Agenda and draft minutes

To approve the minutes of the Annual Meeting held on 12 May 2026 (CC1a) and the Extraordinary Meeting held on 20 May 2026 (CC1b).

RESOLVED:
That the minutes of the meetings held on 12 May 2026 and 20 May 2026 be approved and signed as an accurate record of the proceedings.

Apologies were received from Councillors Coles, Cotter, Crichton, Field-Johnson, Gawrysiak, Graham, Robertshaw and Walker.

There were no declarations of interest.

The Chair congratulated two officers of the Council who had received awards in the King’s Birthday Honours.

Jacqui Gitau, Family Help Practitioner in Children's Social Care, was awarded an MBE for services to migrant families in Oxfordshire.  Jacqui founded African Families in the UK after witnessing how many families were falling through the gaps, sometimes due to systemic barriers, and sometimes simply because they lacked timely information about education, health, and social care.

The Council’s Chief Executive, Dr Martin Reeves, was awarded an OBE in recognition of his outstanding service to local government.  He was Chief Executive of Coventry City Council for over 14 years, during which time Coventry became the first Marmot City in the country.  He was also instrumental in establishing the West Midlands Mayoral Combined Authority and was its first Chief Executive from March 2016 to September 2017. 

A full list of Oxfordshire award recipients in the King’s Birthday Honours was attached at Annex 1 to the Schedule of Business.

A list of the events attended by the Chair and Vice-Chair since the last Council meeting was in Annex 2.

The Chair noted that two former chairs of this Council had passed away recently.  The death had occurred of a former chair of Oxfordshire County Council and of Cherwell District Council, Timothy Hallchurch MBE.  Tim was elected Conversative Member for the division of Otmoor & Kidlington in 2005 and 2009 and for Otmoor Division in 2013.

Former Councillor Hallchurch was also a Member of Cherwell District Council from 2002 to 2022, including a year as Chair in 2011/2012.  He chaired this Council in 2013/2014 and served on many committees including Audit, Corporate Governance, Oxfordshire Joint Health Overview & Scrutiny Committee (HOSC) and Planning and Regulation.

Councillors Mallon and Brighouse paid tribute to former Councillor Hallchurch’s record of public service.

Former County Councillor John Jones was the Liberal Democrat Member for Grove Division from May 1989 until he stood down ahead of the May 1997 election.  He had previously been a member of Shrewsbury Borough Council from 1964-1968, and a senior probation officer in Oxford. 

Having been elected as Chair of Oxfordshire County Council in 1992, former Cllr Jones was then unusually re-elected for a second term of office, following the 1993 Oxfordshire County Council elections.  He served on the Environmental Committee (1989-1992) and Education Committee from 1992.

Former Cllr Jones was extremely proud of his service as a member of Oxfordshire County Council and requested that his Former Chair’s Badge of Office be placed on his coffin as it enters the church for his funeral.

Councillors Fawcett and Brighouse commended former Councillor Jones’ memory to the Council.

Council observed a minute’s silence.

To make any changes to the membership of scrutiny and other committees on the nomination of political groups and to note any changes to the Cabinet made by the Leader of the Council.

See item 14 “Committees and Review of Political Balance”.

There were no appointments to note under this item.  Committee appointments were dealt with under Item 14: Committees and Review of Political Balance.

Members of the public who wish to speak on an item on the agenda at this meeting, or present a petition, can attend the meeting in person or ‘virtually’ through an online connection.

Requests to present a petition must be submitted no later than 9am ten working days before the meeting.

Requests to speak must be submitted no later than 9am three working days before the meeting.

Requests should be submitted to committeesdemocraticservices@oxfordshire.gov.uk

If you are speaking ‘virtually’, you may submit a written statement of your presentation to ensure that if the technology fails, then your views can still be taken into account. A written copy of your statement can be provided no later than 9am on the day of the meeting. Written submissions should be no longer than 1 A4 sheet.

Matthew Jerwood presented a petition on behalf of local residents calling for improvements to safety at the junction of Rose Hill, Henley Avenue and Church Cowley Road. He stated that residents, including people with mobility difficulties and families with young children, felt unsafe crossing the junction. He argued that changes in traffic patterns had led to greater congestion, speeding and other dangerous behaviour, and noted that residents had recorded nine accidents and incidents in recent months. On behalf of the 575 signatories to the petition, most of whom lived locally in OX4, he called for an urgent safety review, the installation of two pedestrian crossings, stronger speed and red-light enforcement measures, and a site visit by council representatives to work with residents on improving safety for pedestrians, cyclists and motorists.

Councillor Epps, Cabinet Member for Transport, thanked the petitioners for highlighting residents’ concerns and acknowledged that the junction at Rose Hill, Henley Avenue and Church Cowley Road presented longstanding safety concerns for pedestrians and cyclists. He explained that, while improvements to the junction would be desirable, there were significant challenges, including the need to reduce traffic volumes without creating wider transport or safety problems. He noted that previous changes made as part of the Quickways scheme had increased space for cycling but led to additional collisions, traffic issues and poorer bus reliability, resulting in the reinstatement of the former layout. He also highlighted the high potential cost of major alterations and the absence of an allocated budget, although he said design work on possible future improvements could still be explored. He clarified that speeding and red-light enforcement were matters for Thames Valley Police and concluded by offering to follow up with the petitioners and undertake a site visit to discuss the issues in more detail.

Emma Parker presented a petition signed by 384 people calling on the Council to improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists along the A40 London Road, particularly on the stretch between Thornhill Park and Ride and the Holton turn. She highlighted concerns that children travel to local primary and secondary schools along a shared footway and cycleway that runs close to fast-moving traffic and argued that the route is unsafe despite being promoted for active travel and “park and stride” journeys. While the petition originally proposed a vehicle restraint system or crash barrier, she noted that residents had also suggested measures such as speed reductions or alternative cycle routes. She urged the Council to investigate and implement the most effective safety improvements as a matter of priority, emphasising that doing so would support the Council’s Active Travel Strategy and Vision Zero objectives by making walking and cycling safer and more attractive, particularly for school journeys.

Councillor Epps thanked Emma Parker for highlighting safety concerns along the A40 London Road route and acknowledged that it felt unsafe, particularly as it is used by school pupils. He outlined the Council’s completed feasibility work, which proposes a range of improvements including widening and resurfacing the shared-use path, improving crossings  ...  view the full minutes text for item 45/26

The deadline to submit questions is 9am, five working days before the meeting

Three questions were submitted. The questions and responses are recorded in an Annex below.  No supplementary questions were asked.

Thirty nine questions were submitted. The questions, responses and supplementary questions are recorded in an Annex below.

Report by the Leader of the Council.

The report, for noting, includes items at the Cabinet meetings on 17 March 2026, 21 April 2026 and 19 May 2026.

Council received the Cabinet report covering the 17 March 2026, 21 April 2026 and 19 May 2026 Cabinet meetings.

On item 1 (Local Government Reorganisation in Oxfordshire: Statutory Consultation Response), Councillor Garnett asked if the response could be styled as from the Cabinet given that the Council had not voted on local government reorganisation. The Leader noted that the administration represented the whole Council and so it was appropriate for the response to be attributed to the Council.

Councillor Baines asked for assurances that responses to the Structural Changes Order would seek cross-party consensus and input from across the Council. The Leader responded that the government set arbitrary targets for the number of councillors in a single unitary authority, which was the Council’s preferred option, but that it could hopefully be addressed in the future.

Councillor Mallon asked why the working group for dealing with electoral matters was not convened at an early stage and why, when it was convened at a late stage, its advice was not followed. The Leader welcomed the input from the working group but noted that Cabinet was not obliged to take every suggestion on board.

Councillor Evans questioned whether the Leader thought it was undemocratic for some divisions to have one councillor and other divisions to have two councillors in a potential one Oxfordshire unitary authority. The Leader agreed that it was undemocratic.

On item 2 (Devolution Update – Thames Valley Strategic Authority), Councillor Middleton asked why the Leader had vetoed plans for the County Council to join a foundational strategic authority. The Leader noted that the government had initially offered a Mayoral Strategic Authority for the Thames Valley region but that this had been watered down through the process and stated that the Council wanted to be much more ambitious in what it sought to benefit from in the devolution settlements.

Councillor Brighouse noted that a Foundational Strategic Authority was intended to be short-term before transitioning to a Mayoral Strategic Authority and asked if the Leader agreed that the administration had sought to scupper devolution proposals. The Leader disagreed and stated that no timeline had been provided by the government, noting that potential changes in government ministers might help deliver meaningful devolution in the Thames Valley.

Councillor Rawlins asked what deadlines could confidently be expected from the government on devolution and local government reorganisation. The Leader noted there were no firm deadlines but expected engagement with the government in the coming weeks.

Councillor Baines asked why the Leader opposed devolution settlements for Oxfordshire given that Cambridgeshire and Peterborough had experienced clear benefits from similar settlements. The Leader noted the complex local government arrangements in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough and that the Council wanted simpler structures that benefitted residents.

Councillor Pressel asked what discussions had taken place with the government since the decision to withdraw support from a Foundational Strategic Authority was taken. The Leader noted that the responsible Minister had previously resigned and that binary choices were not helpful in producing productive working relationships  ...  view the full minutes text for item 48/26

Report by the Director of Law and Governance and Monitoring Officer

Within the Council’s Constitution at Part 6.2 paragraph 4 (ix) the scrutiny committees may report annually to full Council on their work. This is given effect through a Scrutiny Annual Report, which is attached to this report as Annex 1.

The Council is RECOMMENDED to receive and note the Scrutiny Annual Report

Council was asked to note the Scrutiny Annual Report which documents the activities of the four overview and scrutiny committees for the 2025/26 Council year.

The report was proposed by Councillor Brighouse and seconded by Councillor Snowdon.  Members thanked scrutiny officers for their work during the year.  Following discussion, Council noted the report.

RESOLVED: that the Scrutiny Annual Report be noted.

Report by the Director of Law and Governance and Monitoring Officer

The Joint Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee is under a constitutional duty to prepare an annual report. That report is set out in Annex 1 and documents the breadth and depth of the Committee’s work over the 2025/26 municipal year.  

Council is RECOMMENDED to receive and NOTE the Oxfordshire Joint Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee’s (JHOSC) Annual Report set out in Annex 1. 

Council had before it the Joint Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee Annual Report that documented the breadth and depth of the Committee’s work over the 2025/26 Council year.

The report was proposed by Councillor Hanna and seconded by Councillor Edosomwan.  Members thanked officers and partner organisations for their work on health scrutiny during the year.  Following discussion, Council noted the report.

RESOLVED: that the Oxfordshire Joint Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee’s (JHOSC) Annual Report set out in Annex 1 be noted. 

Report by the Director of Law and Governance and Monitoring Officer

This report sets out the findings and conclusions of the Constitution Working Group and the Audit and Governance Committee and seeks the approval of Council so that the necessary changes to the Council’s Constitution can be made. The details of which are set out in Appendices 1 and 2 of this report.

Council is RECOMMENDED to:

a)           Approve the proposed amendments to the Council’s Constitution as recommended by the Constitution Working Group and Audit and Governance Committee, as set out Appendix 1, including amendment number 11;

b)           Note the amendments undertaken by the Director of Law and Governance and Monitoring Officer, in accordance with Part 7.2 of the Constitution (Scheme of Delegation to Officers), paragraph 6.4 (t) and considered by the Constitution Working Group and Audit and Governance Committee; as set out in Appendix 2;

c)           Request the Director of Law and Governance and Monitoring Officer to ensure the necessary changes are made; and

d)           Note that a final edit of the Constitution covering layout and grammar will be undertaken prior to publication.

Council considered the report setting out proposed changes to the Council’s Constitution following the findings and conclusions of the Constitution Working Group and the Audit and Governance Committee.

The recommendations were moved by Councillor Smith and seconded by Councillor Shiri, Chair and Deputy Chair of the Audit and Governance Committee.  Members thanked the members of the working group and the officers supporting it for their work.

Following discussion, an electronic vote was taken on the recommendations.  They were approved with 53 votes in favour, none against and no abstentions.

RESOLVED that

a)        the proposed amendments to the Council’s Constitution as recommended by the Constitution Working Group and Audit and Governance Committee, as set out Appendix 1, including amendment number 11, be approved;

b)        the amendments undertaken by the Director of Law and Governance and Monitoring Officer, in accordance with Part 7.2 of the Constitution (Scheme of Delegation to Officers), paragraph 6.4 (t) and considered by the Constitution Working Group and Audit and Governance Committee; as set out in Appendix 2, be noted;

c)        the Director of Law and Governance and Monitoring Officer be requested to ensure the necessary changes are made; and

d)        a final edit of the Constitution covering layout and grammar be undertaken prior to publication.

Report by the Director of Law & Governance and Monitoring Officer

The Constitution makes provision for urgent decisions to be made exempt from call-in on the agreement of the Chair of the Council that the decision is urgent.  When this occurs, it must be reported to the next meeting of Council.

Council is RECOMMENDED to note

(a)      the exemption from Call-in of the following decision:

·    Cabinet on 16 June 2026 – SEND Reform Plan

Council was asked to note a report on the use of an urgency provision in a Cabinet decision on SEND Reform.

The report was proposed by Councillor Gaul, Cabinet Member for Children and Young People, and seconded by Councillor Gregory, Cabinet Member for Public Health and Inequalities.  Following discussion, Council noted the report.

RESOLVED:

• That the exemption from Call-in of the following decision be noted:

a)    Cabinet on 16 June 2026 – SEND Reform Plan.

Report by the Director of Law & Governance and Monitoring Officer

Annex 2 to follow.

Council is requested to approve committee appointments based on revised political balance calculations following Councillor Higgins joining the Liberal Democrat group.

Council is RECOMMENDED

a)            To note the review of political balance of committees to reflect the current formation of the political groups as detailed in Annex 1;

b)           To appoint members to the committees of the Council as listed in Annex 2.

Council was requested to approve committee appointments, in Annex 2 to the report, based on revised political balance calculations following Councillor Higgins joining the Liberal Democrat group.

Councillor Bearder proposed an amendment to the list of Liberal Democrat Group Members on the Performance and Corporate Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee with Councillor Roberts to replace Councillor Shiri.

The recommendations as amended were proposed by the Chair and seconded by the Vice-Chair.  Following discussion, the recommendations were agreed with 56 in favour, none against and no abstentions.

RESOLVED that:

a)            the review of political balance of committees to reflect the current formation of the political groups as detailed in Annex 1 be noted;

b)           Members be appointed to the committees of the Council as listed in Annex 2 as amended.

This Council notes that Motor Neurone Disease (MND) is a rapidly progressing condition. Tragically, a third of people die within a year of diagnosis and half within two years. As the disease progresses, symptoms worsen and people’s needs increase, often unpredictably. 

This Council believes that people living with progressive or terminal conditions like MND deserve to live in safe and accessible homes, with as much independence and quality of life as possible. To the extent that the County Council is involved in ensuring this is the case, we commit to doing so. 

This Council notes that early interventions, as well as being good for individuals and their families, can save taxpayer’s money by enabling people to manage their condition more effectively and reducing the need for critical interventions at a later stage.

This Council therefore resolves to ask the Cabinet Member for Adults to review the County Council’s role in the Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) and report to the People Overview & Scrutiny Committee with:

• How the Council currently delivers its role in the DFG;
• Timeliness over the past three years for the County Council fulfilling its role in the DFG, including assessments and referrals;
• How the Council’s processes could be improved, including the timeliness of assessments and the working relationship with District Councils and other partners;
• Whether the County Council is acting quickly enough to ensure that target timeframes of 55 days for simple adaptations and 130 days for complex adaptations can be met for people living with MND.

Note: The motion, if passed, would constitute the exercise of an executive function in which case it will be referred to the Cabinet together with any advice the Council may wish to give, in accordance with Rule 13.5.1 (i) of the Council Procedure Rules in the Constitution.

The motion was proposed by Councillor Evans and seconded by Councillor Brighouse.  Councillor Evans proposed an amendment set out in Annex 5 to the Schedule of Business.  Council agreed to receive the amendment so that the following amended motion was considered.

“This Council notes that many people in our county suffer from progressive and life-limiting conditions, such as Motor Neurone Disease (MND). As these diseases progress, symptoms worsen and people’s needs increase, often unpredictably. 

This Council believes that people living with progressive conditions deserve to live in safe and accessible homes, with as much independence and quality of life as possible. We commit to doing all we can to ensure this.

This Council notes that early interventions, as well as being good for individuals and their families, can save taxpayer’s money by enabling people to manage their condition more effectively and reducing the need for critical interventions at a later stage.

This Council therefore resolves to ask the Cabinet Member for Adults to review the County Council’s role in the Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) and report to the People Overview & Scrutiny Committee with:

• How the Council currently delivers its role in the DFG;
• Timeliness over the past three years for the County Council fulfilling its role in the DFG, including assessments and referrals;
• How the Council’s processes could be improved, including the timeliness of assessments and the working relationship with District Councils and other partners;
• Whether the County Council is acting quickly enough to ensure that target timeframes of 55 days for simple adaptations and 130 days for complex adaptations can be met for people living with MND and other progressive or terminal conditions.”

Following discussion, an electronic vote was taken. The motion was carried with 56 votes in favour, no abstentions and none against.

The motion was referred to Cabinet.

Council notes:

1.         Climate impact is the Council’s highest strategic risk.

2.         The Oxfordshire Climate Risk and Vulnerability Assessment (2024) identifies flooding and extreme heat as significant, growing climate risks; driven by warmer, wetter winters, more intense rainfall, prolonged summer heatwaves and increased built-up areas.

3.         Impacts of climate and Nature collapse are acknowledged to be even greater than thought in 2024. They pose an existential threat to humanity. Serious adaptation must become standard operating practice similar to the fiduciary duty to council tax-payers.

The assessment illustrates the need for large-scale space for water storage upstream, to decrease flooding impacts downstream. Urban design is also key - to both prevent localised surface-water flooding, and build temperature resilience, preventing human-made “heat islands” which drive excess residents’ deaths, especially amongst the most vulnerable.

Council notes the success of adaptation measures depends on multi-year, multi-stakeholder and community-based collaborations at appropriate, impactful scale.  Partners (e.g. Environment Agency) have 6-year funding cycles, allowing capacity and capability to develop appropriately – starkly contrasting to the Council’s annual budget-setting process.

Council requests that Cabinet considers:

• Significantly increased investment through the Council’s remaining years’ budget process to accelerate Oxfordshire’s capacity and capability to convene and work at impactful scale, in multi-stakeholder action groups, embedding climate adaptation as standard operational procedure.
• Multiple new councillor-supported, location-specific initiatives, convening, alongside officers and partners, to build resilience capability through collaborative action in:
• Locations to mitigate or adapt to river, groundwater, urban and flash flooding
• Urban neighbourhoods to mitigate heat islands.

Note: The motion, if passed, would constitute the exercise of an executive function in which case it will be referred to the Cabinet together with any advice the Council may wish to give, in accordance with Rule 13.5.1 (i) of the Council Procedure Rules in the Constitution.

The motion was proposed by Councillor Barlow and seconded by Councillor Jones.  An amendment, set out in Annex 5 of the Schedule of Business, was proposed by Councillor Henwood.  The amendment was accepted by the proposer and seconder.  Council agreed to accept the amendment so that the following amended motion was considered.

“Council notes:

1.       Climate impact is the Council’s highest strategic risk.

2.       The Oxfordshire Climate Risk and Vulnerability Assessment (2024) identifies flooding and extreme heat as significant, growing climate risks; driven by warmer, wetter winters, more intense rainfall, prolonged summer heatwaves and increased built-up areas.

3.       Impacts of climate and Nature collapse are acknowledged to be even greater than thought in 2024. They pose an existential threat to humanity and all ecosystems. Serious adaptation must become standard operating practice similar to the fiduciary duty to council tax-payers.

The assessment illustrates large-scale space for water storage and retention is vital, slowing water flow and decreasing flooding. Urban design is also key - to prevent localised surface-water flooding, and build temperature resilience, preventing human-made “heat islands” which drive excess residents’ deaths, especially the most vulnerable.

Adaptation measures’ success depends on multi-year, multi-stakeholder, community-based collaborations at impactful scale.  Partners’ (e.g. Environment Agency) 6-year funding cycles allow capacity to develop – starkly contrasting to the council’s annual budget-setting process.

Council requests that cabinet considers:

• Significantly increased investment through the Council’s remaining years’ budget process to accelerate Oxfordshire’s capacity and capability to convene and work at impactful scale, in multi-stakeholder action groups, embedding climate adaptation as standard operational procedure.
• Supporting multiple location-specific initiatives, working with councillors, officers, partner organisations and local communities, to build resilience through collaborative action to:
• Reduce the risks associated with river, groundwater, surface water and flash flooding
• Improve resilience to extreme heat and mitigate urban heat island effects.”

Following discussion, an electronic vote was taken. The motion was carried with 55 votes in favour, none against and no abstentions.

The motion was referred to Cabinet.

This Council:

• Recognises that dangerous parking, on pavements, in cycle lanes, around schools and in many other instances, causes significant danger and inconvenience to many people particularly those with limited mobility.      
• Understands that this is a county wide issue, and many representative groups have worked tirelessly to highlight these issues.
• Recognises the findings from the Government’s consultation, allowing the highway authority to enforce a ban on pavement parking.
• Recognises that a ban on pavement parking needs to be accompanied by the consideration of parking as whole, and by extra budget from Government or else effective enforcement may not be possible.

Council therefore:

1.            Fully endorses the objective to end pavement parking and doing so in a way which suits local needs best.

2.            Commits to supporting the use of civil enforcement powers in a way which enforces this policy effectively in a cost neutral way to the council.

3.            Asks the Cabinet Member for Transport to:

a.    Oversee the introduction of an enforcement mechanism, recognising that different areas will require different solutions.

b.    Ensure that key stakeholders and representative groups of people with restricted mobility be consulted throughout.

c.    Ensure that the Council follows the progress of Government’s latest research exercise into this issue, responding as appropriate.

4.            Asks the Leader of the Council to write to the Minister for Local Transport to request further resources to be able to implement the enforcement mechanism effectively.

Note: The motion, if passed, would constitute the exercise of an executive function in which case it will be referred to the Cabinet together with any advice the Council may wish to give, in accordance with Rule 13.5.1 (i) of the Council Procedure Rules in the Constitution.

The motion was proposed by Councillor Thomas and seconded by Councillor Roberts.  An amendment from Councillor Middleton, as set out in Annex 5 to the Schedule of Business, was accepted by the proposer and seconder.  Council agreed to accept the amendment so that the amended motion considered was as follows.

“This Council:

• Recognises that dangerous parking, on pavements, paths and verges, in cycle lanes, around schools and in many other instances, causes significant danger and inconvenience to many people particularly those with limited mobility.      
• Understands that this is a county wide issue, and many representative groups have worked tirelessly to highlight these issues.
• Recognises the findings from the Government’s consultation, allowing the highway authority to enforce a ban on pavement, path and verge parking.
• Recognises that a ban on pavement parking needs to be accompanied by the consideration of parking as whole, and by extra budget from Government or else effective enforcement may not be possible.

Council therefore:

1.            Fully endorses the objective to end pavement, path and verge parking and doing so in a way which suits local needs best.

2.            Commits to supporting the use of civil enforcement powers in a way which enforces this policy effectively in a cost neutral way to the council.

3.            Asks the Cabinet Member for Transport to:

a.    Oversee the introduction of an enforcement mechanism, recognising that different areas will require different solutions.

b.    Ensure that key stakeholders and representative groups of people with restricted mobility be consulted throughout.

c.    Ensure that the Council follows the progress of Government’s latest research exercise into this issue, responding as appropriate.”

Following discussion, an electronic vote was taken. The motion was carried with 50 votes in favour, one abstention and no votes against.

The motion was referred to Cabinet.