Cabinet Member for Organisational Delivery
Decision:
It was RESOLVED:-
1.1 That the contents of the 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:
79.1 The Corporate Manager introduced the half year Significant Risk Register and a summary of the work of the Audit and Risk Management Services team during the first half of the year to Cabinet.
79.2 The current Risk Register had 28 risks. 17 scored as medium, 9 as high and 2 as very high. Since the Register was last reported to Cabinet (March 2018) 2 new risks had been added to the Register:
o Gateway 14 – this new risk relates to Mid Suffolk DC only.
o Agile working arrangements – this risk was formerly 5e covering both public access and agile worki8ng arrangements and had now been split.
79.3 Consideration to a new risk for Brexit was ongoing and it was understood that it was a Countywide consideration to this and an update would be provided to Cabinet when it became available.
79.4 All Service areas now had a service risk register.
79.5 The Corporate Manager said that the Assistant Directors should by now have contacted their respective Cabinet Members to update them on the risks.
79.6 Councillor Lawrenson commented that he had not received any information regarding the Risk Register for the Assistant Directors.
79.7 Councillor Barrett referred to risk 1b and said that that currently the Judicial Review for the Appeals were causing problems for the Council and would have an impact on the significant Risk Register operations. The Corporate Manager responded that currently Tom Barker – Assistant Director – Planning and Communities was managing this on the Operational Risk Register.
79.8 Councillor Ridley provide Members with an update of the recent judicial reviews including the Worsley Grange, which he considered a success. He informed the Cabinet that Boxford had been dismissed at the Planning Inspector.
79.9 Councillor Jan Osborne referred to 2b and said that the narrative would have to change as a result of the recent developments of Sudbury bypass, which would have an impact on the economic development in the area.
79.10 Councillor Lawrenson asked if big developers had an advantage over smaller developers, as a result of Government policy for affordable housing. He felt that big developers’ avoidance of including affordable housing in their developments remained a problem for the Council. He asked if the Council had any influence over this, as he was concerned that this in some way exploited the residents in Babergh. He considered this a risk to the residents of Babergh and asked that this was noted in the minutes.
79.11 Councillor Ridley responded there was a robust consultation with developers and that this included affordable housing, but it was a matter of frustration that it was not possible to single out one developer over another.
79.12 Councillor Ward ask Councillor Ridley to raise the issue with either the Planning or Housing Departments.
79.13 Councillor McCraw quired risk 5J and asked why it was considered a risk if the Council did not adopt a new development model. This indicated that the Council would not be financial sustainable if the new development model was not agreed.
79.14 The Corporate Manager – Internal Audit agreed to look at the wording with the risk owner to further clarify the risk narrative.
79.15 Councillor Ridley MOVED Recommendation 3.1, page 47, which was seconded by Councillor Lawrenson.
By a unanimous vote
It was RESOLVED: -
That the contents of this report, supported by Appendix A and B, be approved.
Supporting documents: