Agenda item

Report by the Leader of the Council.

 

The report, for noting, includes items at the Cabinet meetings on 9 December 2025, 16 December 2025, 27 January 2026 and 24 February 2026.

 

Council received the Cabinet report covering the 9 December 2025, 16 December 2025, 27 January 2026 and 24 February 2026 Cabinet meetings.

 

On item 1 (Devolution), Councillor Baines asked what steps the Council was taking with authorities across the proposed geography to ensure the earliest possible development of a spatial development strategy and the establishment of a foundation strategic authority. Councillor Leffman responded that there was a consultation underway on the development of a spatial development strategy and that a letter of interest had been sent to government on a proposed foundation strategic authority last week.

 

Councillor Epps asked why the government decided to include Swindon in the proposed area for a foundation strategic authority. Councillor Leffman stated that discussions had taken place across the proposed area and highlighted that it was for the government to finalise geographical arrangements. Councillor Epps also highlighted that Swindon was in different policing and health authorities.

 

Councillor Smith asked for reassurance that engagement with parishes and neighbourhood meetings would continue during devolution for Oxfordshire. Councillor Leffman gave that reassurance and noted the engagement with Oxfordshire Association of Local Councils through local government reorganisation.

 

Councillor Gordon asked about the recent government announcement for a Greater Oxford Development Corporation (GODC) and how that would fit in with ongoing devolution in Oxfordshire, which would highlight that the One Oxfordshire proposal would be the best way forward. Councillor Leffman concurred with those points and stated that the proposed GODC should incorporate a wider area to include some of Oxfordshire’s science and business parks.

 

Councillor Middleton asked if Councillor Leffman agreed with the need for clarity from government regarding the recent announcement on a GODC. Councillor Leffman agreed that clarity would be welcomed and that the government’s approach to the GODC needed to include the whole of Oxfordshire and not just Greater Oxford.

 

Councillor Barlow asked why the Council did not use devolution to reframe the relationship between climate change and economic growth. Councillor Leffman stated that it was clear that growth needed to be sustainable, with efficient transport networks to link up the Thames Valley whilst being mindful of climate change.

 

Councillor Walker noted that devolution has been discussed at previous Council meetings and asked why local government reorganisation proposals were not afforded the same opportunity. Councillor Leffman stated that there had been plenty of opportunities to discuss LGR through All-Member Briefings and at Place Overview and Scrutiny meetings, noting there were different views across the chamber but that ultimately the final decision was for the government.

 

On item 2 (HR & Cultural Change – Quarterly Employee Data Report – Quarter 3 2025/26), Councillor Phillips noted the shortfall in expected savings from organisational redesign and asked for information to be included in future reports. The Deputy Leader was happy to look at where that would be possible and highlighted that organisational staff changes needed to be managed carefully.

 

On item 3 (Oxfordshire Learning Disability Plan 2025-2035), Councillor Edosomwan asked what measures would be taken within the plan to ensure that communication was accessible for people with learning disabilities. Councillor Bearder agreed this was important, and referenced steps taken to deliver accessible communication such as making communications available in both printed and digital form.

 

Councillor Hanna asked whether the Cabinet Member agreed that this plan (Item 3, Oxfordshire Learning Disability Plan 2025-2035) needed to be a living document and that it should return to the Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee for progress updates in 2027. Councillor Bearder agreed and noted that adult social care would welcome working with scrutiny and other partners to ensure it remained a living document.

 

On item 4 (My Life My Choice Councillor Deal), Councillor Edosomwan noted the pledge referencing councillors signing the deal to show support and asked why this had not happened to date. Councillor Bearder explained that this might have been an oversight and encouraged all members to read the document.

 

Councillor Hanna asked if NHS commitment and integration were necessary to ensure success locally in tackling inequalities faced by people with learning disabilities and whether the Cabinet Member shared concerns about the lack of transparency regarding cuts within the Integrated Care Board. Councillor Bearder noted that Oxfordshire had one of the largest pooled budgets with the NHS across the country and confirmed that he’d like to see the My Life My Choice commitment made across the NHS. 

 

Councillor Jones asked about the challenges faced in co-production of this work, given the importance of supporting people with learning disabilities. Councillor Bearder confirmed that the My Life My Choice deal and Learning Disability Plan were aligned.

 

On item 5 (Infrastructure Funding Statement 2024/25 and Section 106 Improvement Programme Update), Councillor Fry asked for an indication of how the recent government announcement of releasing funds to fix Kennington Rail Bridge, could lead to section 106 funding becoming available for other projects in the area. Councillor Roberts responded that it wasn’t clear if the money would go into the section 106 pot directly and highlighted that the overall project overall could take 5 years.

 

Councillor Pressel asked what the Council was going to do to address the build-up of section 106 funds it held as the spending backlog was increasing. . Councillor Roberts highlighted that spending had increased in the last reporting period in comparison with the previous reporting period, as well as the acceleration programme and funding put in place to quicken section 106 spending.

 

Councillor Baines asked for an updated timeline on when section 106 contributions would be spent over the medium term, what new receipt of monies were expected and if there would be a net reduction in the balance of money held. Councillor Roberts stated that whilst the information could be found in the reports produced annually officers would be requested to provide some information in response to this question.

 

Councillor Worgan asked whether future funding would be made available for the Didcot Northern Perimeter Road phase 3 (NPR3) scheme, as housing growth made this a critical piece of infrastructure that was needed. Councillor Roberts agreed that it was not an ideal situation and that the Council had committed to building its section, with negotiations continuing with the developers about other parts of the scheme.

 

Councillor Epps asked the Cabinet Member to thank officers for using the accelerator programme scheme to progress the Heyford Park mitigation measures. Councillor Roberts undertook to pass on thanks to officers.

 

Councillor Snowdon asked how a significant slow-down in housing would impact the delivery of the Didcot NPR3 scheme. Councillor Roberts noted that the sticking point was the precise number of homes being built and whether 500 was the correct number.

 

On item 6 (Updates to ‘Implementing Decide & Provide’), Councillor Baines asked about the anticipated cumulative impact on these updates to the Local Transport and Connectivity Plan (LTCP) targets for net reductions in car journeys, and how the views expressed by the highways authority are considered in the implementation of this framework at district-level planning authorities. Councillor Roberts stated that more information was available on the website relating to the government’s ‘Decide & Provide’ policy and that clarification would be provided in a written response.

 

Councillor Kerr asked how the Council’s road-building initiatives, such as HIF1 and Watlington Relief Road adhere to the ‘Decide & Provide’ framework and asked if the models for traffic impacts were the same as in the LTCP framework. Councillor Roberts believed that the documents were available through HIF1 Planning Inspectorate’s reports and that it would have been in the documentation considered by the Secretary of State when deciding to approve the application.

 

On item 7 (Movement and Place Plans – Science Vale), Councillor Fry noted that the Movement and Place Plans passed by Cabinet, referred to 2011 Census data, rather than 2021 data, and asked whether the reduction in car use had been achieved over that decade. Councillor Roberts noted that the problem with the 2021 Census was that it took place during the COVID-19 pandemic making it difficult to use. The consensus moving forward was that other sources should be used alongside census data.

 

Councillor Kerr noted that the majority of schemes within the plan were road-widening and asked how that adhered to the ‘Decide & Provide’ framework discussed previously, and asked what funding was in place for solely cycling and walking schemes. Councillor Roberts noted that the accelerator section 106 programme allocated funding for cycling and walking schemes. Councillor Roberts referenced the council’s Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plans (LCWIPs) programme, which identified identifying suitable schemes so that when funds became available, plans were already in place.

 

Councillor Jones asked for the felling of trees on the HIF1 route be stopped until the impacts of losing trees was assessed, given that the move to environmental impact standards will require the Council to do so in the future regardless. Councillor Roberts committed to provide a written response.

 

On item 8 (LTCP Monitoring Report 2024-2025), Councillor Fry asked if the ambitious targets within the LTCP would be revised in light of experience. Councillor Roberts stated that the overall project, in terms of how data was presented and handled, would be revised as there were new government standards that the Council needed to take into consideration, as well the need to adjust the population figures.

 

Councillor Pressel asked how the Council was going to speed up the move to active travel as it was currently failing to achieve a meaningful modal shift. Councillor Roberts confirmed that active travel was towards the top of the Council’s agenda, citing the recent upgrade in the Council’s active travel ranking, notwithstanding funding constraints.

 

Councillor Baines asked if there were targets for residents to be within walking distances of bus routes and if the LTCP had modal shift targets for increased bus use. Councillor Roberts stated that 2 buses per hour would be built into parking standards and that the Council was assessing walking distances to various facilities.

 

Councillor Middleton asked about the east-west cycle path on Bicester Road outlined in the Kidlington LCWIP and whether funding would become available for an important piece of active travel infrastructure. Councillor Roberts noted the importance of LCWIPs in providing plans for areas but stated that the proposal was unfunded and therefore reliant on other sources of funding becoming available before the scheme could be delivered.

 

Councillor Kerr asked for an update on the progress towards parking targets within the LTCP since 2019. Councillor Roberts undertook to take that forward in the redesign of the report.

 

On item 10 (Capital Programme Update and Monitoring Report), Councillor Coles welcomed the long overdue enhancements in Witney through Shores Green and Witney Library but asked about the delays to the Witney High Street enhancement schemes. Councillor Levy noted the delays and confirmed that it was scheduled for decision later on in the week, which, if approved, would deliver improvements to the High Street.

 

Councillor Baines asked what steps were being taken to strengthen financial and project management of key schemes to avoid financial and reputational risks to the Council. Councillor Levy stated the Council had improved the management of big projects and noted that a period of high inflation meant it was imperative for the Council to undertake work as quickly as possible.

 

Councillor Hanna asked how section 106 funds were being used to drive forward the Council’s capital programme. Councillor Levy noted that section 106 agreements were almost always tied to specific projects but noted the Council was improving its flexibility to be able to spend money more quickly and using various sources of money to fund projects, such as the Milton Heights Bridge scheme approved by Cabinet last week.

 

Councillor Pressel asked about the delay in relation to the progress of the Oxford Flood Alleviation Scheme and stated that the Council needed to impress a sense of urgency as it was vital for residents of Oxford. Councillor Levy stated that officers were working on this project and that the Council did have a sense of urgency. Councillor Levy undertook to provide a written response outlining the current position.