The Scrutiny Committee will meet on 29 January 2025.  The following reports and any recommendations from that meeting will be published as supplement:

• Grant Allocations to Community & Voluntary Organisations 2025/26
• Equalities Update
• Cowley Branch Line
• Revised Masterplan and Business Case for the Covered Market Masterplan
• Report of the Budget Review Group 2025/26 

It was agreed that the Report of the Budget Review Group 2025/26 could be presented first, prior to the Scrutiny papers.

The Budget Review Group had met on four occasions during January 2025. Councillor James Fry, Chair of the Group, presented its report and summarised its twenty-three recommendations.

Councillor Fry highlighted the central points from the Budget Review Group report. Councillor Fry noted that they had proposed setting aside an amount in the budget to prepare for the forthcoming reorganization of local government. Councillor Fry said that The Group had also discussed optimism bias to some length as they reviewed the budget. These discussions shaped their recommendations regarding capital spending.

Separately, Councillor Fry stated that The Group had discussed the projection of rents from commercial properties. The Group suggested that they should allow for 20% optimism bias in their projections of these rents. Councillor Fry presented The Group’s discussions and recommendations regarding uplifts in fees in the budget.

The Group had considered an innovation in the law this year, which provides councils the scope to pursue commercial property landlords whose property had been vacant for more than twelve months in a twenty-four-month period, to auction the properties for rent. Councillor Fry stated that The Group would like to explore the scope of this possibility.

Councillor Fry stated that the Group asked the Council to work with other councils to lobby central government to adapt the housing benefits system to remove the anomaly whereby 800,000 pounds of additional housing costs arise where registered providers are not used. The Group also asked for a business case to be prepared for enhanced links with registered providers as an invest and save initiative.

Councillor Fry presented The Group’s concerns with HRA Housing, where the tenants are on social rents, and where the properties are being invested into to lower energy costs. The Group suggested that the Council should work with a company, or establish such a company, to finance investments into sustainable energy installations on these properties. This would make the financial case for improved energy savings in council housing. In light of the legacy of Brexit, Councillor Fry noted that he was surprised at the lack of support for funding for twinning, which helps to demonstrate the links between Oxford and the EU.

Councillor Turner thanked Councillor Fry and the Budget Review Group for their work on this process. Councillor Turner noted that responses had been provided to each recommendation and that these would inform the debate at the Budget Council meeting in the following week.

Councillor Brown arrived at the meeting and took on the role of Chair from this point in the meeting.

The Scrutiny Committee had met on the 29^th of January 2025 and the following reports had been considered:

·       Grant Allocations to Community & Voluntary Organisations 2025/26

• Equalities Update
• Cowley Branch Line
• Revised Masterplan and Business Case for the Covered Market Masterplan

Eleven recommendations had been made on the first two of the four reports.

Councillor Miles presented the reports and Scrutiny’s consideration of the reports. Councillor Miles thanked the officers who had worked on these reports and attended Scrutiny. Scrutiny Committee supported the aims of the Cowley Branch Line and the Revised Masterplan and Business Case for the Covered Market Masterplan reports and endorsed the recommendations which had been presented to Cabinet. Scrutiny made no further recommendations in relation to those two papers.

In relation to the Grant Allocations to Community & Voluntary Organisations 2025/26 report, Councillor Miles said that there were some concerns around the levels of diversity in the report and how to improve communication and outreach, which led to the following recommendation on this paper. 

·       That Cabinet publishes the timetable for the Small Grants cycle for the year ahead, ensuring that this is communicated through multiple channels to ensure widest possible distribution of the message.

Councillor Smith responded to this recommendation. The recommendation had been accepted, and the Cabinet Member’s response was included in the separately published scrutiny supplement.

Councillor Miles presented the Scrutiny Committee’s discussions on the Equalities Update report. There were concerns raised concerning the proportion of ethnic minority applicants and the underrepresentation of Muslim staff in the council. The Committee had also discussed concerns around potential barriers to part time work for women in the highest levels of the Council. The Scrutiny Committee’s discussion of the paper led to ten recommendations. One of guiding recommendations from the report was for Cabinet to establish a process for implementing and reviewing Scrutiny recommendations, as a part of an annual reporting cycle. Councillor Miles said that by tracking all of the recommendations as they arise would help them to assess progress made.

Councillor Chapman responded and discussed the technical issues which had made the Scrutiny Committee meeting difficult to follow. He noted that reviewing and going back to recommendations from Scrutiny Committee was not something that was within his gift, in the manner the Committee had requested, but that it would be up to Cabinet to decide if this was necessary. Councillor Chapman said that Cabinet had accepted six out of the ten recommendations and three were not accepted because they were either overly expensive or outside of the scope of the purpose of the report. He noted that one recommendation was agreed in part. The Cabinet Member’s response was included in the separately published scrutiny supplement.

Councillor Brown said that she had noticed a tendency from Scrutiny Committee recently to write recommendations which replicate the recommendations from the reports under consideration. She said that this was not particularly helpful, though it was good to see that Scrutiny were supportive of reports. Councillor Brown noted that if they were to consider the final recommendation from Scrutiny, that the replication of recommendations could create unnecessary confusion. She said that they may need to look at this outside of this meeting, but that this worth addressing in the context of the debate which had been held at Scrutiny Committee. Councillor Brown also noted that she was concerned about the length of time that was spent on this item at Scrutiny and how late beyond working hours officers were being kept.

Councillor Miles clarified that the Scrutiny Committee had stuck to their scheduled time but had spent more time on that agenda item and less on the others during their meeting.