Common use of Key Risks Clause in Contracts

Key Risks. 1.2.1 A key element of the project will be to identify and to mitigate against the risks associated with the site and the project. It is not possible to predict everything but a risk log has been created within the project governance supporting documentation. Initial risks identified include those itemised in Table 2. R1 One Public Estate and / or other government funding no longer available Regular contact with OPE Team and OPE are represented on Programme Board and Project Delivery Board. Funding delay or loss is not likely to impact on the project due to the scale and duration of the project. However it will lead to more up front funding being required from partners for the initial work R2 MOD reverse the decision to declare the site for disposal Maintain close engagement with ▇▇▇. Signing the MOU to mitigate against this risk. Maintain engagement between ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇’▇ ▇▇ (▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇), Council Leader, Deputy Leader and CEO with MOD’s Parliamentary Under Secretary of State ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇.. Engagement will highlight the Councils ambitions and the effective working to date with MOD R3 Minerals – surveys identify deposits that render significant parts of the site restricted from development MOD and RCC recognise this as a key risk to the project In order to assess the impact on the masterplan the Partnership will: a. Commission an independent minerals survey b. Based on the survey results, agree a strategy to deal with any future mineral extraction c. If safeguarding is agreed, seek to expedite the use of the safeguarded area at the earliest opportunity to allow the site to be restored and developed as soon as possible. d. Through the master planning process, explore the following scenarios: i. No extraction required and site is available for development in its entirety ii. Part of the site is identified as ‘safeguarded’ but will be held for a number of years iii. Plans for the site once returned to use iv. Plans for use of the site in the period prior to excavation e. The agreed outcome will then be built into the master plan i.e. once surveys are completed the masterplan can be updated to reflect the extent of ‘safeguarded’ minerals as well as phasing of when that part of the site might become available. During this period RCC and MOD will liaise with Minerals Companies who may have an interest in order to facilitate an open dialogue and prepare for their potential involvement. R4 Community concerns linked to the proposals Significant and early stakeholder engagement planned. Launch of project with Stakeholders is planned for late September 2017 A joint communications and action plan is being developed with both RCC and MOD inputting. Maintain oral briefings for key stakeholders on an on-going basis. Ensure dialogue/engagement with stakeholders about development of the site by promoting it’s availability through the local plan review process. The site will be referred to as a ‘Reserved’ site. Due to the early stage of bringing the site forward it will not be counted in delivery numbers. R5 Site remains undeveloped for a significant period of time The plan is to be ready in 2020/21 for work to commence immediately. The project plan will be monitored closely to ensure that all pre work builds to this date. R6 Contamination – significant parts of the site are contaminated to an extent as to make the site too expensive to develop Early surveys will be undertaken by the MOD to identify the extent of contamination. Once details are known estimates for any decontamination will be developed and the impact on proposed development identified. The Masterplan will be adjusted accordingly. If this presents financial viability issues at this point alternative development and / or financial scenarios will be considered. R7 Delayed withdrawal of Army from site Regular communication with DIO should ensure the project plan can be adjusted to accommodate. R8 Impact of the Listed Part of the site This will be incorporated into the masterplan supported by the early involvement of English Heritage. It is proposed to make more of the feature incorporated within St George’s Fields. The impact on the masterplan and minerals extraction will be considered. R9 Bids by Heritage England and / or other parties to include further buildings or parts of the site for listing. A whole site inspection was undertaken by English Heritage in 2014 and no other sites where identified as of interest or proposed for listing. Both MOD and RCC agree that no further listings are appropriate, would not be supported and would be vigorously defended. R10 Issues arise over creation of new communities and consequently local governance. The site currently is adjacent to two Parish Council’s (▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ and North Luffenham) and one Parish Meeting (Normanton). Nearby is the Parish of Ketton. All four will be key stakeholders but will potentially be dwarfed by the size of the new community. It is essential that early consideration is given to the creation of a new Parish and the implications of that on the project and the communities. The proposal is to create a new Parish. The master plan will provide the context for a neighbourhood plan with the associated impact on CIL. The Council’s Monitoring Officer & Director for Resources will lead on this aspect of the project. R11 Annington Homes The married quarters at St Georges are currently outside the scope of the project as MOD will continue to use them to support MOD staff at Wittering, Kendrew and possibly further afield. It is proposed at this stage that this issue is revisited at an appropriate time within the master planning process. R12 Cost of new Infrastructure and Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and Highways and Affordable Housing S106 provision makes development/project financially unviable Map current infrastructure provision Identify new infrastructure provision Continually review project financial viability against each stage of master planning evolution R13 Impact of National and Local Election RCC and all Parishes – all out election due in 2019 Cross party briefings aimed at securing cross-party support. It is essential that key decisions reflect the potential impact of changes in political leadership & future proof where possible the impact of a significant change of mind-set around the project. R14 Existing military and non- military occupiers at the site (Public and Private) prevent or delay the site being brought forward for development A transition group led by MOD will be established to identify all existing military and non-military occupiers, shared use facilities and services and establish a withdrawal timeline and plan. The group will also establish any associated risks and address stakeholder management issues R15 Land surrounding the site not in RCC or MOD ownership limits the ability of the partnership to develop the site as indicated by the master plan e.g supporting infrastructure and access The partnership agrees to explore further land acquisitions or involvement in the partnership of other landowners as and where appropriate to enhance project aims. The Housing Infrastructure Fund has been identified as a potential funding source for this element of the project.

Key Risks. 1.2.1 A key element of the project will be to identify and to mitigate against the risks associated with the site and the project. It is not possible to predict everything but a risk log has been created within the project governance supporting documentation. Initial risks identified include those itemised in Table 2. R1 One Public Estate and / or other government funding no longer available Regular contact with OPE Team and OPE are represented on Programme Board and Project Delivery Board. Funding delay or loss is not likely to impact on the project due to the scale and duration of the project. However it will lead to more up front funding being required from partners for the initial work R2 MOD reverse the decision to declare the site for disposal Maintain close engagement with ▇▇▇. Signing the MOU to mitigate against this risk. Maintain engagement between ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇’▇ ▇▇ (▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇), Council Leader, Deputy Leader and CEO with MOD’s Parliamentary Under Secretary of State ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇.. Engagement will highlight the Councils ambitions and the effective working to date with MOD R3 Minerals – surveys identify deposits that render significant parts of the site restricted from development MOD and RCC recognise this as a key risk to the project In order to assess the impact on the masterplan the Partnership will: a. Commission an independent minerals survey b. Based on the survey results, agree a strategy to deal with any future mineral extraction c. If safeguarding is agreed, seek to expedite the use of the safeguarded area at the earliest opportunity to allow the site to be restored and developed as soon as possible. d. Through the master planning process, explore the following scenarios: i. No extraction required and site is available for development in its entirety ii. Part of the site is identified as ‘safeguarded’ but will be held for a number of years iii. Plans for the site once returned to use iv. Plans for use of the site in the period prior to excavation e. The agreed outcome will then be built into the master plan i.e. once surveys are completed the masterplan can be updated to reflect the extent of ‘safeguarded’ minerals as well as phasing of when that part of the site might become available. During this period RCC and MOD will liaise with Minerals Companies who may have an interest in order to facilitate an open dialogue and prepare for their potential involvement. R4 Community concerns linked to the proposals Significant and early stakeholder engagement planned. Launch of project with Stakeholders is planned for late September 2017 A joint communications and action plan is being developed with both RCC and MOD inputting. Maintain oral briefings for key stakeholders on an on-going basis. Ensure dialogue/engagement with stakeholders about development of the site by promoting it’s availability through the local plan review process. The site will be referred to as a ‘Reserved’ site. Due to the early stage of bringing the site forward it will not be counted in delivery numbers. R5 Site remains undeveloped for a significant period of time The plan is to be ready in 2020/21 for work to commence immediately. The project plan will be monitored closely to ensure that all pre work builds to this date. R6 Contamination – significant parts of the site are contaminated to an extent as to make the site too expensive to develop Early surveys will be undertaken by the MOD to identify the extent of contamination. Once details are known estimates for any decontamination will be developed and the impact on proposed development identified. The Masterplan will be adjusted accordingly. If this presents financial viability issues at this point alternative development and / or financial scenarios will be considered. R7 Delayed withdrawal of Army from site Regular communication with DIO should ensure the project plan can be adjusted to accommodate. R8 Impact of the Listed Part of the site This will be incorporated into the masterplan supported by the early involvement of English Heritage. It is proposed to make more of the feature incorporated within St George’s Fields. The impact on the masterplan and minerals extraction will be considered. R9 Bids by Heritage England and / or other parties to include further buildings or parts of the site for listing. A whole site inspection was undertaken by English Heritage in 2014 and no other sites where identified as of interest or proposed for listing. Both MOD and RCC agree that no further listings are appropriate, would not be supported and would be vigorously defended. R10 Issues arise over creation of new communities and consequently local governance. The site currently is adjacent to two Parish Council’s (▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ and North Luffenham) and one Parish Meeting (Normanton). Nearby is the Parish of Ketton. All four will be key stakeholders but will potentially be dwarfed by the size of the new community. It is essential that early consideration is given to the creation of a new Parish and the implications of that on the project and the communities. The proposal is to create a new Parish. The master plan will provide the context for a neighbourhood plan with the associated impact on CIL. The Council’s Monitoring Officer & Director for Resources will lead on this aspect of the project. R11 Annington Homes The married quarters at St Georges are currently outside the scope of the project as MOD will continue to use them to support MOD staff at Wittering, Kendrew and possibly further afield. It is proposed at this stage that this issue is revisited at an appropriate time within the master planning process. R12 Cost of new Infrastructure and Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and Highways and Affordable Housing S106 provision makes development/project financially unviable Map current infrastructure provision Identify new infrastructure provision Continually review project financial viability against each stage of master planning evolution R13 Impact of National and Local Election RCC and all Parishes – all out election due in 2019 Cross party briefings aimed at securing cross-party support. It is essential that key decisions reflect the potential impact of changes in political leadership & future proof where possible the impact of a significant change of mind-set around the project. R14 Existing military and non- military occupiers at the site (Public and Private) prevent or delay the site being brought forward for development A transition group led by MOD will be established to identify all existing military and non-military occupiers, shared use facilities and services and establish a withdrawal timeline and plan. The group will also establish any associated risks and address stakeholder management issues R15 Land surrounding the site not in RCC or MOD ownership limits the ability of the partnership to develop the site as indicated by the master plan e.g supporting infrastructure and access The partnership agrees to explore further land acquisitions or involvement in the partnership of other landowners as and where appropriate to enhance project aims. The Housing Infrastructure Fund has been identified as a potential funding source for this element of the project.