Corporate Risk Registeras at 30.6.15

Likelihood / 4
3
2
1
1 / 2 / 3 / 4
Impact

Impact Likelihood

4 – High4 – Very Likely

3 – Moderately High3 – Likely

2 – Moderately Low2 – Unlikely

1 – Low1 – Very Unlikely

Anything in the shaded area is considered to be“within the Council’s tolerance line”

Adequacy of controls:

Poor - no controls in place or the few that are do not mitigate the risk

Fair - some controls in place and some reduction in risk but still not adequate

Good - controls in place are considered adequate and reduce the risk

Excellent - effective controls are in place which reduce the risk considerably

Risk / Reasons / Consequences / Current Risk Score / Current Controls in Place / Adequacy of controls in place and
Evidence / Mitigating Actions being taken forward / Lead Officer on Mitigating Actions / Target dates
  1. Failure to safeguard children and vulnerable adults
Owner:
Director, Customers and Community
Date added to register:12/13 /
  • Failure to react to a concern raised
  • Records not kept up to date/inaccurate records
  • Staff and Members not trained
  • Lack of knowledge, awareness and understanding of the process
/
  • A vulnerable adult or child suffers injury or worse
  • Reputational damage to the Council for not acting on information received or concern raised
/ L - 2
I – 4
Risk Score = 8 /
  • Agreed policy in place which is subject to annual review
  • Agreed procedures in place
  • On-going training for staff who, within their role, may have interaction with children and/or vulnerable adults
  • Designated safeguarding officers within MDC
  • DBS checks undertaken for appropriate staff
  • Safeguarding information and designated areas on intranet
  • MDC Safeguarding group established to review policies and procedures and ensure communication and updates are discussed and awareness continued.
  • MDC participation in County wide Boards for safeguarding
  • Safeguarding is a standing agenda item for CLT to ensure that issues are discussed and awareness increased
/ Adequacy of Controls:
Good
Evidence:
Policy and procedures
Officers in place
Intranet information
Safeguarding group
CLT agenda item and minutes /
  1. Implement action plan following S11 Audit completed in Jan 2015
/
  1. Richard Holmes, Director, Customers and Community
/
  1. 30/09/15

  1. Failure to target services and influence partners effectively to meet the needs of the ageing population
Owner:
Group Manager, Customers
Date added to register:15/16 /
  • Difficulty to identify those within the ageing population
  • Lack of a customer database/ relationship management system
  • Silo working within the Council/ lack of co-ordination
  • Non-determination of what the needs are
  • No engagement to ascertain how ageing residents want to access services
  • Limited communication/co-ordination between partners (e.g. Community Agents)
/
  • Vulnerable residents unable to access services
  • Escalation in service needs
  • Impact on resources/costs
  • Duplication across agencies
  • Inefficiencies
  • Unable to develop and plan services
/ L - 3
I – 3
Risk Score = 9 /
  • Use of existing data (e.g. health profiles) to highlight issues/areas with specific needs
  • Health and Wellbeing Group – partnership work to deliver projects and share good practice such as Social Prescribing
  • Commissioning process for advice services – needs analysis undertaken to target services
/ Adequacy of Controls:
Fair
Evidence: /
  1. Review of current information held across Council to identify vulnerable and ageing residents as part of the Customer Strategy
  1. Drafting/
seeking approval of the Customer Strategy
  1. Develop work of the H&WB Board to maximise opportunities/
increase projects being delivered using CCG funding
  1. Following approval of Customer Strategy, specific actions will be agreed with Directorates as to how services will be delivered to an ageing population and other specific customer groups
/
  1. Sue Green, Group Manager, Customers
  1. Sue Green, Group Manager, Customers
  1. Sue Green, Group Manager, Customers
/
  1. 30/09/15
  1. 31/03/16
  1. Ongoing throughout 15/16

  1. Failure to adopt and implement the LDP
Owner:
Group Manager, Strategic Planning
Date added to register: 11/12 /
  • Policies not meeting requirement of National Planning Policy Framework
  • Inadequate evidence base
  • Not demonstrating an adequate supply of deliverable housing land to meet the District’s requirements
  • Not considering flooding and climate change issues (e.g. water shortages)
  • Changes to Planning System introduced by central Govt.
  • Lack of consistent corporate commitment and support to LDP
  • LDP process being “derailed” or delayed by internal or external factors
  • New administration following local elections which may not support LDP
  • New evidence obtained which significantly impacts LDP
  • LDP considered unsound by Planning Inspector
/
  • A presumption in favour of sustainable development continues to apply
  • Unable to forward plan strategically for the District’s needs
  • Potential for increased cost of appeals
  • Not achieving housing supply to meet District’s requirements for settled community and travellers
  • Difficult to plan for future infrastructure requirements associated with growth
  • Not maximising opportunities to promote coordinated redevelopment / regeneration where required in the District
  • Inability to secure developer contributions through C.I.L. as a result of the lack of an adopted Local Development Plan
  • On-going costs
/ L - 4
I – 4
Risk Score = 16 /
  • Preferred options published and have become material consideration
  • Soundness checklist used to ensure correct procedures followed
  • Regular reporting to Development Management Team and CLT on progress
  • Proactive monitoring of planning appeals/costs awarded and reported to P&L/Finance Committees
  • Transparent mechanisms for reporting progress
  • Actively working with developers, agents and other partners to strategically master plan preferred strategic growth areas where appropriate
  • Resources in place to deliver work requirements
  • On-going Member engagement
  • Legal advice
  • LDP Developer Forum and associated working groups
/ Adequacy of Controls:
Fair
Evidence:
Preferred Options and associated evidence base
Submission of Plan to Secretary of State /
  1. Ensuring continuity of adequate, skilled staff to deliver the implementation of the LDP
  2. Ongoing and effective communication and consultation with stakeholders including relevant landowners/
developers and information providers
  1. Ensuring corporate commitment and support to the LDP and associated processes (including master planning)
  2. Continue ongoing work in relation to Duty to Co-operate
/ All actions:
David Coleman, Group Manager, Strategic Planning / All actions ongoing
3. Completed
  1. Failure to deliver the required infrastructure to support development arising from the LDP
Owner:
Group Manager, Strategic Planning
Date added to register:14/15 /
  • No clear delivery mechanism
  • Uncertainty over specific infrastructure required
  • Decisions required on long term management
  • Lack of funding
  • Lack of commitment from other agencies (e.g.) NHS
/
  • Future capacity problems relating to schools, highways, housing, flooding, utilities and health.
/ L - 2
I – 4
Risk Score = 8 /
  • Evidence base and working with developers in developing the Infrastructure Development Plan (IDP) supporting the LDP
  • IDP and Infrastructure Phasing Plan (IPP) constantly under review with any fresh evidence being provided to P&L Committee
  • Negotiations with applicants – pre-planning agreements in place.
  • Viability testing
/ Adequacy of Controls:
Fair
Evidence:
Evidence base to support LDP
Due diligence with relevant agencies and other authorities e.g. ECC and environment agency
IDP and IPP
Pre-planning agreements
Viability testing /
  1. Agree solutions to infrastructure constraints
  2. Ongoing and effective communication and consultation with stakeholders including relevant landowners/developers and information providers
  3. Look at alternative funding solutions including Growth Deal and Public Works Loan Board
  4. CIL/S106 Officer to be recruited
  5. Negotiations/
discussions with developers and relevant agency/
organisation e.g. Environment Agency and applicant on N. Heybridge flood alleviation scheme
  1. Confirm long term management through S106 Heads of Terms or other methods
/ All actions:
David Coleman, Group Manager, Strategic Planning / 1.Completed
2.TBA
3. Ongoing
4. Completed
5.Ongoing
6.Ongoing
  1. Uncertainty regarding strategic ownership of flooding responsibilities
Owner:
Director, Planning & Regulatory Services
Date added to register:15/16 /
  • Lack of guidance from CLG/DEFRA
  • Water companies, developers, ECC not undertaking responsibilities
  • Deferral of decisions by MDC
/
  • Inability to determine planning applications
/ L - 4
I – 3
Risk Score = 12 /
  • Validation requirement that Sustainable Urban Drainage systems (SuDs) content is included in application
  • ECC review Suds at every stage of planning application
/ Adequacy of Controls:
Fair
Evidence:
Validations /
  1. Ensure S106 agreements/
conditions cover lifetime maintenance and ownership issues /
  1. David Coleman, Group Manager, Group Manager, Strategic Planning
/
  1. Ongoing

  1. Failure to effectively procure and implement the new waste contract
Owner:
Director, Customers and Community
Date added to register:15/16 /
  • Failure to attract suitable bidders
  • Tenders received exceed budget provision
  • Cost of service proposed in tenders not sustainable
  • Timely decisions not taken
  • Delays in procurement of specialist equipment and materials
  • Contract not fit for purpose
  • Delays in completing contract impact implementation
  • Inadequate internal resources to mobilise contract
  • Ineffective communication/
  • education of residents regarding new contract
/
  • Financial penalties
  • Increased costs
  • Reputational damage
  • Reduced service
  • Reduced recycling performance
/ L - 2
I – 4
Risk Score = 8 /
  • 2 stage process for expressions of interest and dialogue meetings with possible contractors to keep them engaged
  • /interested
  • Consultants employed to undertake options appraisal and develop most cost effective option for MDC
  • Increased provision made within MTFS to pay for service
  • Robust project timetable in place
  • Member Task and Finish Group monitors progress
  • Project Risk Register established
  • Procurement process involves analysis and comparison of market trends and/or market costs to ensure proposals received are sustainable/
appropriate
  • Consultants involved in contract specification
  • 3 month contingency agreed with existing contractor to continue service provision if required
/ Adequacy of Controls:
Good
Evidence:
Project documentation (inc.PID, risk register, timetable)
MTFS
Member Task and Finish Group
Analysis results
Contract with existing contractor /
  1. Review 16/17 budget provision if necessary following tender results
  2. Member Task and Finish Group closely monitoring progress against project timetable
Mitigating actions for implementation to be established once contract awarded /
  1. Richard Holmes, Director, Customers and Community
  2. Richard Holmes, Director, Customers and Community
/
  1. July 2015
  1. Ongoing throughout project

  1. Being designated as an under-performing authority due to major planning applications and appeals performance
Owner:
Director, Planning & Regulatory Services
Date added to register:15/16 /
  • Quality of information provided by developer when submitting applications
  • Inadequate Staff resources
  • Inability to process quantity of applications received within target dates
  • Decisions overturned on appeal
  • Quality of decisions taking by MDC
  • Council/
Committee meeting schedule can add delays into the process /
  • Developers can choose to submit applications direct to the Secretary of State
  • Local decision making removed from the Council
  • Reduction in fee income received
  • Inability to negotiate what infrastructure is required locally to mitigate development through S106 agreements
/ L - 2
I – 3
Risk Score = 6 /
  • Major applications team established
  • CLG funding awarded to help/facilitate decision making through procuring legal advice, design codes etc.
  • Extraordinary Council meetings arranged to decide major applications
  • Regular performance reviews to evaluate and manage caseloads effectively
  • Ongoing Staff training and development being undertaken
/ Adequacy of Controls:
Good
Evidence:
Council meetings minutes
Major apps team in place
Performance reviews /
  1. Member training to be undertaken to assist with decision making
  2. Continual review of team structure to ensure efficient and effective
  3. Recruitment of a Planning Services Manager
/
  1. Nick Fenwick, Interim Group Manager, Planning Services
  2. Nick Fenwick, Interim Group Manager, Planning Services
  3. David Coleman, Group Manager, Group Manager, Strategic Planning
/
  1. Ongoing
  1. Ongoing
  1. 30/12/15

  1. Failure of the Council to influence partners, to support and encourage economic prosperity
Owner:
Chief Executive
Date added to register:15/16 /
  • Lack of awareness as to who relevant partners are
  • Lack of dialogue with relevant partners
  • Lack of clarity on economic prosperity agenda
  • Lack of clear responsibilities
  • Failure to forward plan
  • Ineffective approach – failure to get MDC voice heard in the right places and to influence outcomes
  • Small authority therefore the projects and priorities for MDC do not deliver a high level of return at sub-regional level
  • Failure to meet expectations raised through engagement with partners/
  • businesses
  • Failure to focus on/target areas where we can specifically influence
  • Not emphasising what the District has to offer
/
  • Non-achievement of corporate goals and priorities
  • Failure to generate funding
  • Reduced buy-in
  • Reduced credibility
  • Ineffective use of resources
/ L - 2
I – 3
Risk Score = 6 /
  • Economic Prosperity strategy (EPS)
  • Participation in Haven Gateway and Heart of Essex partnerships
/ Adequacy of Controls:
Fair
Evidence:
EPS
Partnership meeting minutes /
  1. Influence cross-County economic prosperity group to ensure Maldon priorities included
  2. Clarity on top three projects for longer term strategic planning for sub region (e.g. A12 investment)
  3. O&S Committee to undertake review of how services respond to businesses to maximise/
encourage Economic Prosperity
  1. Ensuring effective communication
mechanisms in place to provide and receive feedback from businesses (e.g. following engagement exercises) /
  1. Kerry Martin, Econ. Dev, Partnerships and Projects Manager
  1. Simon Meecham, Director, Planning and Regulatory Services
  1. Fiona Marshall, Chief Executive/
Simon Meecham Director, Planning & Regulatory Services
  1. Kerry Martin, Econ. Dev, Partnerships and Projects Manager
/
  1. Ongoing
  1. Ongoing
  1. Report by SM going to O&S July 15
  1. Ongoing

  1. Failure to achieve the desired outcomes of the Senior Management Restructure
Owner:
Corporate Leadership Team
Date added to register:15/16 /
  • CLT acting more operationally than strategically
  • Failure to drive organisational change to meet long term challenges
  • Not empowering and developing level 2 managers
  • Not undertaking a fundamental review of services
  • Budget savings not achieved
  • Lack of consistency across CLT in terms of managing
  • Inability to recruit suitable Staff
  • Council decisions not supporting proposed changes to service delivery
  • Silo working
/
  • Lack of corporate strategic direction
  • Poor decisions relating to service delivery/
  • priorities
  • Financial impact
  • Difficult to recruit and retain staff in some services
  • Lower staff morale
  • Inefficient services
/ L - 2
I – 3
Risk Score = 6 /
  • Corporate Plan approved for 2015-19
  • Directorate Business Plans approved
  • MTFS
  • Workforce Development Plan
  • 1:1s/PDPs/team meetings focussing on key activities, training required etc.
/ Adequacy of Controls:
Good
Evidence:
Corporate Plan
Business Plans
MTFS
PDPs
Workforce Development Plan /
  1. Service reviews to be undertaken to ensure effect management arrangements below level 2
  2. Quarterly performance clinics to be introduced
  3. Programme of Staff briefings to be undertaken
  4. Staff survey to include specific questions relating to SMR (i.e. Level 2 managers being empowered)
  5. Group Manager PPP to raise at CLT regarding establishing a delegation of responsibility for Level 2 managers (to prevent Directors getting involved in operational decisions and support empowerment and accountability of managers)
  6. Establish a programme of half yearly feedback sessions with staff to monitor consistency of approach across Directorates regarding 1:1s, PDPs, DLTs etc.
  7. Manager Training on new appraisal system to ensure standard approach to managing performance
  8. CLT leadership development programme
/
  1. Directors
  1. Julia Bawden, Performance & Risk Officer
  2. Fiona Marshall, CE
  3. Dawn Moyse, Group Manager, SPPP
  1. Dawn Moyse, Group Manager, SPPP
  1. Julia Bawden, Performance & Risk Officer
  1. Dawn Moyse, Group Manager, SPPP
  1. Dawn Moyse, Group Manager, SPPP
/
  1. 30/12/15
  1. Start form Q1 and reviewed throughout the year
  2. Commencing June/July
  1. TBC
  1. 30/06/15
  1. First session to be held by 30/09/15
  1. 01/04/16
  1. 30/12/15

  1. Failure to resource overall transformation programme
Owner:
Director, Resources
Date added to register:15/16 /
  • Other issues take priority
  • Lack of resources
/
  • Failure to deliver corporate goals
  • Impacts Council’s ability to achieve desired channel shift
  • Financial impact through inefficient working
  • Ineffective service delivery
/ L - 3
I – 3
Risk Score = 9 /
  • Approved ICT Strategy
  • Workforce Development Plan
  • Transformation reserve available
/ Adequacy of Controls:
Fair
Evidence:
ICT Strategy
Reserve available /
  1. Review Terms of Reference for the “Making our Future” Group
  2. Allocated budget for transformation within MTFS/16-17 budget
  3. Seeking approval of the Customer Strategy
  4. Implement the ICT Strategy projects for 15/16 as follows:
a)Develop Sharepoint Point of Concept
b)Produce Customer Relationship Management Business case
c)Pilot mobile working within Environment Services
d)Implement Cloud-based Committee Management
e)Remote access/
personal device use – review current Network Architecture /
  1. Ka Ng, Director Resources
  1. Ka Ng, Director Resources
  1. Sue Green, Group Manager, Customers
  2. Ray Ware, IT Manager
/
  1. 30/09/15
  1. 30/01/16
  1. 31/03/16
  1. 31/03/16

  1. Inability to maintain key services in exceptional circumstances (business continuity)
Owner:
Director, Customers and Community
Date added to register:15/16 /
  • Lack of corporate focus/priority
  • Lack of clarity at a corporate level as to what are the key services to be delivered
  • Unclear as to what resources are required to deliver/maintain essential services
  • Out of date/unclear business continuity plans
  • Untested plans
  • Untrained staff
  • Lack of allocated resources including access to data/equipment
/
  • Unable to deliver services
  • Financial costs
  • Reputational
/ L - 2
I – 4
Risk Score = 8 /
  • Department/
service continuity plans in place outlining what essential services are to be maintained and resources required
  • Corporate IT Disaster Recovery Plan in place
/ Adequacy of Controls:
Fair
Evidence:
Business continuity plans
Disaster Recovery Plan /
  1. Report to CLT to identify what key/essential services are and agree timetable for review of plans
  2. Update business continuity plans following SMR
  3. Testing of business continuity plans
  4. Additional resources required to be identified and budget sought if necessary for 16/17, 17/18.
  5. Review and update Disaster Recovery Plan
/
  1. Richard Holmes, Director Customers and Community
  2. Gerry Richardson, Emergency Planning Officer
  3. Gerry Richardson, Emergency Planning Officer and Service Managers
  4. Richard Holmes, Director Customers and Community
  5. Ray Ware, IT Manager
/
  1. July 2015
  1. March 2016
  1. March 2016
  1. October 2015 for 16/17 budget process
  1. 31/03/16

  1. Failure to protect personal or commercially sensitive data
Owner:
Director, Resources
Date added to register:09/10 /
  • Document retention policy not effectively reviewed
  • Lack of understanding and awareness of Data Protection requirements and implications
  • Incomplete storage arrangements for paper records
/
  • Council could be fined if found not to comply with the Data Protection Act
  • Reputational damage
/ L - 3
I – 2
Risk Score = 6 /
  • Data Protection Policy
  • Governance and Internal Control procedures which are designed to assist Managers in detailing controls and actions required to address any areas of concern
  • Responsibility for Data Protection is specifically assigned to an officer within the Council
  • IT Security policies approved
  • Staff aware through the Personnel policies of the implications of breaching security rules
  • Included in induction check list
  • Critical technical IT issues identified in the penetration testing carried out annually are resolved
  • In line with Govt. Connect requirements, Council’s systems Administrator’s password amended regularly (annually) – approved by the Chief Executive
  • IT Manager “promotes” the problems experienced by other organisations (e.g. the ‘horrific headlines’)
/ Adequacy of Controls: