Agenda item

To consider the report of the Director of Resources, (copy enclosed).

The Committee considered the report of the Director of Resources providing an update on the position at the end of Quarter 4 (31 March 2018) on the corporate risks included within the Corporate Risk Register 2017 / 18. 

Councillor M S Heard referred to his earlier declaration of interest at this point.

There was some discussion regarding the last quarterly review and the resolutions made by the Committee at its meeting in March 2018 (as detailed in the Minutes).  Members were advised that these had been considered by the Corporate Leadership Team (CLT) when assessing the risk scores for Quarter 4.  In particular the following risks were discussed:

·                 Risk 03 – Failure to target services and influence partners effectively to meet the health and wellbeing needs of the vulnerable population
The Customers Manager provided an update on the activities being developed, such as a new live well Health and Wellbeing and Strengthening Communities Strategy, along with multi-agency partnership working and the work being done to target vulnerable groups.  Members were reminded that this risk related to failure to identify and target and not about the specific policy.

The Customers Manager confirmed that an update on the various activities and projects being undertaken to support both health and wellbeing and strengthening communities formed part of the Strengthening Communities Vision report being considered by the Council.

Members felt that until there was some evidence that the services were making a difference that the score should not be reduced.

The Director of Resources suggested that the title of this risk be amended to include “and have an effective outcome to meet the health and wellbeing needs of the vulnerable population”.  This was agreed.

Following further discussions it was agreed that this Committee would recommend that the CLT review this risk taking into consideration how it referred to an outcome rather than specific targeting.

·                 Risk 05 – Failure to have a clear shared vision regarding Strengthening Communities
It was noted that this risk was not being carried over to the 2018 / 19 Corporate Risk Register on the assumption that a new Strengthening Communities Vision would be adopted.  Concern was expressed that this risk was being removed prior to the adoption of the vision.  The Director of Customers and Community explained that a Working Group made up of both Officers and Members had been working on the Community Strategy which was due to be considered by the Council at its July meeting.  If the Council did not agree that the risk should be removed then it would be revisited at that stage.

In response to a question, the Director of Customers and Community advised that the risk could be held in the risk register until the Council had considered the vison in July and revisit it at the next meeting of this Committee.

·                 Risk 06 – Failure to deliver the required infrastructure to support development arising from the Local Development Plan
The Director of Customers and Community reported that this risk had not been split in two, as recommended by the Committee.  He provided an update on the North Heybridge Flood Alleviation and how the developer was coming forward with an alternative plan and further work with the Environment Agency would be required.  It was noted that the wording around this risk would need revising given the current circumstances.

It was felt by Members that due to the importance of this risk it should still be split into two.

The Community Infrastructure Levy was raised as a large risk to the Authority and in particular how this impacted on the whole of the Local Development Plan and should therefore be included within this risk.  The Director of Planning and Regulatory Services agreed and advised that delivery of Section 106 agreements was also important.  He advised that this would need to be clarified within this risk.

·                 Risk 07 – Failure to have a clear shared plan regarding strategic ownership of coastal, fluvial and surface water flood mitigation and long term maintenance responsibilities
Members were advised that meetings were still to take place with partners on coastal fluvial flooding and would be reported back to this Committee once these had taken place.

Councillor Miss M R Lewis raised particular concern, as a Heybridge Ward Member, regarding this risk and the need for communication with Ward Members.  She referred to reputational damage to the Council and questioned whether this should be a separate risk along with the Flood Alleviation Scheme.  The Director of Resources advised that she had noted these concerns and others raised by Members during the debate.

·                 Risk 11 – Failure to have a co-ordinated approach to supporting new and existing businesses
The Director of Planning and Regulatory Services reported on ongoing work planned to look at mitigation, improving targets and he commented that the Economic Strategy was shortly due to be reviewed.  Members noted that whilst the impact in relation to this risk had increased the Director of Planning and Regulatory Services hoped that the planned work would be embedded and address the mitigation.

In response to a question regarding Economic Development and businesses looking to expand, the Director of Planning and Regulatory Services advised that economic growth was important within the planning process and how planning applications had to comply with the National Planning Policy Framework.

In light of further comments, the Director of Resources suggested that when the CLT meet to review this risk that a note was taken so that Members were able to clearly see the discussion that had taken place.

Members’ discussed Appendix 1 to the report which provided further information on individual risks including comments by the risk owners outlining the rationale for the current scoring and any movement in the risk scores.  A debate ensued during which a number of comments and questions were raised by Members and the following information provided:

·                 Risk 9 – Failure to maintain a 5 year supply of Housing Land – In response to a question regarding the Housing Delivery Test, the Director of Planning and Regulatory Services commented that this could potentially be another risk because there would be greater implications to deliver the housing function.

A question was raised about when the Five Year Housing Land Supply position statement submitted to the Secretary of State would be available to Members and in response the Director of Planning and Regulatory Services explained that surveys were currently being undertaken and once the statement had been prepared this would be made available to Members.

·                 Risk 10 – Failure to meet the affordable housing need – In response to a question regarding the drop in risk score, the Director of Planning and Regulatory Services advised that community housing schemes were being developed and would be reported to the Council.  He highlighted other factors which had led to the reduction in score.

It was noted that in accordance with the approved Risk Management Policy, a review of the Corporate Risk Register for 2018 / 19 had been undertaken by CLT and managers.  The risks identified and agreed along with the mitigating actions established were detailed in Appendix 2 to the report. 

In response to a question regarding whether the Council had a suicide prevention policy, the Director of Customers and Community advised that Broader Essex were developing a global policy which the Council would be looking to adopt.  Members were advised that some front line staff had received suicide training and others were due to attend a conference on identifying suicide.  The Director also outlined some of the ongoing work being undertaken to identify, signpost and support the public.

Members were advised that training for Members on safeguarding including emerging issues such as drugs etc. was currently being put together.  This would be delivered by December 2018.

A number of comments were raised regarding Appendix 2 and in response the following information was provided:

·                 Risk 2 – Failure to target services and influence partners effectively to meet the identified health and wellbeing needs of the vulnerable population – It was confirmed that the total risk score for this risk should be 9.

·                 Risk 4 – Failure to influence Community Safety partners to address the key areas of public concern and the negative perception of crime – A Member commented that the Nuclear Regulatory Authority had recently reported that it could not take Bradwell A into care and maintenance as it was not satisfied that the Police could respond in a timely manner to an incident at the Power Station and how this would impact on public perception of crime.  In response, the Director of Customers and Community explained that this risk had been designed to look at the corporate risk and the matter referred to related to services not provided by the Council.  The Director agreed to speak to Essex Police on the basis of public concern and public perception of the risk around the power station and reported that concerns could also be addressed through the Community Safety Partnership.

In response to a question regarding the inclusion of reference to rural areas in the description of this risk, the Director of Customers and Community agreed to amend the risk description accordingly.

Members were reminded that the Overview and Scrutiny Committee when it met as the Crime and Disorder Committee reviewed the performance of Essex Police.  It was further agreed that this matter be referred to the Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee for consideration.

·                 Risk 5 – Failure to deliver the required infrastructure to support development arising from the LDP – It was clarified that risks in relation to lone workers etc. were included as part of service registers. 

·                 Risk 6 – Failure to have a clear shared plan regarding strategic ownership of coastal, fluvial and surface water flooding mitigation and long term maintenance responsibilities - The Director of Customers and Community explained how this risk ensured that the Council was engaging with relevant strategic partnerships to demonstrate that they were addressing long term flood concerns for the District.  He highlighted the specific work carried out regarding coastal flooding making particular reference to the Southminster railway line.  The Director advised that the Council was currently considering planning issues relating to an expected planning application in relation to the Southminster railway line.

It was recognised that this risk was about applying leverage and holding partners to account and although the Council may not be a statutory partner on a project it could have an interest for residents of the District and would in this role be required to hold partners to account.

Following further discussion it was agreed that the Committee would recommend to the CLT that it review this risk with a view to segregating the risks within it and following this review it be brought back to the Committee for consideration.

·                 Risk 13 – Failure to manage impact of organisational change – In light of the possible forthcoming changes to the Council, Members discussed rescoring both the likelihood and Impact scores for this risk.  It was noted that this would be done by the CLT as part of its review of the first quarter for 2018 / 19.

·                 Risk 16 – Corporate Policies not managed and reviewed - A new policy documents database containing all Council policies was currently being populated and a link to this would be sent to all Members following a final review by the CLT at the end of June.  It was noted that the CLT would review the risk score at the end of June when carrying out its review of the first quarter for 2018 / 19.

·                 Risk 17 – Failure to maximise effectiveness of services through promotion and engagement – The Director of Resources highlighted that this was a new risk which would involve some work around engagement consultation as the Council started to work through the transformation strategy.

In response to a suggestion that if a ‘new look Council’ was agreed that it should look at zero basing all risks, the Director of Resources agreed and suggested that consideration of this should be looked at after the May 2019 elections.

RESOLVED that having reviewed the information set out in the report and Appendices the Corporate Leadership Team be requested to action the following:

(i)              Risk 04 – Failure to target services and influence partners effectively to support the increasing ageing population (regarding housing needs)

·         The title of this risk be amended to include “and have an effective outcome to meet the health and wellbeing needs of the vulnerable population”

·         Review this risk taking into consideration how it referred to an outcome rather than a specific target.

(ii)            Risk 06 – Failure to deliver the required infrastructure to support development arising from the Local Development Plan

·         That Members’ concerns regarding not splitting this risk into two be noted.

·         The importance of the Community Infrastructure Levy and the risk to the authority in relation to this be noted.

·         That the delivery of Section 106 agreements be clarified within this risk.

(iii)          Risk 07 – Failure to have a clear shared plan regarding strategic ownership of coastal, fluvial and surface water flood mitigation and long term maintenance responsibilities

·         Concerns regarding communications with Ward Members be considered;

·         The Council’s reputational damage be considered and whether there was a requirement for a separate risk around this along with the Flood Alleviation Scheme;

(iv)          Risk 11 – Failure to have a co-ordinated approach to supporting new and existing businesses – That when this risk was reviewed by the Corporate Leadership Team that a note be taken so that Members were able to clearly see the discussion that had taken place.

(v)            Risk 2 – Failure to target services and influence partners effectively to meet the identified health and wellbeing needs of the vulnerable population – The error in the total risk score for this risk be corrected to show 9.

(vi)          Risk 4 – Failure to influence Community Safety partners to address the key areas of public concern and the negative perception of crime

·         The Director of Resources to speak to Essex Police on the basis of public concern and public perception of the risk around the power station.

·         The title of the risk be amended to include reference to rural areas.

·         The concerns of this Committee be reported to the Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee (meeting as the Crime and Disorder Committee) for consideration when it reviewed the performance of Essex Police.

(vii)        Risk 6 – Failure to have a clear shared plan regarding strategic ownership of coastal, fluvial and surface water flooding mitigation and long term maintenance responsibilities - Review this risk with a view to segregating the risks within it and following this review the results be brought back to the Audit Committee for consideration.