Cabinet, at its meeting on 13 August 2025, will consider a report to agree to the virement of underspend in the current capital programme to increase the project budget in the capital programme for the Oxpens bridge; to accept additional funding for the construction of the bridge from external bodies, and to agree to amending and entering legal agreements as necessary for the funding, construction and transfer of the bridge.

Councillor Alex Hollingsworth, Cabinet Member for Planning and Culture, Tom Bridgman, Deputy Chief Executive – Place, and Jenny Barker, Regeneration Lead have been invited to present the report and take part in discussions.

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

Appendix 2 contains exempt information pursuant to Paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972. To discuss this item, it will be necessary for the Committee to pass a resolution to exclude the press and public from the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, specifying the grounds on which their presence could involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as described in specific paragraphs of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act if and so long as, in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.

(The Access to Information Procedure Rules – Section 15 of the Council’s Constitution – sets out the conditions under which the public can be excluded from meetings of the Council)

Cabinet, at its meeting on 13 August 2025, will consider a report to agree to the virement of underspend in the current capital programme to increase the project budget in the capital programme for the?Oxpens?bridge; to accept additional funding for the construction of the bridge from external bodies, and to agree to amending and entering legal agreements as necessary for the funding, construction and transfer of the bridge.  

 

The report was before the Scrutiny Committee to consider and make any recommendations to Cabinet. 

 

Councillor Alex Hollingsworth, Cabinet Member for Planning and Culture, and Jenny Barker, Regeneration and Development Lead, were present to respond to questions.  

 

The Chair invited Councillor Hollingsworth and the Regeneration and Development Lead to present the report. 

 

Councillor Hollingsworth introduced the report and explained that the principle and original plans for the Oxpens River Bridge project are evidenced in documentation dated back to at least 2008, including policies which were approved by the Council. Several examples were provided including a 2013 SPD. The Committee heard therefore, that the project has been in the pipeline for a long time and did not suddenly appear in 2021.  

 

The Regeneration and Development Lead introduced the Cabinet report, explaining that it seeks to update members on the considerable amount of work that has been undertaken in preparation for delivery of the project in 2026. The Committee heard that the opportunity to deliver the Oxpens Bridge in 2026 had been identified based on the ability to shut the river to move the sections of the bridge into place, and the fact that the area floods in winter months. Furthermore, the Regeneration and Development Lead also explained that the report seeks delegation to enable the Council to enter into necessary agreements, including funding, to enable the delivery of the project.  

In relation to the bridge itself, the Regeneration and Development Lead also highlighted the benefits the project would bring to walking and cycling residents of Oxford, and the opportunities it will bring for growth in the West End of the city. An overview of the funding complexities of the project was also provided.  

 

The Chair thanked Councillor Hollingsworth and the Regeneration and Development Lead for their presentation.  

 

The Chair asked that members firstly focus on questions suitable for public discussion, and reserve questions requiring confidential session discussion for later.  

 

Councillor Ottino queried why funds need to be transferred to cover deficits, and whether if further funding from external sources is not obtained, the project could go ahead.   

 

Councillor Altaf-Khan recognised that the delays experience in the project to date caused the requirement for additional money. The Cabinet Member was therefore asked whether it is expected that other considerable projects in the future would also require additional funding.  

 

Councillor Rowley sought clarification on where the powers for delegating extra funding lie, and secondly, whether there is confidence that as much as possible has been done to mitigate further cost increases.  

 

Councillor Hollingsworth, in response to Councillor Altaf-Khan’s question, explained that it is not unusual in the current context that capital programmes require further funding given the global price rises caused by events in Ukraine and the pandemic which have generated an unpredictable landscape for construction costs worldwide. In regards costs linked to legal challenges, Councillor Hollingsworth noted his general support of judicial reviews but explained that these costs in relation to planning applications are part of a wider debate which impacts most councils and not something with Oxford City Council can control. In response to Councillor Rowley, it was emphasised that extensive reviews have considered the detail of the project’s requirements in efforts to minimise costs as far as possible and necessary work has been undertaken with the Environment Agency.  

 

In response to Councillor Ottino, the Regeneration and Development Lead explained that the report sets out the intention to extend the budget in order to spend more, and the virement of funds within the capital programme is necessary to do this. Funding is being sought externally to replace the funds vired. In response to Councillor Altaf-Khan’s concern about repeated overspend on projects, it was explained that the Council works hard to avoid overspend, however the influence of increased construction costs and those required for sustaining internal staff and design teams through delays has culminated in unavoidable additional costs. The Committee heard of the measures being taken to try and reduce these costs, as summarised in the report.   

 

The Chair invited further questions. 

 
Councillor Stares asked where the budget is coming from; specifically, whether money is being transferred from the housing budget. If this were the case, Councillor Stares queried whether this would be a good use of public funds.  

 

Councillor Jarvis firstly asked, in relation to the expansion of the budget envelope and how this sits within the capital programme, whether the slippages for this project sit in addition to the optimism bias built into capital projects, and what the implications of this could be to the Council budget as a whole. Secondly, it was asked what would happen if external funding were not secured, and finally, whether there is a risk of cost fallacy in how confident the Council is that the project will go ahead.  

 

The Chair asked firstly whether the costings within the report account for the possibility of any further delays, and whether, if necessary, further money would be requested again in the future for any subsequent delays. Secondly, the Chair requested confirmation that there would not be impacts on other aspects of the capital programme in light of additional spend on this project if no other bodies come forward to provide funding. 

 

In response to Councillor Stares, Councillor Hollingsworth confirmed that none of the funding for the Oxpens project is from the housing budget and explained that the money was received from Oxfordshire County Council who were recipients of government funding for the Oxfordshire Growth Deal. It was also explained that in the instance that the project did not go ahead, then the funds to cover the costs incurred by Oxford City Council would be kept, and the remainder of the money would be returned to Oxfordshire County Council. In regards the budget envelope, Councillor Hollingsworth explained that there is an optimism bias built into the capital programme and based on previous evidence of spend. Finally, in responses to concerns about cost fallacy, Councillor Hollingsworth referred to paragraph 27 of the report and explained the use of three pots of money.  

 

The Regeneration and Development Lead further summarised the use of the capital salary budget, the energy works budget, and the maintenance budget. It was clarified that these are direct pots from which money can be vired within the financial year, if necessary, without wider impact on the capital programme. In response to budget allowance in the instance of further delays due to judicial appeal, the Regeneration and Development Lead advised the Committee that this had not been factored into budget considerations. It was however noted that if the appeal were to go ahead, the project would be unlikely to meet the 2026 timeline, and the budget would need to be reviewed.  

The Chair invited further questions. 

 

Based on the discussion, Councillor Ottino sought to clarify the intention of the report’s recommendations with the Cabinet Member and the Regeneration and Development Lead. It was understood that the report seeks to ask Cabinet to extend the budget though the virements listed above in order to allow the opportunity to secure other funding to enable to project to proceed.  

 

The Chair asked in the event that money is not forthcoming, would there be another paper before Cabinet and the Scrutiny Committee to consider any additional spend required. Councillor Hollingsworth confirmed that this would occur but also expressed a hope that it would not be required.  

 

Councillor Mundy asked what lessons have been learned from this project and whether, in retrospect, there has there been a failure to consider less attractive projects which could have involved fewer resources and less spend.  

 

The Chair, in relation to the judicial review, asked whether in putting forward this paper to Cabinet on the assumption that there will be no further delays, the Council may be endangering itself by making budgetary assumptions.   

 

Councillor Hollingsworth, in response to Councillor Mundy’s question, noted that the principle of the Oxpens Bridge has been in place for a long time without significant strategic opposition within the Council. As such, the Committee heard that in principle, this was the right project and approach to have taken as it aims to connect different parts of the city. In response to the Chair, Councillor Hollingsworth explained that it has been deemed better to progress as planned with the project and update the Cabinet now, with the understanding that if the appeal against the judicial review does cause further delays, another update will be provided and plans would be reassessed.  

 

At this time the Committee considered Appendix 2 of the report in confidential session.

 

The Committee retuned to public session.

 

The Chair invited any final questions; there were none.  

 

The Chair thanked Councillor Hollingsworth and the Regeneration and Development Lead for their contributions.  

 

The Chair invited the discussion of recommendations.  

 

Councillor Altaf-Khan expressed the view that the report was for Cabinet to consider carefully.  

 

The Chair informed the Committee that he would attend the next Cabinet meeting to represent the views discussed by the Scrutiny Committee within this meeting.  

 

The Chair suggested a recommendation relating to the potential for modelling the possible implications on costing of further delays from judicial review processes, should they occur.  

 

Councillor Ottino expressed some objection, noting broad concern relating inequalities when some communities do not have the financial ability to mount robust objections to planning applications in the way other wards may. It was noted that requiring projects to provide modelling for possible scenarios could incur higher costs. The Chair acknowledged the matter but explained that his suggested recommendation is not speculative, but likely, as the review is ongoing, and costs are not yet accounted for. As such, the matter was noted as distinct from Councillor Ottino’s broader concern around modelling all future projects.  

 

The Committee discussed the proposed recommendation.  

 
Councillor Jarvis clarified that the recommendation did does not require any budget extension, just research within the existing workload of officers already employed by the Council. The Chair agreed and noted that the recommendation would be focused on encouraging more specific analysis to ensure the Council is better prepared if there were to be further delays. 

 

Councillor Rowley noted that the recommendation may have already been accounted for by the ongoing work of officers and therefore found it to be unnecessary.  

 

The Regeneration and Development Lead clarified that the Council had not yet priced in for delays resulting from another judicial review or appeal but could conduct some modelling based only on assumptions of inflation. As a result, it would be a high-level piece of analysis.   

 

Councillor Jarvis seconded the recommendation. The Committee voted in favour of the recommendation.  

 

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

• That Cabinet undertake high-level remodelling and assess potential impact of the judicial review appeal progressing to a hearing, particularly around timescales and future costings, to ensure the Council is better prepared and has a more informed basis for decision-making. 

 

The Chair, in response to Councillor Muddiman’s earlier address, confirmed that from the discussions during this meeting, the report to Cabinet was not seeking to delegate powers to make budgetary decision to officers; any decisions would be for Cabinet to make.