Agenda item

The Corporate Risk and Business Continuity Manager and Head of Regeneration submitted a report together with the Regeneration and Development Risk Register.

The Head of Regeneration confirmed that the risk management was part of delivering major projects and the service was well rehearsed and experienced in risk management.  In the last year and since the service plan had been signed off there had been significant changes in the way the work had been approached and still continued to be outfacing for investments into Northampton.   After the elections in May 2010 and the government proposal to reduce and terminate regional government they had worked very closely with MKSM to forward a submission. Last week they had received confirmation to proceed to the next stage with partners for the South East Midlands.  Work had been completed for Management Board and Cabinet for how the partnership would operate and how they would work together to submit applications for regional growth funding which was previously available through RDAs.  The applications had to be submitted by 21^st January 2011.  They also worked with other local partnerships in Northampton that included Legal and General and the University.  The recession had produced a major risk for bringing investment into Northampton and they had decided that they wanted to proceed to deliver them and start the regeneration instead of waiting for the land values to increase.  He considered it important for the authority to continue to influence the structure and how it would be developed over the next few months.

In response to a question from Councillor Davies, the Head of Regeneration confirmed that Legal and General were progressing with key work schemes which included negotiations with Stagecoach and the County Council to reprovide bus facilities and for the bus station to be moved for redevelopment.  Legal and General had invested a lot of time and effort redesigning the scheme to take into account various options for public transport.  In the past two weeks they had confirmed a contract for £1million to provide improvements for the Grosvenor car park which was achieved before the deadline.

Councillor Woods declared a personal interest as a Board member of the WNDC and confirmed that the Minister had written to the WNDC which set out 5 key projects which needed to be progressed. They will find out if capital funding will be available within the next two weeks.

The Head of Regeneration confirmed that the government would work with WNDC over the next two years for growth and funding and the WNDC have recognised the Grosvenor Greyfriar project and they will bid on 21^st January to bring the project forward and influence other partners.

In response to a question from Councillor Woods, the Head of Regeneration confirmed that each major project had its own risk register which the team assessed.  Key risks were identified through the management team meetings and reviewed to see how they affected the Council and then they were escalated as appropriate.

The Head of Regeneration confirmed that they were in discussions at present to bring the student accommodation and other aspects of the University to St John’s although an agreement had not been signed yet.  It was important for Northampton to encourage more people to live in the Town Centre to improve safety and provide more people in the evenings.  It would also boost the economy.

In response to a question from Councillor Hawkins, the Head of Regeneration confirmed that they had an agreement with EMDA for the Blueberry Diner site but due to the recession had not been able to progress with it.  They were waiting for the government to decide what would happen to the agreement and it was a risk which was recorded in the risk register.  If the government did not have confidence then they would make steps to terminate the agreement and the Council would have to repay the £2million.  They were conscious of the risk and were actively engaged in bringing forward regeneration.  The risk still scored a maximum of 12 as there were a number of third parties involved which they did not have control over.  Depending on what agreement was signed then it would bring the risk down.

There was a further discussion on the student accommodation for the University and the Head of Regeneration confirmed that the University did not have sufficient land at their current campus.  They had an ambition to grow and needed to provide a certain level of accommodation.  The Council wanted to bring forward a site which they owned and to benefit the Town Centre.  The University had conducted a questionnaire and the students had confirmed that they would like more accommodation in the Town Centre and see it as a place they would like to live.

The Head of Regeneration believed that boutiques and craft activities in the area was still viable and once the St John’s site had been signed they would look to bring forward other activities.  They may find that some of the first choices would not be viable at present.

The Risk Register had identified a lack of understanding and knowledge of customers and the Head of Regeneration confirmed that improvements had been made in the consultation process especially with the PFI project and residents.  The whole risk referred to all of the project and what other partnerships and customers thought about it.  They had conducted customer surveys but were not successful in receiving the responses back.  It was important the Council understood what people thought.

The Internal Auditor confirmed that there was a hierarchy for the process of reviewing the risk register and more detail to the risk would be provided lower down the scale.  The Risk Register appended to the report was a summary of the departmental risk.

The Head of Regeneration explained that each risk had an owner to monitor the risk across the service and it gave an opportunity for the risk owner to challenge what he was doing.

Councillor Woods confirmed that greater clarity was required to escalate the project to service risk and for that type of risk to be questioned.

The Corporate Risk and Business Continuity Manager advised she would review how the risk appetite was defined.  They would also make the wording clearer on the risk register to identify if it related to the PFI project or not.

There was a discussion on which service level risk register was to be reviewed and it was agreed that it would be Customer Services.

RESOLVED:

(1)    That the report be noted.

(2)    That Customer Services risk register to be reviewed at the next meeting.