Agenda item

The Cabinet is requested to consider the agenda reportand its six appendices, of which appendix 2(b) is Part II restricted* for the information of members and relevant officers only (printed on salmon paper), and to make (a) the following recommendation to the Council and (b) in addition resolutions with regard to the matters indicated:

 

A - RECOMMENDATION TO THE COUNCIL

 

That the updated Risk Management Policy and Strategy be approved.

 

B - RESOLUTIONS BY THE CABINET

 

1)          That the current strategic risk register and the internal controls in place, plus any associated action plans to manage those risks be noted, and to raise any issues or concerns.

2)          That the current high scoring programme board and organisational risks and the associated mitigation actions in place be noted, and to raise any issues or concerns.

 

[*Note Paragraph 3 (information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information)) of Part I of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972]

RECOMMENDED TO THE COUNCIL

 

That the updated Risk Management Policy and Strategy, including the amendments made by the Corporate Governance and Audit Committee, be approved.

 

RESOLVED BY THE CABINET

 

(1)  That the current strategic risk register and the internal controls in place, plus any associated action plans to manage those risks, including the amendments made by the Corporate Governance and Audit Committee, be noted.

 

(2)  Both the current high scoring programme board and organisational risks and the associated mitigation actions in place, including the amendments made by the Corporate Governance and Audit Committee, be noted.

 

[Note In order to accommodate the availability of a CDC member who wished to ask a question with reference to this agenda item Mr Dignum said that it would be taken before agenda item 5 (minute 507) although in these minutes the published order of business is observed]

 

The Cabinet received and considered the agenda report and its four appendices, the second part of the second appendix being confidential exempt Part II material circulated to members and relevant officers only.  

 

This item was introduced by Mr Wilding.

 

Mr Ward was available to answer questions on this matter.

 

Mr Wilding explained that the report principally drew to the Cabinet’s attention the changes which were being proposed to CDC’s Risk Management Policy and Strategy (pages 23 to 35), last updated in 2014, for recommendation to the Council. The main changes were necessary to reflect the new CDC senior management structure. CDC’s Strategic Risk Group and Corporate Governance and Audit Committee (CGAC) had each scrutinised the changes. The CGAC had recommended on 29 March 2018 some further minor amendments which were set out in a draft minute extract (circulated in hard copy to the Cabinet at the start of this meeting), which he supported. The report also contained (pages 36 to 64) details of the current Strategic Risk Register, any high scoring risks for the Programme Boards and organisational risks, including the mitigation actions in place to help manage those risks. These were reviewed on a quarterly basis. The Risk Management Framework (page 35) delineated the roles, responsibilities, reporting lines, escalation routes and on-going monitoring procedures. The foregoing reflected the established process to ensure that risk management was embedded throughout CDC to help in securing delivery of its Corporate Plan objectives and individual services to the community. Members could thereby be assured that risks were identified, considered and managed appropriately in accordance with the approved strategy.

 

Mr Dignum emphasised the thoroughness of the review which had been undertaken and repeated Mr Wilding’s affirmation that the CGAC’s proposed changes were endorsed.

 

Mr Barrow raised two points with regard to the Strategic Risk Register:

 

(1)  CRR 88 – Non Achievement of Recycling Target of 50% by 2020 (page 50): whether the risk of CDC not achieving the 50% recycling target by 2020 could be affected by decisions taken by the West Sussex County Council partnership of waste and recycling collection authorities. Mrs Shepherd said that the risk had been carefully considered by the responsible officer for this matter and by SLT, and it was subject to a quarterly review which would take account of any changes which might affect the risk scoring. The recycling rate trajectory was pleasing. There were a range of initiatives being led by Mr Barrow and Mr Connor.  Mr Dignum observed that the current recycling rate of 45% was expected to be enhanced by an additional 2.5% for additional green waste collected.

 

(2)  CRR 149 - Impact of Universal Credit (UC) on working claimants across the district (page 57): the reason for the difference in the risk score which was shown as 9 in March 2018 and predicted to be 3 in March 2019. Mrs Shepherd explained that the current risk was 6 and the target risk was 3. She said that until UC was fully implemented (there were ongoing delays) it was difficult to assess the impact but CDC was well prepared to assist claimants with the emerging process. Mr Dignum added that for the time being UC would apply only to new and not extant claimants.

 

Mr Barrow responded to a question by Mr Connor as to whether there was a risk of loss of income from certain plastics no longer being recycled but instead being reused by retailers. It was not possible to say how many retailers would deploy the equipment to enable them to do this but the cost was likely to deter many retailers.

 

Mr Dignum invited Mr J Brown (Southbourne) to the table to read out two questions which he had submitted in advance and to receive a response from Mr Wilding.

 

Questions

 

With respect to CRR 147 Southern Gateway Regeneration and certain recommendations made by the CGAC with respect thereto at its meeting on 29 March 2018:

 

(1)  What specific actions are being taken to mitigate against the reputational and financial risks to the Council identified in the report?

 

(2)  What is going to be done between now and the end of September to lower the likelihood of anything going wrong with this project from ‘probable’ to ‘unlikely’?

 

Responses

 

Mr Wilding thanked Mr Brown for his questions and provided the following responses:

 

(1)  What specific actions are being taken to mitigate against the reputational and financial risks to the Council identified in the report?

 

·       Financial exposure is predominantly associated with the risk of needing to pay back the LEP grant.  As this grant is most likely to be used to purchase relocation assets, then Chichester District Council (CDC), if it does have to repay the grant, will have assets that it can sell to recoup its outlay. In addition Accredited Valuer sign off in accordance with the Red Book/IFRS standards will apply to any purchases made that will mitigate against their being any shortfall in the event of repayment.  The balance of the funding is One Public Estate funding (£80.000) which does not need to be repaid and CDC funding of £75,000 which is being spent on consultancy to advise the project team. 

 

·       Reputational risk is minimised by close liaison with the community groups and stakeholders and clear and concise messages in accordance with the approved Communications Strategy.

 

(2)  What is going to be done between now and the end of September to lower the likelihood of anything going wrong with this project from ‘probable’ to ‘unlikely’?

 

·       Law Courts handover – high level engagement at ministerial level (by the project sponsor, Leader and MP) is designed to ensure the transfer from the Ministry of Justice to Homes England (HE) takes place without any further delay.  Local ‘pop up’ court provision has been offered by CDC and is available at short notice.

 

·       West Sussex County Council (WSCC) land – WSCC officers are now actively engaged with the Academy and Homes England to enable their land to be included.  Key activity is to be completed before the end of April.

 

·       Legal consultancy is being commissioned (appointment expected May 2018) and one of the first tasks of the commission will be to conclude a tri-partite agreement between the key strategic landowners (CDC/WSCC/HE) that will contractually bind us to bring the sites collectively to the market provided certain conditions are met and agree the distribution of receipts and expenditure.

 

·       Growth Deal – action now completed and Growth Deal signed by WSCC/CDC – this devotes resources from both organisations to the project.

 

·       Relocation sites – negotiations are actively taking place with owners of potential sites and those businesses involved.  Once terms are agreed they will be reported to the Cabinet (and the Council if necessary) for approval.

 

·       Key studies to identify abnormal costs have either been completed or are commissioned.  Expected completion date for outstanding studies is end of April 2018.

 

·       Public sector funding shortfall – further funding streams are being explored including the progress of the £10bn funding announced in the budget statement last autumn which has not yet been distributed.  In the absence of further funding to plug the gap the project will commence on a phased basis.  With government committed to the delivery of housing and jobs there is every prospect that further funding streams will become available.

 

He concluded by saying that all of the risks were reviewed and considered by the project team at its monthly meetings.

 

Mr Dignum invited Mr Brown to ask a supplementary question.

 

Mr Brown thanked Mr Wilding for his responses. He asked if it was felt that the target risk score of 3 by 28 September 2018 was realistic. Mr Wilding requested Mr Over to reply.

 

Mr Over explained that precision about dates could never be ensured with a complex regeneration scheme on this scale. The required mitigation measures were in place. CDC, WSCC and HE were liaising with the various landowners to ensure actions were completed in time. Despite the short timetable, negotiations with the landowners had been taking place for several months and the process was on track.

 

Mr Dignum emphasised that no speculative investments were being contemplated in this scheme. 

 

Decision

 

The Cabinet voted unanimously on a show of hands to make the recommendation to the Council and its own resolutions set out below.

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDED TO THE COUNCIL

 

That the updated Risk Management Policy and Strategy including the amendments made by the Corporate Governance and Audit Committee be approved.

 

RESOLVED BY THE CABINET

 

(1)  That the current strategic risk register and the internal controls in place, plus any associated action plans to manage those risks be noted, including the amendments made by the Corporate Governance and Audit Committee.

 

(2)  Both the current high scoring programme board and organisational risks and the associated mitigation actions in place be noted, including the amendments made by the Corporate Governance and Audit Committee.