Report of the Director of Open Spaces.
Minutes:
Members had previously expressed dissatisfaction with the way that risks are
presented using the departmental summary risk register alongside the divisional risk
registers. Officers believe this is because the current departmental summary risk
register does not provide sufficient detail. The report outlines alternative options for
the presentation of departmental risks. Members were asked to consider the options, and select one which can then be trialled.
The Open Spaces Department currently reports on risk using a summary
departmental risk register and divisional risk registers for each division. The
summary risk register represents the top 5 or 6 cross cutting or most serious
issues facing the department. These summary entries point to the detail
contained within the divisional risk registers. This approach has not been popular
with Members and so alternative presentations of risk are now presented for
Members to consider.
Recent discussions have identified two further risks which should be included on
our risk registers: historic landscapes and safeguarding. It has been identified
that a number of our historic landscapes and features could be at a risk of decline
or of further decline in their condition. Members noted that capital
projects are being considered to mitigate this risk. Safeguarding was not
previously included on the departmental risk register as it is reflected on the
corporate register. This is not felt to be a sufficient so it will be now added to the
departmental risk register. The Director is confident that the department is
managing this risk well having undertaken “train the trainer” session to prepare
staff in the Learning Team to deliver safeguarding training across the department.
This is in addition the online training available corporately. These risks will be
added to the revised risk register once the new format has been agreed by
Members. Members may also like to note that the impact of terrorism at Tower
Bridge has now been incorporated into the departmental risk register.
Resolved – that Members approved to trial Option 2: Detailed divisional risk registers only. This option would do away with the summary departmental risk register and just present the divisional risk registers. This could increase Committee focus on the risks as impacting on the individual divisions. The Open Spaces & City Gardens Committee would only receive the Parks & Gardens risk register, which it is jointly responsible for with the West Ham Park Committee. The Committee could, if it wished, receive copies of all divisional risk registers annually to satisfy itself it the Committee? strategic role, that risk is well managed across the department.
Option 3: Departmental risk register which reflects actions from divisional risk
registers and divisional risk registers. This option retains a summary risk register reflecting the top 5 or 6 key departmental issues, but populates the actions with the actions from each of the relevant divisional risks entries. This option has been trailed and is presented at Appendix 2. This approach has the advantage of drawing Members of this Committee’s attention to the key strategic issues, whilst allowing Members to “drill down” and see what actions are being taken at each division
Supporting documents: