Agenda item

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 that promised monitoring of footfall and spend in key shopping areas had not been delivered. She said business owners felt let down, having undertaken informal monitoring themselves after official data sources proved unreliable. She urged the Committee not to sign off the report until robust business impact monitoring was in place and business voices were properly reflected.

Copies of the addresses submitted are attached to these minutes.