Agenda, decisions and minutes

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 3 November 2020 (CC1) and to receive information arising from them.

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 3 November 2020 were approved and signed as an accurate record.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Hannah Banfield and Councillor Emma Turnbull.

Councillor Jenny Hannaby declared a personal non-pecuniary interest in Agenda Item 12 by Virtue of her position as Chairman of a local Nursing Home and Chairman of Wantage Hospital League of Friends.

Councillor Arash Fatemian declared a personal non-pecuniary interest in Agenda Item 13 by virtue of a family member’s employment at Bicester Village in the past.

The Chairman passed on a request from the Education Scrutiny Committee to invite County Councillors to consider using unspent Councillor Priority Fund to either Fund Laptops for underprivileged children where the Government Scheme had not yet reached – contact Kim James or Hayley Good and a request of £50 to purchase Christmas Presents for Children Leaving Care – contact Hannah Farncombe.

Council paid tribute for the ongoing efforts of Staff throughout the pandemic.

This Council meeting will be held virtually in order to conform with current guidelines regarding social distancing. Normally requests to speak at this public meeting are required by 9 am on the day preceding the published date of the meeting. However, during the current situation and to facilitate these new arrangements we are asking that requests to speak are submitted by no later than 9am four working days before the meeting i.e. 9 am on 2 December 2020. Requests to speak should be sent to Deborah.miller@oxfordshire.gov.uk together with 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 9 am 2 working days before the meeting.

Where a meeting is held virtually and the addressee is unable to participate virtually their written submission will be accepted.

Written submissions should be no longer than 1 A4 sheet.

Council received the following public address:

Ms Janet Phillips spoke in support of the question at Agenda Item 8 (Question from Susanna Pressel) to keep test and tracing local on the basis that she believed that a local and publicly-run system – from finding to testing, to tracing, and then encouraging isolation, and providing necessary support for that, was the way to get on top of the virus and that the Council’s excellent Public Health Department should take control back from the national operation.

She urged Council to give its full support to Councillor Pressel’s request for the Leader of the Council urgently to contact the DHSC and our MPs, to ask them to transfer the work of testing and tracing to our local authorities and the NHS, with the necessary funding.

Mr Michael Taylor spoke in support of Agenda Item 17 (Motion by Cllr Leffman) on the basis that the IPCC had said that to avert catastrophe we must stop global temperature rise at 1.5°C.  However, the government’s own advisors, the Climate Change Committee, had warned that there was only a 50/50 chance of doing that if current plans were followed which was why the Bill was absolutely necessary.

The Bill did more to deal with the crisis than other currently proposed measures and had gained wide cross-party support.  It required the UK to play its fair share in the global effort to fight climate change, taking responsibility for our entire CO2 footprint, including international air travel and shipping, and overseas supply chains, recognising the damage caused through the goods imported both manufactured and agricultural.  The motion provided an opportunity for the people of Oxfordshire, through the County Council, to ask the six MPs to treat the climate crisis with the urgency it required. He urged the Council to support the motion.

Mr Charlie Hicks spoke in support of Agenda Item 18 (Motion by Councillor Arash Fatemian) welcoming the intention behind motion 18 to create a new governance structure that puts cycling and walking more highly on the agenda, but asked councillors to scrutinise the detail of such a new structure to ensure it really would get stuff done. He urged that any mechanisms had sufficient budget allocation and sufficient weight to enable decision to carry through Cabinet. He offered a suggestion to make explicit the role of walking and cycling within the Cabinet member for Environment and Transport’s brief as It seemed there was no mention of walking or cycling within any Cabinet member’s responsibility on the council website, despite all the targets and press briefings about how important the council was taking it. In recognition that there were severe resource limitations on the councils and the huge amount of work to be done for EATF2, he also urged that the Council took more seriously the prospect of working with members of the public - from all parts of society: business, people who drive, people who cycle, people who took the bus, people who walked, wheelchair users, parents,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 72/20

Mr Andrew Crawford asked Councillor Lorraine Lindsay-Gale the following question on Notice:

Does a County Council policy, procedure or briefing note exist on this issue and if so; a) may I see a copy and b) can it be sent to all Head Teachers and c) can it be shared with all relevant parents so that there is clarity and openness over the policy adopted by the Council for all parties?

Do Learner Engagement Services staff ensure that when discussing such issues with individual parents and their children’s schools’ staff that full disclosure of the County’s approach to this situation is made clear? Are Learner Engagement Services staff encouraged to influence Head Teachers to authorise absence from school using the X code in the school registers in these circumstances?

Councillor Lindsay-Gale answered as follows:

Oxfordshire County Council follows the Department for Education and Public Health England advice regarding the attendance at school of children who have members of their family deemed CEV (clinically extremely vulnerable).  Currently, that advice is that children can, and are expected to attend school under these circumstances.  The guidance is publicly available on the Department for Education website and has been shared with Head Teachers.  Schools in Oxfordshire have worked and continue to work extremely hard to make settings Covid secure and have delivered on this effectively.

Quoting directly from the current Department for Education guidance available on their website, shared with schools and informed by Public Health England;

‘’A small number of pupils will still be unable to attend in line with public health advice to self-isolate because:

·       they have had symptoms, or a positive test result themselves

·       they live with someone that has symptoms or has tested positive and are a household contact

·       they are a close contact of someone who has coronavirus (COVID-19)

More evidence has emerged that shows there is a very low risk of children becoming very unwell from coronavirus (COVID-19), even for children with existing health conditions. Far fewer children should remain in the clinically extremely vulnerable group in the future following their routine discussions with their clinician.

The advice for pupils who remain in the clinically extremely vulnerable group is that they should return to school from 2 December, at all local restriction tiers, unless they are one of the very small number of pupils or students under paediatric or NHS care (such as recent transplant or very immunosuppressed children) and have been advised specifically by their GP or clinician not to attend an education setting.

Children who live with someone who is clinically extremely vulnerable, but who are not clinically extremely vulnerable themselves, should still attend school.’’

Oxfordshire County Council’s policy regarding Elective Home Education (which is different to remaining on a school roll and accessing remote learning opportunities) is available on the Oxfordshire County Council webpages.  If residents require additional help in locating or accessing it, please email ehe@oxfordshire.gov.uk

Oxfordshire County Council’s approach, through Learner Engagement Services, adheres to the Department for Education and Public Health England  ...  view the full minutes text for item 73/20

33 questions with Notice were asked.  Details of the questions and answers and supplementary questions and answers will be set out in the Annex to the minutes.

In relation to Question 6, Councillor Walker undertook to investigate the issues Councillor Webber raised in relation to Drayton, including why it had taken, so far, three goes to get it right and whether an assurance that the work would be carried out correctly could be given.

In relation to Question 8, Councillor Constance gave an assurance to Councillor Webber that she would endeavour to accommodate the wishes of

Drayton, Sutton Courtenay and Marcham parishes in terms of LED colour, should budget allow.

In relation to Question 13, Councillor Walker gave Councillor Buckley an assurance to take the issue up with Senior Officers for a quick resolution of where the failings in the County were and whether they were within the organisation or with Contractors

In relation to Question 19, Councillor Gray undertook to provide Councillor Pressel with a further written answer giving more details on the progress of all LGA Peer Review recommendations.

In relation to Question 26, Councillor Stratford gave an assurance that he would look into providing Domestic Violence training to all front-line staff such as teachers, fire fighters and trading standards, subject to the funding being available to do so.

In relation to Question 30, Councillor Stratford undertook to provide Councillor Hannaby with a written answer detailing whether the contract gave the elderly and their families had the same rights and choices that existed when they had concerns and complaints as existed when the elderly received their reablement in Acute of Community Hospital provision and in relation to the new Living Well at Home future Commissioning which was a large part of the County budget spend. As the cost of delivering the new service would be met from the Pooled Budget fund, where would the accountability, monitoring and outcomes sit within the new service.

In relation to Question 31, Councillor Stratford undertook to provide Councillor Hannaby with a written answer on how the new way of working safeguards the elderly and vulnerable in their homes without 24hrs care continuity.

In relation to Question 33, Councillor Constance gave an assurance to Councillor Sudbury to ensure that specific targets for traffic reduction and modal shift are in the updated Local Transport Plan.

Report of the Cabinet Meeting held on 17 November 2020 (CC9).

Council received the report of the Cabinet.

Report by Director of Finance (CC10).

The report sets out the Treasury Management activity undertaken in the first half of the financial year 2020/21 in compliance with the CIPFA Code of Practice.  The report includes Debt and Investment activity, Prudential Indicator monitoring and forecast interest receivable and payable for the financial year.

Council is RECOMMENED to note the Council’s Mid-Term Treasury Management Review 2020/21.

Council had before it a report which set out the Treasury Management activity undertaken in the first half of the financial year 2020/21 in compliance with the CIPFA Code of Practice.  The report included Debt and Investment activity, Prudential Indicator monitoring and forecast interest receivable and payable for the financial year.

Councillor Bartholomew moved and Councillor Carter seconded the recommendations set out in the report and on the face of the Agenda.  In moving and seconding Councillor Bartholomew and Councillor Carter paid tribute to Lorna Baxter, Tim Chapple and Team for the excellent report.

Following debate, in which several members also paid tribute to the Team, the Motion was put to the vote and was carried nem con.

RESOLVED:(nem con) to note the Council’s Mid-Term Treasury Management Review 2020/21.

Recommendation agreed nem con.

Report by the Corporate Director - Commercial Development, Assets & Investment and Monitoring Officer (CC11).

This report presents the recommendations of the Independent Remuneration Panel following a recent full review of the Council’s Members’ Allowances Scheme. 

The Council had asked that a review be undertaken during this Autumn to help shape a Scheme of Allowances to apply from 1 April 2020. The last full review of the allowances agreed by Members was in December 2014. The Independent Remuneration Panel have now met and are recommending some changes to the Scheme as set out in the report.

The Council is RECOMMENDED to consider the following recommendations of the Independent Remuneration Panel and in so doing agree a Scheme of Allowances:

1.          that the Basic Allowance payable to all councillors increase from £11,014 to £12,000 per annum;

2.          that, in addition to the Basic Allowance, a Special Responsibility Allowance (SRA) be paid as follows:-

a.         Leader of the Council – raise to three times the Basic Allowance:  £36,000

b.         Deputy Leader of the Council – keep at twice the Basic Allowance: £24,000

c.         Cabinet Members – keep at 1.6 times the Basic Allowance: £19,2000

d.         Leader of the Opposition – increase to 1 times the Basic Allowance: £12,000

e.         Shadow Cabinet – keep at 0.25 times the Basic Allowance: £3,000

f.           Chairs of Scrutiny Committees (Performance, Education) – keep at 0.6 times the Basic Allowance: £7,200

g.         Chair of the Planning and Regulation Committee – keep at 0.6 times the Basic Allowance: £7,200

h.         Chair of the Audit & Governance Committee – keep at 0.6 times the Basic allowance: £7,200

i.           Chair of the Pension Fund Committee – keep at 0.6 times the Basic allowance: £7,200

j.           Chair of the Remuneration Committee – no allowance

k.          Chairman of the Council – keep at 0.85 times the Basic Allowance: £10,200

l.           Vice-Chairman of the Council – keep at 0.25 times the Chair’s Allowance: £2,550

m.       Third Party Leader – no allowance but review in 2021/22

n.         Locality Meeting Chairman – increase from 0.05 to 0.10 times the Basic Allowance: £1,200

o.         Police and Crime Panel Member – no allowance

p.         Police and Crime Panel Chairman – keep at 0.6 times the Basic Allowance: £7,200 but invite the Council to review with the Police and Crime Panel members the principle as to whether all authorities should contribute to this cost

q.         Police and Crime Panel Vice-Chairman – no allowance

r.          Chair of the Oxfordshire Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee – keep at 0.6 times the Basic Allowance: £7,200

s.         Chair of the Horton Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee - keep at 0.45 times the Basic Allowance: £5,400

t.           Adoption & Fostering Panels – introduce an allowance for member attendance at each of £100 per Panel with a cap of £1,200 per year.

3.          a cap be introduced such that no individual member of the Council should be entitled to receive more than two Special Responsibility Allowances at any one time;

4.          a Co-optees’  ...  view the full agenda text for item 77/20

The Council had asked that a review be undertaken during this Autumn to help shape a Scheme of Allowances to apply from 1 April 2020. The last full review of the allowances agreed by Members was in December 2014. The Independent Remuneration Panel had now met and were recommending some changes to the Scheme as set out in the report.

Council had before it a report which presented the recommendations of the Independent Remuneration Panel following a recent full review of the Council’s Members’ Allowances Scheme. 

Councillor Hudspeth Moved and Councillor Heathcoat seconded that the Council adopt recommendation 2 as set out in the report and on the face of the Agenda, to allow the new Council following the May elections to give full consideration of the issues.  In moving the report, Councillor Hudspeth thanked the Independent Remuneration Panel for their work and report which would be considered by the new Council after May.

Following debate, the Motion was put to the vote and was carried nem con.

RESOLVED: (nem con) not to accept the Panel’s recommendations at this time, in whole or in part, and to agree a status quo Scheme of Allowances for 2021/22 for any unchanged aspect with the proviso that the newly elected Council after May 2021 is asked to revisit the matter during the 2021/22 Council Year.

Report by Corporate Director of Commercial Development, Assets and Investment and Monitoring Officer (CC12).

The report outlines changes to delegation of health scrutiny powers for a new Joint Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee (HOSC) covering the Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire and Berkshire West footprint. The changes seek to ensure health scrutiny occurs at an appropriate scale.

Subject to agreement by the other relevant local authorities; Council is RECOMMENDED to agree the Terms of Reference (in Annex 1) for delegation of health scrutiny powers to Joint Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee across the Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire and Berkshire West geography to allow of health issues at a system level.

Council had before it a report which outlined changes to delegation of health scrutiny powers for a new Joint Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee (HOSC) covering the Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire and Berkshire West footprint. The changes sought to ensure health scrutiny occurs at an appropriate scale.

Councillor Fatemian moved and Councillor Hudspeth seconded that the recommendations set out in the report and on the face of the Agenda be adopted.

During debate, Councillor Roz Smith moved and it was seconded that there be a named vote (names recorded in the Minutes).

Accordingly, the Motion was put to the vote and was carried by 44 votes to 14, with 2 abstention.  Voting was as follows:

Those voting for:

Afridi, Azad, Bartington, Bartholomew, Billington, Brighouse, Bulmer, Carter, Cherry, Clarke, Constance, Corkin, Fatemian, Fenton, Field-Johnson, Fitzgerald O’Connor, Fox-Davies, Gawrysiak, Gray, Griffiths, Harris, Harrod, Haywood, Heathcoat, Hudspeth, Ilot, Lindsay-Gale, Lygo, Matelot, Mathew, McIlveen, Phillips, Pressel, Price, Reeves, Reynolds, Sames, G Sanders, J. Sanders, Sibley, Stratford, Thompson, Waine, Walker.

Those vote against:

Bearder, Buckley, Fawcett, Hanna, Hannaby, Hibbert-Biles, Howson, Johnston, Leffman, Roberts, Rooke, E Smith, R Smith, Webber.

Those Abstaining:

Handley, Sudbury.

RESOLVED: (by 44 votes to 14, with 2 abstentions) that Subject to agreement by the other relevant local authorities; to agree the Terms of Reference (set out in Annex 1 to the report) for delegation of health scrutiny powers to Joint Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee across the Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire and Berkshire West geography to allow of health issues at a system level.

“Council notes with Concern the decision by HM Treasury to bring to an end VAT-free shopping for the majority of goods from 31^st December 2020 unless said goods are posted to the buyer’s Home address abroad.

Whilst Council recognises that Brexit will present many challenges, the need for levelling up across the Country as highlighted by the treasury, and the need to ensure such schemes are appropriately used, Council feels that the approach adopted is akin to the proverbial ‘Sledgehammer to crack a nut’.

Council believes the best way to achieve the ‘Levelling up’ agenda is by increasing economic performance in other areas, not harming or penalising existing well performing areas.

In particular Council is concerned of the impact this measure will have on Bicester Village and the wider economy and local jobs supported, but also the knock-on effect to wider tourist attractions and businesses whom rely on visitors who make Bicester just one step of an itinerary around Oxfordshire and who may choose not to do so if the cost of shopping is now 20% more expensive.

Council calls on the Leader and Chief Executive to write to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and all the local Members of Parliament opposing such as move and asking them to reconsider or allow exceptions, given the likely detrimental effect this will have on the Oxfordshire Economy.”

Councillor Waine moved and Councillor Fatemian seconded the following Motion:

“Council notes with Concern the decision by HM Treasury to bring to an end VAT-free shopping for the majority of goods from 31^st December 2020 unless said goods are posted to the buyer’s Home address abroad.

Whilst Council recognises that Brexit will present many challenges, the need for levelling up across the Country as highlighted by the treasury, and the need to ensure such schemes are appropriately used, Council feels that the approach adopted is akin to the proverbial ‘Sledgehammer to crack a nut’.

Council believes the best way to achieve the ‘Levelling up’ agenda is by increasing economic performance in other areas, not harming or penalising existing well performing areas.

In particular Council is concerned of the impact this measure will have on Bicester Village and the wider economy and local jobs supported, but also the knock-on effect to wider tourist attractions and businesses whom rely on visitors who make Bicester just one step of an itinerary around Oxfordshire and who may choose not to do so if the cost of shopping is now 20% more expensive.

Council calls on the Leader and Chief Executive to write to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and all the local Members of Parliament opposing such as move and asking them to reconsider or allow exceptions, given the likely detrimental effect this will have on the Oxfordshire Economy.”

Following debate, the Motion was put to the vote and was carried by 35 votes to 15, with 11 abstentions.

“This Council notes that:

•             Many young people from disadvantaged backgrounds undertake apprenticeships. They are more likely to be in apprenticeships at lower levels, be paid lower salaries, and work at smaller companies.

•             Due to the economic impact of Covid-19, employers are unlikely to be recruiting apprentices in the numbers we have seen recently, meaning there will be fewer apprenticeship vacancies available for young people to access and more competition for the fewer opportunities.

•             New apprenticeships in Oxfordshire are already down by 30-60% on last year, depending on the sector, and are likely to drop significantly further.

•             A rising number of Oxfordshire’s young people are not in education, employment or training.

•             With young people unable to access face-to-face career guidance, networking events or work experience opportunities it will be harder for disadvantaged young people to access high quality information and skills needed to secure an apprenticeship or job.

This Council resolves to:

•       ensure all careers advice for young people produced by this Council is fully accessible online and has a particular focus on those from disadvantaged backgrounds and ask OxLEP and other partners to do the same. 

•       facilitate a post-16 study and training fund to seek financial support for young people from lower socio-economic backgrounds by inviting contributions from county councillor’s priority fund and partner organisations.

•       ask the Leader and Chief Executive to write to central government recommending that social mobility and widening opportunity should be an explicit criterion in a review of the Apprenticeship Levy.”

With the consent of Council, Councillor Brighouse withdrew this Motion.

“The increasing powers of non-elected decision makers is impacting negatively on Oxfordshire’s population. 

Buckingham, Oxfordshire and West Integrated Care System (BOB) is an exemplar. A local pilot for an Oxfordshire Population Health and Care Needs Framework has stalled since February   awaiting a review by BOB under national instruction. It marks an early test case of the value placed on local communities across Oxfordshire by non-elected agencies. 

The pilot in OX12 targeted a population of over 27,000. The local community endured the loss of a GP practice, a vibrant community hospital, with no delivery of infrastructure needed for 1000 new houses. A further 50% increase in housing is planned. There have been many excess deaths in recent months disproportionately impacting care homes. A starting point for recovery would be a clear commitment to completing the population-based pilot with a plan acceptable locally. A successful completion of this pilot would ensure consideration of local communities by people making decisions who do not know our local communities, who are less effective in securing confidence, and are not accountable to the public.   

Council calls on the leader to influence a positive commitment now within BOB to the OX12 pilot. In addition, we request that he send an open letter to the Prime Minister, the Select Committees for Health and Social Care, Housing, Communities and Local Government to urge the vital importance of safeguarding local democracy and scrutiny as non-elected decision-makers implement policy across Oxfordshire.”

Councillor Hanna moved and Councillor Hannaby seconded the following Motion:

“The increasing powers of non-elected decision makers is impacting negatively on Oxfordshire’s population.

Buckingham, Oxfordshire and West Integrated Care System (BOB) is an exemplar. A local pilot for an Oxfordshire Population Health and Care Needs Framework has stalled since February   awaiting a review by BOB under national instruction. It marks an early test case of the value placed on local communities across Oxfordshire by non-elected agencies.

The pilot in OX12 targeted a population of over 27,000. The local community endured the loss of a GP practice, a vibrant community hospital, with no delivery of infrastructure needed for 1000 new houses. A further 50% increase in housing is planned. There have been many excess deaths in recent months disproportionately impacting care homes. A starting point for recovery would be a clear commitment to completing the population-based pilot with a plan acceptable locally. A successful completion of this pilot would ensure consideration of local communities by people making decisions who do not know our local communities, who are less effective in securing confidence, and are not accountable to the public.

Council calls on the leader to influence a positive commitment now within BOB to the OX12 pilot. In addition, we request that he send an open letter to the Prime Minister, the Select Committees for Health and Social Care, Housing, Communities and Local Government to urge the vital importance of safeguarding local democracy and scrutiny as non-elected decision-makers implement policy across Oxfordshire.”

Following debate, the Motion was put to the vote and was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED:  Accordingly.

“The Stockholm declaration, endorsed by the UK government in February this year, sets a framework to reduce road deaths and injuries by 50%: A critical measure is to: 

”…mandate a maximum road travel speed of 30 km/h in areas where vulnerable road users and vehicles mix in a frequent and planned manner, except where strong evidence exists that higher speeds are safe” 

The Spanish Government recently announced it will introduce this limit nationally.  20mph limits are popular with residents, make them feel safer, and increase walking and cycling. 

Currently, 20mph limits are only put in place where average speeds are already at relatively safe levels (24mph). This is perverse and sends the wrong message to drivers about the dangers of speeding. Evidence says that simply introducing 20mph limits disproportionately slows those driving the fastest.  

This County Council supports the premise that 20mph is the optimum speed limit in built-up areas and therefore:   

1.      Unless there is compelling evidence for a higher limit, newly adopted residential roads, and adopted highway in commercial areas leading to residential roads, will have 20mph limits or zone. 

2.     Parish, Town, City Councils will by default be supported in reducing speed limits in existing streets or areas on the basis of their local knowledge and the wishes of their residents, whilst taking note of national guidance.  Where funding from any source is available, they will subsequently be supported to put in place necessary speed-calming measures to bring maximum and average speeds down to acceptable levels.”

With the consent of Council, Councillor Sudbury and Councillor Mathew seconded the following motion, amended at the suggestion of Councillor Sames as shown in bold italics and strikethrough below:

“The Stockholm declaration, endorsed by the UK government in February this year, sets a framework to reduce road deaths and injuries by 50%: A critical measure is to: 

”…mandate a maximum road travel speed of 30 km/h in areas where vulnerable road users and vehicles mix in a frequent and planned manner, except where strong evidence exists that higher speeds are safe” 

The Spanish Government recently announced it will introduce this limit nationally.  20mph limits are popular with residents, make them feel safer, and increase walking and cycling. 

Currently, 20mph limits are only put in place where average speeds are already at relatively safe levels (24mph). This is perverse and sends the wrong message to drivers about the dangers of speeding. Evidence says that simply introducing 20mph limits disproportionately slows those driving the fastest.  

This County Council supports the premise that 20mph is the optimum speed limit in built-up areas and therefore:   

1.     Unless there is compelling evidence for a higher limit, newly adopted residential roads, and adopted highway in commercial areas leading to residential roads, will have 20mph limits or zone. new residential roads should be designed for 20mph at the planning stage. Particular attention should be given in areas in the vicinity of new schools.

2.     Parish, Town, City Councils will by default be supported in reducing speed limits in existing streets or areas on the basis of their local knowledge and the wishes of their residents, whilst where requested by local residents and taking note of national guidance.  Where funding from any source is available, they will subsequently be supported to put in place necessary speed-calming measures to bring maximum and average speeds down to acceptable levels.”

Following debate, the Motion as amended was put to the vote and was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED:  (unanimously)

“The Stockholm declaration, endorsed by the UK government in February this year, sets a framework to reduce road deaths and injuries by 50%: A critical measure is to: 

”…mandate a maximum road travel speed of 30 km/h in areas where vulnerable road users and vehicles mix in a frequent and planned manner, except where strong evidence exists that higher speeds are safe” 

The Spanish Government recently announced it will introduce this limit nationally.  20mph limits are popular with residents, make them feel safer, and increase walking and cycling. 

Currently, 20mph limits are only put in place where average speeds are already at relatively safe levels (24mph). This is perverse and sends the wrong message to drivers about the dangers of speeding. Evidence says that simply introducing 20mph limits disproportionately slows those driving the fastest.  

This County Council supports the premise that 20mph is the optimum speed limit in built-up areas and therefore:   

1.     Unless there is compelling evidence for a higher limit, new residential roads should be designed for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 82/20

“On September 20^th, an Early Day Motion, the Climate and Ecological Emergency Bill, was tabled in the House of Commons. While the Government’s recent Ten Point Plan is an important step towards tackling the UK’s carbon emissions, this Bill recognises that our carbon footprint extends beyond the UK’s borders. The Bill calls for:

·            the UK to make and enact a serious plan to combat climate change. This means dealing with our real fair share of emissions so that we don’t go over critical global rises in temperature.

·            our entire carbon footprint be taken into account (in the UK and overseas).

·            the protection and conservation of nature here and overseas along supply chains, recognising the damage we cause through the goods we consume.

·            those in power not to depend on technology to save the day, which is used as an excuse to carry on polluting as usual.

Many Oxfordshire residents have made it clear through social media and by forming campaign groups that they want to see this Bill succeed. This Council agrees with the principles of this Bill and supports Oxfordshire residents in their efforts to see it come into law. This Council, our residents and all local bodies have a role in tackling climate change, and we therefore ask to Leader to urge Oxfordshire’s MPs to support this Bill, in order to maximise opportunities for local authorities, communities and businesses to make a real difference in combating climate change and reducing global carbon emissions.”

Councillor Leffman moved and Councillor Sudbury seconded the following Motion:

“On September 20^th, an Early Day Motion, the Climate and Ecological Emergency Bill, was tabled in the House of Commons. While the Government’s recent Ten Point Plan is an important step towards tackling the UK’s carbon emissions, this Bill recognises that our carbon footprint extends beyond the UK’s borders. The Bill calls for:

·            the UK to make and enact a serious plan to combat climate change. This means dealing with our real fair share of emissions so that we don’t go over critical global rises in temperature.

·            our entire carbon footprint be taken into account (in the UK and overseas).

·            the protection and conservation of nature here and overseas along supply chains, recognising the damage we cause through the goods we consume.

·            those in power not to depend on technology to save the day, which is used as an excuse to carry on polluting as usual.

Many Oxfordshire residents have made it clear through social media and by forming campaign groups that they want to see this Bill succeed. This Council agrees with the principles of this Bill and supports Oxfordshire residents in their efforts to see it come into law. This Council, our residents and all local bodies have a role in tackling climate change, and we therefore ask to Leader to urge Oxfordshire’s MPs to support this Bill, in order to maximise opportunities for local authorities, communities and businesses to make a real difference in combating climate change and reducing global carbon emissions.”

Following debate, the Motion was put to the vote and was carried by 51 votes to 5, with 4 abstentions.

RESOLVED: Accordingly.

“This Council welcomes recent funding awards for Active Travel measures, and the hard work undertaken by all to encourage greater levels of cycling and walking across the county, including but not limited to:

·                The successes of attracting the Women’s Tour

·                Lasting improvements in cycling infrastructure

·                The award of £2.9m from Tranche 2 of the Emergency Active Travel Fund vs our original allocation of £2.4m

·                The award of £1.4m for cycling provision from OXLEP

More needs to be done to improve opportunities for cycling and walking. Oxfordshire is a diverse county with a rich mix of urban, suburban and rural communities. Some communities are better connected for cycling, walking, and other forms of transportation, while others are less so. No single policy will therefore suit all divisions.

As with other modes of transport, diversity of approach is needed. What works in cycling and walking for Banbury and its hilly surrounds will not necessarily suit the comparatively flatter and better-established commuter routes between Oxford, Abingdon and the Culham science park. A more consultative approach to policymaking is therefore needed to ensure more collaborative and effective policymaking.

Accordingly, this Council calls on the Leader to:

(a)           abolish the post of Cycling Champion; and

(b)           establish a cross-party, multi-locality Cabinet Advisory Group (CAG) for cycling and walking to better inform strategic decision-making making on cycling infrastructure;

(c)           ensure that this CAG directly influences the next LTP to ensure that the needs of each locality and its cyclists and pedestrians are better served.”

Councillor Fatemian moved and Councillor Reeves seconded the following Motion:

“This Council welcomes recent funding awards for Active Travel measures, and the hard work undertaken by all to encourage greater levels of cycling and walking across the county, including but not limited to:

·                The successes of attracting the Women’s Tour

·                Lasting improvements in cycling infrastructure

·                The award of £2.9m from Tranche 2 of the Emergency Active Travel Fund vs our original allocation of £2.4m

·                The award of £1.4m for cycling provision from OXLEP

More needs to be done to improve opportunities for cycling and walking. Oxfordshire is a diverse county with a rich mix of urban, suburban and rural communities. Some communities are better connected for cycling, walking, and other forms of transportation, while others are less so. No single policy will therefore suit all divisions.

As with other modes of transport, diversity of approach is needed. What works in cycling and walking for Banbury and its hilly surrounds will not necessarily suit the comparatively flatter and better-established commuter routes between Oxford, Abingdon and the Culham science park. A more consultative approach to policymaking is therefore needed to ensure more collaborative and effective policymaking.

Accordingly, this Council calls on the Leader to:

(a)           abolish the post of Cycling Champion; and

(b)           establish a cross-party, multi-locality Cabinet Advisory Group (CAG) for cycling and walking to better inform strategic decision-making making on cycling infrastructure;

(c)           ensure that this CAG directly influences the next LTP to ensure that the needs of each locality and its cyclists and pedestrians are better served.”

Councillor Haywood moved and Councillor John Sanders seconded the following amendment as shown in bold italics and strikethrough below:

“This Council welcomes recent funding awards for Active Travel measures, and the hard work undertaken by all to encourage greater levels of cycling and walking across the county, including but not limited to:

·                The successes of attracting the Women’s Tour

·                Lasting improvements in cycling infrastructure

·                The award of £2.9m from Tranche 2 of the Emergency Active Travel Fund vs our original allocation of £2.4m

·                The award of £1.4m for cycling provision from OXLEP

More needs to be done to improve opportunities for cycling and walking. Oxfordshire is a diverse county with a rich mix of urban, suburban and rural communities. Some communities are better connected for cycling, walking, and other forms of transportation, while others are less so. No single policy will therefore suit all divisions.

As with other modes of transport, diversity of approach is needed. What works in cycling and walking for Banbury and its hilly surrounds will not necessarily suit the comparatively flatter and better-established commuter routes between Oxford, Abingdon and the Culham science park. A more consultative approach to policymaking is therefore needed to ensure more collaborative and effective policymaking.

Accordingly, this Council calls on the Leader to:

(a)           abolish the post of Cycling Champion; and implement the motion passed at full council (Nov 2018) fully;

(b)           establish a cross-party, multi-locality Cabinet Advisory Group (CAG) for cycling  ...  view the full minutes text for item 84/20