Agenda item

Report by the Leader of the Council.

The report includes items at the Cabinet meetings on 13 November 2025 and 18 November 2025.

Council received the report of the Cabinet covering its meetings for 13 November and 18 November 2025.

On Item 1: Local Government Reorganisation – Submission of Proposal to Government.

Councillor Pressel asked how the County Council thought it could possibly run a unitary council across the whole of Oxfordshire, when it had no proper building to work from. Councillor Leffman responded by saying that the unitary authority would decide where it was going to be based and there was no reason why Speedwell and other buildings in the Council’s possession should not be part of that consideration.

Councillor Evans asked that, given the Council's revised proposal to have 99 councillors for a unitary Oxfordshire Council, it was difficult to see how any of the proposals for local government reorganisation could go ahead without a boundary review. As such, Councillor Evans asked the Leader of the Council whether the Leader was confident that elections to a new authority would go ahead in May 2027.  Councillor Leffman responded by saying that the elections would go ahead in accordance with the current boundaries.

Councillor Malik asked, whether Councillor Leffman had managed to convince her Members to support the ‘one unitary’ bid proposal or whether the matter was still undecided. Councillor Leffman responded that it was the Government's decision as to the configuration of the new unitary and it was not for Councillor Leffman to persuade anybody.

Item 3: HR and Cultural Change - Quarterly Employee Data Report - Quarter 2 2025-26

Councillor Barlow noted that the non-disclosure of ethnicity increased from 8 to 10% and asked how that compared to other local authorities and similar sized organisations and whether any analysis of the reasons for that had been undertaken. Councillor Fawcett undertook to look into this matter further.

Councillor Kerr asked if Oxfordshire had plans, similar to South Cambridgeshire, to move to a 4-day week, which was working well, or to permit officers more flexible working arrangements, such as allowing staff to work from abroad during the Christmas break. Councillor Fawcett responded that the county council was very keen to give staff as much flexibility as possible in terms of their working arrangements. Furthermore, he said that in terms of the 4-day working week, while some of the data was positive, there were some question marks over the outcomes. However, he was open to looking into this matter further.

Councillor Pressel asked why the amount spent on expensive agency staff had gone up based on the report. Councillor Fawcett confirmed that there had been a slight increase in this quarterly report. However, he said the trend over the last few years, was going in the right direction and stronger practices were in place to monitor the situation.

Councillor Malik asked about access to technology, especially for the elderly, where staff worked from home. Councillor Malik wanted to know what could be done to make sure that people could have face to face interaction with the relevant officers. Councillor Fawcett responded that staff were employed based on having the right skills as well as the right equipment if they were working from home. Furthermore, work could also be carried out from the local offices.

Item 4: Treasury Management Mid-Term Review 2025-26

Councillor Baines asked for details about draft plans for the issuing of a further green climate bond, including the timeline for issue, the total value and what the raised capital would be spent on. Councillor Levy advised that he was unable to provide any details as nothing had been planned as yet.

Item 5. Budget and Business Planning Report 2026/27 - 2030/31

Councillor Baines asked for an outline of the instructions given to directors as part of the budget planning process. Councillor Baines raised the matter , given the anticipated financial pressures expected on the headline budget as a result of the Fair-Funding review, the additional £5.2 million annual pressure to children's services and the financial adjustment already applied to savings within children's services. Councillor Levy responded that directors were expected to keep within the budget levels already set and to make as many savings as possible, while still delivering the services required by residents.

Councillor Smith asked why the process was so different this year. Councillor Levy responded that the full details from central government were awaited. Furthermore, he said that it was likely that, in the spending review, money would be taken away from places like Oxfordshire given it had a high council tax base. Councillor Levy added that the final data from the Fair Funding review as well as final settlements were still being awaited.

Councillor Fry asked what the implications would be for the Council with regard to the packaging extended producer responsibility, which had been introduced to encourage separate recycling of paper but had resulted in extra costs being imposed on the recycling system. Councillor Levy said that he would obtain a written answer to the question and reminded Council that roadside collections were the responsibility of the districts and not of the county council.

Item 6. Business Management & Monitoring Report - Performance

and Risk Quarter 2 2025/26

Councillor Middleton noted that recycling was below target and some collection authorities were also looking at changes in collection cycles that could help. He understood that for it to be viable, there needed to be a financial concession from the county council which can be offset against costs as a result of the emissions trading scheme.  He asked if this was something that was being actively considered, and if so, how long was it likely to be before a deal was struck. Councillor Levy said he would have to obtain further information to respond to the issue.

Councillor Baines asked how short the Council had fallen of its target for footway and cycle maintenance and whether the cabinet member believed that the target could be met. Councillor Levy responded that there was a commitment to make active travel as popular as possible but there was an issue with maintaining cycle ways and pavements. He said he would obtain further information on the issue and get a written answer.

Councillor Brighouse asked what the Council was doing to address the massive risk that existed in relation to the deficit in the High Needs Block. Councillor Levy responded that central government had suggested that there would be a mechanism to deal with the issue.  Future costs of SEND was a real issue, and more information was needed from central government to create a work plan.

Item 7. Capital Programme Approvals - November 2025

Councillor Kerr asked what percentage of road building schemes had seen a 20 or 30% capital overrun in the last couple of years. Councillor Levy responded that he would obtain more information and provide a written response on the issue.

Councillor McLauchlan asked what was being done strategically to minimise disruption in the area surrounding Steventon and Benson Lane in Crowmarsh. Councillor Levy responded that the question was an infrastructure issue rather than a financial one but undertook to ensure a written response would be provided.

Item 8. Response to motion by Councillor Creed on Children's Centres

Councillor Creed asked what steps had been taken by Cabinet to ensure that the money spent by local government was going to help the children that were the most deprived and most in need in the county, to ensure the success of the family hubs. Councillor Gaul responded that a strategic plan had been approved which was committed to achieving a good level of development for five-year-olds at 77.8%. This was a higher target than the rest of the country which was at 75%. Furthermore, it was hoped that the Children's Trust Board would also be used to examine what can specifically be done to reduce inequality.

Councillor Baines asked what steps the Council was taking to ensure that Best Start family hubs in Oxfordshire were delivered directly by the county council, rather than being reliant on a post code lottery of suitable charities and voluntary organisations, and how services would be effectively integrated with the in-house youth service. Councillor Gaul responded that there was an investment of £245,000 to get the programme up and running and another £1,000,000 set aside by the authority to boost the work in this area, which demonstrated a partnership approach. Furthermore, he said that the locations of the primary hubs would follow the geography of the existing district and city councils.

Councillor Brighouse asked how Cabinet would judge whether the funding going into deprived communities was equitable and enabling those children who were not doing well to succeed. Councillor Gaul responded that Cabinet had received a presentation on how the areas of need were being analysed in order to help determine the specific locations of the family hubs.

Councillor Edwards asked if Councillor Gaul would confirm that a key priority would be to support the existing excellent children's centres in the county. Councillor Gaul responded that work was currently underway to determine who would be supported. He added that the work would be carried out in partnership with the voluntary and community sector.

Item 9. Response to motion by Councillor Hanna on Healthwatch Oxfordshire

Councillor Hanna asked if the mapping of the services of Healthwatch would be completed and given consideration by the Health and Well-being Board (HWB) in time for any required submission of local plans to the NHS, early next year. Councillor Gregory responded that a working group will be established to map out the next steps to ensure that there was a good understanding of the functions that needed protection.  Councillor Gregory was committed to ensuring that the good work of Healthwatch continues beyond 2027.

Item 10. Proposed changes to the Waste Acceptance Policy (WAP) for Oxfordshire’s household waste recycling centres (HWRCs)

Councillor Middleton noted that there were many concerns around imposing any barriers to the access and use of the HWRC’s, which could reduce the use of those facilities and increase fly tipping and asked what the Council was doing to mitigate those concerns. He also asked if the impacts of those changes were being closely monitored and whether they would be reported to Council. Councillor Roberts assured Councillor Middleton that the impacts of the changes would be closely monitored and reported to Council as well as Cabinet. Furthermore, a review would be undertaken as to the effectiveness of the changes.

Councillor Phillips asked if staff were trained to handle asbestos-containing material and whether there were concerns that charging for asbestos disposal would encourage fly-tipping. Councillor Roberts responded that most people do not have a lot of residential asbestos in their own household and highlighted that the waste system was for residential use only and not for trade use.  Councillor Roberts said she was quite certain that staff were fully trained with asbestos, given they already handle such waste, but would check the position..

Councillor Creed asked what was going to be done, particularly in areas around Banbury, where there was a requirement to pre-book waste disposal, which it was felt, could increase the amount of fly tipping. Councillor Roberts responded that the impact of the introduction of a pre-booking system would be monitored.

Councillor Snowdon asked how costs would not be increased if more staff were required to deal with more people turning up or would volunteers be used. Councillor Roberts responded that it had not been said that more staff would be hired, but that more staff would be available.