to Ref. 17 – waste transfer station at Wingmoor Farm, a Member noted that a mitigating control was to seek to influence Gloucestershire County Council’s Planning Committee and she asked if the Audit and Governance Committee was happy with that given Tewkesbury Borough Council’s own Planning Committee had raised an objection to the proposal.  The Borough Solicitor clarified that Tewkesbury Borough Council’s Planning Committee was a consultee in respect of the Gloucestershire County Council application as the site was within Tewkesbury Borough and the Planning Committee had raised an objection on the grounds of nuisance from odour in particular; however, this did not prevent the Council, in another guise, requesting that the application be permitted for the sake of its waste service.  The Head of Community Services explained that refusal of the planning application was the greatest risk to the Council at this point in terms of impact, not just in respect of the financial implications but also with regard to carbon reduction ambitions as waste vehicles would be required to travel to and from Javelin Park.  The mitigation proposed, i.e. to influence Gloucestershire County Council’s Planning Committee, was the only option available to the authority and, should the application be refused, Tewkesbury Borough Council would be in a very difficult position in relation to its waste service.  The Member indicated that odour from Wingmoor Farm was a significant issue for local residents and she understood from discussions that more could potentially be done to address that so she asked if Officers would be willing to raise this with the County Council.  The Head of Community Services clarified that the planning application was in relation to the waste transfer station, not the facilities at Wingmoor Farm, so this particular application would have no impact in terms of the environment for local residents.

36.7          Having considered the information provided, it was

RESOLVED           That the risks and mitigating controls within the corporate risk register be NOTED.

Supporting documents: