APPENDIX B
STRATEGIC RISK REGISTER 2011-15
MANAGEMENT ACTION PLANS
Risk 1 The Borough needs a transport network that supports the local economy: Interim Head of Core Strategy
Management Action Plan
|
Likelihood |
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
Risk Number |
Current Risk Score |
Target Risk Score |
Description |
|
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
4.3 |
2.3 |
The Borough needs a transport network that supports the local economy |
|
|
4 |
|
|
1 |
|
|
Notes: The current likelihood and impact are 4.3. The impact is unlikely to change greatly but if the current plan of action is fully implemented the likelihood can be reduced. |
||||
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
|
|
||||
|
|
Impact |
|
||||||||
Risk Owner: Interim Head of Core Strategy (Flo Churchill)
|
Action/controls already in place |
Adequacy of action/control to address risk |
Required management action/control |
Responsibility for action |
Critical success factors & KPI’s |
Review frequency |
Key dates |
|
MBC has limited impact on management of highways infrastructure |
Average |
Continuing liaison and dialogue with partners including KCC Highways and the Highways Agency |
SW |
Continue with current partner-ship |
Annual Review |
April 2012 |
|
Production of an Integrated Transport Strategy to support the Core Strategy |
Good |
Partnership working required with Kent County Council Highways and internally within MBC |
SW |
ITS endorsed by KCC and MBC |
Annual Review
|
April 2012 |
|
Core Strategy needs to be found sound and adopted by MBC |
Average |
CS to be put before Secretary of State for independent examination following endorsement by Cabinet |
SW/FC |
Submission to Secretary of State by December 2011 |
Annual Review |
Dec 2011 |
|
Action/controls already in place |
Adequacy of action/control to address risk |
Required management action/control |
Responsibility for action |
Critical success factors & KPI’s |
Review frequency |
Key dates |
|
ITS in line with Local Transport Plan (LTP) produced by KCC |
Average |
Partnership working required. Seconded KCC resource likely to be reduced. LTP used as basis for funding bids |
SW |
Proposals for works within MBC have priority within LTP |
Annual Review |
April 2012 |
|
Internal officer working group to discuss LDF, ITS, and LTP |
Good |
Create and maintain momentum to sustain officer involvement in the policy creation process through quarterly meetings |
FC |
Regular meetings of officer group |
Quarterly review |
April 2012 |
|
Economic Development Strategy to be reviewed |
Good |
Influence the ITS and partnering strategies to ensure that they result in a transport network that supports the local economy |
FC/JF |
Adoption of reviewed Economic Development Strategy
|
Annual Review |
April 2012 |
Risk 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: Assistant Director of Development and Community Strategy
Management Action Plan
|
Likelihood |
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
Risk Number |
Current Risk Score |
Target Risk Score |
Description |
|
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
4/3 |
2/2 |
The Borough needs a growing economy |
|
|
4 |
|
|
2 |
|
|
Notes: |
||||
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
|
|
||||
|
|
Impact |
|
||||||||
Risk Owner: Assistant Director of Development and Community Strategy (Brian Morgan)
|
Action/controls already in place |
Adequacy of action/control to address risk |
Required management action/control |
Responsibility for action |
Critical success factors & KPI’s |
Review frequency |
Key dates |
|
Provision of skill centre at Senacre |
Good |
Maintain dialogue with KCC
|
JF |
Centre complete/
|
Annual |
March 2012 |
|
Participate on the development and involvement in the Advisory Steering group. |
JF |
courses delivered |
Annual |
March 2012 |
||
|
Delivery of further educational courses |
Good |
As part of the Mid Kent College Advisory Panel: · Monitor success through participation through to qualification rates · Plan of future programme of courses · Maintain dialogue within panel over the balance between local economic requirement and the demand from student s · Work with partners to explore opportunities for provision of apprenticeships and other opportunities |
JF |
Appropriate courses delivered |
Annual |
Sept 2012 |
|
Improved educational qualifications |
Good |
Monitor qualifications obtained in order to identify failing schools and report back to relevant partners to seek opportunities and plan improvements |
JF |
Improved educational results |
Annual |
Nov 2011 |
|
Development and Delivery of the Development Plan Document |
Good |
Develop appropriate land allocation polices |
FC/SW |
Policies adopted and in place |
Annual |
April 2015 |
|
Action/controls already in place |
Adequacy of action/control to address risk |
Required management action/control |
Responsibility for action |
Critical success factors & KPI’s |
Review frequency |
Key dates |
|
Economic development strategy in place |
Good |
Refresh strategy in the context of the development of the core strategy and the current economic environment
|
JF |
Review completed |
Annual |
March 2012 |
|
Provision of a range of employment |
Good |
In partnership with Spatial Planning identify the quantity of employment land needed |
JF/SW |
Appropriate strategy developed |
Quarterly |
April 2012 |
|
In partnership with Spatial Planning identify the geographical distribution of employment land |
JF/SW |
|
Quarterly |
April 2013 |
Risk 3 The Borough needs decent affordable housing in the right places across a range of tenures: Head of Housing and Community Safety
Management Action Plan
|
Likelihood |
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
Risk Number |
Current Risk Score |
Target Risk Score |
Description |
|
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
3 |
4,3 |
3,3 |
The Borough needs decent affordable housing in the right places across a range of tenures |
|
|
4 |
|
|
3 |
|
|
Notes: The next 12 months are a critical period of change and uncertainty. It is unclear at this stage how successful the new affordable rent regime will be in delivering a range of affordable housing; hence the score of 4,3. It is anticipated that building on the strong partnership arrangements that currently exist the changes proposed in the Localism Bill can be introduced in a managed and beneficial manner thereby reducing the risk to 3,3. |
||||
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
|
|
||||
|
|
Impact |
|
||||||||
Risk Owner: Head of Housing and Community Safety (John Littlemore)
|
Action/controls already in place |
Adequacy of action/control to address risk |
Required management action/control |
Responsibility for action |
Critical success factors & KPI’s |
Review frequency |
Key dates |
|
MBC has nurtured partnerships with the HCA and housing providers that has resulted in sustained delivery of new affordable housing and will continue to do so; new bids for affordable housing submitted
|
Good |
Deliver the three year programme to enable 750 high quality new affordable homes. |
JL/AC |
Quarterly affordable housing delivery risk assessment |
Quarterly |
April 2012 |
|
Adopt a new Housing Strategy that reflects the current and future housing challenges |
Good |
The new Housing Strategy provides the necessary framework and is adopted by the council |
JL |
Adoption of the Strategy |
Annual |
Oct 2011 |
|
Respond to the Localism Bill; participating in the development of new statute and responding to change |
Good/average |
An initial response has been submitted the Bill’s passage through Parliament will continue to be observed.
|
HSM |
Bill becomes law – able to respond positively to changes and improve opportunities
|
Quarterly |
April 2012 |
|
Policies will then be amended as required, including; the housing allocation scheme
|
HSM |
Quarterly |
July 2012 |
|||
|
Action/controls already in place |
Adequacy of action/control to address risk |
Required management action/control |
Responsibility for action |
Critical success factors & KPI’s |
Review frequency |
Key dates |
|
Engagement in LDF/Core Strategy process to ensure the Housing Strategy reflects and supports the vision for Maidstone
|
Good |
The Housing team has fully participated in Member briefings and will continue to be involved in consultation including:
· Maintaining dialogue with Spatial planning on the future affordable housing Development Plan Document and gypsy & traveller accommodation
· Working with planning policy on process for identifying suitable land.
· Monitoring bid to Homes and Community agency. |
AC |
Core Strategy is adopted; new affordable housing DPD agreed that delivers adequate housing to meet the identified need
|
Quarterly |
April 2012 |
|
Action/controls already in place |
Adequacy of action/control to address risk |
Required management action/control |
Responsibility for action |
Critical success factors & KPI’s |
Review frequency |
Key dates |
|
Fully participate in the LIP process; lobbying for resources for West Kent and investment in Maidstone
|
Good/average |
Annual reviews will be held with the HCA and other west Kent partners to consider whether any changes will be required and what priority investment is needed |
AC |
Investment commensurate with Maidstone’s needs is approved |
Quarterly |
Oct 2011 |
|
Finding alternatives ways of ensuring a sustained delivery of affordable housing
|
Average |
Uncertainty as to how successful the affordable rent regime will be; exploring other methods such as partnerships across Kent to generate housing/infrastructure investment and capital return schemes
|
JL |
New income models are initiated that generate sustained investment |
Quarterly |
April 2012 |
|
Action/controls already in place |
Adequacy of action/control to address risk |
Required management action/control |
Responsibility for action |
Critical success factors & KPI’s |
Review frequency |
Key dates |
|
Agree a position with Registered Providers that allows affordable rents to generate an investment surplus that can be reinvested in Maidstone
|
Average |
Each RP is driven by its own business plan – the council needs to ensure those Registered providers (RPs) operating in Maidstone are able to generate surplus that is invested in Maidstone and does not unbalance the housing market; meetings are taking place with RPs and HCA to develop an understanding that could become a protocol |
JL |
Protocol or operating agreement that benefits Maidstone is agreed |
Bi- annual |
April 2012 |
|
Adopt a Tenure Strategy that achieves flexible use of social housing without destabilising communities |
Average |
Final framework dependant on the outcome of the Localism Bill; negotiations taking place with RPs and neighbouring LAs develop a West Kent Strategy |
JL |
The Tenure Strategy is agreed by partners |
Quarterly |
April 2012 |
|
Action/controls already in place |
Adequacy of action/control to address risk |
Required management action/control |
Responsibility for action |
Critical success factors & KPI’s |
Review frequency |
Key dates |
|
Working with colleagues in DC to ensure affordable housing continues under new planning regime ; particularly rural housing |
Good/Average |
Pre application consultation over sites with affordable housing obligations. |
AC |
A range of new affordable continues to be delivered |
Quarterly |
April 2012 |
|
Early engagement regarding rural settlements with identified housing need to assess availability and suitability of land for development
|
AC |
Quarterly |
April 2012 |
|||
|
Monitoring of sites through the strategic housing land availability assessment and those identified through the core strategy |
AC |
Quarterly |
April 2012 |
|||
|
Work with Parish Councils and communities to enable affordable rural housing to flourish
|
Good/average |
Work with parish councils and Action with Communities in Rural Kent to facilitate housing needs surveys to ascertain the level of affordable housing need. |
AC |
Affordable housing is delivered that keeps rural Areas sustainable for all |
Quarterly |
April 2012 |
|
Action/controls already in place |
Adequacy of action/control to address risk |
Required management action/control |
Responsibility for action |
Critical success factors & KPI’s |
Review frequency |
Key dates |
|
Ensure the private rented sector remains buoyant; providing good quality housing and management standards
|
Average |
Update the Housing Strategy to address diminishing investment through encouraging better use of the accreditation scheme and rigorous enforcement of housing standards Review local performance indicators for private sector housing interventions to create baseline and ensure performance is improved |
NC |
|
Quarterly |
March 2012
|
|
Review and update Empty Property Strategy |
|
Quarterly |
March 2012 |
|||
|
Private sector landlords forum to be re-launched in partnership with the National Landlords association |
|
Quarterly |
Jan 2012
|
|||
|
Review the Rent Deposit Bond Scheme |
|
Quarterly |
March 2012 |
|
Action/controls already in place |
Adequacy of action/control to address risk |
Required management action/control |
Responsibility for action |
Critical success factors & KPI’s |
Review frequency |
Key dates |
|
Review how housing advice is delivered to ensure that interventions are timely and make a positive difference including reviewing access to affordable housing
|
Good |
Update the Housing Strategy to address diminishing investment through encouraging better use of the accreditation scheme and rigorous enforcement of housing standards Review local performance indicators for private sector housing interventions to create baseline and ensure performance is improves |
NC |
Interventions are effective in reducing homelessness; the use of temporary accommodation and B&B is minimal |
Quarterly |
Sept 2011 |
|
Review and update Empty Property Strategy |
Quarterly |
March 2012 |
||||
|
Private sector landlords forum to be re-launched in partnership with the National Landlords association |
Quarterly |
June 2012 |
||||
|
Review the Rent Deposit Bond Scheme |
Quarterly |
July 2012 |
Risk 4 Maidstone needs a clean and attractive environment for people who live in and visit the borough: Assistant Director of Environment and Regulatory Services
Management Action Plan
|
Likelihood |
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
Risk Number |
Current Risk Score |
Target Risk Score |
Description |
|
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
4 |
3, 3 |
3, 2 |
Clean and attractive environment |
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
Notes: The current likelihood and impact are both 3 The impact is unlikely to change if we maintain the current arrangements. If all the measures identified below are undertaken, the likelihood of the risk occurring will reduce to 2. |
||||
|
3 |
|
|
4 |
|
|
|||||
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
|
|
||||
|
|
Impact |
|
||||||||
Risk Owner: Assistant Director of Environment and Regulatory Services
|
Action/controls already in place |
Adequacy of action/control to address risk |
Required management action/control |
Responsibility for action |
Critical success factors & KPI’s |
Review dates |
Key dates |
|
Street cleansing arrangements reviewed and new area-based working in place |
Good. Costs reduced. |
Regular monitoring to take place. through: · Benchmarking · Performance on Litter and Detritus |
JS |
Clean streets |
Quarterly |
Dec 2011
|
|
Improve Customer satisfaction surveys to improve quality of feedback |
Average |
Carry out face to face surveys on a quarterly basis Give consideration to benefits of taking part in future corporate surveys |
JS |
Good customer satisfaction |
Quarterly |
Dec 2011
|
|
Contract with third party supplier to provide litter enforcement in the town centre |
Good |
Deliver against contracted performance criteria |
JS |
Reduced litter in the town centre
|
Annual |
Sept 2012 |
|
Develop and monitor mechanism to manage public reaction |
Annual |
Sept 2012 |
|
Action/controls already in place |
Adequacy of action/control to address risk |
Required management action/control |
Responsibility for action |
Critical success factors & KPI’s |
Review dates |
Key dates |
|
Undertake a range of activities to encourage personal responsibility around litter and dog fouling |
Good |
Deliver programme of educational activity to schools and groups to discourage littering |
JS
|
Reduced litter overall Reduced litter and dog fouling |
Annual |
April 2012 |
|
Monitor and develop campaigns to discourage littering and dog fouling |
Annual |
April 2012 |
||||
|
Work with parties to influence good cleansing regimes in areas not controlled by the Council |
Average |
Work with partners through streetscene and other liaison groups to ensure that Maidstone Council is delivering on its actions and there are good standards throughout the borough |
JS SG |
Reduced litter |
Annual |
Dec 2011 |
|
Action/controls already in place |
Adequacy of action/control to address risk |
Required management action/control |
Responsibility for action |
Critical success factors & KPI’s |
Review dates |
Key dates |
|
Enforce against fly tippers
|
Average |
Deliver anti fly tipping campaigns |
JS |
Reduced fly tipping |
biannually |
April 2012 |
|
Maintain close operation links between street cleaning and enforcement to continue to seek evidence to prosecute fly tippers |
|
April 2012 |
||||
|
Work with Maidstone Leisure Trust to ensure Leisure Centre operations meet the Council’s strategic aims
|
Good |
Attend quarterly strategic meetings and monthly operational meetings with the trust and deliver on any actions |
JT |
Programme meets council’s priorities |
Annual |
Feb 2012 |
|
Monitor 15 year programme of investment and project work |
Annual |
Feb 2012 |
|
Action/controls already in place |
Adequacy of action/controls to address risk |
Required management action/control |
Responsibility for action |
Critical success factors & KPIs |
Review dates |
Key dates |
|
Town-wide AQMA action plan agreed and being implemented |
Average |
Deliver and monitor actions within plan in partnership |
SG |
Improved air quality |
Annual |
April 2012 |
|
Delivery of the High Street Regeneration project |
Good |
Monitored delivery of programme of works |
BM SG |
Improved environment |
In line with Project timetable |
May 2012 |
|
Monitored outcomes including
|
In line with Project timetable |
March 2013 |
||||
|
Delivery of the Museum extension |
Good |
Monitor delivery of programme of works and impact on delivery of service
|
SL |
Improved Museum and activity |
Project timetable |
Dec 2011 |
|
Action/controls already in place |
Adequacy of action/controls to address risk |
Required management action/control |
Responsibility for action |
Critical success factors & KPIs |
Review dates |
Key dates |
|
Asset Management Plan in place and regularly reviewed |
Good |
To ensure effective management of the Council’s assets including ongoing maintenance |
SG |
Properly managed property portfolio |
Annually |
April 2012 |
|
The Council has limited influence on delivering the built environment |
Average |
Detailed, quality discussions with developers both at the pre-application stage and prior to planning discussions. |
RJ |
Quality deve- lopments/ buildings |
Annual review by Planning Committee |
April 2012 |
|
Implementing the Mote Park Lottery scheme |
Good |
Project management of the lottery-funded capital scheme to ensure improvements are achieved and visits increase |
JT |
Quality of improvements Increased visitors |
Quarterly |
June 2012 |
|
Action/controls already in place |
Adequacy of action/controls to address risk |
Required management action/control |
Responsibility for action |
Critical success factors & KPIs |
Review dates |
Key dates |
|
Implement management plans for parks and open spaces |
Good |
Management plans are monitored and updated quarterly |
JT |
Quality of maintenance as per management standard Visitors’ numbers remain the same or improve |
Quarterly |
April 2012
|
Risk 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: Head of Housing and Community Safety
Management Action Plan
|
Likelihood |
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
Risk Number |
Current Risk Score |
Target Risk Score |
Description |
|
5 |
|
|
5 |
|
|
5 |
5,3 |
4,3 |
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.
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
Notes: The council has partnership arrangements with a variety of statutory and voluntary agencies that work towards reducing inequalities. Some of these relationships are more effective than others in tackling key issues. As funds reduce following the comprehensive spending review it becomes paramount for the council to engage in effective relationships and initiatives if it is to reduce the current risk assessment from 5,3 |
||||
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
|
|
||||
|
|
Impact |
|
||||||||
Risk
Owner: Head of Housing and Community Safety (John Littlemore)
|
Action/controls already in place |
Adequacy of action/control to address risk |
Required management action/control |
Responsibility for action |
Critical success factors & KPI’s |
Review Dates |
Key dates |
|
Review of the Local Strategic Partnership arrangements
|
Good |
Review existing LSP arrangements which includes their constitutions and associated delivery groups Finalise locality board proposal
|
JL/SR |
New constitution in place with clear terms of reference and outcome focused targets |
Annual |
April 2012
|
|
Review existing partnerships that exist with various statutory and voluntary agencies to ensure they are relevant and effective in delivering the council’s priorities |
Good |
Build upon existing relationships and explore new partnerships; the council to adopt an enabling role that encourage and assists stakeholders and the community to deliver change; encourage the use of payment by result for those organisations that receive grants from the council
|
SR |
Effective partnerships that produce tangible improvements |
Annual |
Feb 2012 |
|
Action/controls already in place |
Adequacy of action/control to address risk |
Required management action/control |
Responsibility for action |
Critical success factors & KPI’s |
Review Date |
Key dates |
|
Experience has been gained through consultations on specific topics e.g. waste, budget planning; Planning for Real
|
Average |
Improve consultation with the community to provide clarity on what communities need and how best to deliver support to meet these needs; Lessons to be understood from the Planning for Real pilot.
|
JB |
Adoption of a community engagement toolkit |
Annual |
August 2012 |
|
Engage communities so people have the opportunity to participate and have a real say in what happens in their local areas; Review best practice elsewhere to understand what makes effective consultation and participation |
Annual |
August 2012 |
||||
|
Improve social, economic and environmental outcomes for communities in priority areas
|
Average |
Develop a clear, multi-agency plan for the Parkwood Pilot that has outcome focused targets which partners with a mandate to resolve can be challenged to deliver in conjunction with the council |
JB |
Area based action plan developed and agreed by the community.
Monitoring Action Plan |
Annual |
August 2012 |
|
Action/controls already in place |
Adequacy of action/control to address risk |
Required management action/control |
Responsibility for action |
Critical success factors & KPI’s |
Review Date |
Key dates |
|
Improving the health of people living in the borough and reduce health inequalities through a programme of healthy weight, mental health, wellbeing and community cohesion delivered in partnership with the Health Authorities
|
Average |
Review outcomes from the first programme to understand what worked well and where there were failures. Use this intelligence together with improved consultation with service users to better inform the next stage of funding from the Health Service
|
JB |
Health outcomes improve |
Annual |
Dec2011 |
|
Review the Sustainable Community Strategy
|
Average |
Review requirement for the SCS in line with Government legislation and as part of LSP review. Ensure SCS or replacement document is relevant and is responsive to today’s challenges |
SR |
The council responsive to changes at a local and national level |
Annual |
August 2012 |
|
Develop a Maidstone view of the Big Society and its role within the community
|
Limited |
The policy has yet to be fully evolved by government but is expected to play a major role in delivering services; the council needs to develop its interpretation of the Big Society and promote this to the community |
SR |
The council expresses its interpretation of the Big Society |
Annual |
Dec 2011 |
|
Action/controls already in place |
Adequacy of action/control to address risk |
Required management action/control |
Responsibility for action |
Critical success factors & KPI’s |
Review Date |
Key dates |
|
The council works in partnership with local housing providers and schools & colleges to improve life outcomes |
Average |
Investigate alternative methods for generating more effective outcomes for educational attainment and t help eradicate worklessness |
JL |
Improved results against education and worklessness measures |
Quarterly |
Annual |
Risk 6 The Council needs to deliver value for money council services that residents are satisfied with: Head of Change and Scrutiny
Management Action Plan
|
Likelihood |
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
Risk Number |
Current Risk Score |
Target Risk Score |
Description |
|
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
6 |
3,3 |
2,3 |
The Council needs to deliver value for money services that residents are satisfied with. |
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
Notes: Whilst the impact of this risk is severe the likelihood is low as we currently have a number of measures in place to combat and manage the risk. The Management action plan therefore focuses on improving the measures in place and introducing new measures where there are gaps. |
||||
|
3 |
|
|
6 |
|
|
|||||
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
|
|
||||
|
|
Impact |
|
||||||||
Risk Owner: Head of Change and Scrutiny (Angela Woodhouse)
|
Action/controls already in place |
Adequacy of action/control to address risk |
Required management action/control |
Responsibility for action |
Critical success factors & KPI’s |
Review Dates |
Key dates |
|
Programme of Business Improvement |
Poor |
Agree with Cabinet and SMT what we mean by improvement and change
|
AW and AB
|
Definition agreed and shared Services identified Resources and approach agreed Services reviewed and changes implemented |
|
Nov 2011
|
|
Identify which services are required to be reviewed Identify and agree tools for improvement and change
|
Cabinet and CMT Cabinet and CMT
|
|
Nov 2011
|
|||
|
Set a business improvement programme |
GH
|
|
Dec 2011 |
|
Action/controls already in place |
Adequacy of action/control to address risk |
Required management action/control |
Responsibility for action |
Critical success factors & KPI’s |
Review Date |
Key dates |
|
Programme of Benchmarking in place |
Adequate |
Value for Money group to direct support group to carry out programme of benchmarking and identify action to be taken as a result of benchmarking |
PR |
Action is taken to reduce costs increase efficiency learning from others
|
Annual |
Jan 2012 |
|
Value for money working group.
|
Adequate |
Review working group and identify action plan for the year |
PR |
The costs of council services are reduced |
Annual
|
April 2012 |
|
Action/controls already in place |
Adequacy of action/control to address risk |
Required management action/control |
Responsibility for action |
Critical success factors & KPI’s |
Review Date |
Key dates |
|
Communications Strategy |
Adequate |
Measure customer satisfaction with priority services on a biennial basis.
|
RA and AW |
Survey carried out
|
Biennial
|
Sept 2011 |
|
|
|
Report publicly on satisfaction levels.
|
|
Customer satisfaction reported
|
Quarterly in line with PI reporting |
March 2012 |
|
|
|
Identify actions to address satisfaction performance indicators if they are below target.
|
|
Action plan created following consultation
|
|
March 2012 |
|
|
|
Report to the public on performance measures for front-line services through Borough Update and the Website
|
|
Survey used to identify areas that are important to the public and measures reported
|
|
aug 2012 |
|
Action/controls already in place |
Adequacy of action/control to address risk |
Required management action/control |
Responsibility for action |
Critical success factors & KPI’s |
Review Date |
Key dates |
|
Workforce Planning & Performance Management
|
Good -
|
Appraisal returns monitored and action identified for improvement |
DS
|
% return rate Strategy produced and agreed
|
Biennial
|
June & Nov 2011
|
|
All managers to have performance appraisal training.
|
|
June & Nov 2011
|
||||
|
Induction processes followed for all new staff
|
|
June & Nov 2011
|
||||
|
Write workforce planning strategy and agree action plan
|
|
Dec 2011 |
||||
|
Implement action plan
|
Corporate Management Team
|
|
In accordance with agreed plan
|
Dec 2011 |
||
|
Performance Management
|
Good -Very effective management and control system in place with covalent as well as a data quality policy
|
Data Quality policy revised and actions implemented |
AW |
Revised Policy approve and enacted |
quarterly |
30 Sept 2011 |