Agenda item

The Committee considered a report of the Director of Corporate Resources the purpose of which was to present the Corporate Risk Register for approval along with an update on Artificial Intelligence and Local Government Reorganisation as emerging risks and counter fraud updates.  A copy of the report marked ‘Agenda Item 12’ is filed with these minutes.

As part of this item, the Committee also received a presentation from the Assistant Director of Environment and Transport on the strategic approach to managing the impact of growth in Leicestershire in the context of the corporate risk register.  A copy of the presentation is filed with these minutes.

Arising from the discussion, the following points were made:

Presentation

i)               Concern was raised that risks around speculative developments had not been identified when considering local plans.  As a statutory consultee on developments, it was felt that there should be a more robust statement from County Council departments, such as Highways, when asked to comment on applications.  In response, the Director of Environment and Transport commented that the County Council had taken a firm stance in its responses to local plans and had raised concerns where appropriate.  This was the clear approach that the Council wanted to build on, offering more clarity around the options in those situations.  Assurance was given that site visits were undertaken and the Council proactively identified growth coming forward and sought to address its cumulative impact.  However, the main risk to the Council was the potential financial burden.

ii)              A query was raised around the transition to a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL), as it was felt that the move away from S106 funding fundamentally changed the ability of local communities to identify projects that they wanted to invest in.  A member commented that CILs removed the local connection to where investment went and there was concern that smaller communities would not receive any benefit from developments.  In response to a query on how this would be mitigated, the Director gave assurance that in mitigating risk, it was the intention to balance the Council’s responsibility to make place.  As an example, it was noted that in Charnwood, the CIL would only focus on highways and transport because the impacts of that were so far spread, but it would be possible to use S106 funding for other services and in areas where there were Neighbourhood Plans, a percentage would be used for community projects.  With the CIL, there would be a greater focus on large, strategic issues.  The Director stated that there was a duty on local authorities to ensure that local communities received what they needed to function and that this was represented in local plan policies.

iii)            A member questioned whether there was any way to manage the risk of funding requirements being removed.  It was noted that the Planning Authority could ultimately make that decision.  If it was felt that an erroneous decision had been made, there was the possibility of legal challenge, but consideration would need to be given to the cost and benefit of doing that.  The preferred option was to work with other partners to reach a compromise.

iv)            Concern was raised that there was no mention of flood risk.  However, the Director stated that this tended to be dealt with by way of condition.  It was a case of developers mitigating flood risk themselves, so the cost of development included greater flood risk mitigation which would affect the viability.  The County Council would not want to collect S106 contributions for a flood risk scheme that should be delivered within the development site.

v)             In response to a comment around having better relationships with other agencies to manage risks, it was noted that there was now a greater awareness of the challenges and compromises that needed to be made and there was more of an appetite to work together.  It was also the intention to find better ways of working with the development industry.

vi)            Recognition was given to the concerns raised by local communities about large scale developments.  Some of these would be dealt with through a national policy position but in terms of the County Council’s position, it was necessary to be clear on the impacts of the developments.  Traditionally, weight had been given to the views of the County Council as a statutory consultee and it was felt important to comment where this could influence a decision.

vii)           In response to a member comment on the cumulative impact of developments, the Director stated that this was generally considered at local plan stage, but this was more difficult on speculative developments as a planning application would only need to deal with its own impact and without locally adopted policy there was nothing in the National Planning Policy that would enable the Council to judge a development in the wider context.

Main Report

viii)         It was suggested that it was necessary to stipulate that when using AI, checking the accuracy of the work would need to be demonstrated and assurance given that and AI model being used was not hallucinating (generating false, inaccurate, or misleading information presented as factual).  It was also suggested that consideration should be given to a training plan for the use of AI and concern was raised around the use of personal data within AI and the risks associated with this.  This would be a future presentation topic.

ix)            Reference had been made by the Council’s external auditors to SEND, with a focus on the turnaround time for producing EHCPs.  There was an acknowledgement of the capacity of staff and the potential workarounds, but it was queried whether this was causing difficulties.  A written response would be provided.

x)             A member commented on the uncertainty around target risk scores and what the risk was if an issue was mitigated.  The Director of Corporate Resources stated that further consideration would be given to what information was presented to the Committee as there had been a greater focus on issues rather than risk.  It was noted that target risks were largely determined by departments, but there were occasions where the risk was removed from the Corporate Risk Register and managed within the relevant department.  Assurance was given that further thought would be given to how risks were reported, but in some instances, the issues were outside the Council’s control and there would always be a high level of risk around these despite some mitigation.  A request was made that where this was the case, these issues should be identified separately.

RESOLVED:

a)    That the status of the corporate and strategic risks facing the County Council be approved;

b)    That recommendations be made on any areas which might benefit from further examination;

c)    That the emerging risks on Artificial Intelligence and Local Government Reorganisation (update) be noted;

d)    That the counter fraud updates be noted.