Lancashire County Council: Environment Directorate: Local Transport Plan

6.2 Risk Management

There are risks associated with ensuring delivery of our LTP2 programme and in meeting the targets. These are set out here together with clear proposals for managing the risks. Most risks are associated with under-delivery of schemes and non-achievement of targets, however, we have also considered appropriate action to be taken should progress be more rapid than envisaged.

We will ensure flexibility of planning and delivery by not over-programming but internally we are altering our delivery methodology so that we can ‘quick start’ schemes for following years and they are designed and ready to be brought forward with little notice. Where possible we will aim to bring forward another scheme within the same delivery ‘theme’ to maintain progress toward targets. Where this is not possible we will ensure re-programming of the scheme into the following year and bring forward another scheme to ensure that the budget is effectively spent.

The prioritisation process demonstrated in our Programme (see Chapter 3) is used to identify the schemes that will make a contribution to more than one LTP objective. Where a scheme cannot be brought forward within the same ‘theme’ we will use the prioritisation matrix to identify a scheme from another theme that will make the greatest contribution to the target. In this way the overall balance of the delivery programme will be maintained.

The total budget and delivery of the programme is managed by the Lancashire LTP Manager through regular monthly meetings with the project managers/budget holders to track progress, expected delays, proposed start and completion dates and any additional costs likely to be incurred. This ensures that Risk Management difficulties in delivering any schemes can be identified at an early stage and accommodated in the overall programme delivery.

Where more rapid progress is made toward targets (in which Lancashire has an excellent record), and it can be shown that the progress is sustainable and not an anomaly, we will, through the Annual Progress Report mechanism, ‘stretch’ the target to make it more challenging.

6.2.1 Objective

To provide a manageable risk assessment for the LTP2 programme which can be used to bring key risks to the attention of the appropriate LTP management team for decision-making.

6.2.2 Methodology

The risk assessment is based upon a standard Prince 2 format currently used in Lancashire County Council. This standard risk format was chosen as it provides a detailed explanation and description of risks, which allows the register to be distributed to a wider audience. A risk map is used to clarify what action should be undertaken to deal with risks and is shown below.

Table 6.2.2 Risk Map

		Probability
		Low	Medium	High
Impact	Low	1 No action necessary	2 Monitor as necessary - ensure proper management	3 Monitor as necessary - less important but could still have significant affects on provision of key services or duties
	Medium	3 Monitor as necessary - less important but could still have significant affects on provision of services or duties	6 Monitor as necessary - less important but could still have significant affects on provision of key services or duties	8 Key risk - may affect provision of key services or duties
	High	5 Important risk - may affect provision of key services or duties	7 Key risk - may affect provision of key services or duties	9 Immediate action needed - serious threat to provision and or achievement of key services or duties

6.2.3 Summary of LCC Programme's Current Risk Status

The following risk profile table gives a visual representation of our current risk status and any risks shown above and to the right of the risk tolerance line will be reviewed. The reporting structure for risk management is headed by the Risk Manager (Lancashire’s LTP Manager) and individual areas of risk are assigned to the appropriate officer for frequent and regular monitoring (see section on Monitoring). Letters on the risk profile table relate to individual risk areas described in the LTP2 Programme Risk Register.

There are two key risk areas – Corporate and Transport. Corporate risks envelop the wider issues surrounding delivery and the LTP, whilst transport risks are specific risks encountered by Lancashire in relation to mode projects.

Table 6.2.3a Risk Profile

		Probability
		Low	Medium	High
Impact	Low	S	U
	Medium	C F L N O Q X Y	A B D H I K P R T V W
	High	G J	E M Z

Table 6.2.3b LTP2 Programme Risk Register

Ref.	Description	Impact	Probability	Counter Measures	Current status
A	Internal resource restrictions results in under-delivery of LTP2 programme.	MED Members lose confidence in Departments. Authorities fall from lead position in government rankings	MED	Monitored via Management meetings. Establish electronic monitoring system within the Department. Monitoring framework established for LTP2.	Continuing risk – for review – mitigation reduces Probability to Low/Medium
B	Consultation/adverse public & political reaction can delay individual elements of the overall programme	MED Design changes affect cost/time for schemes	MED	Programme/project management procedures. Partnership working throughout project delivery. Communication strategy.	Controlled
C	Conflicting delivery & timings from other major projects/commitments, for example Tithebarn development, CIVITAS etc.	MED Lancashire’s national reputation for delivery is affected. Less schemes introduced due to conflicts – adverse impact on CPA.	LOW	Monitored via Management meetings. Programme management. Monitoring programme to ensure continued delivery of targets and objectives for LTP2.	Continuing risk – for review – mitigation reduces Probability to Low/Medium
D	Not having the full range of information available for accurate estimates means project costs could exceed allocation	MED Programme will be delayed or reduced due to lack of available funds. Poor performance results for APR/LTP2.	MED	Management meetings to closely mange scheme approval/progress. Programme/project management. Stage funding of projects and identify further funding sources.	Increasing risk due to tighter spending round due to LTP2 requirements.
E	Confirming matching revenue/developer and external contributions for major schemes	HIGH Impact on scheme and procurement delivery	MED	Linking transport objectives into wider context and national priorities. Continued political/ regional/ local dialogue with key agencies.	Increasing risk as more schemes are dependant upon contributions. Dedicated project managers are linked to individual schemes eg. Tithebarn, CIVITAS.
F	Increase in available funding e.g. new fund sources such as Transport Innovation Fund	MED	LOW	Programme/project management. Flexible staffing, delivery and procurement arrangements.	Controlled
G	Land issues are sensitive and can affect individual programme elements	HIGH Affects timescale and cost of programme	LOW	Review issues in relation to programme and reprioritise schemes where appropriate	Controlled
H	Planning and statutory process can cause unforeseen delays	MED Affects timescale of programme	MED	Review issues in relation to programme. Project management controls.	Controlled
I	Local and national policy/legislation changes can affect the programme	MED Affects programme delivery	MED	Maintain links to key political contacts	Continuing
J	Single capital pot can have financial priorities changed affecting the programme	HIGH Affects programme delivery, works may need to be reduced	LOW	Maintain links to key political contacts	Stable political control
K	Organisational issues and intervention can affect the programme, including uncertainty regarding regional prioritisation	MED Affects programme delivery	MED	Partnership engagement with partnership agencies. Cross-departmental Representation in management meetings, key parties identified in Project Management of schemes.	Controlled – reduced probability to Low
L	Breakdown of joint working arrangements	MED	LOW	Joint advisory committee to advise on joint matters.	Stable political control. Local Partnerships are treated as priorities.
M	Monitoring mechanisms, frameworks and resources	HIGH	MED	High-level strategy to take forward a consistent monitoring framework. Greater resources must be made available to ensure Lancashire clearly manages progress.	Risk level subject to change
N	Failure to spend within financial year because of programme/project management issues	MED Lose creditability with Government resulting in reduced performance award	LOW	Continued expansion of programme/project management skills throughout authorities. Management meetings to resolve issues. Joint authority meetings.	Continuing risk – for review – mitigation reduces Probability to Low/Medium
O	Programme maybe delayed due to the time involved in demonstrating Best Value on procurement for large projects	MED	LOW	LTP1 has developed flexible procurement arrangements to deliver projects utilising private/public contractors	Reducing risk – for review Strengthening links with audit.
P	Feasibility, design and resources impact on the ability to deliver schemes	MED Uncontrolled changes in time, cost and scope of schemes. National shortages on required resources.	MED	Programme Management meetings monitor issues	Controlled – reduced probability to Low
Q	Monitoring and reporting for APR/LTP2 is required to demonstrate outputs/outcomes	MED Affects LTP performance awards	LOW	Close working relations with Government bodies. Development of more formalised electronic monitoring systems. Monitoring framework established for LTP2	Continuing – requires review to ensure progress across programme
R	Co-ordination of departmental/agency programmes delivering cross cutting schemes	MED	MED	Joined up working across departments and agencies. Joint programme management.	Increasing due to need for greater integration of schemes and objectives
S	All casualty targets - National government will lessen the emphasis on reducing vehicle speeds.	LOW	LOW	Partnership working to maintain a high profile	Controlled
T	Modal share for car based journeys to school will increase	MED	MED	Provision made to maintain funding from revenue budget Targeting of pupils that can make sustainable journeys	Continuing – requires review to ensure progress. LTP2 increases resources for this action
U	Changes in vehicle kilometres/peak traffic flows	MED	MED	Car parking charges increased (and kept under review) to rebalance cost of motoring with sustainable modes Increased promotion of sustainable modes Accessibility planning in conjunction with partners to reconsider ways of delivering key services.	Continuing – requires review to ensure progress across programme
V	Cycling & Walking trips - Other modes of travel seen as more convenient and more attractive Perceived as an unsafe modes of travel	MED	MED	TravelWise campaign and numerous cycling initiatives across the County including Bike Aid and Bike Aid Local means that cycling is encouraged in our local communities and is linked to local amenities to increase its convenience.	Car parking charges increased to rebalance cost of motoring with sustainable modes and kept under review. Road safety partnership strengthened Improved scheme prioritisation process initiated
W	Bus satisfaction - Circuitous journeys rather than direct routes Increasing fares Lack of choice of services	MED	MED	Working with bus operator partners to plan bus networks. The CIVITAS initiative in Preston has created the Overground – a simplified bus network. This will be attempt in other areas.	Continuing – requires review to ensure progress across programme
X	Bus Patronage - Reduction in numbers can lead to a spiral of declining services Ending of funding for rural services/resource	MED	LOW	Resource allocations are continuously monitored. Lancashire has reviewed rural service provision and is maximizing resource allocations to ensure the most effective rural services are maintained.	Continuous review
Y	Bus Punctuality -Congestion affecting travel times and reliability	LOW	MED	Regular operator forums means LCC is aware of service disruptions and acts to remove disruptions in all possible cases.	Continuous review. Excellent relations/communications with bus operators means this area is under constant observation
Z	All maintenance targets - Reduced revenue funding Increased costs and scheme over runs	HIGH	MED	Implementation of a new Pavement Management System and a recent reorganization means that controls are much tighter.	Internal improvements are threatened to be overshadowed by maintenance funding shortfalls. Rate of deterioration of roads is likely to increase if maintenance funding is not increased.

Printer Friendly Version | About our website | Top of page

| Environment Directorate

What's New | Site Map |