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:

11.1          The report of the Head of Finance and Asset Management, circulated at Pages No. 93-118, asked Members to consider the risks contained within the corporate risk register and assurance that the risks were being effectively managed.

11.2          The Head of Corporate Services advised that the corporate risk register was a strategic document which was brought to each Audit and Governance Committee.  The key updates since the last meeting were set out in the table at Page No. 95 of the report.  As previously discussed, it was proposed to remove Ref. 6 Emergency Planning as, although this remained a risk, the Council could demonstrate effective arrangements to manage it.  With regard to Ref. 9 Asset Management, Members were advised that funds had been redirected to asset management reserves to support need over the medium term – this was essential given the financial support required for the solar canopy project and the likely need for financial support towards the replacement of the heating system.  As had been reported to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, the production of an updated Asset Management Strategy had been postponed until 2022/23.  In terms of Ref. 11 Brexit, it was proposed to remove this risk from the register as it remained largely outside of the Council’s control.  Any financial impact resulting from Brexit compounded by the COVID pandemic and the Ukrainian crisis would be picked up through the financial sustainability risk.  In relation to Ref 14. COVID-19 Recovery, the COVID-19 recovery plan actions had been transitioned back into the refreshed Council Plan which was due to be considered by Council on 26 July.  Whilst the majority of services were in recovery mode, this had been further impacted by the additional pressures of other activities such as the energy rebate scheme and support to the Ukrainian refugee scheme.  As set out at Page No. 96, Paragraph 3.2 of the report, recruitment and retention of staff had been highlighted as an emerging risk and would be scored and evaluated for inclusion in the corporate risk register going forward.

11.3           The Chair indicated that today marked the 15 year anniversary of the 2007 floods and, since that time, Tewkesbury Borough Council had become extremely proficient with regard to emergency planning and there was an effective command system in place so, whilst it was important to remain vigilant, he was satisfied this risk could be removed from the corporate risk register and he thanked Officers for all of their hard work to get to this point.  The Head of Community Services indicated that a huge amount of work went into emergency planning and it was a real team effort, not just within the Council, but with partners such as the Local Resilience Forum.  He agreed it was right to remove the risk at this stage given the amount of experience of dealing with such events albeit with the recognition that there was always a risk that something unexpected would occur in future.

11.4           A Member drew attention to Page No. 98 of the report, Ref. 2 around the financial impact of the failure to deliver residential and business growth within the borough and, whilst she accepted that growth would attract significant additional funding streams including Council Tax, she asked whether this would cover the services needed by the people living and working in the new developments.  The Head of Finance and Asset Management advised there was no simple answer but rough figures suggested that Council Tax alone was insufficient to meet future needs and New Homes Bonus would also be needed along with retained business rates – the uncertainty over those future funding streams placed a question mark over the Council’s financial sustainability.  With regard to the same risk, the Member noted that Page No. 99 of the report referenced the A46 realignment business case development and she raised concern that this was taking years with another £6m recently being put into looking for a solution so the public wanted to know when it would be happening.  The Chair indicated that the A46 business case was strong in terms of infrastructure development for the future of the area so he did not see this as an amber risk.  Consultation would be taking place in September on the design of the road followed by a more detailed plan based on the comments received by the County Council.  The scheme would ultimately be delivered by National Highways.  As with all schemes of this nature, it was important to be transparent in terms of environmental issues etc. and a lot of work was needed before it could be delivered; the £6m recently invested would help to move forward to the outline business case.  In his view, this was a vital piece of work for the future of North Gloucestershire and it was important to get it right.  The Member indicated that the consultation had been promised but never seemed to come forward and the Chair advised that he understood that it was anticipated that it would be commencing in the autumn.

11.5           A Member raised concern in relation to removing Ref. 9 Brexit as the impacts were only just beginning to be felt and she was of the view that the justification for removing it on the basis that it was outside of the Council’s control could be applied to a number of other risks within the register.  In response, the Head of Community Services explained that he had included Brexit as a risk within the corporate risk register originally and, from his perspective, a lot of elements were outside the Council’s control so the authority could only prepare to a certain extent and he was confident that impacts associated with Brexit would be picked up through other mechanisms.  In terms of Ref. 12 Garden Town, a Member noted that Page No. 111 of the report stated that further “seed corn funding” had been received for the Garden Town and she asked for an explanation as to what that meant. The Head of Finance and Asset Management advised that, as Members were aware, the Garden Town was funded by a Government grant and it was an annual process to attract more funding – this year, over £250,000 had been received to keep moving forward.  It was intended that the initial funding would be used to get the Garden Town up and running until it reached the stage when it was self-funding.  With regard to Ref. 13 in relation to delivery of Ashchurch Bridge, the Member noted that Page No. 114 of the report set out that the project team was now pressing ahead with the project planning for the construction phase which was due to commence in early 2023 pending a final judgement from the court of appeal and she raised concern that, assuming the Council won the appeal, there would only be nine months for the build.  The Corporate Director explained that work was continuing whilst the outcome of the appeal was awaited – this risk had been balanced against the risk of not doing the work – and meant that once a decision had been reached, and assuming the Council won, it should be in a position to let the tender.

11.6           In terms of Ref. 15 in relation to climate change and carbon neutrality, a Member felt it should be noted that, whilst there was a significant financial impact, the carbon reduction programme would save the Council money in the long run – failing to make provision now would be a long-term risk which she felt had been demonstrated by the UK experiencing its hottest day on record which had not been expected until 2050.  The Head of Community Services advised that management team would be discussing whether this risk should be broadened to include extreme heat.  Turning to Ref. 16 National Driver Shortage, the Member expressed the view that Ubico had done a fantastic job during the pandemic, particularly given the staff shortages experienced, and the Chair asked Officers to pass on the Committee’s thanks to the team.  In terms of Ref. 17 in relation to the waste transfer station at Wingmoor Farm, the Member noted that a second planning application had been submitted to Gloucestershire County Council and she asked when that would be determined.  The Head of Community Services advised this was likely to be after July when the current planning permission expired after which it would be a matter for the County Council to determine whether any enforcement action was necessary.

11.7           With regard to Ref. 7 Use of Swindon Road Depot, a Member noted that elements of the lease had been reviewed and changes made to formalise the arrangements with Cheltenham Borough Council and he asked whether there was a break clause and how long Tewkesbury Borough Council would have to find an alternative location.  The Head of Community Services advised that he would need to check and report back to Members but he assumed it would be a minimum of one year.  He explained that it was intended that Tewkesbury Borough Council would invest in the site as an equal partner but that was a long-term piece of work and funding would need to be identified as part of that.

11.8           Having considered the information provided, it was

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

Supporting documents: