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:

47.1          The report of the Head of Corporate Services, circulated at Pages No. 54-77, asked Members to consider the risks contained within the corporate risk register and assurance that the risks were being effectively managed.

47.2          The Corporate Director advised that the key updates since the last report to the Committee in December were set out at Page No 56, Paragraph 3.1 of the report.  With regard to Ref. 3 ICT Network Security, she explained that, given the recent national and local incidents, it was intended to recruit to a newly created cyber role; Ref 5. General Data Protection had been given more resource and all staff would be properly trained; the Carbon Reduction Programme Officer had commenced his role on 22 February which would assist with Ref. 15 Climate Change; and, in terms of Ref. 17 Waste Transfer Station, Grundon had gained planning permission in January 2022 which was good news from a management perspective as this was a serious risk which had been identified last time that had now been mitigated. 

47.3          At the last Committee meeting, a Member had questioned whether two additional potential risks should be included within the corporate risk register – the planning improvement plan and the five year land supply.  The Corporate Director advised that her view was that the planning improvement plan did not hold a high level of corporate risk in the same way as those listed in the Appendix to the report.  In terms of the five year land supply, it was not considered to be a risk for inclusion in the corporate risk register on the basis that the issues surrounding planning applications were dealt with on their own individual merits.  Notwithstanding this, it was felt that a risk ought to be included in relation to the review of the Joint Core Strategy which had been delayed more than anticipated so that would be included in the corporate risk register going forward.  A Member indicated that she perceived the lack of a five year housing land supply as a high risk to residents as well as a financial risk to the Council if applications were overturned at appeal.  The Corporate Director explained that was a risk of the planning system - planning was a regulatory service and decisions could be challenged by the operation of law which may result in the Council paying costs for that, sometimes even when it was successful; her view was that this was a service risk but not a strategic corporate risk.  The Head of Development Services pointed out there was a risk of appeal against refusal of planning permission even with a five year supply but that was the nature of the planning process.  The Member asked whether the five year supply would stop being a risk once the Borough Plan had been formally adopted and the Corporate Director explained that, whilst it should mean there was a five year supply, that did not stop applications being permitted which people did not want to be permitted but the tilted balance would not apply.  The Head of Development Services clarified that, once adopted, the Council would state there was a five year supply but that would always be challenged by developers.

47.4          With regard to Ref. 3 in relation to cyber security, set out at Pages No. 61-62 of the report, a Member asked if cyber training was compulsory for staff and Members and how much it actually reduced risk.  In response, the Head of Finance and Asset Management advised that training was mandatory for all staff and there was additional high-level training for management.  A Member training session was taking place on 29 March 2022 and, whilst there was an expectation that all Members would attend, they could not be forced to.  The biggest risk to cyber security was people which was why all staff were required to undergo training.  The Member asked to be provided with the number of Councillors who attended the training.  Another Member expressed the view that it was a risk if not all Members had received some sort of cyber training; it had been stated that it could not be made mandatory but she was aware that other organisations did make it mandatory.  The Corporate Director explained that political groups had the power to mandate and that was the appropriate place for it to happen in her view.

47.5          In relation to Ref. 6 Emergency Planning, set out at Pages No. 64-65 of the report, the Member asked if there was a list of emergencies, for instance, flooding, chemical weapon attack etc.  The Head of Community Services indicated that the nature of emergency planning meant it was about unforeseen events.  There were some things which could be planned for, such as flooding, and the Local Resilience Forum offered training exercises for certain events with one being run the following month in relation to what would happen if there was a national power outage.  In terms of the pandemic, there was a plan in place for the flu but not one for COVID-19 and there were some things which just could not be anticipated.  He was unsure if there was a list but, if not, he would be happy to compile one to demonstrate what plans were in place.  A Member drew attention to Ref. 7 Swindon Road Depot, set out at Pages No. 65-66 of the report, and asked whether there was any indication that Cheltenham Borough Council was minded to terminate the lease agreement.  The Head of Community Services advised that there was no indication of that but there was always a risk that it could choose to do so.

47.6          With regard to Ref 8 Safeguarding Arrangements, as set out at Pages No. 66-67 of the report, a Member expressed the view that all Councillors should be subject to Disclosure and Barring Services (DBS) checks given the role they played in their communities.  The Head of Community Services indicated that he did not think all Members could be required to undergo DBS checks; however, staff and Members did receive safeguarding training and certain staff were required to undergo DBS checks as part of their roles.  The Corporate Director confirmed that had certainly been the case but it had not been checked recently so she was happy to look into it and report back to Members outside of the meeting.  In terms of Ref. 11 Brexit, the Member asked for an explanation of what was meant by ‘election – impact on resources’ and whether the Government funding of £52,000 was an annual amount or a one-off.   She noted that wholesale prices had risen over the past couple of years but a lot of businesses had not passed this on to customers, however, she felt that was likely to happen soon and there may be issues with freedom of movement.  The Head of Finance and Asset Management clarified that it was one-off funding which had been received a couple of years ago to address the impact of extra resources that had to be put in place.  The Head of Community Services was of the view that the full impact of Brexit had not yet been felt and there could be a risk in terms of not being able to get hold of resources so he undertook to discuss this with the Head of Corporate Services following the meeting.

47.7          In relation to Ref.12 Garden Town, set out at Pages No. 69-72 of the report, a Member was interested to read about the challenges as these had not been raised at the Tewkesbury Garden Town Member Reference Panel.  She was particularly concerned about the fact that a business case needed to be submitted to the Government by summer 2022.  The Head of Development Services explained that this related to the work which was being led by the County Council on the J9/A46 project.  The Garden Town Team bid to Homes England was a separate issue and she confirmed that, as of today, Officers had still not received the outcome of that bid.  The Member went on to draw attention to Ref. 13 Ashchurch Bridge, set out at Pages No. 72-73 of the report, and noted that a Parish Council was taking Tewkesbury Borough Council to Court; however, it appeared the work was continuing regardless of that and she asked if that could go ahead without a decision on the appeal.  In response, the Corporate Director explained that the Judicial Review had ruled in the Council’s favour in January and all challenges had been dismissed but the Parishes had now lodged an appeal which had been taken to the High Court.  It made sense for work to go ahead as the Council had been successful in the first instance; however, nothing was being done that could not be stopped and no work would be formally contracted until the outcome of the case was known.  A Member raised concern that the grant which was underwriting the building of the bridge may not be enough going forward if costs continued to escalate and she asked whether there was a contingency built-in.  The Head of Finance and Asset Management advised that a sizable contingency had been included when the bid was submitted and the contractor had previously indicated that there was still sufficient budget; however, he recognised that costs were increasing almost daily so he would discuss this with the Garden Town Programme Director and ask the contractor to do a more detailed exercise to understand if the costs were still feasible within the current parameters.

47.8          In relation to Ref. 15 Climate Change, as set out at Pages No. 74-76 of the report, a Member noted that grant funding was now being used for the solar canopy and she asked whether the report needed to be updated as she understood that the cost had increased considerably.  The Head of Finance and Asset Management explained that the £284,000 funding that had been secured from the Public Sector Decarbonisation Scheme (PSDS) had been realigned to support the delivery of a solar canopy in the Council car park, rather than replacement of the heating systems within the Council Offices as originally intended.  A recent tender for the solar canopy had shown that total costs were now in the region of £533,000 rather than £303,000 as per estimates in autumn 2021 therefore a report was being taken to the Executive Committee meeting at the end of the month to request approval to utilise existing reserves in order to deliver the project.  Whilst there was a risk of losing the PSDS funding, he felt there was a valid case for the project to go ahead as it would be a visible sign of the Council’s carbon reduction ambitions and a way to address the rising costs of energy.  Members were informed that the Council’s bid for a further £700,000 to support the replacement heating system had been unsuccessful as the scheme had run out of funding but the Council was now in a good position to go ahead if there was another round of PSDS funding or another opportunity to support that scheme – Officers were keen to secure external funding for the project as soon as possible.

47.9          With regard to Ref. 17 Waste Transfer Station, as set out at Pages No. 76-77 of the report, a Member noted that, at the time of writing the report, the County Council had not renewed the contract and she asked for an update in relation to this.  The Head of Community Services explained that Grundon’s had gained planning permission which was in place until July 2022 but not beyond that so it needed to submit another planning application.  The County Council may consider signing another contract but it was not able to do that until a planning application had been submitted.  This was a massive risk to Tewkesbury Borough Council and would have a significant financial impact.

47.10        Having considered the information provided, it was

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

Supporting documents: