Agenda item

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 with the government on devolution.

 

Councillor Mallon asked about differing views between different Liberal Democrat leaders at national and local levels. Councillor Fawcett responded that the government proposals were a bad deal for Oxfordshire and that the Leader was correct to reject it to allow the government to come back with an improved devolution settlement offer.

 

Councillor Saul asked whether the Leader had discussed his decision to withdraw support from a Foundational Strategic Authority with District Council colleagues beforehand. Councillor Fawcett stated that District Councils and the County Council believed there was potential for a better devolution settlement, compared to the deal that was offered.

 

On item 3 (Improving our Fire and Rescue Service), Councillor Markham asked when a new proposal would be brought forward for decision on the future of the Fire and Rescue Service. Councillor Fawcett stated that collaborative discussions had begun with the Fire Brigades Union, which was independently chaired, to bring forward positive proposals which could hopefully be reported on to the Joint Consultative Committee for Uniformed Members of the Fire Service initially.

 

Councillor Saul asked if the Cabinet Member agreed that the centre of Oxford would be better served by the existing Rewley Road Fire Station compared to an edge of city location. Councillor Fawcett noted that proposals would always have trade-offs, with historic buildings in Oxford requiring faster response times due to their special value.  Different plans were required in order to assess the necessary trade-offs with limited resources.

 

Councillor Smith asked if the process of finding positive solutions to the challenges faced by the Fire and Rescue Service had started. Councillor Fawcett stated that he was committed to finding positive solutions through a collaborative approach.

 

Councillor Cherry asked for reassurance that previous plans for the Fire and Rescue Service would not resurface over remaining years of the County Council.  Councillor Fawcett stated there were no overall cuts proposed to the Fire and Rescue Service, but a movement of resources between facilities, with the aim of providing better services for residents and that some previous plans had been ruled out.

 

Councillor Phillips sought clarification on whether a decision had been made on the closure of Rewley Road or Kidlington Fire Stations. Councillor Fawcett stated that decisions on their closures had not been made, stating that the option would remain open with many factors to balance to ensure the right way forward.

 

Councillor Pressel asked what progress had been made on the recruitment practices for firefighters. Councillor Fawcett noted local and Oxfordshire-wide campaigns to support recruitment and stated one of the positive elements from the consultation was the strength of support from local communities for their local fire services.

 

On item 4 (Refresh of the Our People & Cultural Strategy 2026-2028), Councillor Barlow asked if expectations could be grounded in the current and future funding realities, acknowledging that the best chance to deliver outstanding services was by working with communities. Councillor Fawcett noted that the aim should be to deliver excellent services regardless of the financial constraints, acknowledging that the Council valued the work that employees undertake and as individuals.

 

Councillor Phillips asked the Cabinet Member to describe staff morale, faced with the closure of County Hall and other uncertainties, such as devolution plans for Oxfordshire. Councillor Fawcett noted that there were some factors outside of the County Council’s control, such as local government reorganisation and devolution, but that it was important to listen and communicate with staff, which was evidenced by staff morale improving across Oxfordshire, noting that the proportion of staff who work in County Hall was small.

 

Councillor McLauchlan noted timing challenges with delivery of services and asked what the Council was doing over the last years in which it would be in operation to retain and recruit staff. Councillor Fawcett acknowledged the frustrations over delays, recommending that councillors raise concerns with Cabinet Members if required and that the Council was aware of the risk of staff retention moving forward into the transition towards new authorities.

 

On item 5 (Local Transport Consolidated Funding Settlement – Local Transport Delivery Plan), Councillor Kerr asked why costs were predominantly allocated to roads when the Council’s targets were on active travel and buses and how they were trying to avoid value-engineering dropping active travel elements of schemes as costs rise. Councillor Epps noted the challenges in this area, stated that detailed discussions and reviews of future programmes should continue, highlighting new initiatives on active travel and public transport outlined in the report.

 

Councillor Fry asked what action was being taken to increase the coverage of PM2.5 monitoring which was harder to undertake than NOx. Councillor Epps noted the work being undertaken to address air quality challenges, reflecting that air quality was a function of the District Councils but that he would be happy to sit down and discuss it further.

 

Councillor Barlow asked how the Local Transport Delivery Plan was being integrated into major highways decisions being made so a wide range of options were available, rather than defaulting to road building such as was the case on the Watlington Relief Road. Councillor Epps noted that several items in the report related to planning decisions and stated he’d be happy to meet with the councillor to discuss how the Council will look to prioritise going forward.

 

Councillor Pressel asked why the item was only on the Forward Plan for 28 days, noting that this did not give scrutiny enough time to scrutinise it.  Councillor Epps stated that he was happy to take that point on board going forward and would reply on the specific point in writing.

 

On item 6 (Movement and Place Plans), Councillor McLauchlan asked if there was a Movement and Place Plan for the Benson area to mitigate the potentially vast induced increase in traffic from various schemes.  Councillor Epps responded that he would provide a timescale in writing.

 

Councillor Baines asked how the 2040 Bus Strategy would shift shorter journeys onto public transport and if future Movement and Place Plans (MPP) would be more ambitious on public transport modal share. Councillor Epps noted that there was a low starting base and that work needed to be undertaken in conjunction with Local Plans to hold developers to account, looking at improvements that could be made to buses across Oxfordshire.

 

Councillor Saul asked if proper weight could be given to consultation responses to the West Oxfordshire Lowlands MPP that object to the introduction of parking charges and if the proposal could be avoided in the West Oxfordshire Uplands MPP. Councillor Epps reiterated that there were no plans to introduce car parking charges in West Oxfordshire Lowlands MPP and that car parking was the responsibility of West Oxfordshire District Council, committing to working on challenges in the Uplands MPP with local councillors.

 

Councillor Brighouse asked how Marmot principles were taken into consideration when looking at Movement and Place Plans. Councillor Epps noted that these principles had to be embedded into plans and welcomed the valuable reminder which he would take back to officers.

 

On item 7 (Oxford Congestion Charge Investment Plan), Councillor Garnett asked how bus investment could be used to encourage less car use, particularly noting cheap Park & Ride options that were available per person rather than per car. Councillor Epps noted that the arrangements weren’t entirely in the County Council’s control but was happy to discuss that issue moving forward.

 

Councillor Baines asked what consideration had been given to including the Rose Hill/Church Cowley Road junction in the list of active travel upgrades funded by congestion charge income. Councillor Epps noted he was happy to meet with local councillors to explore safety concerns and funding possibilities.

 

Councillor Henwood asked about the increase of charges from £5 to £70 in the transition from the temporary congestion charge to the traffic filters scheme and how that would impact the poorest communities in Oxford. Councillor Epps advised that he would need to wait for future details on the traffic filter scheme but that he was acutely conscious of the need to ensure equity is entrenched in everything we do.

 

Councillor Creed asked how Marmot principles were taken into consideration when looking at the congestion charge investment plan, considering that it had moved traffic into some of the most deprived areas in Oxford. Councillor Epps noted he was not the Cabinet Member at the time of the decision but referenced equality impact assessments that were undertaken and noted the importance of the Marmot principles in this area of work.

 

Councillor Edosomwan asked which specific parts of the investment plan would improve transport accessibility and opportunities for residents in Oxford, rather than primarily benefitting those travelling into Oxford. Councillor Epps noted support for public sector workers in schools and health services as an example of supporting residents in Oxford and stated he would be happy to meet with the councillor to discuss further.

 

Councillor Malik noted that park and ride support did not benefit residents in Cowley and asked about measures to improve congestion on Oxford Road and Church Cowley Road. Councillor Epps noted that the Council continues to monitor the impacts, particularly with the scheduled reopening of the Botley Road, and look for ways to relieve congestion.

 

On item 8 (Updates to Parking Standards for New Developments), Councillor Garnett asked how the County Council was working with City and District Councils who were responsible for planning, and for making sure a new unitary authority/authorities enforced these plans moving forward. Councillor Epps stated he was seeking to improve partnership working with the City and District Councils.

 

Councillor Fry noted that the Council’s initial provision for cycle parking on new developments had been double the national standard and now was in line with it, querying whether the Cabinet Member would be open to going halfway to improve cycling provision on new developments and provide safe parking spaces for electric bikes. Councillor Epps noted the importance of e-bikes and referenced examples of cycle parking provision seeming too high but would be happy to have a discussion with the councillor on the potential flexibility there could be, whilst noting different travel methods across Oxfordshire and cycling levels in Oxford.