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:

24.1          The report of the Head of Finance and Asset Management, circulated at Pages No. 27-51, asked Members to consider the risks contained within the corporate risk register and assurance that the risks were being effectively managed.

24.2          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. 29 of the report.  It was noted that a lot of work had been done around Ref. 3 Cyber Security, which remained the biggest risk to the Council, and a review of individual service plans had commenced in relation to Ref. 5 Business Continuity.  It was proposed to remove Ref. 6 Safeguarding as the arrangements were well managed with the annual report due for consideration later on today’s Agenda.  It was also proposed to remove Ref. 12 COVID-19 Recovery as the outstanding actions in the COVID-19 Recovery Plan had transitioned back to the Council Plan and the majority of services had returned to ‘business as usual’.  A considerable amount of work was underway in relation to Ref. 13 Climate Change including options for the replacement of the vehicle fleet from 2024.  It was noted that three new risks had been added to the register – Ref. 16 Cost of Living Support which related to demand on services, Ref. 17 Migration which was around how the Council was supporting Ukrainian refugees and Ref. 18 Joint Strategic Plan.

24.3          A Member asked whether Ref. 13 Climate Change took into account savings and investments as, although there would be an associated cost, that would be even greater going forward if action was not taken now.  With regard to Page No. 40, Ref. 9 Growth Hub, she asked whether the UK Shared Prosperity Fund (UKSPF) replaced the European funding which the Council had previously received and what the likelihood would be of the Growth Hub failing to deliver the necessary outputs and the capital grant having to be repaid.  In response, the Head of Finance and Asset Management confirmed that the UKSPF replaced the European funding and he advised that the Growth Hub was exceeding requirements so, as far as he was aware, there was no danger of having to return any money.  He explained that the Growth Hub Navigator post had been in place for six years and was in the base budget for three.  He was aware of the grant condition and the threat that posed so wanted to make sure the agreement was being delivered in line with that clause and he was satisfied with regard to that.  The Head of Corporate Services recommended that the risk be removed as it was within the ‘green’ risk score.  The Overview and Scrutiny Committee had previously received an annual report on the Growth Hub but Members felt that was unnecessary given that they were happy with how it was operating. 

24.4          A Member drew attention to Page No. 41, Ref. 10 Garden Town and indicated that she understood the costs in relation to the J9/A46 project had increased from £8m to £14m and the consultation had been delayed.  The Committee had been due to receive an update on the consultation at its meeting in September but that had been cancelled so she asked for an indication of what risks were associated with this project.  The Tewkesbury Garden Town Programme Manager shared these concerns but advised that the initiative was being led by the County Council so it was necessary to work within its processes and systems and the requirements of National Highways and the Department for Transport etc.  She understood that things had gone back to the drawing board which was why the consultation had been pushed back by six to eight months.  The Member asked for a view on what would be the best for Tewkesbury and the Tewkesbury Garden Town Programme Manager indicated that, when the transport modelling was undertaken, it would be important to be clear what the Garden Town and Tewkesbury Borough Council would like to see delivered through that in order to be able to inform the process rather than react to it – this would also form part of the evidence base for the Joint Strategic Plan.  The Head of Development Services explained that, without any upgrade or changes to the J9/A46, there was an issue with capacity to accommodate growth in that location – whilst the quantum of development could go forward without the highways infrastructure in place, it would be necessary to work with colleagues to understand the timescale for J9 coming forward otherwise the ability to deliver growth in the borough would be seriously curtailed.  In terms of the Joint Strategic Plan, it was necessary to demonstrate that sites could come forward and Officers were working with Gloucestershire County Council to understand the thinking of the outline business case and development consent order for the particular project as well as looking at alternative options, although she did not know what those would be.  The County Council was looking to consult sometime next year but the timeline had not been confirmed.  There was a big risk to the Garden Town going forward without that certainty.  The Chair indicated that he understood the consultation had been delayed to allow more detailed work on various route options.

24.5          In response to a query regarding Page No. 47, Ref. 15 Waste Transfer Station at Wingmoor Farm, and whether there was any indication as to when the second planning application would be determined by the County Council, the Head of Corporate Services undertook to find out and advise Members following the meeting.  A Member indicated that, in terms of corporate risk, there seemed to be a problem with the planning function in relation to the capacity of the department and the ability to attract a sufficient number of suitably qualified staff so he was surprised this was not referenced within the corporate risk register and asked if there would be a business impact on the authority if it failed to deliver a reasonable service.  The Head of Development Services indicated that recruitment and retention was an issue for a number of sectors within the Council; in terms of Planning, it was being managed within the organisation and contractors were appointed to support the department.  The Member explained that his concern was the level of interaction between the Planning department and the public – whilst the public would not necessarily feel the impact of a lack of staff in an internal facing service such as IT, Planning was front and centre in terms of outward facing services.  The Head of Development Services undertook to discuss with Management Team whether there was a need to include this as a corporate risk.  Another Member expressed the view that staff shortages was a topic that most businesses would consider to be a significant risk.  She felt that lack of qualified staff put a major strain on the Council’s ability to perform.  The Head of Corporate Services agreed this needed to be discussed by Management Team to establish whether there was merit in including it as a corporate risk based on the profile of the Planning service and to give the Committee assurance the Development Management Review was effective at managing the risk. 

24.6          With regard to Page No. 42, Ref. 11 Non-delivery of Ashchurch Bridge project, a Member asked if there was a date for the appeal and noted that the original budget was approximately £8m but asked how much it was now and whether the government would pay.  The Corporate Director advised that the appeal would be on either 13 or 14 December but the precise date would not be confirmed until a day or two before.  In terms of the cost of the project, a recent report to the Executive Committee had suggested it would be in the region of £12m.  The Tewkesbury Garden Town Programme Manager advised that it was hoped the project would come in at around £10m but it was hard to be precise until the market was tested.  She confirmed that Officers were in conversation with Homes England regarding the additional cost but conversations were also taking place with regard to other potential sources of funding.  In response to a query as to what happened if the Parish Council won the appeal, the Corporate Director advised that the planning permission would be quashed on the basis of a technical reason and the application would need to be reconsidered by the Planning Committee resulting in a delay of several months.  The Member raised concern that there would be a limit to any extension Homes England might give in terms of funding and the Tewkesbury Garden Town Programme Manager advised that the national programme deadline was March 2024 so Treasury approval would be needed to work past that deadline – there were other schemes in the programme with that approval but there would need to be a significant reason and there were no guarantees. 

24.7          A Member drew attention to Page No. 48, Ref. 16 Cost of Living, and asked if the government funded the difference to cover the cost of the increase in people applying for benefits, for example, if 100 people normally paid Council Tax but 60 of those were suddenly eligible for benefits so the Council’s revenue was reduced as a result.  The Head of Finance and Asset Management advised that the direct increase in benefit payments was generally covered by growth in Council Tax income.  The Member noted there had been mention of a working group in relation to this risk and she asked if that would include Councillors.  The Head of Corporate Services advised that a report had been taken to Executive Committee setting out the Council’s response and a cross-service Officer group had been established and would meet monthly; to his knowledge a Member group had not been recommended.

24.8          Having considered the information provided it was

RESOLVED          1.   That the risks and mitigating controls within the corporate risk register be NOTED.

2.   That it be AGREED that the following risks be removed from   the corporate risk register:

- Ref. 6 – Safeguarding

- Ref. 9 – Growth Hub

- Ref. 12 – COVID-19 Recovery

Supporting documents: