Agenda and draft minutes

To receive opening announcements from the chair.

The Chair ran through housekeeping matters and confirmed that since the last committee meeting, the scrutiny task and finish group had met with a representative from The Centre for Governance and Scrutiny. The next step for the group was to establish priorities guided by the report. The Chair emphasised the importance of reviewing these findings in the context of local government reform (LGR). This will help identify which aspects remain relevant and how best to support those processes.

The Chair confirmed that Councillor Robert Clegg would be joining as a substitute member for Councillor Debby Hallett for subsequent meetings. As Councillor Hallett was not able to sit on the task and finish group, it was recommended a new member be nominated.

Resolved: That Councillor Judy Roberts join the scrutiny review task and finish group.

To record apologies for absence and the attendance of substitute members. 

Apologies were received from Councillors Debby Hallett and Oliver Forder.

To adopt and sign as a correct record the Scrutiny Committee minutes of the meeting held on 28 January 2025.

Resolved: The minutes of the meeting held on 28 January 2025 were reviewed and committee agreed upon as a correct record. The Chair will sign them as such.

To receive declarations of disclosable pecuniary interests, other registrable interests and non-registrable interests or any conflicts of interest in respect of items on the agenda for this meeting. 

There were no declarations of interest.

To receive notification of any matters which the chair determines should be considered as urgent business and the special circumstances which have made the matters urgent.

There was no urgent business.

To receive any questions or statements from members of the public that have registered to speak. 

There were no registered speakers.

To review the attached scrutiny work schedule. Please note, although the dates are confirmed, the items under consideration are subject to being withdrawn, added to or rearranged without further notice.

Members noted there were no current dates listed on the work schedule. This was attributed to the focus on LGR and it was confirmed that the schedule would be firmed up soon.

The Chair highlighted the item on community assets and financial relationships with tenants and thanked members who had provided information on this topic. Discussions had taken place with the Head of Finance and the Cabinet Member for Finance, and it was confirmed that a meeting would be arranged to discuss how to address the concerns raised by this committee.

A standing agenda item for committee to receive any updates emerging from the recommendations made in previous meetings. (verbal update)

The Chair noted that Cabinet had confirmed that they received the committee's comments on the Council plan and have taken them into consideration. Additionally, discussions around relationships with council tenants had been taken forward with the Cabinet member and the Head of Finance. Three clear case studies had been identified to be part of this discussion.

To consider a report from the Head of Housing and Environment.

The report was introduced by the Cabinet Member for Housing, Leisure Facilities and Community Buildings, supported by the Head of Housing. The report aimed to inform the committee of progress and gather comments for potential policy changes. Only two applications had been received since the policy's implementation, both rejected due to missing documents and planning issues. Feedback indicated the scoring system needed clarity and stronger oversight.

The current fund balance was £214,791, insufficient for meaningful bids, leading to a suspension of new applications until the balance increased. Future contributions were uncertain, and the policy would only be applicable when the balance supported meaningful applications.

The committee asked and commented on the following:

• Clarification on the allocation of S106 funding outside of developers' commitments to build affordable housing. Officers explained that developers provide a certain proportion of affordable housing (35% for Vale). If they can't deliver due to viability issues, they make a payment in lieu. Part payments are also made for fractional units, and this money goes into the Section 106 fund.
• Members enquired about the timescale for successful applications. Officers noted that successful applications in South Oxfordshire have taken one to two years from award to claim. If money were available, it would be awarded within 12-20 months and spent within the current Council's term.
• It was suggested that residents would appreciate the council putting more responsibility on applicants. Officers agreed, noting that best practices and learnings should be carried forward regardless of future council changes.
• A member asked why the council had only received two applications, and for clarity on engagement with providers. The Cabinet member explained that the purpose of rewriting the policy was to make it easier and more accessible. Officers had reached out to community land trusts, registered providers, and other organisations through quarterly newsletters and catch-ups. These organisations were managing to meet their quota without applying for funding.
• Clarification was sought on the allocation of the funding so far, given both applications had been rejected but the balance was now so low. The Cabinet member confirmed that the funds were allocated for the purchase of properties to be part of the Council’s housing stock, as agreed by the Cabinet and Full Council.
• The committee asked for more detail on the cabinet's approach to housing and the trajectory of the policy. The Cabinet member explained that S106 agreements were time-limited and needed to be put to good use. Direct purchase of housing stock was considered the best use of the money.
• Members asked if there was a report detailing the funding added to the pot and whether any S106 funds were lost due to time lapses? Officers confirmed that no funds had been lost
• Concerns were raised about the ambiguity of the scoring criteria and why a high score wouldn't guarantee a successful application. Officers explained that the existing point system was not scored on impact, making it hard to ascertain. High-scoring applications could still fail due to issues like planning permission.
• Enquiries were made  ...  view the full minutes text for item Sc97

To consider a report from the Head of Communities (paper to follow)

The report was introduced by the Deputy Leader, supported by the Community Arts Manager and the Strategic Finance Officer. The report provided a one-year review of the 18 to 24-month delivery plan agreed by the Cabinet in February 2024. Key achievements included appointing senior officers, establishing governance structures, and forging national links with cultural organisations.

Operational reviews aimed at driving efficiency and diversification were underway. Growth in footfall and programme demand was noted, with a focus on increasing financial returns and efficiency in phase two, supported by the 2025 Capital Investment Plan.

Decarbonisation at The Beacon was pending, and an options review was postponed due to local government reorganisation. The strategic context required a revised culture strategy scope.

Phase two, to be presented in May, would outline the pathway to a comprehensive culture, creative, and heritage strategic framework.

The committee asked and commented on the following:

• The viability of reopening the café at The Beacon. Officers noted the café was popular but costly to run. They were exploring options to bring it back, such as community voluntary groups running it as a charity or fundraising endeavour. Interested parties were considering a slow growth model with low risk to all involved.
• Members noted that the report was encouraging and outlines that The Beacon is becoming an asset to the Council.
• Clarity was sought on capital investment and planned improvements. Officers explained that a modest sum has been allocated, with plans to improve the layout and flow. The Beacon worked as a daytime community centre but would have benefited from feeling more like a venue in the evening. Planned improvements included removing the canopy over the entrance, tidying up the entrance, and installing LED lighting in the stairwell. Members agreed these would be achievable and impactful.
• It was noted that running costs had reduced. Officers attributed the cost reduction to a new leadership team, recruitment control, casual staff, programming costs, and an increase in income.
• Members emphasised that decarbonisation should be a priority and inquired about grants to support this. Officers confirmed that the timing of LGR and potential capital expenditure restrictions may prevent the project from commencing during the transition. The corporate property team, which managed the Cornerstone project could potentially oversee this. The decision-making process will be reviewed.
• Members asked if the trajectory of savings is likely to continue. Officers confirmed plans to streamline processes, improve marketing, and generate engagement and income should help this trajectory continue. They were working on an agreement with Wantage Town Council to reduce staffing costs, which would result in tangible savings.
• Further detail was sought regarding conversations with the town council in terms of reviewing and updating the agreement. The Deputy Leader summarised the historic agreement with the Town Council involving a percentage of maintenance costs based on floor space used and confirmed there were plans to discuss and review this.
• Clarification was sought on whether ticket income total was gross or net. Officers explained that most income came from hires where companies pay  ...  view the full minutes text for item Sc98