Councillor Yeatman, Councillor Roz Smith, Councillor Lygo, and Councillor Goddard may be late.  

Councillor Taylor, in relation to the Oxford living wage motion, noted that he is a member of a union and works in high-street retail.  

The Monitoring Officer advised Council that whilst several relevant organisations are mentioned within the preamble to the recommendations on the motion, the recommendation itself does not directly impact on any of those organisations, and therefore, Members are not required to declare an interest unless they wish to.  

Councillor Brown, in relation to motion g, noted that she would leave the meeting when this is discussed due to its relation to her employer. Council were assured she had taken no part in discussions on this motion.  

Councillor Smowton and Councillor Railton noted their roles in the creation of the Littlemore Neighbourhood Plan.  

The Monitoring Officer confirmed that as they had been present at the parish council meeting which approved the plan, they should vacate the chamber and not take part in discussion on the item.   

Councillor Henwood informed Council that he was Chair of the working group for the Littlemore Neighbourhood Plan and would also leave the Chamber for the duration of debate on this item.  

Councillor Stares noted the same.  

Minutes of the ordinary meeting of Council held on 23 March 2026 and Annual Council held on 20 May 2026.

Council is asked to approve the minutes as a correct record.

The Chair requested comments on the minutes for approval.  

Councillor requested that the minutes of 23 March 2026 reflect the point of order he had raised. The Monitoring Officer confirmed that the minutes could be amended to reflect the point of order he raised and that it had been ruled out.  

On being proposed by the Lord Mayor and seconded by Councillor Arshad, the minutes of the meeting held on 23 March 2026 were approved as a true and accurate record.  

On being proposed by the Lord Mayor and seconded by Councillor Brown, the minutes, as amended, of the Annual Council meeting held on 20 May 2026 were approved as a true and accurate record.  

Any proposed changes will be circulated in a supplement ahead of the meeting.

There were no appointments to committees.  

Announcements by:

1.    The Lord Mayor

2.    The Sheriff

3.    The Leader of the Council (who may with the permission of the Lord Mayor invite other councillors to make announcements)

4.    The Chief Executive, Chief Finance Officer, Monitoring Officer

5.    The City Rector

The Lord Mayor thanked Members for appointing him in May and noted the many engagement he had completed since. This included welcoming the King to Oxford, opening street markets, and attending the Leys festival.  

The Deputy Lord Mayor noted that she had attended some events on behalf of the Lord Mayor and is enjoying her role as Deputy.  

The Sheriff noted her new responsibilities as the conservator of Port Meadow and informed Council that on 5 June she had met with officers from the parks and communications teams and ODS to plan for keeping the meadow safe and clean over the busy summer months. Furthermore, on 19 June, she the annual sheriff's inspection of the meadow with the support of ODS; the Sheriff had been impressed by the knowledge and dedication of the ranger team. Council also heard that since 2022, the water quality in Oxford’s designated area of bathing water status has declined and the Sheriff has written to the Chief Executive of Thames Water to express concerns. On 27 June, meetings were attended with Thames Water and the Environment Agency, at which time the Sheriff learned that despite investigations, the reasoning for the poor water quality is still unknown, although some evidence links to discharge from sewage treatment works and human faeces. Council were informed that the Environment Agency is now coordinating a project with a small local charity to bring together stakeholders and volunteers to identify the source of the pollution. The Sheriff expressed her disbelief and disappointment at the lack of progress and concern that a response led by a small local charity may not be commensurate to the priority of the environmental disaster. The Sheriff urged Thames Water and the Environment Agency to do more and to do better. The Sheriff noted that she would be writing to the relevant government ministers and Council will be kept informed of the progress.  

The Leader informed Council that a decision from Government on Local Government Reorganisation is expected during the week and that this would be comprehensively communicated to staff, councillors, residents, and stakeholders. In relation to devolution, the Leader noted her disappointment that the Thames Valley devolution deal was vetoed by the Leader of Oxfordshire County Council with no warning. The Leader noted this as an undemocratic decision made on behalf of the district and city councils in Oxfordshire but with no warning or consultation; it had also removed 18 months of work. The Leader pledged to collaboratively work with the new Prime Minister to ensure that devolution can progress locally. In relation to the Oxford Union debate which took place recently, the Leader also emphasised that the Council had put out a very clear statement condemning the way in which the Oxford Union has consistently invited deliberately provocative speakers and not paid the cost to the community for security or support cohesion. Members heard that the Council would work with anyone wishing to push for the Oxford Union to take financial responsibility, rather than passing  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14.

Public addresses and questions to the Leader or other Cabinet member received in accordance with Council Procedure Rules in the Constitution relating to matters for decision in Part 1 of this agenda.

Up to five minutes is available for each public address.

The request to speak accompanied by the full text of the address must be received by the Director of Law, Governance and Strategy by 5.00 pm on Tuesday 7 July 2026.

The briefing note will contain the text of addresses submitted by the deadline, and written responses where available.

A total of 45 minutes is available for both public speaking items. Responses are included in this time.

Council heard 1 address and the Cabinet Members read or summarised their written response. The addresses and response are set out in full in the minutes pack. 

? 

1. Martin Reed 

Councillor Goddard joined the meeting during the public address.  

The Council may deal with business even though it is not on the Agenda so long as:

(a)  the business is raised by a Motion on Notice under Rule 14 (Motions on Notice);

(b)  the Motion on Notice is delivered to the Director of Law, Governance and Strategy not later than 4 hours before the start of the Meeting;

(c)  the Lord Mayor, or Council, if put to a vote, decide that the business is urgent (see Rule a); and

(d)  the agenda relating to the Meeting states that the Council may deal with urgent business at that Meeting.

Should the Lord Mayor determine that a matter is not urgent on the advice of the Monitoring Officer then the decision shall be final, subject to such reasons being explained to the meeting. Where there is no definitive view from the Monitoring Officer any member may, supported by [10] or more member by a show of hands, may request that the matter be put to a vote to determine if it should be heard.

Should the majority determine in any vote that the matter is urgent (whether put to the meeting by the Lord Mayor or by a member supported by ten others) then Council will debate it under Rule 11.20 Rules of Debate. Where it is determined that the matter is not urgent, the matter shall be deferred to the next Ordinary Council Meeting (i.e. not to an Extraordinary Council Meeting).

The Monitoring Officer explained that under the constitution there is provision for members to raise emergency items, however it is required that ten Members support the motion to ensure it can be determined. The Lord Mayor was advised to request that supporting Members raise their hands.   

In the absence of ten supporters, the motion fell. 

The Lord Mayor proposed that the agenda be reordered. Items were considered in the following order: 9, 10, 12, 16, 14, 15, 8 and 11.  

The Director of Housing has submitted a report to approve the following policies: aids and adaptations, complaints, compliance, decant, disposals, gas safety, health and safety, lifting equipment and lifting operations, mutual exchange, no access, permit to work, radon and voids to ensure the maintenance and good management of the housing stock.

Recommendation: That Council resolves to:

1.       Approve the Aids and Adaptations Policy

2.       Approve the Complaints Policy

3.       Approve the Compliance Policy

4.       Approve the Decant Policy

5.       Approve the Disposals Policy

6.       Approve the Gas Safety Policy

7.       Approve the Health and Safety Policy

8.       Approve the Lifting Equipment and Lifting Operations Policy

9.       Approve the Mutual Exchange Policy

10.    Approve the No Access Policy

11.    Approve the Permit to Work Policy

12.    Approve the Radon Policy

13.    Approve the Voids Policy

Council resolved to:

1.            Approve the Aids and Adaptations Policy

2.            Approve the Complaints Policy

3.            Approve the Compliance Policy

4.            Approve the Decant Policy

5.            Approve the Disposals Policy

6.            Approve the Gas Safety Policy

7.            Approve the Health and Safety Policy

8.            Approve the Lifting Equipment and Lifting Operations Policy

9.            Approve the Mutual Exchange Policy

10.         Approve the No Access Policy

11.         Approve the Permit to Work Policy

12.         Approve the Radon Policy

13.         Approve the Voids Policy

The Director of Housing has submitted a report to approve the following policies: aids and adaptations, complaints, compliance, decant, disposals, gas safety, health and safety, lifting equipment and lifting operations, mutual exchange, no access, permit to work, radon and voids to ensure the maintenance and good management of the housing stock. 

Councillor Linda Smith introduced the report, noting that the policies aim to provide assurance to council tenants, leaseholder, and shared owners, that they are safe in the home, to know that their landlord is performing, that they have the right to have their complaints dealt with promptly, and to be treated with respect and to have their voice heard. These principles ensure good quality homes and neighbourhoods. Council were informed that the policies also seek to ensure compliance with new regulatory requirements for social landlords and consider the lived experiences of residents. 

There were no questions from Members of Council. 

On being proposed by Councillor Smith, and seconded by Councillor Brown, the recommendations were put to a vote. 

Council resolved to:

1.            Approve the Aids and Adaptations Policy

2.            Approve the Complaints Policy

3.            Approve the Compliance Policy

4.            Approve the Decant Policy

5.            Approve the Disposals Policy

6.            Approve the Gas Safety Policy

7.            Approve the Health and Safety Policy

8.            Approve the Lifting Equipment and Lifting Operations Policy

9.            Approve the Mutual Exchange Policy

10.         Approve the No Access Policy

11.         Approve the Permit to Work Policy

12.         Approve the Radon Policy

13.         Approve the Voids Policy

The Director of Housing has submitted a report to seek the required budget provision to enable the Council to proceed with entering into the national Local Authority Housing Fund Round 4.

Recommendation: That Council resolves to:

1.       Approve the allocation of £808,000 of the LAHF R4 grant funding in substitution of approved HRA borrowing for the delivery of the temporary accommodation element of LAHF R4.

2.       Approve the allocation of £898,500 of the LAHF R4 grant funding to a new General Fund capital budget for the payment of a capital grant of 898,500 to a Registered Provider to deliver the ‘resettlement’ element of LAHF R4.

Council resolved to:

1.            Approve the allocation of £808,000 of the LAHF R4 grant funding in substitution of approved HRA borrowing for the delivery of the temporary accommodation element of LAHF R4.

2.            Approve the allocation of £898,500 of the LAHF R4 grant funding to a new General Fund capital budget for the payment of a capital grant of 898,500 to a Registered Provider to deliver the ‘resettlement’ element of LAHF R4.

The Director of Housing has submitted a report to seek the required budget provision to enable the Council to proceed with?entering?into the national Local Authority Housing Fund Round 4. 

Councillor Linda Smith introduced the report, noting that it considers both housing for the resettlement of refugees and temporary accommodation. Council heard that the Council expects to receive a grant of £898,500 from government which will be passed to a registered provider for the delivery of resettlement actions and provisions of four homes for Afghan households. By passing this to a registered provider, the Council is able to ensure that the HRA fund does not take on further borrowing when it is already stretched; this preserves the HRA fund for other priorities. Councillor Smith outlined that the Council will however retain nomination rights uh for these properties and after three years, if the occupiers move on, the properties can be used to serve the wider housing needs of the city.  

 
Councillor Rowley explained that the four temporary accommodation units will also be delivered in a similar manner to that outlined by Councillor Smith, for which the government grant will cover 50% of the cost. Council heard that this will also reduce the HRA borrowing requirements.  

Councillor Smowton highlighted that across four rounds of the program the Council has acquired 22 units of housing in contrast to the 150 that were suggested. Councillor Smowton therefore emphasised the gulf between the scale of support from central government to deal with the national temporary accommodation crisis and the burden being placed on local authorities. The Cabinet Member was asked whether she would reiterate to government that there is a desperate need for more support to deal with the temporary accommodation crisis.  

Assurance was provided from Councillor Rowley that the Council frequently reiterates this point to central government, however, it was reiterated this this report would not negatively impact on the Council’s borrowing requirement.  

Councillor Malik commented that the government has historically prioritised Ukrainian refugees over Afghan refugees but welcomed the support now coming in.  

On being proposed by Councillor Smith, and seconded by Councillor Brown, the recommendations were put to a vote. 

Council resolved to:

1.            Approve the allocation of £808,000 of the LAHF R4 grant funding in substitution of approved HRA borrowing for the delivery of the temporary accommodation element of LAHF R4.

2.            Approve the allocation of £898,500 of the LAHF R4 grant funding to a new General Fund capital budget for the payment of a capital grant of 898,500 to a Registered Provider to deliver the ‘resettlement’ element of LAHF R4.

Councillor Pressel joined the meeting during discussion of this item.  

The Director of Law, Governance and Strategy (Monitoring Officer) has submitted a report to update Council on key decisions taken in cases of special urgency since 26 January 2026.

Recommendation: That Council resolves to:

1.    Note the urgent key decisions taken in cases of special urgency as set out in the report.

The Director of Law, Governance and Strategy (Monitoring Officer) has submitted a report to update Council on key decisions taken in cases of special urgency since 26 January 2026. 

Councillor Brown introduced the report, noting that it is now a requirement of the system introduced in recent years to record urgent decisions in a formal manner. Council heard that the decisions listed in the report related to receiving money from government and an urgent extension to an investment decision.  

Councillor Miles welcomed the report but noted concern regarding the continued pattern of urgent key decisions; it was suggested that some processes may not be fit for purpose. Councillor Miles suggested this could be reviewed as part of the transition period following LGR to ensure effective and sufficient democratic oversight continues and to ensure the Council responds and delivers quickly for residents.  

Councillor Brown agreed with the premise of Councillor Miles’ comments, noting the importance of ensuring these decisions are only taken when required but also that it may never been possible to take all decisions through length processes as there will always be some exceptional circumstances, Councillor Brown recognised that the LGR transition process would be a good opportunity to assess and review the processes.  

Council resolved to: 

1. Note?the urgent key decisions taken in cases of special urgency as set out in the report. 

Councillor Roz Smith joined the meeting during discussion of this item. 

The Chair of the Scrutiny Committee has submitted a report which updates Council on the activities of the Scrutiny Committee over the last year.  

Council is invited to comment on and note the report.

This item will be published as a supplement to the agenda.

The Chair of the Scrutiny Committee has submitted a report which updates Council on the activities of the Scrutiny Committee over the last year.? 

Councillor Powell introduced the report, noting that it had been an interesting year for the Scrutiny Committee running into the LGR year. Councillor Powell thanked the officers and Cabinet Members who had contributed to the meetings and informed Council that of 84 recommendations made during the reporting period, 51 had been accepted, with 17 also accepted in part. Council heard that this reflects the good working relationship the Scrutiny Committee maintains with Cabinet as critical friend in a minority administration.  

There were no questions from Members of Council. 

Council noted the report.  

The Chair of the Scrutiny Committee has submitted a report which updates Council on the activities of scrutiny and the implementation of recommendations since the last meeting of Council.

Council is invited to comment on and note the report.

This item will be published as a supplement to the agenda.

The Chair of the Scrutiny Committee has submitted a report which updates Council on the activities of scrutiny and the implementation of recommendations since the last meeting of Council. 

Councillor Powell introduced the report, noting that it summarised activity from 19 March 2026 to 1 July 2026, during which the Scrutiny Committee met twice. Council heard that 22 recommendations were made to Cabinet, 15 of which were agreed.  

There were no questions from Members of Council. 

Council noted the report.  

This item has a time limit of 15 minutes.

Councillors may ask the Cabinet Members questions about matters in the minutes since the previous meeting of full Council.

This item will be published as a supplement to the agenda.

• 15 April?2026?? 

Councillor Fouweather asked the relevant Cabinet Member to confirm that the proposed new housing and asset management system is to replace the QL system, and whether assurance can be provided that the new procurement will be smoother.   

Councillor Chapman emphasised that the QL system has been working successfully for several years and referred Councillor Fouweather to an in-depth report preciously provided. Assurance was provided that lessons had been learned from the previous procurement process. 

In response to Councillor Fouweather, the Monitoring Officer also explained that the property system currently being procured is for property services and is not intended to replace the QL system; these are for two different functions of the Council. 

• 17 June?2026 

Councillor Smowton asked whether future fleet purchasing would focus on zero emission options, to which Councillor Chapman noted that this would depend on the availability in the market and the models available. 

• 8 July 2026 

There were no questions from Members of Council. 

Questions on notice from councillors received in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 11.11(b).

Questions on notice may be asked of the Lord Mayor, a Member of the Cabinet or a Chair of a Committee. One supplementary question may be asked at the meeting.

The full text of questions must have been received by the Director of Law, Governance and Strategy by no later than 1.00pm on Wednesday 1 July 2026.

These, and written responses where available, will be published in the briefing note.

59 written questions were asked of the Cabinet Members and the Leader, and these and written responses were published before the meeting. 

These along with summaries of the 34 supplementary questions and responses asked and given at the meeting are set out in the minutes pack. 

Councillor Lygo joined the meeting during discussion of this item.  

Councillor Kerr, Councillor Morris, and Councillor Malik left and rejoined the meeting during discussion of this item.  

The remaining Questions on Notice were heard after the public addresses. 

Council adjourned during this item from 18.30 and returned at 19.05.

Councillor Qayyum did not return following the break. 

Public addresses to the Leader or other Cabinet member received in accordance with Council Procedure Rules in the Constitution and not relating to matters for decision in Part 1 of this agenda.

Up to five minutes is available for each public address.

The request to speak accompanied by the full text of the address must be received by the Director of Law, Governance and Strategy by 5.00 pm on Tuesday 7 July 2026.

The briefing note will contain the text of addresses and questions submitted by the deadline, and written responses where available.

A total of 45 minutes is available for both public speaking items. Responses

Council heard 3 addresses and Cabinet Members read or summarised their written responses. Both addresses and responses are set out in full in the minutes pack. 

1. Nick Eyre 

2. Dom Birch 

3. Chaka Artwell 

The Director of Planning and Regulation has submitted a report to approve the Proposed Submission Draft Oxford Local Plan 2045 for submission to the Secretary of State for formal examination.

Recommendation: That Council resolves to:

1.       Authorise submission of the Oxford Local Plan 2045 to the Secretary of State for examination, including the minor amendments made according to recommendation 3;

2.       Approve all the supporting statutory documentation including the Sustainability Appraisal, Habitats Regulation Assessment, Infrastructure Development Plan (IDP), Policies Map, Regulation 18 Consultation Statement, Regulation 19 Consultation Statement and Equalities Impact Assessment (Appendices 2-7 & 9);

3.       Authorise the Director of Planning and Regulation, after consultation with the Lead Cabinet Member, to make any necessary minor editorial corrections to the Submission Draft Oxford Local Plan 2045, IDP, Sustainability Appraisal and Habitats Regulation Assessment, Policies Map, and to agree the supporting evidence base prior to submission;

4.       Authorise the Director of Planning and Regulation, after consultation with the Lead Cabinet Member, to invite the examining inspector(s) to recommend any modifications considered to be necessary in accordance with section 20(7C) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

Council resolved to:

1.            Authorise submission of the Oxford Local Plan 2045 to the Secretary of State for examination, including the minor amendments made according to recommendation 3;

2.            Approve all the supporting statutory documentation including the Sustainability Appraisal, Habitats Regulation Assessment, Infrastructure Development Plan (IDP), Policies Map, Regulation 18 Consultation Statement, Regulation 19 Consultation Statement and Equalities Impact Assessment (Appendices 2-7 & 9);

3.            Authorise the Director of Planning and Regulation, after consultation with the Lead Cabinet Member, to make any necessary minor editorial corrections to the Submission Draft Oxford Local Plan 2045, IDP, Sustainability Appraisal and Habitats Regulation Assessment, Policies Map, and to agree the supporting evidence base prior to submission;

4.            Authorise the Director of Planning and Regulation, after consultation with the Lead Cabinet Member, to invite the examining inspector(s) to recommend any modifications considered to be necessary in accordance with section 20(7C) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

The Director of Planning and Regulation had submitted a report to approve the Proposed Submission Draft Oxford Local Plan 2045 for submission to the Secretary of State for formal examination. 

Councillor Railton introduced the report, noting that Council is asked to agree the draft Oxford Local Plan 2025 such that it can be submitted for examination. It was emphasised that this request would only be made if the plan is deemed to be sound and legally compliant.  

Councillor Railton provided a summary of the plan’s development, including the reg 18 consultation in the summer of 2025, the following reg 19 consultation, Council’s previous approval of the plan in January 2026, and a judicial review process due to an injunction against submission of the plan. Members were informed that the hearing for the injunction will take place in October, and following this the plan must be submitted by 31 December 2026, otherwise the full process will have to be restarted. If this deadline is not met, Councillor Railton highlighted that the Council would be left with an out-of-date plan and several years of work unused.  

Council were also informed that the Planning Inspectorate had advised the Council not to make modifications to the plan at this stage ahead of submission as it is preferred that any main modifications are identified during the inspection process. Councillor Railton emphasised that it is for the Planning Inspectorate to determine the soundness of the plan.  

Councillor Brown seconded the report and reserved her right to speak until the end of the debate. 

The Lord Mayor informed Council of the submission of a proposed amendment to the Local Plan. 

Councillor Brown noted on behalf of herself and other cabinet members that due to representations received from the claimant’s solicitor on the day of this meeting in relation to the judicial review, Councillor Turner, Councillor Linda Smith, Councillor Munkonge, Councillor Upton, and Councillor Chapman would not be participating in the debate on the amendment due to current or historic roles as shareholder of the Council. Council heard that advice had been taken from the Monitoring Officer and despite feeling that they could approach the debate with an open mind, the progression of the local plan is crucial. Councillor Brown emphasised that they would leave, despite not considering themselves to be predetermined or conflicted. 

Councillor Henwood also noted that under the Monitoring Officer’s advice, he and Councillor Stares would also leave the chamber for the duration of the debate on the amendment.  

Before leaving, the Lord Mayor proposed that Councillor Rowley resume the role of the Chair for the duration of the debate on the amendment. On being seconded by Councillor Lygo, Councillor Rowley resumed the role of Chair.  

Councillor Brown, Councillor Turner, Councillor Linda Smith, Councillor Munkonge, Councillor Upton, Councillor Chapman, Councillor Henwood and Councillor Stares left the meeting. 

Councillor Dhall queried whether she would be required to leave the meeting given her previous concerns raised in relation to site access. The Monitoring Officer advised that without  ...  view the full minutes text for item 25.

The Director of Planning and Regulation has submitted a report to agree to “make” the Littlemore Neighbourhood Plan.

Recommendation: That Council resolves to:

1.    “Make” the Littlemore Neighbourhood Plan (Appendix 1). The Plan has been approved at referendum it and now forms part of the statutory development plan in helping to determine planning applications for the Littlemore Neighbourhood Area. The ‘making’ of the Littlemore Neighbourhood Plan would formalise this process in line with the relevant legislation.

2.    Authorise the Director of Planning and Regulation, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Planning and Culture, to make any necessary editorial corrections to the Littlemore Neighbourhood Plan prior to final publication. This will include a final desktop published version of the Littlemore Neighbourhood Plan.

Council resolved to:

1.       “Make” the Littlemore Neighbourhood Plan (Appendix 1). The Plan has been approved at referendum it and now forms part of the statutory development plan in helping to determine planning applications for the Littlemore Neighbourhood Area. The ‘making’ of the Littlemore Neighbourhood Plan would formalise this process in line with the relevant legislation.

2.       Authorise the Director of Planning and Regulation, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Planning and Culture, to make any necessary editorial corrections to the Littlemore Neighbourhood Plan prior to final publication. This will include a final desktop published version of the Littlemore Neighbourhood Plan.

The Director of Planning and Regulation has submitted a report to agree to “make” the Littlemore Neighbourhood Plan. 

Councillor Henwood, Councillor Railton, Councillor Smowton and Councillor Stares left the meeting for the duration of this item.  

Councillor Diggins noted that the report mentions her place of employment but as a teacher, she has had little bearing on any of the decisions. It was noted she would remain in the meeting. 

Councillor Brown introduced the report, noting that the plan had been in progress for a long time and went through public referendum on the 29 January 2026 with overwhelming support. Councillor Brown thanked all those who contributed for driving the development of the plan.  

There were no questions from Members of Council. 

Councillor Lygo left the meeting. 

On being proposed by Councillor Brown and seconded by Councillor Ottino, the recommendations were put to a vote.   

Council resolved to:

1.       “Make” the Littlemore Neighbourhood Plan (Appendix 1). The Plan has been approved at referendum it and now forms part of the statutory development plan in helping to determine planning applications for the Littlemore Neighbourhood Area. The ‘making’ of the Littlemore Neighbourhood Plan would formalise this process in line with the relevant legislation.

2.       Authorise the Director of Planning and Regulation, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Planning and Culture, to make any necessary editorial corrections to the Littlemore Neighbourhood Plan prior to final publication. This will include a final desktop published version of the Littlemore Neighbourhood Plan.

Councillor Henwood, Councillor Railton, Councillor Smowton and Councillor Stares rejoined the meeting.  

 
Councillor Lygo rejoined the meeting. 

At the conclusion of this item, Councillor Powell proposed that Council vote to suspend standing orders to ensure the meeting could extend to 9.25pm; Councillor Jarvis seconded the motion. 

The motion was put to a vote and was defeated.  

This item has a time limit of 60 minutes.

Motions received by the Director of Law, Governance and Strategy in accordance with the rules in Section 11 of the Constitution by the deadline of 1.00pm on Wednesday 1 July 2026 are listed below.

Cross party motions are taken first. Motions will then be taken in turn from the Labour Group, Green Group, Liberal Democrat Group, Oxford Independent Group, Real Independent Group, in that order.

Substantive amendments to these motions must be sent by councillors to the Director of Law, Governance and Strategy by no later than 10.00am on Friday  10 July 2026 so that they may be circulated with the briefing note.

Minor technical or limited wording amendments may be submitted during the meeting but must be written down and circulated.

Council is asked to consider the following motions:

1. E-bikes (Proposed by Cllr Turner, Seconded by Cllr Railton)
2. The EHRC Code of Practice and Trans Rights (Proposed by Cllr Morris, Seconded by Cllr Jarvis)
3. Make Every Vote Count (Proposed by Cllr Smowton, Seconded by Cllr Altaf Khan)
4. Ensuring the Oxford Living Wage is delivered where it would impact most (Proposed by Cllr Taylor, Seconded by Cllr Rowley)
5. The Oxford Union and the Far Right (Proposed by Cllr Davis, Seconded by Cllr Dhall)
6. Use of Park and Rides to facilitate pupil transport services (Proposed by Cllr Gant, Seconded by Cllr Miles) 
7. Pregnancy Support Services (Proposed by Cllr Turner, Seconded by Cllr Diggins)
8. Inequity of Public Transport Provision and Safe Segregated Cycle Path provision across the City (Proposed by Cllr Elphinstone, Seconded by Cllr Ottino)

Council had before it 8 motions on notice?submitted?in accordance with?Council procedure rules and reached decisions as set out below.?? 

Motions agreed as set out below: 

a.    E-bikes?(Proposed by Cllr Turner, Seconded by Cllr Railton) 

Motions not taken as the time?allocated?for debate had finished: 

b.    Make Every Vote Count?(Proposed by Cllr Smowton, Seconded by Cllr Altaf Khan) 

c.    Ensuring the Oxford Living Wage is delivered where it would impact most (Proposed by Cllr Taylor, Seconded by Cllr?Rowley) 

d.    The Oxford Union and the Far Right (Proposed by?Cllr Davis, Seconded by Cllr Dhall) 

e.    Use of Park and Rides to facilitate pupil transport services (Proposed by Cllr Gant, Seconded by Cllr Miles)? 

f.      Pregnancy Support Services?(Proposed by Cllr Turner, Seconded by Cllr Diggins) 

g.    Inequity of Public Transport Provision and Safe Segregated Cycle Path provision across the City (Proposed by Cllr?Elphinstone, Seconded by Cllr?Ottino) 

Council believes: 

• That substantial public concern and risk is caused by use of illegally modified e-bikes and mopeds which are not authorised for public roads; 

• That the government's proposal for a National Work-Related Road Safety Charter to improve compliance by employers, while a good initiative, will not be strong enough to address the menace caused by these dangerous vehicles; 

• That while individuals committing offences by using these vehicles on public roads,?pavements, cycle paths or tow paths?must feel the full force of the law, so too must those who tacitly support their use such as delivery platforms and retailers; 

• That those who profit from the sale of kit from the illegal modification of bikes should cease doing so 

Council welcomes and endorses:? 

• Recent enforcement efforts by Thames Valley Police to seize and destroy such vehicles; 

• The campaign run by the Motorcycle Industry Association (MCIA) and the Bicycle Association (BA), which presses for national guidance to identify, seize and prosecute non-compliant e-bikes, strengthened oversight of the supply chain and delivery platforms (including mandatory compliance checks for fleet operators), and stronger enforcement against online marketplaces and retailers selling non-compliant vehicles and modification kits; 

• Attempts to ensure that regulations relating to the?Product Regulation and Metrology Act 2025 prevent the sale of kits using lithium-ion batteries which could be used to modify bikes in an unsafe manner.? 

Council resolves: 

• To ask the leader to write to the Secretary of State for Transport in support of the MCIA / BA campaign, with copy to their CEOs and Oxford's MPs, and urge swift action and stronger enforcement against riders who break the law, relevant employers and those who enable illegal activity 

• To ask the leader to write to the Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police and the Police and Crime Commissioner urging an increase in enforcement activity against these vehicles and offering City Council support so far as this is feasible. 

Council resolved to:

Support the following motion:

Council believes:

• That substantial public concern and risk is caused by use of illegally modified e-bikes and mopeds which are not authorised for public roads;

• That the government's proposal for a National Work-Related Road Safety Charter to improve compliance by employers, while a good initiative, will not be strong enough to address the menace caused by these dangerous vehicles;

• That while individuals committing offences by using these vehicles must feel the full force of the law, so too must those who tacitly support their use such as delivery platforms and retailers;
• That those who profit from the sale of kit from the illegal modification of bikes should cease doing so;
• That a decision on the July 2020 e-scooter trial is also long overdue;

Council welcomes and endorses: 

• Recent enforcement efforts by Thames Valley Police to seize and destroy such vehicles;

• The campaign run by the Motorcycle Industry Association (MCIA) and the Bicycle Association (BA), which presses for national guidance to identify, seize and prosecute non-compliant e-bikes, strengthened oversight of the supply chain and delivery platforms (including mandatory compliance checks for fleet operators), and stronger enforcement against online marketplaces and retailers selling non-compliant vehicles and modification kits;
• Attempts to ensure that regulations relating to the Product Regulation and Metrology Act 2025 prevent the sale of kits using lithium-ion batteries which could be used to modify bikes in an unsafe manner. 

Council resolves:

• To ask the leader to write to the Secretary of State for Transport in support of the MCIA / BA campaign, with copy to their CEOs and Oxford's MPs, to ask her to review whether existing legislation provides sufficient powers to prevent the manufacture, import, sale and advertising of products intended to unlawfully modify electrically assisted pedal cycles, to bring forward further legislation if necessary, to press for a decision on the July 2020 e-scooter trial, and urge swift action and stronger enforcement against riders who break the law, relevant employers and those who enable illegal activity

• To ask the leader to write to the Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police and the Police and Crime Commissioner urging an increase in enforcement activity against these vehicles, with such activity being focused upon public safety, and clamping down on exploitative working practices and those who profit from such practices, and offering City Council support so far as this is feasible.

Councillor Turner, seconded by Councillor Railton, proposed the motion as self-amended as set out in the supplement to the agenda.   

Councillor Henwood, seconded by Councillor Harley, proposed an amendment to the motion, as set out in the briefing note. On being put to a vote, the amendment fell. 

Councillor Smowton withdrew his proposed amendment to the motion, as set out in the briefing note. 

Councillor Davis proposed, and Councillor Powell seconded, an amendment to the motion as set out in the briefing note. On being put to a vote, the amendment fell. 

Following the debate and on being put to the vote, the motion was carried. 

Council believes:? 

• That substantial public concern and risk is caused by use of illegally modified e-bikes and mopeds which are not authorised for public roads;? 

• That the government's proposal for a National Work-Related Road Safety Charter to improve compliance by employers, while a good initiative, will not be strong enough to address the menace caused by these dangerous vehicles;? 

• That while individuals committing offences by using these vehicles must feel the full force of the law, so too must those who tacitly support their use such as delivery platforms and retailers;? 

• That those who profit from the sale of kit from the illegal modification of bikes should cease doing so;? 

• That a decision on the July 2020 e-scooter trial is also long overdue;? 

? 

Council welcomes and endorses:?? 

• Recent enforcement efforts by Thames Valley Police to seize and destroy such vehicles;? 

• The campaign run by the Motorcycle Industry Association (MCIA) and the Bicycle Association (BA), which presses for national guidance to identify, seize and prosecute non-compliant e-bikes, strengthened oversight of the supply chain and delivery platforms (including mandatory compliance checks for fleet operators), and stronger enforcement against online marketplaces and retailers selling non-compliant vehicles and modification kits;? 

• Attempts to ensure that regulations relating to the?Product Regulation and Metrology Act 2025 prevent the sale of kits using lithium-ion batteries which could be used to?modify?bikes in an unsafe manner.?? 

Council resolves:? 

• To ask the leader to write to the Secretary of State for Transport in?support of the MCIA / BA campaign, with copy to their CEOs and Oxford's MPs, to ask her to review whether existing legislation provides sufficient powers to prevent the manufacture, import, sale and advertising of products intended to unlawfully modify electrically assisted pedal cycles, to bring forward further legislation if necessary, to press for a decision on the July 2020 e-scooter trial,?and urge swift action and stronger enforcement against riders who break the law, relevant employers and those who enable illegal activity? 

• To ask the leader to write to the Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police and the Police and Crime Commissioner urging an increase in enforcement activity against these vehicles,?with such activity being focused upon public safety, and clamping down on exploitative working practices and those who profit from such practices, and offering City Council support so far as this is feasible.? 

Council notes:

·     In November 2021, this council passed a motion titled ‘Becoming a trans inclusive Council’,^[1] which stated: “Trans women are women. Trans men are men. Non-binary people are non-binary”, and “Our aspiration is for Oxford to be a safe, welcoming and inclusive city for everyone, no matter their gender identity.”

·     Since the passing of the motion, the Supreme Court has issued a ruling on the definition of the protected characteristic of sex as set out in the Equality Act.^[2]

·     Following the Supreme Court ruling, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) updated its Code of Practice on the Equality Act in May 2026.^[3]

·     LGBT+ rights organisations have warned the revised EHRC Code of Practice creates new gaps in the UK’s equalities framework, with Stonewall stating “the current situation is untenable” and that “there is now a significant gap in equality protections for trans+ people in the UK”,^[4] and Gendered Intelligence arguing the new situation “empowers those who want to exclude trans people from services” and “the Code – and the law in general – needs to be brought up to date”.^[5]

Council believes: 

·     The principles of the November 2021 motion still apply and still reflect this Council’s beliefs. 

·     Since the November 2021 motion was passed by this council, trans and non-binary people have been subjected to a manufactured moral panic which seeks to demonise their very existence and undermine their rights. 

·     Overly simplistic approaches to understanding sex, gender and sexuality can undermine the rights not only of trans and non-binary people, but also those of gender non-conforming cisgender people. 

·     Trans and non-binary residents of our city deserve reassurance they will not be discriminated against in the provision of council services, and that this council will work to ensure equalities legislation protects them. 

Council resolves: 

·     To request that the leader of the Council writes to the Minister for Women and Equalities calling for the government to introduce new legislation which extends trans and non-binary peoples’ rights and access to services. 

·     To request that the leader of the Council and the Cabinet Members for Healthy Fairer Oxford, for Planning and Culture and for Citizen Focused Services engage with council bodies, local businesses and local trans rights groups to ensure that the rights, dignity and privacy of trans and non-binary residents of Oxford are supported to the maximum extent permitted by law in the delivery of services. 

·     To request that the Cabinet member for Healthy Fairer Oxford encourages officers to communicate to More Leisure this council’s support for an inclusive approach to accessing facilities and encourage More Leisure to ensure they continue to provide services which are, to the maximum extent permissible by law, appropriate to the self-identification of Oxford residents. 

·     To endorse the creation of a cross-party working group within the city council to ensure trans and non-binary residents’ access to services are maintained in light of the current equalities framework.

This motion was not taken as the time allocated for debate had finished.   

This Council notes that:

• Per the Electoral Reform Society, at the 2024 General Election more than half of votes cast did not influence the result. ^[1]
• The 2024 election returned the largest government majority since 1997, on the back of less than 34% of the vote – the smallest government vote share since McDonald’s 1923 minority government.
• More in Common’s latest MRP projects that the next general election could return Reform around 50% of MPs on just 28% of the vote.^[2]
• Also per the ERS, the projected national vote share from this year’s local elections were fragmented, with Reform achieving the highest total on just 26% or 27% vote shares, depending on how the projection is made.^[3]
• This year’s Oxfordshire elections saw five councillors elected on less than 30% of the vote.^[4]
• Several front-runners to replace the Prime Minister in the forthcoming leadership contest have expressed support for proportional voting.^[5]
• More-proportional Additional Member and Single Transferable Vote elections have been conducted in all nations of the UK except England.

This Council believes that:

• Every vote cast in any UK election should have a bearing on the result.
• In an era of increasingly-fragmented politics, our electoral system must ensure that all elected bodies command a mandate from the majority of voters.
• It is therefore vital that our next Prime Minister firmly backs the use of a proportional electoral system

This Council resolves:

• To ask the Leader to write to the new Prime Minister, upon their taking office, to request that they promptly bring forth legislation to introduce a proportional electoral system at all levels of government.

This motion was not taken as the time allocated for debate had finished.   

This council welcomes:

• The success of accrediting 193 employers to the Oxford Living Wage 

• The fact that 32,000 employees are guaranteed the Oxford Living Wage as a result of the scheme 

• The amount of local and independent businesses that have signed up to the Oxford Living Wage 

This council notes:

• The fact that jobs like baristas, retail assistants, and high street workers tend to be among the worst-paid professions in the UK 

• The lack of large companies paying an Oxford Living Wage 

• The possibility of accredited Living Wage employers outsourcing key roles to ensure they are accredited as paying the Oxford Living Wage 

• That 12 Oxford Colleges do not pay their staff the Oxford Living Wage 

• That Oxfordshire County Council is not an Oxford Living Wage employer 

This council urges:

• The cabinet member responsible for the Oxford Living Wage, or a member of their team, to meet with large high street companies to promote the payment of an Oxford Living Wage for shopfronts operating in Oxford 

• The cabinet member responsible for the Oxford Living Wage, or a member of their team, to encourage accredited Living Wage employers to request companies that where they outsource to third parties that operate in Oxford to redirect to the they seek where possible to ensure that the third party also pay the Oxford Living Wage 

• The leader of the council, or someone they designate as responsible, to meet with representatives from UNITE, UNISON, GMB and USDAW to encourage a joined-up Oxford Living Wage campaign 

This motion was not taken as the time allocated for debate had finished.   

Council Notes: 

·     During June 2026 there were riots in Southampton, Belfast, Edinburgh, and Glasgow.^[1]

·     These riots have included evidence of residents being targeted on the basis of the colour of their skin or assumed nationality or religion.^[2]

·     There is direct evidence to support the role of right-wing political activists in encouraging these events of unrest. 

·     On 17 June 2026, the private members club, The Oxford Union, hosted a debate under the prompt ‘The West is right to be suspicious of Islam.^[3]

·     This event included Tommy Robinson and Laurence Fox. Both of whom are widely considered to be on the far-right of British Politics. 

·     There is significant evidence to suggest that Robinson and Fox have directly contributed to inciting previous incidents of unrest and the targeting of particular groups.^[4]

·     In response to this event and the threat of unrest it brought, several Oxford businesses felt compelled to close on the evening of 17 June 2026.^[5]

·     Many people of colour and members of the Islamic faith felt threatened and fearful as a result of the invitation. 

·     17 June 2026 was the date of England’s first world cup match and would, therefore, have been likely to be a particularly lucrative financial event for many of the pubs forced to close. 

Council Believes: 

·     Given the past statements of the speakers and the actions of those who support them, businesses had reason to be concerned about the safety and welfare of their staff and wider community. 

·     The Oxford Union should cover the full costs associated with policing the event on 17 June. 

·     In light of the costs imposed on businesses by the event, the Oxford Union should offer to compensate businesses both for lost profits (based on a reasonable projection of income taken for the night) and increased costs (such as the need to deploy additional security) for those that remained open. 

·     The Oxford Union has acted in a grossly irresponsible manner and should be far more careful in considering the impacts on the city and community when downsizing any future invitations to speakers. 

Council Resolves: 

·     To ask the Leader of the Council to write to the President of the Oxford Union and the Police and Crime Commissioner clearly outlining the view that the Oxford Union should cover the full cost of the policing operation and asking for discussions to action this to be opened.

·     To ask the Leader of the Council to write to the Oxford Union stating the Council’s position that the Oxford Union should create a process for businesses to apply for compensation for lost profits and additional costs. 

·     To ask the Leader of the Council to make a statement on behalf of the Council condemning the Union’s irresponsible behaviour and stating all other steps taken in response to this motion.

This motion was not taken as the time allocated for debate had finished.   

Council notes that: 

·       Traffic in Oxford, like everywhere else, is significantly worse during school term time.

·       That private schools can generate disproportionately more traffic than state schools for reasons some of which are perfectly legitimate, for example the geographic spread from which pupils are drawn.

·       That while there always has to be significant caution around drawing too direct causal links, especially in something as fluid and complex as the transport system in a city, it is clear that reducing the amount of traffic generated by schools, in particular by private schools, would be hugely beneficial, not just for the wider community and other road users but also for residents, the schools themselves in reducing congestion around the school gate and competition for constrained road space, and for children by promoting healthy choices and encouraging independence.

·       That many private schools in Oxford have put a large amount of resource into laying on their own, bespoke, school bus and minibus services, with considerable success, and should be warmly thanked and congratulated.

·       That safe, convenient, reliable ways for pupils and parents to access these services are key to their success and growth.

·       That Oxford’s five Park and Ride sites are an obvious resource for facilitating interchange to and from these services.

Council therefore resolves: 

·       To ask the Leader and Cabinet member to commit to doing everything it can to facilitate use of the three Park and Ride sites it manages by these pupil transport services, to pro-actively engage with schools, bus operators, the County Council and local members to make it happen, and to report back to council before the beginning of the new school year in September.

This motion was not taken as the time allocated for debate had finished.   

Council believes: 

• That proper support for women in pregnancy extends far beyond physical care and includes emotional and psychological support; 

• That this is exceptionally important in cases where women experience early-pregnancy loss, miscarriage, gynaecological trauma, fertility treatment, IVF or complex conditions such as endometriosis. 

Council notes: 

• That Oxford University NHS Hospitals Trust has consulted on the closure of its Gynaecology Counselling Service, with staff potentially to be made redundant or redeployed. 

Council resolves: 

• To oppose the closure of this vital service; 

• To welcome the decision by the Trust to pause the consultation on closure in the light of the strong public support for the service, but to press for a long-term commitment to its future; 

• To ask the Cabinet Member for Healthy, Fairer Oxford to write to the CEO of Oxford University NHS Hospitals Trust expressing the views in this motion, with copy to Oxford's MPs and the General Secretary of the UNITE trade union. 

This motion was not taken as the time allocated for debate had finished.   

·       There is an inequity of both Public Transport Provision and Safe Segregated Cycle Path Provision across the City. 

·       This particularly affects areas such as Greater Leys which is the most distant part of the City from the City Centre and many amenities. It is the area with the highest proportion of residents on low income. 

·       This Council requests that the Leader writes to County Councillor Gareth Epps asking him to review both issues and to urgently address these matters. 

·       In particular requesting, he consider the use of subsidies to provide a minibus route around Greater Leys connecting to Cowley Centre, and he brings forward plans to create a Segregated Cycle Path on Watlington Rd and Garsington Rd and to properly maintain the route on Blackbird Leys Rd so that it isn't overgrown and made unusable by hedges. 

This motion was not taken as the time allocated for debate had finished.