Agenda and draft minutes

To receive any apologies for absence and temporary appointments.

There were none.

See guidance note on the back page.

At the beginning of item 8, Cllr Thomas declared an interest as Leader of the Vale of the White Horse District Council.  She considered it most appropriate to withdraw from the room for that item.

The Committee is recommended to APPROVE the minutes of the meeting held on 4 February 2026 and to receive information arising from them.

The minutes of the meeting on 04 February 2026 were AGREED as a true and accurate record, subject to substituting “Oxfordshire Liveable Streets” for “Oxfordshire Liverpool Streets.”

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, 17 April, 2026.

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.

The Committee heard the following public addresses on the Minerals and Waste Planning item:

Rita Atkinson of Sutton Courtenay Parish Council requested that the Committee recommend Cabinet commission an independent review of Minerals and Waste planning processes, citing long running impacts on Sutton Courtenay and Appleford from Minerals and Waste operations. She highlighted frustration with repeated section 73 applications extending site lifespans, delays in application determination, and the difficulty for communities in understanding original intents. She argued that an independent review would support more meaningful community engagement and reduce cumulative impacts.

Greg O’Broin of Appleford-on-Thames Parish Council also spoke about the Minerals and Waste Policy item.  He raised concerns about the repeated use of section 73 applications to extend permissions beyond agreed end dates, distorting the planning system and undermining public confidence. He cited ongoing non compliance with planning conditions and section 106 agreements, limited enforcement action, and insufficient staffing for monitoring and enforcement. He asked the Committee to seek an independent review of processes, enforcement practice and resource adequacy.

Robin Draper stated that parish council concerns regarding the Minerals and Waste function related to processes, procedures and culture rather than individual officers. He criticised delays, multiple consultations on section 73 applications, limited enforcement action and a perceived lack of supervision and accountability. He urged the Committee to challenge performance and recommend an independent review to examine why statutory timescales and enforcement powers were not being used more robustly.

Councillor Peter Stevens endorsed the parish councils’ concerns and supported their request for an independent review. He argued that multinational operators were able to exploit the system, resulting in repeated extensions and uncertainty over restoration outcomes. He called for clearer restoration visions, stronger enforcement powers, defined end dates, and greater alignment with neighbourhood plans and future infrastructure proposals.

At the opening of item 11, the Committee heard public addresses on the Congestion Charge Monitoring Scheme Reporting.

Richard Parnham asked the Committee to request improvements to how congestion scheme monitoring data is reported, stating that current presentations lacked context and made it difficult to identify trends, localised impacts and significance across different roads. He argued that benefits appeared to be fading in some locations, with traffic displacement disproportionately affecting areas such as Cowley and routes serving the hospitals. He raised concerns about gaps and inconsistencies in reported data, including bus journey time impacts and their absence from recent analysis.

Geoffrey Sutton, of Reconnecting Oxford, argued that the congestion charge had separated the city centre and hospital catchments without sufficient understanding of their distinct travel patterns, disadvantaging access to the hospitals. He questioned the accuracy of the Oxfordshire Strategic Model, stating that missing data had undermined forecasts and contributed to unanticipated impacts on bus operators and journey times. He asked the Committee to scrutinise governance, risk management, performance metrics (including accident rates), and the lack of effective monitoring of business and hospital impacts.

Bernadette Evans, of Oxford Business Action Group, stated that small businesses had been adversely affected by the congestion charge and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13/26

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

The Committee NOTED the action and recommendation tracker.

Attached are the Cabinet responses to the Place Overview and Scrutiny Committee reports on:

·       Infrastructure Funding Statement and s.106

·       Movement and Place Plans

The Committee is asked to NOTE the response.

The Committee NOTED the Cabinet response to the report on Infrastructure Funding Statement and s.106 and the one on Movement and Place Plans.

Recognising that its membership may change in the forthcoming municipal year, the Committee is recommended to AGREE a provisional work programme for forthcoming meetings, taking account of the Cabinet Forward Plan and of the Budget Management Monitoring Report.

The Committee AGREED the proposed work programme, recognising that additional items would be scheduled once the membership of the Committee for the upcoming municipal year was confirmed.

The Committee has requested a report on minerals and waste planning in Oxfordshire.

Cllr Judy Roberts, Cabinet Member for Place, Environment and Climate Action, Robin Rogers, Director of Economy and Place, David Periam, Planning Development Manager, have been invited to present the report and 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.

Councillor Thomas withdrew for the duration of this item.

Councillor Judy Roberts, Cabinet Member for Place, Environment and Climate Action, attended to introduce a report providing an overview of the Council’s statutory responsibilities as the Minerals and Waste Planning Authority. She was accompanied by Robin Rogers, Director of Environment and Place, Jason Sherwood, Head of Regulatory Something, David Periam, Matthew Case, Team Leader: Applications, Charlotte Sims, Team Leader: Minerals and Waste Policy, and Neal Richmond, Team Leader: Enforcement.

The report explained that Minerals and Waste Planning was a specialist function, distinct from district planning responsibilities, and was delivered through three inter related functions: Minerals and Waste Policy and Strategy, Minerals and Waste Development Management, and Minerals and Waste Monitoring and Enforcement.

Members noted that Minerals and Waste planning differed significantly from other planning functions owing to its scale, operational complexity and long term nature, with development sites often operating over several decades. It was highlighted that decisions had to operate within national planning policy and enforcement frameworks, and that failure to determine or enforce decisions lawfully and in a timely manner could have exposed the Council to appeals and potential intervention.

Officers gave a presentation to provide context on the range and distribution of Minerals and Waste sites across Oxfordshire. This included quarries, recycling and waste transfer facilities, landfill and restoration sites, sewage works, energy recovery facilities, and examples of restored mineral workings returning land to agriculture, nature conservation or other beneficial uses. Examples of enforcement action were also described, including the use of temporary stop notices and subsequent resolution through planning applications.

Members discussed the adequacy of resourcing across Minerals and Waste functions. Concerns were raised regarding reliance on temporary and agency staff, vacancies within specialist roles, and the sustainability of current arrangements in light of the requirement to prepare a new Minerals and Waste Plan within a statutory 30 month timetable. Officers advised that the number in the team was supplemented with temporary and agency support to respond to workload pressures, and that further recruitment and reorganisation proposals were being developed to stabilise and strengthen the service.

The Committee discussed workforce culture and capability. Officers advised that the team comprised highly specialised officers, that demand and complexity were significant, and that there was an ongoing need for recruitment, succession planning and skills development to maintain service resilience. Members acknowledged the challenges posed by hard to fill specialist roles and constraints across partner organisations.

Members considered monitoring and enforcement arrangements. It was noted that there were currently no nationally prescribed performance indicators for Minerals and Waste site monitoring and that developing meaningful KPIs was challenging due to the variability and complexity of cases, particularly where voluntary resolution was pursued or where enforcement action was subject to appeal. Officers confirmed that work was ongoing to identify proportionate and useful measures.

The Committee discussed liaison arrangements for major sites. Officers explained that liaison groups were generally informal and varied from site to site, with some secured through planning obligations and others  ...  view the full minutes text for item 17/26

The Committee has requested a report on school streets in Oxfordshire.

Cllr Andrew Gant, Cabinet Member for Transport Management, Paul Fermer, Director of Environment and Highways, Mark Gregory, Team Leader: Behavioural Change and Travel, Cathy Champion, Operations Manager: Civil Enforcement, and Melissa Goodacre, Sustainable Transport Manager, have been invited to present the report and 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.

Cllr Thomas resumed her place.

Councillor Andrew Gant, Cabinet Member for Transport Management, attended to introduce the report the Committee had requested on the School Streets programme. He was accompanied by Paul Fermer, Director of Environment and Highways, Robin Rogers, Director of Economy and Place, Mark Gregory, Team Leader: Behavioural Change and Travel, Cathy Champion, Operations Manager: Civil Enforcement, and Melissa Goodacre, Sustainable Transport Manager.

The Cabinet member outlined that School Streets were a widely-adopted national policy, with evidence of positive outcomes locally, particularly at early phase sites such as Larkrise Primary School. He emphasised that School Streets should be viewed as part of a wider package of transport and behaviour‑change measures within the Local Transport and Connectivity Plan, rather than as a standalone intervention.

Members discussed the process for identifying and progressing School Street schemes. Officers explained that expressions of interest could originate from schools, parents, parish and town councils, councillors, or through officer engagement, and that each scheme was developed through a school travel planning process with formal consultation. The Committee noted that phases four and five were in development, informed by the external review, and that delivery capacity was constrained by funding and officer resources.

The Committee discussed issues of enforcement, particularly exemptions for taxis and other vehicles under ANPR arrangements. Members raised concerns about perceived misuse of exemptions and the lack of granular monitoring data. Officers explained that enforcement was strictly governed by national legislation and data protection requirements, limiting the extent of data captured for exempt vehicles. Members noted that while abuse could be addressed through licensing authorities in specific cases, there were practical limits to wider enforcement.

Members welcomed the scheme’s aims but expressed concern about geographic concentration in early phases and the applicability of School Streets in rural areas or on main roads. Officers outlined how School Streets were supplemented by “soft” active travel measures, including park‑and‑stride schemes, Bikeability, cycle libraries, walking buses and behaviour‑change initiatives, and how physical infrastructure was addressed through Local Walking and Cycling Infrastructure Plans and Movement and Place Plans.

The Committee discussed displacement of traffic and parking. Officers acknowledged the concern and explained that School Streets were intended to reduce congestion directly around school gates, often by encouraging safer parking locations nearby. Members requested greater clarity on whether displacement was being monitored and how impacts on surrounding streets were assessed.

Members also discussed the integration of School Streets principles into new school and housing developments. Officers advised that newer schemes were increasingly designed with active travel and access considerations in mind, but that many recently-opened schools had been approved before current policies were in place, limiting available interventions in the short term.

Members raised the role of independent schools in generating traffic and noted ongoing discussions with school operators around travel behaviour, park‑and‑ride arrangements and bespoke bus services. It was acknowledged that solutions varied by location and age range and required stakeholder buy‑in.

The Committee recognised the positive outcomes achieved  ...  view the full minutes text for item 18/26

The Committee has requested a report on bus services and rural transport, including mobility hubs, in Oxfordshire.

Cllr Andrew Gant, Cabinet member for Transport Management, Cllr Judy Roberts, Cabinet member for Place, Environment, and Climate Change, Paul Fermer, Director of Environment and Highways, and Ben Smith, Strategic Transport Manager, Melissa Goodacre, Sustainable Transport Manager, Ashley Hayden, Team Leader: Area Travel Plans, Dave Harrison, Team Leader: Public Transport, Eric Manners: Technical Leader: Active Travel, have been invited to present the report.  

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 considered a report on bus services, rural transport and mobility hubs in Oxfordshire.

Councillor Andrew Gant, Cabinet Member for Transport Management, and Councillor Judy Roberts, Cabinet Member for Place, Environment and Climate Action, attended to introduce the report. They were accompanied by Paul Fermer, Director of Environment and Highways, Robin Rogers, Director of Economy and Place, and Ben Smith, Strategic Transport Manager, Melissa Goodacre, Sustainable Transport Manager, Ashley Hayden, Team Leader: Area Travel Plans, Dave Harrison, Team Leader: Public Transport, Eric Manners: Technical Leader: Active Travel.

Councillor Gant outlined the background to the Council’s bus strategy following the withdrawal of all bus subsidies in 2016 and the subsequent rebuilding of the network. Members were informed that, since July 2024, all parishes with a population of 500 or more were served by a scheduled bus service, and that this represented a significant achievement when compared with national trends.

The Committee heard that bus services were delivered through a mix of funding sources, including the Bus Service Improvement Plan, the enhanced partnership with operators, contributions from public institutions, community transport organisations and, in some cases, private employers. The popularity and financial impact of the “MyBus” ticket offers, particularly the young person’s day ticket, were noted, with Members recognising both the social benefits and the pressure placed on Council finances.

Councillor Roberts introduced the section of the report on mobility hubs, emphasising their importance in improving rural connectivity and enabling modal shift in a predominantly rural county. Members noted that over 300 potential hub locations had been identified through public engagement and that pilot schemes were being progressed, alongside integration with Movement and Place Plans, the Oxfordshire Rail Plan and wider corridor studies. Officers advised that £1.4m had been committed to the programme, although some sites would be taken forward through related strategic transport schemes due to design or location constraints.

Officers also highlighted the Council’s rural active travel and behaviour‑change work, including delivery of Local Walking and Cycling Infrastructure Plans, the Oxfordshire Greenways programme, Quiet Lanes pilots, school travel initiatives and incentive schemes. It was emphasised that these initiatives were intended to support healthier places and reduce inequalities, particularly in rural areas.

Members discussed rural connectivity and accessibility of bus services. Concerns were raised about limited frequency on some rural routes and the impact on access to education, healthcare and employment. The Committee discussed the potential role of feeder or shuttle services linking smaller settlements to main bus corridors, noting changes in legislation which might allow greater flexibility and cross‑subsidisation. Officers advised that community transport, Council‑operated services and the Comet bus already played an important role, and that cost, demand and value for money had to be carefully balanced when considering frequency improvements.

The Committee discussed the relationship between bus services, park and ride provision and wider network performance, including the implications of the Botley Road closure and its eventual reopening. Officers advised that improved journey time reliability would enable better use of existing resources  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19/26

At the time it considered the implementation of the temporary congestion charge scheme in August 2025, the Committee agreed to receive a monitoring report in April 2026.

Cllr Andrew Gant, Cabinet member for Transport Management, Paul Fermer, Director of Environment and Highways, and Aron Wisdom, Programme Lead: Central, have been invited to present the report.

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.

At the conclusion of this item, the Committee will adjourn and will reconvene at 13.30.

The Committee considered a monitoring report on the Temporary Congestion Charge scheme and heard representations from members of the public regarding traffic impacts, data transparency and business effects.

Councillor Andrew Gant, Cabinet Member for Transport Management, introduced the report and was accompanied by Paul Fermer, Director of Environment and Highways, and Aron Wisdom, Programme Lead: Central . He emphasised that the primary purpose of the scheme was to reduce congestion at known pinch points and improve safety, and stated that the scheme had succeeded in doing so. He explained that the scheme should be seen as part of a wider package of transport measures, including bus service enhancements, congestion management and hospital access arrangements. Councillor Gant clarified that the key performance measure related to bus productivity rather than speed alone, and that improvements to bus services had been delivered during the temporary scheme.

Members discussed the presentation and accessibility of congestion and traffic monitoring data. Concerns were raised that the current data was difficult to interpret, lacked sufficient context and did not clearly demonstrate trends or localised impacts. Members requested clearer, more longitudinal reporting to support effective scrutiny.

The Committee discussed impacts on specific areas, including outer routes and areas near hospitals, and noted evidence of traffic displacement. Officers advised that anticipated changes broadly aligned with modelling assumptions and that mitigation measures were being pursued, including signal re‑phasing, service retiming and engagement with private schools and NHS partners.

Members noted that continued monitoring would be required as circumstances changed, including following the reopening of Botley Road and introduction of traffic filters.

Members discussed impacts on businesses and expressed concern that promised monitoring of footfall and spend had been delayed due to data reliability issues. Officers advised that alternative data sources were being validated and that spend data was expected to be published shortly, alongside an independently‑run business survey. Members stressed the importance of publishing this information before further decisions were taken.

The Committee discussed customer engagement data and noted that while headline figures were provided on volumes of enquiries, there was insufficient information on the nature of feedback received. Members requested a clearer breakdown of themes and issues raised by residents and businesses.

The Committee discussed the timing of the transition from the congestion charge to traffic filters. Officers confirmed that implementation would follow the reopening of Botley Road and that preparatory work was under way, subject to confirmation of Network Rail’s programme.

The Committee requested the following actions:

1.     That a written response to the questions posed by Oxford Business Action Group be provided and circulated to the Committee.

2.     That a breakdown and summary of customer engagement enquiries and feedback themes be provided to the Committee.

3.     That, in future reports to the Committee, congestion monitoring data be presented in a clearer and more contextualised format, including trend analysis and localised impacts, to support effective scrutiny.

The Committee agreed to make recommendations to Cabinet under the following headings:

1.     That business monitoring be strengthened, with footfall  ...  view the full minutes text for item 20/26

c. 13:30

The Committee has requested an interim report on the illegal waste site near Kidlington.

The Committee has invited Cllr Liz Leffman, the Leader of the Council, Cllr Judy Roberts, Cabinet member for Place, Environment, and Climate Change, Robin Rogers, Director of Economy and Place, Nicola Riley, Cherwell District Council’s Assistant Director: Wellbeing and Housing Services, Simon Hawkins, the Environment Agency’s Director of Operations for East and South East England, to attend as well as officers from the Council’s regulatory planning and enforcement service.

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 requested an interim report updating the Committee on the illegal waste site at Hampton Poyle, near Kidlington. 

Councillor Liz Leffman, the Leader of the Council, and Councillor Judy Roberts, Cabinet member for Place, Environment, and Climate Action, attended to present the report.  They were accompanied by Robin Rogers, Director of Economy and Place, as well as Nicola Riley, Cherwell District Council’s Assistant Director: Wellbeing and Housing Services, and Michael Adcock, Deputy Chief Fire Officer, Jason Sherwood, Head of Regulatory Planning Enforcement, David Periam, Planning Development Manager, Neal Richmond, Team Leader: Enforcement, and Matthew Case, Team Leader: Applications.

The Chair noted that the Environment Agency was not represented owing to their interpretation of guidance on the pre-election period and hoped that that, if the Committee were to consider another report on the topic, that the Environment Agency would be represented then.

The Leader of the Council introduced the report and thanked residents, local members, officers and partner agencies for their work in responding to the incident. The Leader emphasised the seriousness and complexity of the illegal waste activity, its links to organised criminal behaviour, and the impact on the local community. Councillor Leffman highlighted the importance of partnership working, particularly with the Environment Agency and district councils, and advised that progress had been made in securing the site and commencing clearance, noting the national relevance of the lessons emerging from the incident.

Councillor Roberts supported those remarks and reflected on the technical sophistication and speed of the illegal operation. The Cabinet member acknowledged that, whilst the response once the scale of the issue was understood had been strong, there were lessons to be learned about internal escalation and member communication.  Councillor Roberts stressed the importance of improving early intelligence and governance arrangements.

Robin Rogers, Director of Economy and Place, shared photographs to provide visual context, explaining the site’s scale, proximity to the River Cherwell and drainage features, and the vegetation that initially concealed the activity. He described how flooding exposed the waste and increased risk, the protective measures installed to prevent pollution, the creation of a raised working compound to mitigate flooding, and the logistical challenges of removal, including overhead power cables that added to the site’s risk profile.

In discussion, the Committee explored the following:

Members asked how a waste site of this scale could have developed without earlier detection. Officers explained that the waste had been deposited very rapidly over a short period, rather than gradually over time, and that the site had been deliberately selected and prepared to minimise visibility. Dense vegetation, bunding and partial burial of waste were used to conceal the activity, and vehicle movements were not initially obvious given the site’s location. The full extent of the waste only became apparent later, particularly after vegetation thinned and flooding occurred.

The Committee queried when the County Council first became aware that the activity constituted illegal waste disposal rather than engineering or land‑use activity. Officers advised that initial intelligence in late June and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21/26