Venue: Room 2&3 - County Hall, New Road, Oxford OX1 1ND. View directions
Contact: Scrutiny Team Email: scrutiny@oxfordshire.gov.uk
Link: video link https://oxon.cc/PLO12112025
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
Apologies for Absence and Temporary Appointments To receive any apologies for absence and temporary
appointments. Minutes: Apologies were received from Cllr Thomas, substituted by
Cllr Lugova, and Cllr McLean, substituted by Cllr Ley. Apologies were also received from Martin Reeves, Chief Executive, for agenda item 12. |
|
|
Declaration of Interests See guidance note on the back page. Minutes: There were none. |
|
|
The Committee is recommended to APPROVE the minutes of the meetings held on 24 September 2025 and to receive information arising from them. Additional documents: Minutes: Subject to amendments where words had been missed in the
draft for recommendations in 48/45, the Committee APPROVED the minutes
of the meetings held on 24 September 2025 as true and accurate records of the
meetings. These had been adjusted for the report to Cabinet and would
be corrected in the minutes. |
|
|
Petitions and Public Addresses 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 speak must be submitted no later than 09.00 three working days before the
meeting, i.e., Friday 07 November, 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. Minutes: Charlie Maynard, MP, the Member of Parliament for Witney,
addressed the Committee stating that he was pleased the Witney Rail project had
been included in the OxRail 2040 strategy,
highlighting its importance for accommodating new housing in West Oxfordshire
and alleviating severe congestion on the A40. He pointed out that the draft
document did not fully acknowledge the extensive work already completed on the
project's feasibility and cost-effectiveness. Charlie Maynard urged the
committee to amend the strategy to allow for the rail line’s construction
within the current plan period, rather than only afterwards, and suggested
specific wording changes to reflect ongoing efforts and provide flexibility. He
confirmed that these proposed amendments had been circulated to members. The Committee also NOTED the letter from Phil Evans,
a transport professional and local resident who was unable to attend, regarding
the OxRail 2040 report. |
|
|
Committee Action and Recommendation Tracker The Committee is recommended to NOTE the progress of previous recommendations and actions arising from previous meetings, having raised any questions on the contents. Minutes: The Committee NOTED the action and recommendation tracker. |
|
|
Responses to Scrutiny Recommendations Attached is the Cabinet response to the Place Overview and Scrutiny Committee report on the Oxford Temporary Congestion Charge. The Committee is asked to NOTE the response. Minutes: The Committee NOTED the Cabinet response on the
Oxford Temporary Congestion Charge. |
|
|
Committee Forward Work Plan 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. Minutes: The Committee APPROVED the forward work plan with
additions. February's agenda will include road safety, mobility hubs,
and potential Fire and Rescue changes, with input before the Cabinet meeting.
April already included three items scheduled, and committee involvement in the
fire cover model was under discussion. It was also NOTED that written responses to previous
road safety questions had been published with the meeting minutes. |
|
|
OxRail 2040: Plan for Rail The Committee has requested a report on OxRAIL: 2040: Plan for Rail after the public consultation and before it is submitted to Cabinet for approval. The Committee has invited Cllr Judy Roberts, Cabinet member for Place, Environment and Climate Action, to present the report as well as Robin Rogers, Director of Economy and Place, and Pete Brunskill, Rail Development Lead, 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. Additional documents:
Minutes: The Committee invited Cllr Judy Roberts, Cabinet member for
Place, Environment and Climate Action, to present the report as well as Robin
Rogers, Director of Economy and Place, and Pete Brunskill, Rail Development
Lead, to answer the Committee’s questions. The Cabinet Member and Director of Economy and Place
introduced the OxRail 2040 report, emphasising its
ambitious scope, year-long development, and the exceptional number of
consultation responses it received. Widely supported, the plan aims to outline
Oxfordshire’s connectivity needs and build a strong investment case, with a
focus on achievable outcomes. They noted recent government approval for the
Cowley branch line as a key milestone. The Rail Development Lead highlighted
intensified planning efforts since June, including collaboration with WSP
consultancy, broad engagement across the council and rail industry, and
significant stakeholder support. The recent release of the Government’s
Railways Bill was mentioned as aligning with the plan’s aspirations and
providing future opportunities for mayoral authorities in rail development. The Committee raised the following questions: ·
How would the plan remain a living document,
expressing concern that it might become static and unused, and sought
clarification on how flexibility would be maintained to adapt to opportunities
and changes. Officers responded that the plan had been designed with ongoing
partnership structures and regular engagement with rail operators and
infrastructure providers, ensuring relationships and project updates would
continue through organisational changes. Officers stated that the plan would be
revisited and updated as projects progressed, with live groups working on
specific stations and studies, and that monitoring and evaluation frameworks
were included to support ongoing review and adaptation, so the document would
remain relevant and responsive. ·
Whether any proposals had been considered but
excluded from the plan due to a lack of support from the rail industry.
Officers replied that nearly all items with a realistic pathway to delivery had
been included, and nothing significant had been omitted for lack of industry
support. The only example given was the proposed "science line,"
which the rail industry felt was excessive alongside the Oxfordshire Metro
concept, so it was removed; otherwise, the plan reflected projects with
industry backing and feasible delivery routes. ·
Members asked about the climate impact
assessment, specifically whether the plan could be more ambitious regarding
biodiversity net gain, such as planting wildflowers and hedgerows along railway
lines, and whether unused rail land could be used for housing. Officers
responded that biodiversity and environmental improvements were central to the
plan, with ongoing discussions about greening infrastructure and collaboration
with Network Rail’s climate action team, including proposals for local solar
power. The importance of ambitious biodiversity measures,
was acknowledged, and Officers confirmed that housing near railways was being
considered in partnership with the new rail property company, with master
planning for stations like Banbury. · Members enquired whether unused rail land could be utilised for housing, noting the potential for well-insulated homes near railway lines. Officers replied that this approach was supported by government policy and was a mission of the new rail property company, Platform, to bring ... view the full minutes text for item 12/25 |
|
|
Infrastructure Funding Statement 2024/25 and s106 Improvement Programme Update The Committee has requested a report on the the Infrastructure Funding Statement for 2024/2025 and an update on the Section 106 Improvement Programme. The Committee has invited Cllr Judy Roberts, Cabinet member for Place, Environment and Climate Action, to present the report as well as Robin Rogers, Director of Economy and Place, and other members of the Programme Board 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. Additional documents:
Minutes: The Committee welcomed Cllr Judy Roberts, Cabinet member for
Place, Environment and Climate Action, to present the report as well as Robin
Rogers, Director of Economy and Place, and Ian Dyson, Director of Financial and
Commercial Services, to answer the Committee’s questions. Cllr Roberts briefly introduced the Infrastructure Funding
Statement and Section 106 report by explaining that it was a retrospective
statutory report required for government and also included a section detailing
progress made as a result of scrutiny over the past 18 months. They emphasised
that significant strides had been made, both in fulfilling statutory
obligations and in improving work prompted by committee input. The Committee raised the following concerns and questions: ·
When asked if the council had learnt from other
local authorities on managing and spending Section 106 funds, it was explained
that the Planning Advisory Service had conducted a benchmarking review of
Oxfordshire, offering recommendations. The challenges faced were said to be
widespread nationally, and Oxfordshire continued to learn from others. The
Committee was told the review report could be circulated. It was clarified that
a previous magazine article ranking Oxfordshire poorly was based only on funds
collected, not on deliverability. ·
It was clarified that the dashboard reflected
only the baseline capital programme; spending from the accelerated pipeline
funding approved in October had not yet been included in financial projections.
Officers explained that factors such as housing completions and demographic
changes impact when Section 106 funds are spent. Efforts were ongoing to
enhance visibility of projected and actual spending by developing parallel
tables for confirmed and anticipated projects, while governance changes are
being made to accelerate delivery and improve clarity. ·
The S106 system was described as complex, with
funds often fragmented and bound to specific localities and projects, making
spending difficult. It was highlighted that gathering enough funding for larger
schemes was a challenge, and strict legal requirements must be met. The Council
recognised that the report did not fully clarify these issues, and admitted the
system was less than ideal. Efforts were underway to improve transparency and
to speed up expenditure, aiming to address these challenges and to ensure more
effective use of the contributions. ·
Concerns were raised regarding delays in the
allocation of S106 funds and a perceived lack of accountability for these
postponements. The response acknowledged these frustrations and clarified that,
although a dashboard was available to track disbursements, infrastructure
initiatives naturally involved extended procedures such as design,
consultation, and procurement. It was noted that the Council had strengthened
its oversight and was systematically reviewing older projects to identify and
address bottlenecks, with both the administration and officers being held
accountable for progress. Additionally, the importance of member engagement in
prioritising local projects was highlighted as a means to enhance
accountability and responsiveness. · The possibility of sharing the Section 106 dashboard with localities and planning committees to enhance oversight was discussed. It was clarified that members currently had access to the dashboard and could submit queries, and that expanding the scope of information available ... view the full minutes text for item 13/25 |
|
|
Update: Movement and Place Plans The Committee has requested an update on the Movement and Place Plans. The Committee has invited Cllr Judy Roberts, Cabinet member for Place, Environment, and Climate Action, to present the report and has invited Paul Fermer, Director of Environment and Highways, and Ashley Hayden, Transport Policy and Strategy Team Lead, 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. Additional documents:
Minutes: The Committee requested an update on the Movement and Place
Plans, and invited Cllr Judy Roberts, Cabinet member for Place, Environment,
and Climate Action, to present the report and welcomed Hannah Battye, Head of
Place Shaping, and Ashley Hayden, Transport Policy and Strategy Team Lead, to
answer the Committee’s questions. The Cabinet Member reported that the Movement and Place
Plans were ongoing, building on the local transport connectivity plan. These
documents were intended to detail completed projects, forthcoming funded
schemes, and future priorities identified through community input. The Head of
Place Shaping noted that these plans update the 2016 versions, were not yet
finished, and would continue to be developed with input from communities to
ensure appropriate measures are included. The Transport Policy and Strategy
Team Lead explained that the plans were designed to be updated annually, with
consultations currently taking place for the Science Vale and Bicester &
Mid Cherwell areas, and mentioned scheduled public
engagement events. Members raised the following questions and queries: ·
An inquiry was made regarding developments at
Milton Park, emphasising its significant growth within the medical and biotech
sectors, specifically whether the implementation of the Milton Park cycle path
could be expedited in response to increased demand from new businesses and
residential projects. Officers acknowledged that Milton Park’s ongoing
expansion was recognised, and it was noted that measures were being taken to
accelerate the completion of the cycle routes. A dedicated individual was
currently managing progress on the Milton Park cycle path, although certain
outstanding issues still required resolution. ·
It was argued that the boundaries proposed in
the place plans did not accurately reflect local movement or character, with particular reference to areas such as Henley, Wallingford,
and Wantage, where boundaries appeared either arbitrary or failed to encompass
adjacent communities. In response, officers emphasised that the boundaries
presented were merely initial proposals. They assured the Committee that these
would be thoroughly reviewed and refined through collaboration with colleagues
and additional engagement, especially as the process advances towards formal
consultation with stakeholders and local communities. ·
The involvement of town and parish councils,
along with other stakeholders, in the development of Movement and Place Plans
was discussed. Officers outlined that the process involved initial engagement
with town and parish councils, district members, and key stakeholders prior to
formal consultation. It was noted that input from members had already shaped
aspects of the plans, and that public engagement events were scheduled to take
place at community locations. It was also proposed that workshops or interactive
sessions with parish and town councils could facilitate their participation
from the start and promote broader community involvement. The Committee AGREED to recommendations under the
following headings:
|
|
|
Oxfordshire Fire and Rescue Service Improvement The Committee has requested an update on the Fire and Rescue Improvement Programme. The Committee has invited Cllr Jenny Hannaby, Cabinet member for Community Safety, to present the report and Rob MacDougall, Chief Fire Officer and Director of Community Safety, 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 will adjourn at the conclusion of this item
and will reconvene at 14:00. Minutes: The Committee requested an update on the Fire and Rescue
Improvement Programme, and invited Cllr Jenny Hannaby, Cabinet member for
Community Safety, to present the report and Rob MacDougall, Chief Fire Officer
and Director of Community Safety, to answer the Committee’s questions. The Cabinet Member introduced the fire and rescue service
improvement item by noting the report provided an update on progress addressing
areas for improvement identified in the latest inspection, highlighting that
six critical areas had been addressed and emphasising the success of the
dynamic improvement pipeline and the Fire Improvement Board. The Chief Fire
Officer added that 26 areas for improvement had been identified, with six
completed, and explained the importance of fire survival guidance, the structure
of the improvement programme, and the involvement of the inspectorate liaison
officer to ensure progress and oversight. The Chief Fire Officer clarified that the inspection took
place in January, but the report was not published until July, explaining an
apparent discrepancy in the scrutiny report. The Committee raised the following questions: ·
The Committee enquired about staff morale in the
fire service amid proposed changes and the potential for a greater role for
cadets. The Chief Fire Officer explained that morale was monitored via surveys
and ongoing staff engagement, acknowledging that consultations regarding
changes had had some impact. He highlighted the value of cadets, noting six
active units across the county, and stressed their positive role in youth
engagement and community support. However, expansion of the cadet programme
depended on resources and the availability of volunteers. ·
How were the fire and rescue service addressing
plans for retirements and recruitment, including succession planning. The Chief
Fire Officer stated that succession and workforce planning were ongoing areas
of attention, with an establishment board that regularly reviewed retirements,
staff turnover, and recruitment requirements. Succession planning was
identified as an area for improvement in the inspection report and was being
addressed. ·
The procedures regarding how the fire and rescue
service monitored response times, as well as the handling of exceptions such as
instances where response times exceed targets, were addressed. It was clarified
that response times were tracked through the Council’s monthly business
monitoring report, with defined targets established for attending calls within
set timeframes. Any responses exceeding 14 minutes were subject to
investigation, and this data was published in the annual performance report,
which was subsequently presented to the committee for review. ·
The Committee enquired about the expected
timeline for completing the identified areas for improvement and the safety
outcomes, particularly those related to the fire cover model. The Chief Fire
Officer confirmed that the areas for improvement currently on hold were
anticipated to be completed within this financial year, with all issues
resolved prior to the next inspection. The fire cover model was clarified as a
means of enhancing service delivery and implementing key safety measures
identified by the inspectorate, rather than a cost-saving initiative. The
Committee was to receive further detailed updates on these developments in due
course. The Committee adjourned for lunch ... view the full minutes text for item 15/25 |
|
|
Local Government Reorganisation - One Oxfordshire Proposal The Committee has requested a report on the Council’s proposal for Local Government Reorganisation before it is considered by Cabinet on 13 November. The Committee has invited Cllr Liz Leffman, the Leader of the Council, to present the report and has invited Martin Reeves, Chief Executive, Lorna Baxter, Executive Director of Resources and Section 151 Officer (Deputy Chief Executive), and Helen Mitchell, Programme Director: Local Government Reorganisation 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 is also provided with copies of alternative
proposals from other councils for Local Government Reorganisation in
Oxfordshire. Additional documents:
Minutes: The Committee requested a report on the Council’s proposal
for Local Government Reorganisation before it was considered by Cabinet on 13
November. The Committee invited Cllr Liz Leffman, the Leader of the Council, to
present the report and welcomed Lorna Baxter, Executive Director of Resources
and Section 151 Officer (Deputy Chief Executive), Anita Bradley, Director of
Law and Governance and Monitoring Officer, Rob MacDougall, Chief Fire Officer
and Director of Community Safety, Helen Mitchell, Programme Director: Local
Government Reorganisation, Robin Rogers, Director of Environment and Place, and
Susannah Wintersgill, Director of Public Affairs, Policy and Partnerships,
answer the Committee’s questions. The Leader of the Council introduced Local Government Reorganisation, outlining three proposals for submission: a single unitary authority from the County Council, plus two- and three-unitary options from districts and the city. She urged a focus on making the strongest case for a single unitary, particularly regarding service integration, councillor numbers, and the impact on key services such as adult social care, children's services, and transport. Comments were invited to shape the final proposal. The Programme Director explained that three options for Local Government Reorganisation had been developed, following a statutory invitation for reform. Engagement with the public and partners focused on refining the proposals, emphasising simplicity, minimal disruption, and the importance of strong local governance, particularly the role of town and parish councils. The rationale for a single Oxfordshire-wide authority included historical continuity, integrated services, and efficient transition without fragmenting existing provision. The Programme Director highlighted aims to build on best practice and enhance service delivery, especially in homelessness and housing. The Executive Director of Resources and Section 151 Officer presented the financial aspects of Local Government Reorganisation, noting that PwC’s independent evaluation showed guaranteed savings from reorganisation and additional, less certain savings from transformation. She stressed that the single Oxfordshire authority was deemed the most financially resilient and lowest risk, according to the Financial Resilience Index, particularly given likely funding cuts under the Fair Funding Review. She further explained that adopting a single unitary model would lead to minimal changes in council tax levels, making it a more stable option compared to the two- or three-unitary proposals. The Chair opened up the discussion to Members inviting comments and questions on the One Oxfordshire Proposal. · During the discussion on local government reorganisation, a councillor enquired about the future management of Oxford City Council's council homes, raising concerns about housing debt and the potential impact of a single unitary authority on council housing. Officers explained that all council tenants would be securely transferred to the new authority, which would also inherit the existing expertise and skills in housing management. The Executive Director clarified that the housing debt was asset-backed and would be treated separately from general debt, and emphasised that any decisions regarding the future structure or management of council housing would be made by the new authority, not predetermined in the current proposal. · A councillor inquired about the implications for West Berkshire if it were not part of the ... view the full minutes text for item 16/25 |