Minutes:
Lee Colyer, the Director of Finance and Corporate Services, presented a risk management report, which described the authority’s arrangements for managing strategic risk. The report provided an update on the evaluated threat level as well as the controls in place for each of the 10 risks identified. Mr Colyer added that the Chief Executive, William Benson, had been invited to the meeting, to report on the risks where he was the named ‘officer risk owner’, namely risks 3, 5, 7 and 9.
Risk 3 – resident engagement
Mr Benson advised that, in the recent past, this work had been focused on initiatives such as ward walks and an annual residents’ survey. He said that, to a large extent, this had been replaced with more active engagement and dialogue with a wide range of interest groups, such as Tunbridge Wells Together, the Town Forum, parish and town councils etc, as well as far greater use of social media.
The Chairman sought clarification on the extent of consultation undertaken with the authority’s budget proposals each year. Mr Benson said that the Council went well beyond the minimum requirements in consulting on its spending plans each year, with active engagement with key groups, as well as proposals being provided on the website consultation portal.
Councillor Moore referred to the ‘current controls/mitigations in place’ under this risk, specifically the updating of the Five Year Plan. She asked whether, within that context, the Council planned to produce only a digital version of the Local magazine. Mr Benson advised that this proposal was being examined. He added that Tunbridge Wells, along with Maidstone and Swale Borough Councils, had recently purchased the required software to be able to digitise this magazine as the three authorities were keen to encourage residents towards this platform. He added that members would be consulted on this further.
Councillor Podbury asked whether parish and town councils could be encouraged to lead on future ward walk surveys. She added that it was important for the authority always to keep in mind that there were still significant numbers of residents who could not access information about Council services on-line. On the first issue, Mr Benson said he would be happy to provide relevant material for parish and town councils to undertake ward walks, if they wished, adding that it might be possible for Borough Council staff to assist. On digital access to services, Mr Benson stressed the cost advantages to the Council of greater numbers of residents using on-line facilities but he acknowledged the need to recognise that not all residents had this choice.
Councillor Hamilton endorsed the proposal that parish and town councils be given the opportunity to continue the ward walks initiative and expressed the hope that this idea be progressed. Mr Benson responded by saying that the Borough Council would support those local councils wishing to carry out their own local ward walks.
Councillor Coleman said that there was a good working relationship between the Borough and his Parish Council. He added that, if the ward walk initiative found favour in Pembury, he would welcome some basic documentation to underpin the process.
Risk 5 – National policy changes in short term that impact negatively on TWBC and direction
Mr Benson said that this was a risk area where local government faced a high degree of vulnerability, in areas such as business rate retention, devolution etc, where the impact of national policy change was significant.
Mr Benson said that, while Tunbridge Wells might benefit from the Government’s plans to incentivise growth through the retention of business rates, not all councils would find this policy so attractive as authorities fell into two camps: those who collected more business rates than they spent and those who collected less then they spent. He added that a system of ‘top ups and tariffs’ had been introduced to address this.
He then highlighted the mitigation actions that had been put in place, such as: (i) partnership working (e.g. with welfare reform); (ii) continuing discussions with KCC and neighbouring councils to consider opportunities for aligning or devolving services; (iii) active engagement with representative bodies such as CIPFA, SOLACE (Society for Local Authority Chief Executives) etc; and (iv) maintaining a close watch on the implications of Brexit.
Councillor Moore expressed concern at the lack of any geographical consistency in the Council’s current partnership working, e.g. Mid-Kent Improvement Partnership (MKIP), the West Kent discussions re. devolution etc. She wondered whether this might be considered a risk scenario in its own right.
Mr Benson acknowledged the argument that the current geography of partnership in local services was mixed, although he said that certain elements of mitigation were covered within risk scenario 9 below. He said that MKIP had been brought about by a ‘coalition of the willing’ at that stage; he added that there seemed to be no prospect of re-drawing the boundaries of the many public agencies (Police, NHS etc) amongst local service providers.
Risk 7 – Being unable to meet expectations within resources
Mr Benson said that the focus of this risk scenario was a balancing act between realising the Council’s growing ambitions at a time when staff numbers and resources were declining against the demands of an articulate population. He emphasised the many mitigations which were in place, including: (i) a more focused set of priorities; (ii) the proper resourcing of the more important elements of the Council’s ambitions, e.g. its Development Programme; (iii) greater performance monitoring; (iv) the adoption of more of an ‘enabling’ approach for community-based initiatives, e.g. the proposed play area in Calverley Grounds.
Mr Quigley acknowledged that, with staffing numbers being so taut, there was a careful balancing act taking place to deal with expected levels of work; he asked what mitigations were being put in place with ‘the unexpected’. Mr Benson said that each service was continuously examining its own resilience level. He added that the significant amount of partnership working in place, principally through MKIP, was delivering the planned-for benefits. He accepted that there was the occasional down-side to that arrangement: for instance, the majority of MKIP service staff were now employed by Maidstone Borough Council, and should an emergency event occur, such as flooding, to which that district was more vulnerable, there was a concentration of staff resources which adversely impacted on the resilience of other services.
Mr Benson added that the degree of confidence in addressing this risk scenario was very much dependent upon the magnitude of the event, adding that a factor which was in the authority’s favour was the high degree of staff commitment.
In terms of ‘meeting expectations’, Councillor Coleman acknowledged that the Borough Council generally provided a good service, but he felt that with KCC the same could not be said. He asked how expectations were managed within that context.
Mr Benson acknowledged the point, adding that there was still much confusion amongst residents as to which tier of local government provided specific services, citing tackling childhood obesity as a prime example.
Councillor Moore supported the policy of the authority reducing the number of priorities but doing them well. Within that context, Councillor Moore raised the following issues: (i) with staffing numbers having reduced, she asked whether the corresponding costs had genuinely fallen; (ii) in terms of its ‘enabling’ role, she sought reassurance that the Council was not reducing services in the ‘wrong areas’, e.g. by no longer giving priority to the removal of graffiti, was the corresponding negative impact on some parts of the town being ignored.
Mr Benson stressed the financial position which the authority faced, saying that the Council operated a very large range of services but had the lowest ‘spending power’ in the county. He also gave the example of the Planning Service which the authority was required by statute to provide, yet because the level of fees was set by central government and not locally determined, the service was subsidised by approximately £1.4m per annum. He added that there was a constant process of re-prioritising services, with the financial position being reported every quarter to the Cabinet in reports which were fully accessible to all members and the public.
Mr Benson advised that the complaints report considered by members earlier in the agenda helped to demonstrate the success of the Council’s ‘enabling’ role.
Risk 9 – Not managing control and change effectively – staff, management and political
Mr Benson advised that this risk scenario was principally about dealing with the limitations of control over some aspects of services operated though MKIP. He focused on the mitigations in place, such as the Mid-Kent Services Board and the constant monitoring of performance data.
Mr Colyer, the Director of Finance and Corporate Services, advised on two aspects of this risk scenario: (i) he said that the staff numbers within the MKIP service areas were continuing to reduce; and (ii) he also reported that, currently, the only consultants being employed were those within the Property Service, where the need for specialist expertise had been clearly demonstrated.
In concluding the discussion, the Chairman thanked Mr Benson for his attendance and asked whether another risk owner was due to attend the December meeting. Mr Colyer advised that David Candlin, the Head of Economic Development, would be attending the 5 December Committee meeting.
RESOLVED – That the risk management report and arrangements for managing strategic risks be noted.
Supporting documents: