Contact your Parish Council
APPENDIX A
Maidstone Borough Council
STRATEGIC RISK REGISTER
2011/15
Risk Scenario: Priority 1: For Maidstone to have a growing economy
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 Scenario: Priority 1: For Maidstone to have a growing economy
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 Scenario: Priority 2: For Maidstone to be a decent place to live
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 to certain homeless groups
There is a resistance to social housing allocations, particularly in rural areas
A review of the Affordable Housing DPD under estimates the scale of need for affordable housing
The planned schemes in the Local Investment Plan are not delivered through lack of funding; housing associations choose not to build/improve property in the borough
Housing development stalls and the market moves elsewhere
The housing market declines and makes Maidstone a less attractive place to live and invest in.
Increase in poverty amongst existing low earners; Maidstone becomes a more attractive proposition for London authorities to house their homeless households due to increased restrictions in their own areas
Vulnerable households or those with dependents fall into a spiral of repeat homelessness as tenancies expire
|
The Council does not deliver its housing strategy and is unable to deliver a range of affordable housing
There is a revised emphasis on ways of delivering affordable housing
The Council’s Affordable Housing strategy needs to be updated to reflect the proposed changes contained in the Localism Bill and responds to the housing market
The new affordable rent regime is unable to generate the surplus required to invest in new affordable housing; or surpluses are invested in other areas
There is a long-term lack of Government investment in housing at a time when the council has less money to invest in affordable housing initiatives
The reduced funding for private sector for housing initiatives leads to a decline in the private rented market or worsening conditions
Changes to the welfare system including local housing allowance; new Universal Benefit places a cap on housing benefit
The tenure strategy is ill-conceived or does not address housing need |
Housing quality declines; increase in homelessness results in higher revenue costs to the council
New housing is not delivered and communities become unbalanced or unsustainable
Our ability to provide a range of affordable diminishes whilst demand for affordable housing increase leading to an increase in homelessness
Homelessness increases
Community cohesion declines and damage is caused to the Council’s reputation
Economically mobile move out of Maidstone; worsening housing conditions that lead to an increase in pressure on the council for social housing
Increased homelessness and welfare dependency; migration into Maidstone from London for high needs households looking for cheaper private rented accommodation.
Increase in homelessness that results in additional use of inappropriate accommodation such as B&B; communities become fragmented and more transitory |
Risk Scenario: Priority 2: For Maidstone to be a decent place to live
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 largely dependent on its in-house contractor (MBS) to deliver a clean and attractive environment
The Council has an ongoing responsibility for the public realm
Public perception of ‘run down’ parts of the town
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 could develop
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 Scenario: Priority 3: Corporate and Customer Excellence
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 Scenario: Priority 3: Corporate and Customer Excellence
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
|
Risk Prioritisation Matrix
↑
LIKELIHOOD
6 = Very High
L 5 = High
I 4 = Significant
K 3 = Low
E 2 = Very Low
L 1 = Minimal
I
H IMPACT
O 4 = Major
O 3 = Severe
D 2 = Medium
↓ 1 = Negligible
← IMPACT →