Issue - meetings

The Head of Strategic Finance and Property submitted a report on the Strategic Risk Register for 2019/20.  She referred to a number of updates which would need to be addressed such as reference to the newly appointed Chief Executive and the Head of Planning and Building Control and the adoption of the District Plan.  Members debated the report at length raising a number of concerns in relation to the risk allocation scores in respect of:

·       1a -    Business rates: Members were advised that provision had been made in the Council’s accounts and allocated in the event to Business Rate Appeals and reviewed  on an annual basis - Members felt was too high). 

·       2 -      Workforce: from an HR perspective whether some departments were more at risk in terms of an inability to fill critical positions which could impact on the organisational structure. The Head of Strategic Finance and Property Services explained the difficulties experienced by Planning and Environmental Health in recruiting staff; 

·       5a -    Information Management: whether there were plans to recruit a permanent Data Protection Officer (as the post was temporarily being covered by the Head of Legal and Democratic Services);

·       5b -   Cyber risk: the likelihood score of 2 in relation to cyber management. The Head of Strategic Finance and Property explained that she was confident that the service was compliant and protected;

·       6 -      Development of strategic sites: allocated a likelihood score of 3.  Members asked  whether the Master Plan would have a positive impact on this score? The Head of Strategic Finance suggested that the Portfolio Holder (Councillor G Cutting) might be able to provide more insight and suggested that an informal meeting be arranged to consider this further.  This was supported. The quality of new build and how this might impact on the Council’s reputation was also discussed. 

·       8 and 9 – compliance with the Childrens’ Act 2004 and Safeguarding Adults and the differentials in their scoring.  Members’ requested that the Head of Housing and Health provide an explanation;

·       10 -    Encouragement of Economic Viability: whether the Council was flexible and sufficiently dynamic to respond to possibilities and of the need to ensure that there was a joined up approach across the entire District.  Members requested an update from the Portfolio Holder and the Head of Communications, Policy and Strategy;   

·       11 – Emergency planning:  why the impact score was 3 and not 4. An update was requested from the Head of Housing and Health;

·       12 -    Referendum vote to leave EU: how this would impact on sources of Council procurement in terms of the decision to leave the EU in a “no-deal” scenario. 

It was felt by Members that further clarity was needed as to the nature of the risks themselves, the rationale behind the scoring, and mitigation measures.  A session to cover this as well as other aspects of PAGO work would be set up before the next committee meeting.

It was moved by Councillor M Pope and seconded by Councillor T Stowe that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 28