Agenda item

Mr Mark Scrivener (Corporate Risk Manager) and Mr Tony Harwood (Resilience and Emergency Planning Manager) were in attendance for this item.

1.         Mr Scrivener introduced the report which presented the strategic risks relating to the Growth, Economic Development and Communities Cabinet Committee and comprised of three risks on the Corporate Risk Register, and a summary of Key risks from the Growth, Environment and Transport directorate.

2.         Mr Jones, Ms Holt-Castle, Mr Murphy, and Mr Harwood responded to the following questions and comments from Members:

(a)  Asked about the risks relating to the maintenance of community assets, the use of preferred suppliers and the criteria used for tenders, Mr Jones said the Council was bound by stringent procurement legislation and noted the importance of securing quality providers.

(b)  Asked about risk CRR0003 in connection with securing Section 106 and Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) developer contributions, Mr Murphy said the Council did not have any statutory powers to enforce the payment of contributions and the only current recourse was legal action. He said the outcome of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill was still awaited and would include proposals for the CIL and Section 106 process. Ms Holt-Castle said the Council worked constructively and robustly with the districts and boroughs, as the local planning authorities, to understand the current processes that were in place and develop a mutual understanding of the funding required for community infrastructure. Asked about dedicated legal representation, Ms Holt-Castle said to date this was done on an ad hoc basis depending on individual developments.  Mr Jones said the same legal representatives were used where at all possible to provide consistent specialised support. He emphasised that the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill was critical legislation and teams within the GET directorate had responded to the National Planning Policy Framework consultation.

(c)  Asked about risk CRR0004 in relation to service continuity and the increased risk of cyber-crime, Mr Harwood said changes to working since the pandemic had changed the risk to the Council (but not increased it) and assured members that business continuity plans were being upgraded to match the current risk and threat. He said the Council’s business continuity function was being systemised, and made more resilient, and several exercises were taking place around cyber attack scenarios and sustained power outages.  A Member commented that home working could pose a security risk and Mr Jones said from an operational perspective the Council was educating and providing as many tools as possible to alert people to the risks and measures were being taken to support staff.

(d)  Asked why the current and target scores for risk CRR0003 were high, Ms Holt-Castle said this related to situations where the Council could not directly manage the risk for example the national economic position and the management of the shared prosperity fund by districts.

(e)  A Member commented that it would be helpful if future reports included the assessed risk from the last report to show the direction of travel.

(f)   Asked how simultaneous emergency was defined, Mr Harwood said it was different events taking place concurrently and noted that simultaneous events were taking place every day.  He said the consequences of an emergency, however broad, was one operational response.

RESOLVED that Members’ comments on the risks presented be noted.