Agenda item

To receive a report from the Corporate Performance & Improvement Manager and the Head of People, Performance & Waste providing Members with a quarterly update on the Corporate Risk Register.

The Committee had before it, and NOTED, a report * from the Corporate Performance and Improvement Manager and the Head of People, Performance & Waste providing Members with a quarterly update on the Corporate Risk Register.

The following was highlighted within the report:

·         The report presented the Council's current corporate risks with an updated position following the most recent review period. These were the risks which were most likely to impact the Council in trying to meet its objectives. This report was produced quarterly and presented to this committee for Member’s scrutiny, comment and feedback.

·         Paragraph 2.1 of the report presented a summary table of the 17 corporate risks that the Council was currently managing.

·         A risk matrix was presented at Appendix 1 showing the relative position of a corporate risk.

·         Appendix 2 of the report provided further details for each risk in a standard template.

·         Any significant changes to the Corporate Risk Register since it was last reported to committee were listed in the covering report at paragraph 2.3.

Discussion took place regarding:

·         The Council’s approach to enforcement, not only in the Planning area but also in regard to safeguarding and anti-social behaviour. This came up again and again as an issue for residents. It was explained that enforcement was a discretionary service and there needed to be proportionate measures in place to deal with compliance and income protection. More resource was now available within the Planning Enforcement team which it was hoped would alleviate some of the concerns in this area moving forwards. It was the officer’s view that at the moment enforcement was being effectively managed but the Corporate Risk Register was ‘owned’ by Members so if they felt the risk needed to be rated differently then it was within their gift to amend. It was confirmed that the next Corporate Risk review cycle consideration would be given by officers to ensuring enforcement was appropriately considered on the Corporate Risk Register.

·         Staffing levels within the Building Control area and whether the risk needed to have a higher rating?

·         The rating of risks should be considered in relation to the other risks on the Corporate Risk Register, such as Cyber Security.

·         Some people had been on the Devon Home Choice Band C or D for many years. Could more be done to help with this and move people up the banding? Officers agreed it would be a useful discussion to be held by Homes PDG.  The Council was being proactive in building more social housing. There are many components to the housing crisis, if the Committee wanted the Risk Register to have more information streams within it regarding this issue then it could request this.

·         It was agreed that the risk description against the ‘cost of living crisis’ needed to be updated from the 2022/2023 description to include reference to increases in relation to rising costs for such things as water, Council Tax and utilities.

·         More context was provided around the rating for ‘Financial Sustainability’ in terms of the unprecedented amount of uncertainty with the predicted levels of forthcoming Government funding. It was currently rated as a high risk area as relevant factors were outside of the Council’s control.

·         Cyber Security was seen as the greatest risk to the Council but there were many mitigations in place to address this.

·         The process for rating risks was explained whereby managers would rate risks initially by completing the 5x5 matrix and then submitting their assessments to the Corporate Management Team who would then consider this and refer it on to Leadership Team for further check and challenge. The process was very robust. Ultimately the Audit Committee provided the final check and challenge.

·         The management of risk in relation to ‘unsold property’ was deemed to be appropriate.

·         Risks in relation to the ‘Homes for Ukraine Scheme’ could potentially be removed from the Register during the next review.

·         Whether the Cyber Security risk and Information Governance risk should be amalgamated. It was confirmed that they are different risks, although some of the mitigations in place are similar.

·         Whether the rating in relation to the ‘Emergency Planning Response’ should be higher? It was explained that it was the managers view that this risk was correctly scored and that the mitigating actions in place were ‘fit for purpose’.

·         The Register recoded the biggest strategic risks, the Committee were reassured that all other risks were monitored under different processes.

Note: * Report previously circulated.