Cabinet, at its meeting on 17 September 2025, will consider a report to seek approval to adopt the Citizen and Community Engagement Policy 2025.

Councillor Nigel Chapman, Cabinet Member for Citizen Focused Services and Council Companies, Tom Hook, Deputy Chief Executive – City and Citizens’ Services, Helen Bishop, Director of Communities and Citizen Services and Jiajia Miao, Corporate Consultation Officer.

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

Cabinet, at its meeting on 17 September 2025, will consider a report to seek approval to adopt the Citizen and Community Engagement Policy 2025.

The Chair welcomed Councillor Nigel Chapman, Cabinet Member for Citizen Focused Services and Council Companies, Tom Hook, Deputy Chief Executive for City and Citizens’ Services, and Jiajia Miao, Corporate Consultation Officer, who were present to respond to questions.

Councillor Chapman presented the report and thanked the officers present for their committed work on the policy. The Committee heard that the policy focuses on understanding the views, needs, and priorities of citizens in order to support the Council’s delivery of good services with feedback incorporated to ensure accountability. Councillor Chapman summarised the context which has informed the report’s findings and noted that the policy focuses on transparency, flexibility, proportionality, inclusivity, and timeliness of feedback. The Committee understood that varied approaches were utilised to gather and manage information. Although the policy is not a statutory obligation, the Council deems it a necessity and has taken inspiration from best practice methods detailed by the LGA and Cabinet Office. Councillor Chapman also summarised changes since the previous iteration of the policy, including the Social Housing Act, which has added new obligations for councils in relation to tenant engagement and rights protection. The Committee understood that a consultation took place which received 197 responses and demonstrated broad support for the approach taken within the policy. Councillor Chapman noted that some concerns from residents regarding the timeliness of responses, trust, and communication. Officers have since worked to strengthen the policy around these aspects to ensure that residents views are taken seriously. Finally, Councillor Chapman explained that the Scrutiny Committee’s feedback to Cabinet had also been incorporated into the updated policy.

The Chair invited questions from the Committee.

Councillor Altaf-Khan commented that he considered 200 consultation responses to be poor from such a populated area such as Oxford. It was asked what is being done to engage youth and minority community groups.

Councillor Miles noted that the Scrutiny Committee had previously provided feedback on ensuring inclusive engagement by considering different languages, and therefore asked how resource allocation is determined for this provision.

Councillor Mundy joined the meeting.

In response to Councillor Altaf-Khan, Councillor Chapman explained that many consultations receive far fewer than 200 responses but noted that more would always be welcomed. It was explained that the content of the responses was consistent and helpful.

The Corporate Consultation Officer, in response to concerns regarding consultation response numbers, commented that the relevant documents had also been taken to service areas for feedback via the localities team. In relation to ethnic minority groups, it was explained that many efforts are made to reach these groups, but it has remained the case that most responses come from affluent residents. The Committee understood that challenges remain in reaching younger generations. The Committee heard that 1000 residents have signed up to the Residents Panel which will help to support the representation of more voices from across Oxford, however more involvement of students and ethnic minority groups is still desired. The Corporate Consultation Officer explained that demographic monitoring is ongoing to ensure better representation and inclusion, and data from the residents’ survey also brings in voices of minority groups. In relation to the Youth Voice Panel, it was explained that this policy is focused on an overarching approach for engagement and the panel is run separately by the localities team.

Councillor Latif and Councillor Corais joined the meeting.

The Deputy Chief Executive for City and Citizens’ Services explained that the Council’s language interpretation service is supported by data from equality impact assessments which help to inform engagement approaches from the start of a process by identifying groups that may need support. The Committee also heard of the social media approaches that the Council takes outside of traditional communication methods, including Tik Tok videos, which receive strong engagement. Finally, the Committee heard that the localities team and external organisations also support other methods of linking in with less represented communities.

The Chair invited further questions from the Committee.

Councillor Rowley emphasised the importance of consulting younger members of society through schools.  It was asked whether any thought had been given to using schools as location for engaging with more adults also they are often locations which invite diverse populations to gather. It was suggested that this could tackle some of the affluence bias in the consultation results.

Councillor Muddiman commended the policy but noted concerns relating to how it will be implemented. The Committee heard an example of an in-person engagement session to support public engagement with the Council’s Local Plan which was not accessible. Councillor Muddiman emphasised that complicated policy documents must be communicated in a manner which encourages the public to engage and enables accessibility. It was also noted that consultations should be avoided during the summer and Christmas holiday periods.

Councillor Ottino asked how the Council can change the perception of many residents that their voices are not listened to when responding to consultations. It was also asked whether there are examples from other Councils which show how this is done, and finally, whether the Council is actively seeking to attend community locations to engage with minority groups and to raise awareness of the presence of consultations.

Councillor Chapman welcomed Councillor Rowley’s recommendation of attending school locations to encourage broader participation in consultations. The Committee were also reminded of the ability to promote consultations via ward newsletters. Councillor Muddiman’s concerns were acknowledged and the need to improve in-person engagement sessions was noted alongside the preference to avoid consultations at certain points of the year. Finally, Councillor Chapman supported the need for residents to feel that their voices are heard, however commented that not all responsibilities lie with Oxford City Council and reasonable communication must be made to make clear to the community where difference local responsibilities lie so that their thoughts can be directed and appreciated effectively.

Councillor Yeatman joined the meeting.

The Deputy Chief Executive for City and Citizens’ Services, in response to the consultation response numbers, noted that various topics attract various scales of response but noted that positive improvement is now evident in how the Council engages with tenants. Councillor Muddiman’s suggestion regarding times of the year to avoid consultation was also noted and the Deputy Chief Executive for City and Citizens’ Services committed to feeding back her illustration of the engagement session linked to the Local Plan.

The Chair invited further questions from the Committee.

Councillor Altaf-Khan noted his dissatisfaction with the answers provided in relation to engagement with minority communities, noting it as a long-term issue. The Committee heard of the importance of going into communities and speaking to people directly. It was also suggested that innovative ways of doing this need to be sought, and councillors should be utilised to distribute information on consultations via newsletters and noticeboards. This would support those who do not find online resources to be accessible. Councillor Altaf-Khan also recommended that officers seek examples of how other councils approach engagement and consultation with diverse communities.

Councillor Miles observed from the consultation responses that many of the matters raised do not relate to responsibilities of the City Council and therefore suggested that work be undertaken to more clearly communicate to residents which Council their concerns are best raised with, alongside how the Council operates. It was noted that this could support the diverse and incoming populations in Oxford who may not have an inherent contextual understanding of local governance and could therefore alleviate some disillusionment and misunderstanding. Secondly, Councillor Miles recommended that the format and length of language in the consultations be considered to ensure accessibility and understanding from those who are not as comfortable with reading and writing. It was suggested that this may support accessibility for some minority groups, such as older women. Lastly, it was noted that there are often difficulties with accessing and utilising local noticeboards.

The Chair agreed that residents often experience confusion in understanding the difference between City Council and County Council responsibilities and therefore also recommended increased communication to remedy this. The Chair then asked in what ways the Council is assessing how disabled residents are properly engaged in consultation, and what can be done to fill the gap noted in the report. Lastly, the Chair supported Councillor Miles’ comments on the difficulty in accessing local noticeboards.

Councillor Chapman appreciated the points raised about public confusion between City and County Council responsibilities but noted that the consultations this Council circulates are always focused on its own responsibilities and it does not consult on behalf of the County Council. In response to concerns regarding ethnic minority group engagement, Councillor Chapman referred to the work of the Residents Panel and the balanced sample of the city that it offers. In relation to locality officers attending community centres, it was confirmed that this occurs on a weekly basis and is used as an avenue for feedback. The Committee heard that further consideration could go into formalising this. Councillor Miles’ concerns around language and text accessibility were appreciated. Finally, in relation to noticeboards, Councillor Chapman noted no personal experience with issues and commented on the regular use of them in his ward. In agreement with Councillor Altaf-Khan, Councillor Chapman also endorsed the value of local public meetings as a form of effective engagement with residents.

In relation to the inclusion of disabled residents, the Corporate Consultation Officer explained that the Council collects demographic data at the end of each consultation which is analysed to ensure that any issues or information gaps are identified.

The Committee considered varied issues with access to, and use of, local noticeboards as means of improving local engagements. Members considered planning issue and funding channels.

Councillor Mundy asked how often incentives are used to encourage response rates to consultations and requested information on what impacts these have.

In response to concerns regarding noticeboards, Councillor Chapman recounted his experience of installing new noticeboards in his ward and distribution of local newsletters. It was recommended that concerns relating to noticeboards be suggested at the Council’s next budget considerations.

In response to Councillor Mundy, the Corporate Consultation Officer explained that in the last three years incentives have only been used to support recruitment for the Residents’ Panel. It was also clarified that incentives are not used for most public consultations as it is preferred that residents make decision without influence.

The Chair asked requested that officers support a communication to Members detailing the processes for using local noticeboards. The Deputy Chief Executive for City and Citizens’ Services committed to taking this away.

The Chair invited the Committee to discuss possible recommendations.

The Committee resolved to make the following recommendation(s) on the report to Cabinet: 

1)       That the Policy specifically assigns locality managers a role in the dissemination of consultations, making use of their deeper understanding of each local area’s needs and dynamics with the intention to tailor engagement efforts more effectively.

2)       That the Policy acknowledges and identifies busy time periods to be avoided for consultations, to ensure residents or participants have adequate opportunity to participate, particularly where the consultation topic requires more focused attention.

3)       That every consultation document undergoes an inclusivity check by an officer, resident panel, or elected member prior to release for readability and understandability by all audiences.

4)       That Cabinet ensures the Policy is applied in a manner that maximises the inclusion of disabled people in the Council’s consultation processes.

5)       That Cabinet requests officers to undertake exploratory work to incorporate a system for ranking the importance of each consultation, and to investigate whether the use of incentives could effectively increase participation and engagement.

The Chair thanked Councillor Chapman, the Deputy Chief Executive for City and Citizens’ Services, and the Corporate Consultation Officer.

Councillor Chapman, the Deputy Chief Executive for City and Citizens’ Services, and the Corporate Consultation Officer left the meeting.