At its meeting on 15 September Cabinet will consider the Integrated Performance Report Q1. Nigel Kennedy, Head of Financial Services, and Anna Winship, Management Accountancy Manager, will be available to present the report and answer questions.

The Panel is recommended to NOTE the report, having raised any questions it may have and having AGREED any recommendations to make to Cabinet arising therefrom.

Anna Winship, Management Accountancy Manager presented to the Panel the Integrated Performance Report Q1, detailing the Council’s position concerning finances, performance and risk.

Financially, the General Fund was on budget. However, within this figure there were a number of income sources continuing to be impacted by Covid-19 which were being monitored closely. Car parking income in the first quarter was significantly down against budget, a budget already reduced by £1.4m for the year owing to expected Covid disruption to income. Community Centre, Town Hall and Licensing incomes were all broadly on track for their reduced budgets. A clearer picture of the performance of Property Rental income was anticipated by the Q2 report. Issues arising from the QL implementation meant it was not possible to provide an update on ODS performance.

Capital spending showed a slippage of approximately £9m. Some key projects which had shown slippage included the East Oxford Community Centre project, Osney Mead Infrastructure, City Cycle Schemes, and Motor Transport Vehicle Programme.

The HRA showed a very minor adverse variance against budget, though the broadly-stable figure did show some changes, with stage payments being paid to OCHL, and slippage to the overall housing delivery from OCHL roughly negating one another.

For performance, of the 24 corporate KPIs 13 were rated Green (on target); 5 were rated Amber (within a tolerance of target) and 1 was rated Red (outside of target), there were also 5 indicators that are unrated due to either no data being available or no comparable data from previous year to rate against.  The red risk related to the estimated number of people sleeping rough in the city, with 24 estimated to do so against a target of 17.

Concerning risk, two red corporate risks existed at the end of quarter one.  These relates to actions taken to ensure housing delivery and supply for the city of Oxford and to enable sufficient house building and investment; local, national or international factors adversely affecting the economic growth of the city and negative impacts of Climate Change. 

Councillor Amar Latif joined the meeting at this point.

One of the key topics explored by the Panel concerned car parking. Whilst income was clearly impaired by Covid, longer-term policy and trends towards car reduction would also have a negative impact. It was recognised that the Council was responsible for multiple types of car parking, catering to shoppers, commuters and people engaging in recreation, and those visiting the city-centre and those parking in the outskirts. This meant there would be a base income, on the basis that not all would be impacted equally by Covid and policy trends. All types of parking were anticipated to bounce back in Y2 of the Medium Term Financial Plan, but thereafter policy decisions such as the removal of Oxpens car park would be expected to weigh on income levels.  It was requested that a more fleshed-out response about the price elasticity for different types of car parks be provided to the Panel at a future meeting, with the input of the County Council.

Similar concerns about the recovery rate of community centre income to normal levels were raised. Usage was already beginning to pick up, and the expectation was that usage would return to normal or near-normal by the end of the financial year.

The likelihood and possible quantum of the ODS dividend in future years was discussed, the latter part of which was uncertain owing to being dependent on securing additional business. Whilst it was not possible to give granular financial reporting, the general sense was that at present ODS operatives were busy and that there was not a major issues that the QL implementation issues were obscuring.

Other issues discussed included: the lack of reference to Brexit as a contributor to the Council’s red corporate risks; the disappointment at the number of rough sleepers; the current situation with Floyds Row; and options for supporting struggling commercial tenants as Covid support was withdrawn.

The Panel NOTED the report. No recommendations were made to Cabinet.