Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence and temporary appointments.

There were none.

See guidance note on the back page.

There were none.

The Committee is recommended to APPROVE the minutes of the meeting held on 27 August 2025 and to receive information arising from them.

The Committee APPROVED the minutes of the meeting held on 27 August 2025 as a true and accurate record.

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

Requests to speak must be submitted no later than 09.00 three working days before the meeting, i.e., Friday, 19 September 2025.

Requests should be submitted to the Scrutiny Officer at scrutiny@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.

Where there are a number of requests from persons wishing to present similar views on the same issue, the Chair may require that the views be put by a single spokesperson. It is expected that only in exceptional circumstances will a person (or organisation) be allowed to address more than one meeting on a particular issue in any period of six months.

There were none.

The Committee is recommended to NOTE the progress of previous recommendations and actions arising from previous meetings, having raised any questions on the contents.

Paul Fermer, the Director of Environment and Highways, gave a brief oral update on progress of recommendations to which Cabinet had previously responded.

It was reported that the recommendations had been taken into account in finalising the Local Nature Recovery Strategy and Biodiversity Action Plan, with both soon to be submitted to Cabinet. 

Given the time critical nature of some of the Committee’s recommendations submitted to Cabinet on 10 September relating to the congestion charge, the Committee requested an earlier response than the legal maximum of two months.

The Committee NOTED the action and recommendation tracker.

Attached is the Cabinet response to the Place Overview and Scrutiny Committee report on the Transport Working Group Report. The Committee is asked to NOTE the response.

The Committee NOTED the Cabinet responses to the Transport Working Group Report recommendations.

The Committee AGREED an interest in monitoring the progress of these recommendations.

The Committee is recommended to AGREE its work programme for forthcoming meetings, having heard any changes from previous iterations, and taking account of the Cabinet Forward Plan and of the Budget Management Monitoring Report.

The Cabinet Forward Plan can be found here: https://mycouncil.oxfordshire.gov.uk/mgListPlanItems.aspx?PlanId=433&RP=115

The most recent BMMR, submitted to Cabinet in March 2025, can be found here: https://mycouncil.oxfordshire.gov.uk/mgAi.aspx?ID=33404

The Committee AGREED the proposed work programme.

A member encouraged Officers and the chair to prioritise scheduling the most important or contentious issues, such as policy decisions, at the beginning of meetings.

It was noted that the chairman of Sutton Courtenay Parish Council was expected to address the Committee when it considered the item on Minerals and Waste Management.

The Committee has requested an update on the implementation of the Verge and Vegetation Policy.  It has invited Cllr Andrew Gant, Cabinet member for Transport Management, to present the report and has also invited Paul Fermer, Director of Environment, Highways & Transport, Sean Rooney, Head of Highway Maintenance and Road Safety, and Paul Wilson, Operational Manager (Operations) to attend and to answer the Committee’s questions.

The Committee is asked to consider the report and raise any questions, and to AGREE any recommendations it wishes to make to Cabinet arising therefrom.

The Committee invited Cllr Andrew Gant, Cabinet member for Transport Management, to present the report and also invited Paul Fermer, Director of Environment, Highways & Transport, Sean Rooney, Head of Highway Maintenance and Road Safety, Paul Wilson, Operational Manager (Operations), Jack Wheeler, Senior Biodiversity Officer, and Charlottle Knowles, Marketing and Campaigns Manager, to attend and to answer the Committee’s questions.

The Cabinet member for Transport Management introduced the verge and vegetation management, highlighting that verge management was a specific part of the Committee’s remit to be viewed in the context of wider biodiversity and planning policies. The Head of Highway Maintenance and Road Safety explained that the report reviewed current practices across the county, described the established processes and the close collaboration within environment teams.

The Committee raised the following questions and comments:

·       The amount paid by the Council for verge management and the timing of the last review of the payment rate. It was clarified that payments to parish and town councils amounted to approximately £342,000 per year, with the rate for urban grass cutting set at a flat £0.10 per square metre. This rate had not been reviewed for eight to ten years, despite occasional requests for an increase. The overall cost had remained stable towing to a reduction in the number of cuts, moving from two per year to a single cut as recommended in the current policy. The possibility of a rate review was tied to the annual budget-setting process, where all service costs and charges were considered, but affordability was emphasised.

It was stated that parish and town councils could undertake grass cutting themselves on county land, and there were arrangements in place for the County Council to provide funding for this. The payment had been a flat rate for many years, and parishes could supplement this with their own funds if needed.

·       What support was provided to parish and town councils and how communication was managed to ensure proper delivery of verge management, and how residents were informed about the balance between environmental impact and safety. The Head of Highway Maintenance and Road Safety and the Marketing and Campaigns Manager explained that the Council published the cutting programme and policy on its website which enabled residents to access relevant information. Communication with parish and town councils, as well as local divisional members, was handled directly by the engagement team, who also supported elected members to promote the programme within their communities. Issues raised by residents, through FixMyStreet, were addressed by the operational team.

·       Whether it made sense to prioritise maintenance on key cycle routes and if the policy already addressed this, as well as the role of FixMyStreet in reporting issues. Officers explained that active travel routes had been prioritised for maintenance, especially with additional funding, and that visibility and safety were the main considerations. The maintenance programme gave early attention to these routes, and, in years with high growth, a second cut could be arranged if needed. However, due to the variable nature  ...  view the full minutes text for item 48/25

The Committee has requested an update on the consultation relating to Part Night Lighting.  It has invited Cllr Andrew Gant, Cabinet member for Transport Management, to present the report and has also invited Paul Fermer, Director of Environment, Highways & Transport, and Caroline Coyne, Project Manager, to attend and to answer the Committee’s questions.

The Committee is asked to consider the report and raise any questions, and to AGREE any recommendations it wishes to make to Cabinet arising therefrom.

The Committee invited Cllr Liz Leffman, Leader of the Council, Cllr Andrew Gant, Cabinet member for Transport Management, to present the report and invited Paul Fermer, Director of Environment, Highways & Transport, and Caroline Coyne, Project Manager, to attend and to answer the Committee’s questions.

The Leader explained that the Council had introduced a street lighting and illumination policy in 2022, and, in November 2023, a framework was published by the then Cabinet member for Environment. The Leader noted that the way the framework was published had caused public concern, especially regarding safety when switching off lights at night, so the council decided not to proceed and instead sought further public engagement to understand both concerns and benefits, such as improved dark skies for biodiversity and nature recovery in some areas, and safety concerns in others. She highlighted consultation results, which showed support for part night lighting, and she emphasised that the proposal included exemptions for areas where it would not be suitable, to be considered at the next cabinet meeting.

The Cabinet Member for Transport Management described the process as a good example of the council listening to feedback and acting on it. He pointed out that about half of comparable councils had adopted similar policies and stressed that the Council’s approach required active support from the local county Councillor and other elected bodies for any area to be considered for part night lighting. He also noted that there was a list of exemptions, such as large urban areas like Oxford, which would not be eligible.

The Committee raised the following questions and comments:

·       Whether towns, such as Banbury and Witney, would be exempt from part night lighting, and what the basis was for deciding exemptions beyond Oxford. The Cabinet members, and officers, clarified that Oxford was given as an example, but that other large towns would also be unlikely to qualify due to the set exemptions, with eligibility determined on a case-by-case basis.

It was explained that the process would only proceed where both the community and local elected members supported it. County councillors could get involved by engaging with their communities, submitting requests to the street lighting team, and participating in scheme design and further consultation, following a process similar to the 20 mile an hour scheme. Final decisions would be made through the Cabinet member decision process.

·       How the process would work with parish councils and whether communities would be properly engaged to consider the impact of the part night lighting strategy, including support for groups such as shift workers. The Cabinet Member confirmed that, following lessons learned from previous projects, the Council would prompt parish and town councils to ensure they had consulted their residents and considered all relevant groups before making a request. The engagement team and street lighting officers would offer support, guidance, and prompts to help councils identify and address the needs of different user groups, ensuring a thorough and inclusive consultation process.

·       Whether the strategy considered not just switching off streetlights but  ...  view the full minutes text for item 49/25

The Committee has requested a report on Future Bus Regulation Options ahead of its consideration by Cabinet.

It has invited Cllr Andrew Gant, Cabinet member for Transport Management, to present the report and has also invited Paul Fermer, Director of Environment, Highways & Transport, Robin Rogers, Director of Economy and Place, Hannah Battye, Head of Place Shaping, and Katharine Broomfield, Technical Lead – Bus Service Improvement,  to attend and to answer the Committee’s questions.

The Committee is asked to consider the report and raise any questions, and to AGREE any recommendations it wishes to make to Cabinet arising therefrom.

The Committee had invited Cllr Andrew Gant, Cabinet member for Transport Management, to present the report and invited Paul Fermer, Director of Environment, Highways & Transport, and Katharine Broomfield, Technical Lead – Bus Service Improvement, to attend and to answer the Committee’s questions.

The Cabinet member for Transport Management introduced the Future Bus Regulations options item explaining that, in anticipation of a general election and possible changes in government policy, the Council had commissioned a report to explore different models of bus ownership. He noted that the Government had introduced a bus bill, which was progressing through Parliament and affected the process for applying for various bus ownership models. Four options were considered, and the consultants were tasked with investigating each rather than recommending a specific one. The preferred option, Enhanced Partnership Plus (EP+), was chosen mainly due to timing, as franchising would take too long to implement before the Council's expected reorganisation. He emphasised that the decision was based on common sense and referenced the importance of local context, relationships with bus operators, and the fact that congestion remained the biggest challenge to improving bus services.

The Committee raised the following questions and comments:

·       How efficiencies and savings could be passed on to bus users, especially focusing on young people and those in rural areas. The Director of Environment and Highways stated that, whilst many services started or ended in Oxford and faced congestion challenges, the Council aimed to strengthen its working relationship with bus companies through EP+. This approach would allow the Council to negotiate for benefits such as improved ticketing arrangements and reinvestment of profits, ensuring that efficiencies could be shared with passengers, including those in rural communities.

·       What the impact of devolution would be and how the timing of the Council’s proposals related to the creation of mayoral strategic authorities. The Director of Environment and Highways explained that the recommendation to pursue EP+ would have been made regardless of local government reorganisation, as it did not prevent future franchising by a combined authority. It was advised that franchising was a lengthy and costly process, making it unrealistic to begin before the Council’s expected reorganisation. It was also noted that the incoming mayor of a strategic authority would need to review bus models across a potentially wider area, which would be a complex task.

On rural services, it was stated that demand-responsive transport had been trialled but had not been successful in Oxfordshire, though it worked in some other areas; the Council continued to subsidise rural services and support community transport.

·       About the possibility of multi-service tickets, including cross-modal options for train and bus users, and whether profits from highly profitable routes could be reinvested to better serve local communities. The Director of Environment and Highways confirmed that multi-operator ticketing already existed through the “my bus” ticket, which had been popular but created financial challenges for the Council due to the way subsidies were calculated. It was also explained that the current Enhanced Partnership included a commitment for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 50/25

Cllr Dan Levy, Cabinet member for Finance, Property, and Transformation, Lorna Baxter, Executive Director (Resources) and Section 151 Officer, and Vic Kurzeja, Director of Property and Transformation, have been invited to present a report on progress relating to the redevelopment and regeneration of Oxford city centre, arising from the City Centre Accommodation Strategy.

The Committee is asked to consider the report and raise any questions, and to AGREE any recommendations it wishes to make to Cabinet arising therefrom.

Cllr Dan Levy, Cabinet member for Finance, Property, and Transformation, and Vic Kurzeja, Director of Property and Transformation, were invited to present a report on progress relating to the redevelopment and regeneration of Oxford city centre, arising from the City Centre Accommodation Strategy.

The Cabinet member for Finance, Property, and Transformation and the Director of Property and Transformation introduced the city centre strategic context plan which provided an overview of ongoing work, including engagement with the city centre accommodation strategy and collaboration with Oxford City Council. They clarified that the presentation was not a finalised strategy but rather an update on current activities, the planning context, and the Council’s involvement in regeneration and development in the West End, with further details to be provided as the work progressed.

The Committee had the following questions and comments:

·       Why Speedwell House was not shown as part of a developing master plan in the city centre strategic plan, noting that it appeared as a missing brown footprint on the relevant map. The Director of Property and Transformation explained that the map in question was produced by Oxford City Council and likely predated the plans to develop Speedwell House, which accounted for its absence from the master plan illustration.

·       The County Council’s role in city centre plans, specifically what the County Council could control and what input it could have, given that Oxford City Council was the planning authority. The Director of Property and Transformation explained that, whilst the City Council led on planning, the County Council played a significant role as the highways and transport authority and as a property owner. The County Council contributed by engaging closely with the City Council, supporting the planning process, and influencing developments through its responsibilities and assets, ensuring that county interests and local needs were represented in the ongoing regeneration and strategic planning.

·       Clarification regarding the plans for Speedwell House and whether County Hall would still be relocating there, given recent developments. The Director of Property and Transformation explained that, due to the discovery of significant archaeological remains under the Speedwell House car park, the original redevelopment plans had been halted. An options appraisal was underway to determine the future use of Speedwell House, which might now become a city hub with flexible uses such as a chamber and coroner’s court, rather than the main office for County Hall. It was confirmed that the County Council remained committed to regenerating Speedwell Street, but the move of County Hall to Speedwell House was no longer certain and would depend on the outcome of the options appraisal.

·       Whether it had been a mistake to proceed with the sale of County Hall before conducting thorough archaeological checks at Speedwell House, especially given the subsequent discovery of significant mediaeval remains. The Director of Property and Transformation acknowledged that, with hindsight, the situation was regrettable but emphasised that the area had been subject to repeated redevelopment over the past sixty years, and there had been no prior evidence from historical  ...  view the full minutes text for item 51/25