Agenda item

Report from Leader of the Council.

 

The report summarises the decisions from the Cabinet meetings on 17 December 2024, 21 and 28 January 2025 and 25 February 2025.

Council received the report of Cabinet covering the Cabinet meetings on 17 December 2024, 21 and 28 January 2025, and 25 February 2025.

 

Under Item 2, Councillor Bearder asked if he could raise Councillor Johnston’s question in his stead. The Chair declined the request.

 

Under Item 3, Councillor Edosomwan and Councillor Elphinstone asked the Leader why bus gates, traffic filters, and low traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs) were not included in the Citizens’ Assembly. Councillor Leffman said that they were included on the recommendation of a cross-party advisory committee and 15 hours were added specifically for the Assembly to talk about these issues. Councillor Smith asked whether those 15 hours were well spent, and Councillor Leffman said that they were.

 

Councillor Enright asked the Leader whether the Assembly had gone well in general and, secondly, whether Citizens’ Assemblies would be pursued by the Council as a model in the future, especially with respect to controversial issues such as traffic filters.  Councillor Leffman stressed that traffic filters were going ahead but reiterated that questions about them were included in the Assembly. She said that she attended the final session of the Assembly. Citizens’ Assemblies were something she wanted to see again in the future as this Assembly had gone well and had been especially well-recruited. Nevertheless, she said that Citizens’ Assemblies should be reserved for big issues such as transport because they are expensive and take time to implement. She added, other options such as Citizens’ Juries were available to hear the people’s voice.

 

Councillor Baines noted the success of the Assembly in bringing the public into the heart of decision making. He asked the Leader, if her administration were re-elected, what steps would be taken to change how the Council operated to regain trust of communities and to ensure public buy-in for ambitious new transport schemes. Councillor Leffman said there were several ways the Council engaged with the public, including regular consultation that would continue into a second term.

 

Councillor Brighouse asked for clarity on why the contract for the Assembly did not initially include the Central Oxfordshire Traffic Plan. Councillor Leffman said that the purpose of the Assembly had been to look forward to 2050, not back. She said that LTNs and traffic filters were included in the discussions of the Assembly because of representations by the Labour Group. She said that it was now clear that people endorsed those measures in Oxford to reduce traffic, make walking and cycling safer, and reduce air pollution.

 

Councillor Leffman mentioned the budget containing LTNs in her response to Councillor Brighouse and noted that the administration that included the Labour Group at the time had approved that budget. Councillor O’Connor raised a point of order: Under 3.2, s.1 of the Constitution, the budget was the responsibility of the whole Council, not just the administration.

 

Under Item 7, Councillor Baines asked whether the Cabinet Member welcomed the decision by the new Labour government to extend the Warm Home Discount to a further 2.7 million eligible households and, secondly, of its action to reduce the cost of barriers for people to access the Boiler Upgrade Scheme and Warm Homes: Local Grant. Councillor Sudbury said it was difficult to object to any of this but stressed that the amount of money for retrofit in Oxfordshire needed to be proportionate to the government’s ambitions in this area.

 

Under Item 8, Councillor Pressel said that she found the report far too bureaucratic and stressed that above all else the Council needed to effectively communicate with people in high-risk flood zones. Councillor Sudbury said he agreed with Councillor Pressel and that it was for this reason that flood wardens were included in the report.

 

Under Item 9, Councillor Coles welcomed the stance taken by the Cabinet and asked whether there had been a response from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra). Councillor Sudbury said, to his knowledge, Defra had not yet given a response.

 

Under Item 11, Councillor Baines asked if the Cabinet Member could explain why people must hire a petrol or diesel van to drop off waste at Redbridge Waste Recycling Centre and, secondly, why dropping waste off by foot or bike was not permitted as it was permitted in London Boroughs and other built-up areas around the country. Councillor Sudbury said that access to the site on foot or by bike was not allowed because of a problem with the site itself. He said that the site needed to be stabilised, after which construction work would take place to enable cycling and walking on to the site.

 

Councillor Enright asked what the Council could do to further reduce the amount of waste that is produced. Councillor Sudbury said that officers ran campaigns almost continuously on trying to reduce the amount of waste produced and, secondly, on having it correctly sorted so that more of it can be recycled. He said that he expected recycling as a proportion of waste to go up from 60 to 80 per cent under the new Labour government. He praised plans to have the polluter pay and Ed Miliband’s ambition for a zero-waste society. 

 

Under Item 12, Councillor O’Connor noted the controversy around the removal of short-stay beds in the Henley area. He noted the contract for the provision of short-stay beds expired last month and that a business model was being developed for their replacement. He asked the Cabinet Member to outline that case and evidence how it would avoid similar controversy. Councillor Bearder said that under the Oxfordshire Way, 23 per cent more people were being discharged into their own homes and hailed this as a success that was welcomed by residents and NHS staff. As a result of this, short-stay beds were being reduced. He said work had been undertaken to ensure people understand why this was important and added that he would follow up with a written answer to Councillor O’Connor containing details of the relevant contracts.

 

Under Item 13, ‘Funding contribution towards a jointly commissioned Mental Health Contract 2025-2035’, Councillor O’Connor asked whether Oxford Health as a provider would be subject to regular and formal performance review. Councillor Bearder said Oxford Health was already evaluated at regular intervals.

 

Under Item 14, Councillor Pressel asked whether the Cabinet had considered reporting on the disability pay gap. Councillor Fawcett said that it had been considered and discussed with officers, but it was a challenge to find a way to do so that was meaningful because the pay gap was not easy to define.

 

Under Item 15, Councillor Baines noted the increase in cost of several projects identified. He asked what steps the Cabinet Member was taking to ensure the Capital Programme continued to deliver value for money and, secondly, to ensure that the impact of inflation was mitigated to ensure the full programme was delivered. Councillor Levy said reports delivered to Cabinet were regularly monitored and made public. He said there was insufficient money to do all the things in the programme.

 

Under Item 16, Councillor Baines asked the Cabinet Member to provide an update to the Council on the final figures for the delivered savings in Children’s Services and, secondly, to outline any additional steps he was taking to improve the financial resilience and efficiency of these services, drawing on national best practice. Councillor Levy said he would provide Councillor Baines with a written response. He added that the Council was doing an excellent job at delivering services more efficiently.

 

Under Item 17, Councillor Baines noted that delivering better public services through transformation and reform required upfront investment to deliver returns over the medium term. He asked what further efficiencies and invest-to-save options the Cabinet Member would be exploring in addition to those already agreed to in the budget.  Councillor Levy assured Councillor Baines that these matters were kept under review but noted that it was difficult to find ways in which to achieve further savings, given legislative constraints. He said he wanted central government to address the power of local authorities in this area.

 

Councillor Baines noted increasing concern about modern slavery and forced labour in international production. He asked what steps the Cabinet Member was taking to eradicate modern slavery from Council supply chains. Councillor Levy said there was no modern slavery in the Council supply chains to the best of his knowledge and assured Councillor Baines that the procurement team continued to look at the issue when awarding contracts.

 

Under Item 19, Councillor Pressel asked for an update on the Council’s plans to regenerate the area around Speedwell House. Councillor Levy noted that Councillor Pressel and all other councillors had recently been invited to an exhibition in the chamber on the plans for Speedwell House. He assured Councillor Presell that more information on the regeneration of the area was forthcoming.

 

Under Item 23, Councillor Saul noted that Witney Rotary Club was recently deterred from holding a public event in the marketplace in Chipping Norton because of Council charges associated with blocking parking spots. Councillor Gant noted that Councillor Saul’s question was not about civil enforcement procurement issues, but he said he would happily provide a written answer.

 

Councillor Enright noted that West Oxfordshire District Council had recently transferred powers for civil enforcement of parking restrictions to the County. He also noted that the community found it could not use public spaces because these were now being managed as parking and highway spaces. He asked if this could be looked at in the context of this particular contract and whether local authorities could get together to support making more spaces available for public events. Councillor Gant said he would happily provide a written answer.

 

Councillor Baines asked if the Cabinet Member believed that the levels of parking enforcement were sufficient to act as a consistent and effective deterrent against use by commuters and non-residents. Councillor Gant said he was glad to hear Councillor Baines acknowledge the benefits of controlled parking zones. He said that the frequency of visits was a matter for the contractor but that the Council wanted more enforcement as was made clear by other members. He said he wanted central government to enable local authorities to do more in this area.