An address to Cabinet was submitted by Mark Pott regarding Agenda Item 11:

This question is similar to my consultation response, which was not listed in the response summary of the report to the Cabinet. (Redesignation of the Neighbourhood Forum for Headington) Decisions seem to be taken for CIL funding by a Committee of only three persons, minutes are extremely sparse and, in some cases, unlinked on the web site. (eg: Dec 2022) There is clearly a relationship between Headington Action and the Forum, but the lines of responsibility are unclear with possible overlap of personnel. There appears to be insufficient publicly available information as to how this arrangement is authorised or how it operates and how responsibilities are delineated. For example, for a project as large as the Regeneration Plan (£37K for first phase only) at a minimum the following publicly accessible, details should be available:

• Plan objectives (partly provided)
• Outline costs prior to commencement
• Tendering – Tender details, responses, and formal selection process
• Detailed minutes of all meetings and decisions, with clear line of responsibility for the two organisations (Headington Action and Forum) and individuals, and record of voting etc
• Formal consultation and justification of disbursements especially including a go/no go decision with public consultation
• Cost breakdown by item for proposed and completed projects
• What was achieved, lessons learnt, and future steps
• Declaration of interests [1]

This provides accountability and transparency to the taxpayer and residents. The £39,916.67 CIL money for Headington Regeneration Design was disbursed and appears to have been a complete waste of money, providing training for budding urban design consultants, producing a report consisting almost entirely of academic analysis with only 11 “ideas” which are either extremely obvious, completely unrealistic or would be very poor value for money. There is no evidence of any productive outcome or next steps, even recommendations to “declutter” have not only been ignored but clutter has increased. (chairs outside cafes, BT Hubs etc) Similarly, £9800 Street Champion Coordinator was paid for, with no report as to what was achieved for the money spent. The Forum has considered a large disbursement of £33k for Courtside but it is not clear what this was for or whether it was disbursed as it does not appear in the CIL Statement from OCC. (yet?) It includes the extraordinary request that: “The original application was approved by HA committee in January 2022 but was not advertised for consultation at the client’s request.” (08/10/2023) which is extraordinary for a request to disburse public funds. A Street Champion Coordinator 2021-2022 - £9,800. The above is also not addressed in the financial implications section of the report. Without robust governance, the sort of financial disaster the Regeneration Project represents will only be repeated. Whereas the structure appears to be adequate for minor disbursements such as flowers, lights and minor costs, it is inadequate for the large projects as below. Information may be available allay these concerns, but it is not, but should be, publicly accessible via the web site. A yearly report should be produced itemising all costs with the details above for each project for years to date and going forward. Given the weaknesses suggested above, the Forum should not disburse funds greater than say £5000 until the above is implemented. Question To Cabinet There appear to be several issues around governance, consultation and accountability and transparency concerns regarding the Forum. Based on the above, prior to redesignation, can the Cabinet give assurance that the above governance issues will be addressed to ensure CIL and other funds are disbursed transparently, accountably, and with clear rationale for decisions reached? It is surely not possible to redesignate a forum without issues such as these being resolved? Footnote: For clarity, there is no reason to believe any impropriety has occurred and none is implied.

The following response was provided to this question by the Cabinet Member for Planning & Cycling Champion. 

The report sets out the rules and regulations that the City Council must follow when considering an application for a Neighbourhood Forum designation (or redesignation). Unfortunately, the question refers to operational issues that do not have direct bearing on the criteria we have to consider. The Headington Neighbourhood Forum (HNF) has demonstrated that it meets all of the required criteria for redesignation so we will be allowing it to proceed. 

Perhaps surprisingly, there are no specific rules regarding how a Neighbourhood Forum operates, and there is therefore no basis on which the council can direct how the HNF spends the CIL funds allocated to it, as long as the spend meets the set criteria. However, Officers at the City Council work with all Neighbourhood Forums with regards to governance and other CIL-related matters and they will ensure that the feedback contained in the question is relayed to the HNF.