Agenda item

Report of the Director of the Built Environment.

The Committee discussed a report of the Director of the Built Environment which provided Members with assurance that risk management procedures in place within the Department of the Built Environment are satisfactory and that they meet the requirements of the corporate Risk Management Framework.

Officers presented the report by drawing Members attention to significant risk changes, detailed within paragraph 12 of the report, of which there were two. One was an actual change to the risk score in relation to major projects and key programmes which had increased for the second time and the other (not being alive to the needs/requirements of the world business centre and the political environment) had not increased sufficiently to change the risk score but had, nonetheless, increased in terms of likelihood as a result of the current pandemic.

Officers also referred to the identification of new risks, particularly those related to COVID-19. Members were informed that three Bronze groups had been established – two reporting to this Committee and one reporting to Port Health and Environmental Services Committee. Each Bronze Group has a risk and two higher, departmental level risks had been identified. These were, unusually, being reported to both Committees because it was not felt that it was possible to sufficiently separate out the issues between the two. The two bronze risks relating to this Committee – Highways and Parking Enforcement and Development and Construction were detailed further in Appendix 3.

Finally, Officers reported that the highest level risk – Road Safety – had been reviewed.

The Chair asked that Members try to focus questions around how the risks were controlled and managed as opposed to the subject matter of individual risks given that these were so far ranging.

A Member remarked that Officers had commented on the way that some of the risks had moved over this past quarter and commented that the Audit and Risk Management Committee were scheduled to meet this afternoon where they would be looking at risks using a ‘flightpath’. He questioned whether this Committee might also have a flightpath block within future reports to depict how various risks had been managed over time against expectations. The Member went on to remark specifically on Road Safety and noted that the ambition here was still to maintain a red risk. He questioned whether this was sufficiently ambitious or whether it could be managed downwards, below Red into Amber as a target. He commented that, now that the new Local Plan had been approved with all of the various transport features within it, this might be able to be reviewed. Finally, the Member commented on the new risks added to the report noting that these currently had no target risk scores assigned to them and questioning whether these would be added to future reports once the new risks had been established.

Officers responded to the points made by stating that they had previously experimented with risk flightpaths. However, the way that the corporate risk system was built only allowed flightpaths that depicted changes for a defined number of recent reports/revisions. As some risks were reviewed more frequently than others it was also highlighted that the time base for these flightpaths would be very different for each of the risks and that they would not therefore be directly comparable. Officers suggested that they generate a set of flightpaths for the existing risks and share these with the Member for discussion outside of the meeting. In terms of reducing the Road Safety risk to Amber, Officers reported that the issue with this was that this would require a likelihood of ‘rare’ on the corporate scoring grid given that the impact of death is always going to be extreme. The criteria for rare would be that there was unlikely to be a death on the City’s roads within a ten-year period and it was not felt that this was realistic. Whilst there was a long-term ambition in the Transport Strategy for no one to be killed or seriously injured on the City’s streets, the level change needed to achieve that was significant and would certainly take longer than 2-3 years and the 2022/23 target date referred to within the risk report.

With regard to target risk scores relating to COVID-19, Officers highlighted that these were not classic risks that they were used to dealing with and that there was therefore some uncertainty as to how they were to be analysed. However, the next quarterly report would contain such targets and Officers were currently confident that they were doing all necessary to mitigate these risks.

Another Member questioned whether it would still be possible, given the ongoing pandemic, to achieve the target risk score of 16 by the target date of March 2022 in relation to road safety. Officers commented that they were confident that this could still be achieved. The pandemic and the transportation response that would be considered at the next agenda item, may, in some ways, assist in achieving this quicker than originally anticipated, particularly if there were opportunities and it was appropriate to make some of the temporary changes proposed permanent in due course. These works might accelerate the delivery of some of the changes to make the City’s streets safer. Members were also informed that some of the big moves in terms of road danger reduction were still on track, in particular the submission later this month to the Department for Transport for approval of the City’s 15mph speed limit. The Chair added that, from his own recent dealings with the Department for Transport, they were currently very focused on the ambitions around the City’s Transport Strategy for London and the UK and that he would therefore be very surprised if they were not receptive to these proposals.

A Member questioned, under the road safety risk, whether the organisation were properly recognising that as the risks and levels of motor traffic in the City were reduced, increased risks would emerge for cyclists. He sought assurances that appropriate measures were being put in place to specifically address this. Officers reported that the road danger reduction approach being taken, as set out within the Transport Strategy, is a risk-based approach, focusing on the causes of risks on the City’s streets and concentrating efforts around the biggest risks. At present, the biggest risk remained motor vehicles which are the largest, fastest moving and most dangerous vehicles on the City’s streets. However, efforts were still being made to work alongside the City of London Police to enforce against dangerous cycling and irresponsible/inappropriate behaviour on the part of cyclists.

The Member responded to thank Officers for these reassurances but added that these issues were already arising with cyclists taking advantage of the reduced traffic flows in the City and asked that actions were taken quickly to address this. He added that it would not be unique if a pedestrian were to be killed by a cyclist given that this had occurred relatively recently on one of the bridges.

RESOLVED – That Members note the report and the actions taken in the Department of the Built Environment to monitor and manage effectively risks arising from the department’s operations.