Contact your Parish Council

Risk Description 1

The Borough needs a transport network that supports the local economy.

Vulnerability / contributing factors

Trigger(s)  / Event(s)

Potential Impact  /

Consequences

The Council is not in control of the provision or planning of transport networks –  These are controlled by KCC (Highways) and Network Rail (Rail links)

LEPs are being formed which have a strong influence over transport infrastructures

There is a lack of appetite in Kent to tackle congestion issues

Maidstone is growing and has an increasing need for good transport networks

The Local Transport Plan (LTP) does not meet the Council’s transport needs.

Network Rail does not provide an adequate rail service for Maidstone  

LEPs do not meet the Council’s priorities

The Council uses its funds to influence the delivery of adequate transport networks

The Council develops partnerships with Mid and West Kent Councils to achieve a stronger level of influence with transport network providers

Maidstone loses its appeal as a commuter town

Housing development stalls

Contraction /relocation of business out of the Borough

Commuters chose to live elsewhere

Existing residents relocate

Economic growth stalls

Negative impact on environmental quality  - increased road congestion and pollution

The Council is forced to reprioritise its capital investment plans to fund transport improvement schemes.

Partnerships fail/do not deliver objectives

Housing development stalls

Risk Description 2

The Borough needs a growing economy with rising employment, catering for a range of skill sets to meet the demands of the local economy.

Vulnerability / contributing factors

Trigger(s)  / Event(s)

Potential Impact  /

Consequences

The local economy depends on local schools and colleges delivering a wide range of education and skills

Business growth depends on an adequate quality workforce – and will only locate/stay in the Borough if it has a good range of employment skill sets

A high proportion of employment opportunities within the Borough are provided by the public sector or businesses linked to providing public sector services

The Borough currently includes  a high number of low wage earners

The Council’s Economic Development policy/strategy is in need of review

Changing educational policies (Importance of Teaching – Schools  White Paper )

The Borough comprises a number of low performing schools

The LDF is not agreed

Planning policies do not support business development

Land is not allocated for business development where it is needed and at a pace that is needed

Developers do not build the required quality of housing in the required locations to attract a good quality workforce

Business leaders decide not to locate their operations in the Borough or leave the area

There is a miss-match of skills

Skilled residents are forced to take lower skilled/lower pay employment

Skilled residents relocate away from the Borough

Key decision makers/business opportunities/economic growth  goes elsewhere

Reduced employment opportunities leading to rising unemployment

Economic decline/stagnation

Risk Description 3

The Borough needs decent affordable housing in the right places across a range of tenures

Vulnerability / contributing factors

Trigger(s)  / Event(s)

Potential Impact  /

Consequences

The Council has a statutory responsibility to provide housing

There is a resistance to enforced social housing allocations

The Council’s Affordable Housing strategy needs to be updated to reflect the changing emphasis for delivery

There is lack of clarity of the Borough’s housing needs – debate is needed

The Local Investment Plan provides reduced funding to invest in affordable housing initiatives

Housing development has stalled

There is a shortage of available affordable housing in both rural and urban areas

RSLs  choose not to build/improve property  in the borough

Private sector rental charges are high

RSL rents are expected to rise

There is a prolonged economic downturn and slow recovery

The Council does not deliver its housing strategy

There is a revised emphasis on ways of delivering affordable housing

The LDF will specify areas for housing

A review of the housing allocations policy

The council has less money to invest in affordable housing initiatives

There is a long-term lack of Government investment in housing

There is reduced funding from the private sector for housing initiatives

Grants for private sector improvements are reduced/ceased

New Universal Benefit places a cap on housing benefit

Housing quality declines

New housing is not delivered

Housing costs increase

Homelessness increases

Community cohesion declines 

Reputational damage to the Council

Funding and officer capacity is diverted away from other corporate priorities

Risk Description  4

Maidstone needs a clean and attractive environment for people who live in and visit the borough

Vulnerability / contributing factors

Trigger(s)  / Event(s)

Potential Impact  /

Consequences

The Council has  limited influence on delivering the required built environment

Funding pressures to reduce spending on street cleansing and grounds maintenance, including parks and open spaces 

The Council is dependent on contractors to deliver a clean and attractive environment

The Council has an ongoing responsibility for the public realm

Public perceptions are of a poor quality town centre environment

The prolonged economic downturn leads to stalled investment in improvements to the built environment

Priorities for delivering leisure and culture  services have changed (Localism Bill)

Ongoing lack of investment   - both for the delivery of new, and the maintenance of the current environment

Bad planning decisions are made

Supply chain failure

High Street regeneration project

Poor public perception

Reduced RSG

Negative press opinion / lack of press support 

Greater involvement from the private and voluntary (CSO) sector

Private sector and CSO fail to engage

The Council reviews how leisure and cultural services are provided

Declining standards of cleansing services

Increased litter and graffiti

Public realm infrastructure becomes dilapidated

Built environment becomes dilapidated

Poor customer satisfaction

Visitor numbers decline – retail

and tourism

Residents move out of  the Borough or chose not to move to the Borough

Business leaves/  does not locate to the Borough

Economic growth stalls

Failure/closure of leisure and culture facilities

Reputational damage due to Localism failure

Risk Description 5

The Council needs to ensure that residents are not disadvantaged because of where they live or who they are; vulnerable people are assisted and the level of deprivation is reduced.

Vulnerability / contributing factors

Trigger(s)  / Event(s)

Potential Impact  /

Consequences

The council has a commitment to assist vulnerable people

Partnership working and the funding it brings  is essential to enable services to be effectively delivered

Demand for council services is increasing while funding is decreasing

Lack of clarity on what communities need and how best to deliver support to meet these needs

The ‘Big Society’ is expected to deliver effective solutions

Vulnerable people are dependent on benefits  support

Government decentralisation provides opportunities for the Council to take on new responsibilities

Ineffective partnership working

Consequences of welfare reform

Reduction in preventative measures

Lack of buy-in to the ‘Big Society’ vision

Lack of ability to deliver the ‘Big Society’ vision

Benefits reforms

The council commits to new responsibilities  and opportunities

Service failure

Increased deprivation

Declining community cohesion

Increased demand on council services

Reprioritisation of expenditure is required across council services

Failure to deliver economic prosperity

Failure to deliver a skilled and healthy workforce

Displacement from London places greater demand on Council housing services

The Council receives new funding streams

The Council takes on new services

Risk Description 6

The Council needs to deliver value for money council services that resident are satisfied with.

Vulnerability / contributing factors

Trigger(s)  / Event(s)

Potential Impact  /

Consequences

The Council needs to deliver value for money services

The Council needs to deliver the services that the public/local business wants

Government decentralisation delegates greater control  to the Council

There is a need to manage customer/partner expectations

There is an expectation that the cost/value of council services can be compared with other local council services

It is difficult to accurately and reliably compare costs and value for money across councils’ services

Accurate and timely performance data is required  

There is an expectation to deliver services through partnerships/ shared services or outsourcing

The ability to deliver value for money services depends on a productive workforce with people in the right place at the right time

The Council fails to deliver on its promises

Councils set local service standards which do not meet customer/ business expectations

Inadequate communications

Benchmarking is ineffective

The Council selects the wrong  commissioning ‘model’

The council has insufficient skills and capacity to deliver services

Organisational change is not managed well

Public dissatisfaction

Loss of credibility leading to reduced external funding

Loss of partnership opportunities

Post code lottery for services

Service costs increase

Political instability

Poor business decisions are made

The service fails or does not provide value for money

Governance failure

Decline in staff morale and engagement and high Staff turnover

Damage to the to the Council’s reputation