Cabinet Member for Organisational Delivery
Decision:
MCa/18/39 – HALF YEAR SIGNIFICANT RISK REGISTER 2018/19 – UPDATE AND SUMMARY OF WORK UNDERTAKEN
It was RESOLVED:-
.1 That the content of this report, supported by Appendix A and B, be approved.
Reason for Decision: To provide assurances that risk management processes in place are robust and effective.
Alternative Options Considered and Rejected:
Risk management as an activity must accomplish the following tasks: identify concerns; identify risks and risk owners; evaluate the risks as to likelihood and consequences; assess the options for accommodating the risks and prioritise the risk management efforts.
Any Declarations of Interest declared: None
Any Dispensation Granted: None
Minutes:
76.1 Councillor Morley introduced the report and informed Cabinet that the report provided Cabinet with the half year significant risk register and a summary of the work of the Audit and Risk Management Services during the first six months of the year.
76.2 The current risk register had 28 risks, 17 were scored as medium, 9 as high and 2 very high. Since the register was last reported to Cabinet in March 2018, two new risks had been added to the register, Gateway14 - relating to the income and capital projections and economic outcomes not being delivered and agile working arrangements. This risk was originally 5e (covering both public access and agile working arrangements) but this had now been split. Consideration of a new risk relating to Brexit was also being undertaken and was the subject of county wide discussion at the moment. A further update would be provided when available.
76.3 Councillor Morley then MOVED the recommendations in the report, which Councillor Flatman SECONDED.
76.4 Councillor Otton asked why with the current issues relating to the five-year land supply the risk was not classed as significant and marked in red?
76.5 In response the Cabinet Member for Planning stated that at the time the report was produced the evidence that the Council had, at that time, was that they had a 6.5 year land supply. Now that an Inspector had challenged that and come up with a different number, the Inspector had tasked the Council to come back with further evidence to support the 6.5 year figure. The risk with regard to the five-year land supply hadn’t changed.
76.6 Councillor Otton queried risk 1e about the demographic of the needs of the district particularly around the aging population and stated that she was not convinced that the Council was acting on the information, she also asked for details under 5a relating to the new IT Board and what outcomes the new IT Board were looking for?
76.7 In response the Chief Executive informed Cabinet that the IT Board was an officer led Board looking at ongoing IT delivery and the partnership arrangements with the County. As for the risk around demographics, the Council was currently out to consultation with the draft Housing Strategy that firmly looked at needs both in terms of demographics as well as in terms of how the Council should be approaching and delivering against that need.
76.8 Councillor Otton then went on to ask about universal credit and how closely this was being monitored and also about risk 5J exploring alternative forms of council structure and what this meant?
76.9 In response the Assistant Director for Housing stated universal credit was monitored in the same way as all other rent arrear cases and in some cases was also monitored in isolation. There was an increase in rent arrears as a result of universal credit but there was an income management strategy in place to deal with this. A paper would be brought to Cabinet early in the new year summarising how successful the Council had been in delivering the pledges set out in that strategy. Officers were also working on an income management policy, which would be brought to Cabinet at the same time.
76.10 The Leader in response to the question on changing the governance structure of the Council stated that it was an existing risk that had been there for a long time and was related to the two councils merging. There had been no change on this since the previous report.
76.11 Councillor Welham asked if there was a clear link with 1b, 3a and 5f in the report and if one of the causes could be the lack of engagement with one of the consequences being stakeholder trust and whether these should be assessed alongside each other? He also went on to ask whether the Council should be using more staff rather than the existing staff to overcome the problem of blocked and stalled sites and whether on Gateway 14 there was significant expenditure day to day on borrowing but no income - should this be included as a risk?
76.12 In response the Cabinet Member for Planning told Cabinet that there was a link between 1b and not engaging with our communities, in response to this there had been a reshuffle in staffing and the Assistant Director for Planning was now overseeing Planning and Communities in an attempt to help unlock the conversations with communities about where growth goes. In response to the question relating to unblocking stalled sites the Council had not been able to appoint to this post externally, however Navigus planning consultants had since been appointed to undertake this work.
76.13 The Cabinet Member for Finance in response to the question relating to Gateway 14 told Cabinet that the borrowings that Gateway14 Ltd were taking on, incurred an interest charge based on market rate and that interest was accruing to the Council, so the Council was taking income from Gateway14. In reality Gateway 14 will not have the cash flow to pay the income for this until they make the developments.
By a unanimous vote.
It was RESOLVED: -
That the content of this report, supported by Appendix A and B of the report, be approved.
Reason for Decision: To provide assurances that risk management processes in place are robust and effective.
Supporting documents: