Report and registers attached.

Each directorate had its own risk registers and the strategic risk register was a standing item at the Governance and Assurance Board, as well as being considered by the Council’s Senior Leadership Team. Access was being arranged for Members to the strategic and directorate risk registers and offices would chase this up.

A Member asked why the entry in the register regarding the risk of being able to deliver a balanced budget did not reference the error in parking charges budget papers. Officer accepted that this had led to a £250k shortfall but this was in the context of a £180m budget. There was also a £2m provision for undelivered savings. Other savings initiatives in parking meant that a balanced budget could still be set. The parking charges issue had not invalidated the budget process as a whole and other Members felt that this was not so much a risk as an issue in the way budgets were prepared that officers would need to resolve. Officers accepted that an error had been made in processing the budget report. The results of an investigation into the parking charges issue could be brought to an exempt meeting of the Board.

Members were pleased at the higher level of detail in the register but noted that some dates were still absent. Officers would seek to confirm the remaining target dates. Review dates on the register were system-generated and officers would investigate those that should have already taken place.

Some risks on the housing risk register were housing-specific, others were more generic. Risks included the increasing demand for homeless services and not enough rent or service charges being received. More generic risks covered areas such as the recruitment and retention of staff, failure of IT systems, adult safeguarding issues and fire and flood risk due to climate change. Officers would look into the risk of the lack of cookers in homeless accommodation etc and whether this should be added to the register.

It was accepted that there were some risks of the property acquisition programme but assessments of each property were undertaken in order to mitigate this. More detail such as control measures would be added to the risk register. It was confirmed that the Council had complied with the requirement all social landlords to install fire alarms in their properties. Fire alarms were also checked annually.

Information on risks was reported regularly to the regeneration officer board and then fed into the regeneration risk register. Key risks included increased costs of climate change, sales values of properties (which were regularly monitored) the need to maintain levels of private rented income.

There were also risks around the cost and availability of construction materials and the lack of well-trained labour. Officers were aware of risks rising interest leading to a lowering of property values but 65 of 71 low cost home ownership properties at the New Green development which had seen good maintenance of value and there was currently no suggestion that values would drop. Any drop in values would assist the acquisition programme which had now been approved by Cabinet. A fund had been approved to purchase 150 properties for homeless people which would allow the Council to take advantage of falling prices.

The investment fund would also derive social value outputs with for example 270 local people trained as part of the New Green project. Work was in progress with Quantum Group to train installers, including local people, to fit Heat Source pumps. Quantum also offered apprenticeship opportunities. The risk of not building the projected number of properties was picked up through monthly monitoring and was reported to Cabinet on a quarterly basis. The risk of homelessness was monitored through the housing risk register at address any mismatch in housing supply and demand. Members felt that not meeting housing supply targets should be included as a specific risk.

The Board also scrutinised the risk and impact of the capital programme on the Medium Term Financial Strategy over the next 5 years.

The Board agreed that the remainder of the meeting should be held in exempt session due to the likelihood of it revealing information relating the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information) as defined under Paragraph 3,  Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.