Agenda item

Update from Victoria Bishop, Governance, Risk and Assurance Manager, CBC

The Governance, Risk and Assurance Manager introduced her review of the risk register, highlighting key points:  how current risks are managed, using the new Verto system; two new risks added in March; one risk – High Street defects – closed; one risk materialised and being managed as an issue; and an overview of the risks that have increased since the last assessment, with the highest risks on the Corporate Risk Register summarised on the last page.

She said that Verto provides a lot more information and dashboards, and more detail can be provided in future if Members want it, but at the moment she is trying to give an overview of how risks are changing and the risk actions being undertaken.

In response to a Member’s questions, she said that risks are reviewed on a regular basis, with assessment as to whether anything has changed set with the risk owner, and any potential consequences and necessary mitigation then addressed by Leadership Team.  Changes in risks can be highlighted and shared with the committee for reassurance going forward.

Another Member expressed concerns about Risk 413 (M5 J10 Planning), saying that S106 payments are the responsibility of the developer and GCC, not CBC, and the subject of negotiation and discussions between those parties; he suggested that more evidence of fact around those outcomes is needed before it is included on CBC’s risk register.  The Deputy Chief Executive said that Risk 413 isn’t Golden Valley Development-specific and could impact developments all across Cheltenham but the Member still felt that the risk was laid out in too simple a form.  Officers agreed to discuss this off-line and consider wording the risk in a different way.

Members asked for more information to be provided around why risks are increased or reduced; the Governance, Risk and Assurance Manager agreed to include this in future. She confirmed that the High Street Defects risk had been closed because the risk was financial and litigation has been concluded. 

Finally, a Member queried consistency of wording around the implications of the highest risks (Nos. 4 and 5), to make it clear that these would ultimately fall on the council, despite being distinct financially and requiring different sets of mitigations. The Director of Finance and Assets explained that the difference lies in how the risks are monitored around mitigating actions:  Risk 4 (Government’s Fair Funding Review) is a relatively new and external risk, documented at length in the budget papers this year,  and the council has to be prepared to react to what it includes, the extent of which is not known at present; the mitigations for Risk 5 (Prioritisation of Capital Resources) are more within the council’s control and being discussed at present, particularly within the outturn report and budget papers of the approved capital programme for 2025-26, and more condensed than in previous years because the Cabinet has worked on mitigations to address and prioritise those capital resources.  Both risks have financial impacts which could be negative if not mitigated, but they are phrased differently because they have different mitigation.

No vote was required for this item.