None. 

The Chair reminded Members to indicate whether they wished to discuss the exempt appendix relating to item 10; if so, the Committee would be required to enter confidential session, and the public would be excluded.  

The Chair also welcomed Councillor Taylor to the Committee following his appointment at the last meeting of full Council.  

The Committee is asked to approve the minutes of the meeting held on 13 January 2026 as a true and accurate record.

The Committee resolved to approve the minutes of the meetings held 13 January 2026 as a true and accurate record.  

Public addresses relating to matters of business for this agenda. Up to five minutes is available for each public address.

The request to speak accompanied by the full text of the address must be received by the Director of Law, Governance and Strategy by 5.00 pm on Wednesday, 28 January 2026.

None.

Councillor addresses relating to matters of business for this agenda. Up to five minutes is available for each address.

The request should be received by the Director of Law, Governance and Strategy by 5.00 pm on Wednesday, 28 January 2026.

None. 

At the Scrutiny Committee meeting on 14 October 2025, the Committee requested for an update on the council’s debt recovery procedure. Councillor Ed Turner, Deputy Leader (Statutory) and Cabinet Member for Finance and Asset Manager, Nigel Kennedy, Group Finance Director (Section 151 Officer) and Philip McGaskill, Revenues Service Delivery Manager will be in attendance to present the report and answer questions.

The Committee is asked to consider the report and agree any recommendations.

At the Scrutiny Committee meeting on 14 October 2025, the Committee requested an update on the council’s debt recovery procedure. The Cabinet Member for Finance and Asset Management, the Group Finance Director and the Revenues Service Delivery Manager were present to respond to questions.  

The Revenues Service Delivery Manager introduced the report, noting that the Committee had queried the Council’s use of enforcement agents, the steps taken to identify and support people experiencing temporary or permanent vulnerabilities, and the routes taken to recover outstanding debt. The report set out this information with explanation of the Council’s legal obligations.   

Councillor Turner welcomed the Committee’s interest in the topic and emphasised the importance that the Council places on supporting people who are financially marginalised or vulnerable. Specific mention was made to the Council’s use of grant funding, its commitment to council tax reduction, and the various advice and support services made available to citizens.  

Councillor Ottino queried what the Council does to support those on universal credit with council tax payments, and whether any reductions are offered.  

The Revenues Service Delivery Manager outlined the Council’s use of MARS software to assess council tax for those residents in receipt of universal credit. The Committee heard that this enables better understanding of the impact of payment timings in order to inform recovery action and it considers personal circumstances of vulnerable persons to ensure appropriate support can be offered. 

Councillor Turner also emphasised the need to carefully consider how to highlight a person’s vulnerabilities to the Council to ensure they can receive appropriate support. Reference was made to the complexity of legal wording required in debt recovery communications and the Council’s work with a behavioural psychologist to encourage better engagement.  

Councillor Taylor and Councillor Qayyum joined the meeting during discussion of this item.  

Councillor Ottino also queried how often the Council meets with relevant advice centres, to which Councillor Turner noted the Council’s openness and officer attendance at advice centre AGMs. The Committee heard of capacity issues within advice centres which has limited the frequency of these meetings.   

The Revenues Service Delivery Manager further explained that the Council used to hold quarterly meetings with advice centres, however capacity issues and volunteer availability has reduced these.  

Councillor Turner left the meeting during discussion of this item.   

Councillor Qayyum queried the accessibility of the complaints process for vulnerable residents and asked how the Council approaches and manages language barriers and digital exclusion during the debt recovery process. 

Councillor Miles asked what steps the Council takes to confirm the identity of a person believed to be residing at a given property when enacting debt recovery measures.  

Councillor Jarvis, in relation to paragraph 7 of the report, queried what incentives enforcement agents may perceive to be available, and whether they are required to report any new vulnerabilities of citizens to the Council. Councillor Jarvis also asked how frequently debt recovery cases are referred to an enforcement agency. 

In response to Councillor Miles, the Revenues Service Delivery Manager explained the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 98.

At the Scrutiny Committee meeting on 9 September 2025, the Committee requested an update on the Council owned noticeboards. Tom Hook, Deputy Chief Executive will be in attendance to present the report and answer questions.

The Committee is asked to consider the report and agree any recommendations.

At the Scrutiny Committee meeting on 9 September 2025, the Committee requested an update on the Council owned noticeboards. The Cabinet Member for Citizen Focussed Services and Council Companies, the Deputy Chief Executive for City and Citizens, and the Director of Communities and Citizens' Services were present to respond to questions.  

Councillor Chapman introduced the update report by noting its connection to the Citizen Engagement Strategy. The Committee heard that the report takes a practical approach to assessing the variable maintenance situations and uses of noticeboards across the city and suggests how they can be used most effectively in the future. The Committee were asked to consider the proposals within the report.  

The Deputy Chief Executive for City and Citizens reiterated that the report reflects a mixed picture across city and contained options for the Committee to consider.  

Councillor Miles noted her thanks for the report and expressed a preference for valuable work with noticeboards to be maintained within the city. On this basis, it was asked what the procurement procedure and funding sources would be, and whether this could be standardised. Councillor Miles suggested that the Committee could consider the allocation of free space on noticeboards to allow residents to post their own leaflets, without the control the relevant organising body. Finally, it was asked how new locations for more noticeboards could be identified. 

 
Councillor Taylor queried whether the Council had considered engaging with shops and small businesses to put noticeboards within their premises.  

Councillor Chapman recommended that the most efficient provider for noticeboards is ODS, and the Committee heard of his experience with the installation and costs of this. It was noted that this could provide consistency across the city, as suggested by Councillor Miles. Councillor Chapman suggested that ODS be used in place of multiple varied suppliers. In respect of key control, Councillor Chapman noted strengths and weaknesses to centralised control of noticeboards and recommended that the Committee consider this.  

The Deputy Chief Executive for City and Citizens Services clarified that the noticeboard costings included within the report were on the basis of ODS undertaking the work.   

Councillor Qayyum expressed her view that the Council should be involved in the provision and management of noticeboards around the city.  

Councillor Ottino queried what permissions are needed to put up a new noticeboard and requested that relevant guidelines for councillors be made available.  

Councillor Chapman and the Deputy Chief Executive for City and Citizens explained that formal planning permission is not usually required, but in some instances, the permission of the landowner may be necessary; this should be assessed on a case-by-case basis.  

 
Councillor Miles noted concern and her experience with planning permission disputes relating to noticeboards and requested that councillors be provided with some definitive guidance.  

 
The Deputy Chief Executive for City and Citizens suggested that the Committee may wish to make this as a recommendation, with consideration for the budget review group report later in the meeting.  

The Chair invited the Committee to consider possible recommendations. 

The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 99.

At the Scrutiny Committee meeting on 1 July 2025, the Committee requested a review of the Council’s AI Strategy. Councillor Nigel Chapman, Cabinet Member for Citizen Focussed Services and Council Companies, Tom Hook, Deputy Chief Executive – City and Citizens, and Helen Bishop, Director of Communities and Citizens' Services will be in attendance to present the report and answer questions.

The Committee is asked to consider the report and agree any recommendations.

At the Scrutiny Committee meeting on 1 July 2025, the Committee requested a review of the Council’s AI Strategy. The Cabinet Member for Citizen Focussed Services and Council Companies, the Deputy Chief Executive for City and Citizens, the Director of Communities and Citizens' Services, and the People Programme Manager were present to respond to questions.  

Councillor Chapman introduced the report, noting that the strategy supplements the Council’s existing AI policy. The Committee understood that the report outlined how the progression of AI use would be managed in the future with reference to clear principles and a governance framework. Councillor Chapman emphasised the challenges of AI as it rapidly evolves and the need to keep it continuously under review, but also the exciting opportunities it offers, including for current apprentices within the council and for wider organisational efficiency. The Committee were informed that these apprenticeships are being funded via a government levy. Councillor Chapman concluded by urging the Committee not to be too prescriptive in any recommendations put forward as to allow the productive development of AI with time.  

The Director of Communities and Citizens' Services emphasised that the strategy seeks to curate a safe introduction for AI mechanisms within the organisation and to maintain a fair balance between safety and responsibility alongside creativity. The Committee learned of the steering groups which have been developed to assess and monitor the Council’s expansion of AI.   

Councillor Miles suggested an open question focused on whether security and GDPR had been considered within the Council’s expansion of AI.  

Councillor Corais queried the savings targets mentioned in the report, specifically how they had been set up and managed. 

The Director of Communities and Citizens' Services, in response to Councillor Miles, emphasised that the Council manages AI within a highly secure environment, and the current policy ensures employees use tools that are confined within the Microsoft environment. This ensures that all organisational data remains within a compliant boundary and risk is naturally minimised; data and audit trails are also maintained. The Committee were assured that this is assessed by the steering groups which ensures compliance with necessary protocols. In response to Councillor Corais, the Director of Communities and Citizens' Services explained that no specific target has been set in relation to AI, instead the report references savings in relation to an existing target for transformation programmes. The Committee heard future assessments would determine whether efficiency savings could be made using AI. 

The Deputy Chief Executive for City and Citizens also noted that the Council would assess future savings from AI and referenced some local authorities already doing so. It was emphasised that the savings would focus on how staff use AI tools, not the replacement of staff with AI.    

The Chair noted that the strategy references making decisions about when ethical AI can be deployed and asked whether there is a process for making these decisions. Specifically, it was asked what areas AI may be allowed into, and what parameters this would be based on. 

The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 100.

Appendix 3 to this item includes exempt information pursuant to Paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972. If the Scrutiny Committee wishes to discuss matters relating to the information set out in Appendix 3 to the report, it will be necessary for the Scrutiny Committee to pass a resolution to exclude the press and public from the meeting.

The Scrutiny and Governance Advisor has submitted a report on behalf of the Chair of the Budget Review Group, following the Scrutiny Committee’s agreement to establish a Budget Review Group at it’s meeting on 10 June 2025 and approval of the Terms of Reference and Scope at it’s meeting on 9 September 2025.

The Committee is recommended to:

1.     Endorse the report and recommendations from the Budget Review Group.

2.     Delegate authority to the Scrutiny and Governance Advisor, in consultation with the Chair of the Scrutiny Committee, to make minor amendments to the report.

The Scrutiny and Governance Advisor had submitted a report on behalf of the Chair of the Budget Review Group, following the Scrutiny Committee’s agreement to establish a Budget Review Group at?its meeting on 10 June 2025 and approval of the Terms of Reference and Scope at?its?meeting on 9 September 2025. 

The Chair reminded the Committee to indicate if they wished to discuss the confidential appendix to the report for this item; they did not.  

The Scrutiny and Governance Advisor summarised the report, noting that the Budget Review Group had met through December and January to examine the Council’s proposed budget and medium-term financial plan. The Committee were informed that nine recommendations were produced, as detailed in the report.   

Councillor Jarvis expressed his thanks to members of other working groups which had participated in the discussions and noted that the group had fewer recommendations than previous years, partially due to the nature of the financial plan and expected changes with Local Government Reorganisation. Councillor Jarvis also thanked Councillor Fry as the Chair of the budget review group, and the Group Finance Director.  

The Chair noted that the Committee’s earlier recommendation relating to noticeboards would be formally appended to this report.  

Councillor Miles noted her thanks and support for the recommendations but suggested that all those who had contributed the budget review group discussion be referenced within the report in the future. Councillor Jarvis supported this and requested that the report be amended to reflect this acknowledgement. There being no dissent, the Committee supported this amendment. 

Councillor Taylor expressed his discontent with recommendation 4.   

The Chair explained that detailed reasoning for the recommendation could not be provided during this meeting as relevant officers were not present to respond.  

Councillor Jarvis, as a member of the budget review group, noted that recommendation 4 had been discussed repeatedly in earlier years, and noted that it broadly held cross-party support. Councillor Jarvis recommended that the Committee endorse all the recommendations within the report. 

The Committee resolved to: 

1. Endorse?the report and recommendations from the Budget Review Group, subject to the amendments set out above. 

2. Delegate authority?to the Scrutiny and Governance Advisor, in consultation with the Chair of the Scrutiny Committee, to make minor amendments to the report. 

The Work Plan is driven to a very large extent by the Cabinet Forward Plan. The Scrutiny Committee agrees its priorities for items coming onto the Forward Plan, which then form part of its Work Plan.

The Committee is recommended to confirm its agreement to the Work Plan, or agree any amendments as required.

The Scrutiny and Governance Advisor summarised the work plan and asked the Committee to consider whether they would be minded to consider the report on CIL and ward member budgets delegations expected at March Cabinet to answer any questions relating to ward member spend.  

The Committee welcomed this.  

The Chair invited additional suggestions from the Committee.  

Based on existing issues within Oxford, Councillor Ottino suggested that a report on the City Council’s role in highways management be brought forward, with a focus on powers and lessons learned.   

 
Councillor Taylor suggested that the report scrutinise how ODS deliver this work as the responsible body. 

The Chair welcomed this and suggested that the report also consider walkways as well as roads.  

Councillor Miles suggested that the report be framed around commissioning and payment channels.  

The Scrutiny and Governance Advisor committed to taking away the suggestions and discussing the feasibility of the suggestions with relevant officers.  

The Chair emphasised the importance of the topic with consideration of Local Government Reorganisation and the potential responsibilities that a new unitary authority could take on for highways management.   

The Committee noted the workplan.  

At its meeting on 21 January 2026, Cabinet considered the following reports from Scrutiny and made responses to the recommendations:

·       Workforce Report

·       Proposed Submission Draft Oxford Local Plan 2045

The Committee is asked to:

1.    Note Cabinet’s responses to its recommendations.

The Chair informed the Committee of Cabinet’s responses to their recent recommendations, as set out in the report. Regarding the Local Plan, the Committee understood that Council had considered a recommendation relating to the creation of new local centres but not taken it forward.  

Then Committee discussed the decision taken at Council and requested that the Scrutiny and Governance Advisor obtain additional guidance from relevant officers to support Members’ understanding of why some recommendations were not taken forward.  

The Committee noted Cabinet’s responses to its recommendations.  

There have been no meetings of the Working Groups since the Scrutiny Committee’s previous meeting on 13 January 2026.

There were no recommendations to endorse.  

Scrutiny Committee

·       10 March 2026

·       7 April 2026

All meetings start at 6:00 pm.

The Chair invited the Committee to consider an adaptation to the timing of the next meeting to accommodate Members observing Ramadan. The Committee agreed that the next meeting would begin at 18.15. 

The Committee noted the dates of future meetings.