Agenda item

The following recommendation was made by the Overview & Scrutiny Committee at the meeting held on 15^th February 2023:

1.       To recommend that GRAC considers the project’s risk register as part of its review of NWHSHAZ project governance.

The report, as presented to the Overview & Scrutiny Committee, is attached.

The CPPM introduced the report and informed Members that it had come to the Committee following a recommendation from the Overview & Scrutiny Committee to consider whether the project had adhered to the Council’s project governance and management framework. She added that the review had found that the project had adhered to the framework, with further details included in the report.

Questions and Discussion

      i.        Cllr C Cushing stated that he had raised issues, particularly with the risk register and noted his concerns that there was very little information on the register to explain risks or mitigation, which was not good practice from a project management perspective. He added that if risk registers were not being properly managed, he had concerns that other aspects of the project may also be improperly managed, and there may be lessons to learn to improve. The CPPM replied that from a governance perspective the risk register had been regularly updated and discussed at every project board meeting. Cllr C Cushing stated that any outside individual should be able to review the risk register, but he did not feel it would be possible in this case, and if risks were being regularly updated, it was possible that they were not being properly managed or understood.

     ii.        Cllr P Fisher stated that he had recently visited the area to see the implementation of the scheme, and it was encouraging that the project would soon be finished ahead of schedule, taking into account the impact of bad weather and other mitigating factors.

    iii.        The Chairman stated that the risk register contained 34 risks with approximately 30% given a red RAG status, which was a cause for concern. The CE replied that the pre-mitigation register would show a higher number of red RAG statuses. He added that many of the red statuses took into account potential risks that had not occurred, whilst the post-mitigation register showed a much improved picture. It was suggested that it would be of greater concern if the number of red RAG statuses had remained the same post-mitigation. The CE stated that some risks remained that were related to increased costs and the need for additional funding, but taking into account contract and materials inflation, this had to be expected and would remain a red status risk. It was noted that mitigation action had included the purchase of materials upfront, but increased labour costs remained an issue and would be for all building projects for the foreseeable future. The Chairman accepted that risks had reduced significantly post-mitigation and did not present the same level of concern.

   iv.        Cllr C Cushing stated that the risk register should present the current position and therefore questioned whether any historic information relating to pre-mitigation risks was necessary. The CE replied that this format could be reviewed and considered against best practice of other local authorities. The HIA stated that Internal Audit had a risk management assessment scheduled as part of the upcoming audit programme, and risk registers would be considered as part of this work with recommendations made where necessary. She added that in some cases it could be helpful for management to see pre-mitigation risks, but ideally it would be best to see a consistent approach used across all projects and risk registers.

RESOLVED

To review and note the report and associated risk register.