Councillors Jupp and Morris sent their apologies.

Councillors Latif, Corais, Roz Smith, and Yeatman sent their apologies for a late arrival to the meeting.

Councillor Malik declared an interest in item 10 on the agenda.

Councillor Upton noted the interest.

Minutes of the ordinary meeting of Council held on 14 July 2025.

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

Council agreed to approve the minutes of the ordinary meeting held on 14 July 2025 as a true and correct record.

Any proposed changes will be circulated with the briefing note.

No new appointments were made.

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

Announcement from the Lord Mayor

Councillor Upton discussed the change in the constitution relating to the break and said that they may have the public address before the break. The Lord Mayor reflected on her work with friendship groups and different community groups across the city. She noted her meeting with young medical students from Gaza and said that it had made her hopeful for the future. The Lord Mayor spoke about the fun parts of her role, including the opening of St Giles’ Fair. She thanked Oxford’s healthcare workers, leys development unit and adult volunteers. She noted her upcoming volunteer work to raise funds for and awareness of rough sleeping in Oxford and welcomed sponsorship for this event.

Announcement from the Deputy Lord Mayor

Councillor Rowley said that it was a delight to welcome a new vicar to the parish. He noted that he was happy to attend a demonstration of solidarity with the community that attends the Oxford Central Mosque, particularly in light of recent events.

Announcement from the Leader of the Council

Councillor Brown announced that they had elected a new champion for events and nightlife economy, Councillor Taylor. She noted that Councillor Taylor would be working with Councillor Hollingsworth in this role. 

Statement from the Leader of the Council

Councillor Brown made a statement on recent events in the country.

On Thursday last week we saw the horrible attacks on the Jewish community in Manchester on Yom Kippur, the holiest day of the Jewish calendar and yesterday there was an arson attack on a mosque in Peacehaven, which thankfully did not result in any loss of life. Last night I had the privilege of being at Oxford Synagogue where people of all faiths joined the Jewish community as we all mourned the attacks two years ago, but also the terrible destruction and loss of life in Gaza and hoped and prayed for peace. We're fortunate in Oxford to have several decades of different faith communities working together to find the many things that bind us together, but at a time when antisemitism, Islamophobia, and racism are all on the rise we must all double down in our efforts to listen to each other and to encourage our communities to come together.

Announcement from the City Rector

The City Rector said that all of the city’s faith communities appreciated the City Council’s interest in their work. He reflected on the day’s anniversary of martyrdom, as a reminder that atrocities happened historically as they do today. His reflection called for people to stand together in the face of ongoing violence and fear.

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, 30September 2025.

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.

There were no addresses or questions.

Appendices 1 and 2 contains exempt information pursuant to Paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972. To discuss this item, it will be necessary for the Council to pass a resolution to exclude the press and public from the meeting.

The Director of Economy, Regeneration and Sustainability has submitted a report to seek Council approval for appropriation of land from the General Fund to the Housing Revenue Account (changing the statutory basis on which it is held by the Council).

Council is recommended to:

1.    Approve the appropriation of the land owned by Oxford City Council (OCC) at Elsfield Hall from the General Fund (GF) into the Housing Revenue Account (HRA).

Council resolved to:

1. Approve the appropriation of the land owned by Oxford City Council (OCC) at Elsfield Hall from the General Fund (GF) into the Housing Revenue Account (HRA).

The Director of Economy, Regeneration and Sustainability had submitted a report to seek Council approval for appropriation of land from the General Fund to the Housing Revenue Account (changing the statutory basis on which it is held by the Council).

Councillor Smith presented the paper. She said that this work should provide one hundred new affordable homes for the city. She said that two of the sites under consideration required Council agree to the appropriation of the sites. This appropriation is represented in agenda items 7 and 8. Councillor Smith said that the Elsfield site, they hoped, would provide over 30 new affordable homes for the city and that the site would be a mix of social rent and shared ownership. She moved the report and Councillor Turner seconded.

Councillor Fouweather encouraged Cabinet to increase the density of homes at this site, if possible, but noted that he was encouraged to see the report and its aspirations come forward.

Councillor Malik welcomed the report but asked what the plan was for the existing structure at the site.

Councillor Linda Smith said that they would take on board the density point and would make that argument to the planning department as they progressed. Regarding the Knights Court, she said that the plan was to convert the building to housing.

Council resolved to:

1.    Approve the appropriation of the land owned by Oxford City Council (OCC) at Elsfield Hall from the General Fund (GF) into the Housing Revenue Account (HRA).

Councillor Roz Smith arrived during this item at 17:17.

The Director of Economy, Regeneration and Sustainability has submitted a report to seek Council appropriation of the land at Cave Street from the General Fund (GF) into the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) to facilitate affordable housing development.

Council is recommended to:

1.    Approve the appropriation of the land owned by Oxford City Council (OCC) at Cave Street from the General Fund (GF) into the Housing Revenue Account (HRA).

Council resolved to:

1. Approve the appropriation of the land owned by Oxford City Council (OCC) at Cave Street from the General Fund (GF) into the Housing Revenue Account (HRA).

The Director of Economy, Regeneration and Sustainability had submitted a report to seek Council appropriation of the land at Cave Street from the General Fund (GF) into the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) to facilitate affordable housing development.

Councillor Linda Smith presented and proposed the report. She said that they hoped this site would create at least 19 new affordable homes. She said that they hoped to complete the development by the end of 2026.

Councillor Turner seconded the report. He said that the building had been demolished and that the scheme for start up units had not stacked up financially. Due to this, they decided to pursue the affordable housing scheme instead.

Councillor Roz Smith expressed her support for the scheme and for the building of the new homes in this location.

Council resolved to:

1.    Approve the appropriation of the land owned by Oxford City Council (OCC) at Cave Street from the General Fund (GF) into the Housing Revenue Account (HRA).

At the Licensing and Gambling Acts Committee on Monday, 22 September 2025, the Committee agreed to not adopt the proposed Special Saturation Policy 2025-2028 as, based on the cumulative impact assessment before them, the Committee were not of the opinion that the number of licensed premises within the City Centre and East Oxford areas is such that it is likely that granting further licences (or variation to licences) would be inconsistent with the licencing authorities duty to promote the licencing objectives.

Council is recommended to:

1.    Agree to not adopt the Cumulative Impact Assessment for 2025-2028 and the continued Special Saturation Policy covering City Centre and East Oxford areas

The report will be published within a supplement ahead of the meeting.

This report was deferred to a later meeting. The Monitoring Officer clarified that members would not be able to ask questions or discuss the report at this stage, but that the report would return to members for consideration later and that a full briefing would be provided to all members in due course.

At the General Purposes Licensing Committee on Monday, 22 September 2025, the Committee agreed to align with Local Government Reorganisation to postpone the final phase that all Hackney Carriage vehicles must meet the ultra-low emission vehicle standard until the establishment of the new unitary council, aligning the policy with wider structural changes and enabling consistent standards across the new licensing authority.

Council is recommended to:

1.    Agree that the adoption of the Hackney Carriage Vehicle Emission Standards aligns with Local Government Reorganisation.

The report will be published within a supplement ahead of the meeting.

This report was deferred to a later meeting. The Monitoring Officer clarified that members would not be able to ask questions or discuss the report at this stage, but that the report would return to members for consideration later and that a full briefing would be provided to all members in due course.

The Head of People has submitted a report to Council to approve the Working Overseas Policy and Procedure.

Council is recommended to:

1.    Approvethe implementation of the Working Overseas Policy and Procedure.

Council resolved to:

1.    Agree to review the policy and to be bring a revised Working Overseas Policy and Procedure back to Council in November 2025.

The Head of People had submitted a report to Council to approve the Working Overseas Policy and Procedure.

Councillor Chapman presented the report. He said that this policy was the first of its kind for the Council and that data protection issues were at the centre of the policy. He noted the specific steps the policy proscribed for members and officers to work abroad and the countries which had been noted as dangerous to work in. Councillor Chapman proposed the report, and it was seconded by Councillor Munkonge.

Councillor Smowton questioned how the policy would benefit the cyber security of the Council. In response, the Deputy Chief Executive – Citizen and City Services said that they were happy to review the policy as they go and integrate learnings. He noted that the policy was also one measure, amongst several others being implemented for their cyber security.

Councillor Turner asked about the scale of liabilities which members could have to pay. The Deputy Chief Executive – Citizen and City Services responded that in terms of ICO, he could not provide an answer regarding the scale of liabilities.

Councillor Djafari-Marbini asked about the delays that the policy could cause in members’ ability to respond to members of the public.

Council discussed the challenges that could be caused by the policy and how this could impact their work.

Council resolved not to:

1. Approvethe implementation of the Working Overseas Policy and Procedure.

Following debate of the policy, Councillor Chapman said that they would bring a revised policy back to the Council in November and proposed this to Council. This was seconded by Councillor Munkonge.

Council resolved to:

1.    Agreed to review the policy and to bring a revised Working Overseas Policy and Procedure back to Council in November.

Councillor Corais arrived at the meeting during this item at 17:31.

Councillor Yeatman arrived during this item at 17:44.

This item has a time limit of 15 minutes.

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

Cabinet Minutes – 13 August 2025

No questions were raised.

Cabinet Minutes – 17 September 2025

Councillor Smowton asked about the engagement with temporary accommodation and what was being done to make sure that this would not impact people who need to access this support.

Councillor Linda Smith said that she would bring a further update to Council in due course regarding their plans to expand access to temporary accommodation.

Councillor Fouweather asked about the Council’s purchase of four food waste vehicles for ODS and why ODS did not lease the vehicles from a private contractor.

Councillor Chapman explained that this was the structure outlined for ODS’s acquisition of vehicles and other expensive pieces of kit.

Councillor Turner said that ODS could choose other procurement routes, but that it was more cost effective for ODS to work with the Council than with a private vendor.

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

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, 24 September 2025.

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

46 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 22 supplementary questions and responses asked and given at the meeting are set out in the minutes pack.

Councillor Taylor arrived during this item at 18:08.

Councillor Gant left during this item, at 18:23.

The Lord Mayor moved to items 15 and 16 ahead of the break.

The Community Safety Service Manager has submitted a report for the annual update for 2025-2026 for the Oxford Safer Communities Partnership.

Recommendation: That Council resolves to:

1.    Note the annual update report of Oxford Safer Communities Partnership.

The Community Safety Service Manager had submitted a report for the annual update for 2025-2026 for the Oxford Safer Communities Partnership.

Councillor Arshad presented the report. She highlighted the priorities of the partnership, including tackling serious violence and violence against women and girls. She said that the report details work seeking to make Oxford a safer city. She moved the report, and it was seconded by Councillor Hollingsworth.

Council discussed the need to ensure a balance between a strong protection for vulnerable individuals and protecting the night-time economy in the city. Council also discussed actions being taken to address identified hotspots of disorder in particular areas of the city at night.

Councillor Arshad noted the community partnerships that they work in collaboration with to address these issues. She noted the particular work that had been done by Night Safe Oxford and the Oxford City Angels. She also discussed her work with the police to address hot spot areas of the city.

Council resolved to:

1.    Note the annual update report of Oxford Safer Communities Partnership.

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.

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

Councillor Powell presented the report. He presented the Committee’s meetings and the recommendations that they had considered in their meetings over the course of the year. He thanked officers and Cabinet for their discussions and support.  Councillor Powell moved the report.

Council noted the report.

Council took a break following this item from 18:45 – 19:15.

The Deputy Chief Executive for City and Citizen’s Services, and Group Finance Director left the meeting and 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, 30September 2025.

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 1 address and Cabinet Members read or summarised their written responses.

Both addresses and responses are set out in full in the minutes pack.

1.     Address by Dan Glazebrook, a representative from Friends of Grandpont Nature Park.

Councillor Latif joined the meeting during this item at 19:23.

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, 24 September 2025 are listed below.

Cross party motions are taken first. Motions will then be taken in turn from the Liberal Democrat Group, Green Group, Independent Oxford Alliance Group, Oxford Community Independents Group, Oxford Independent Group, Real Independent Group, Labour 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, 3 October 2025 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:

a)    Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Proposed by Councillor Smowton, Seconded by Councillor Fouweather)

b)    Oxford stands for diversity, for fairer migration policy and against the far right (Proposed by Councillor Powell, Seconded by Councillor Jarvis)

c)    Bring Thames Water into public ownership (Proposed by Councillor Mundy, Seconded by Councillor Djafari-Marbini)

d)    Keep Oxford Open (Proposed by Councillor Goddard, Seconded by Councillor Smowton)

e)    Better use of Oxpens Bridge Funding (Proposed by Councillor Jupp, Seconded by Councillor Miles)

Council had before it 5 motions on notice submitted in accordance with Council procedure rules and reached decisions as set out below.

Motions agreed as set out below:

b)    Oxford stands for diversity, for fairer migration policy and against the far right (Proposed by Councillor Powell, Seconded by Councillor Jarvis)

Motions lost as set out below:

a)    Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Proposed by Councillor Smowton, Seconded by Councillor Fouweather)

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

c)    Bring Thames Water into public ownership (Proposed by Councillor Mundy, Seconded by Councillor Djafari-Marbini)

d)    Keep Oxford Open (Proposed by Councillor Goddard, Seconded by Councillor Smowton)

e)    Better use of Oxpens Bridge Funding (Proposed by Councillor Jupp, Seconded by Councillor Miles)

Council notes that the Planning and Infrastructure Bill^[1] will, if passed, significantly change the way this council makes planning decisions. Council believes these changes will curtail local democratic oversight and reduce environmental protections.

Clause 51 gives the Secretary of State powers to decide which applications are heard at committee, and to dictate the size and composition of planning committees. This would remove opportunities for councillors to judge whether the harm and benefits of applications are appropriately balanced.

Part 3 would permit environmental obligations in relation to development to be discharged, disapplied or otherwise modified if a developer pays the nature restoration levy (called “cash to trash”^[2] by the RSPB). This fund would be used according to a plan prepared by Natural England, not the local authority.

This council believes these measures go entirely against the spirit of effective local decision-making and evidence-based environmental protection.

Council agrees with the Office for Environmental Protection:

In our considered view, the bill would have the effect of reducing the level of environmental protection provided for by existing environmental law. As drafted, the provisions are a regression.^[3]

Council also agrees with the 32 environmental organisations^[4] and 81 environmentalists and academics who publicly criticised the bill, calling for a “Pause to bad law”.^[5]

Council also agrees with Labour MP Chris Hinchcliff, who pointed out that “profit maximisation” is the biggest barrier to development, not “clear processes that uphold democracy and nature”.^[6]

Council calls for the preservation of planning committees’ current powers, and for a strong presumption towards environmental mitigation on-site or close by in preference to levy payment.

Council asks the Leader to write to Oxford’s MPs communicating these concerns with the bill.

Council resolved to:

Reject the following motion:

Council notes that the Planning and Infrastructure Bill^[1] will, if passed, significantly change the way this council makes planning decisions. Council believes these changes will curtail local democratic oversight and reduce environmental protections.

Clause 51 gives the Secretary of State powers to decide which applications are heard at committee, and to dictate the size and composition of planning committees. This would remove opportunities for councillors to judge whether the harm and benefits of applications are appropriately balanced.

Part 3 would permit environmental obligations in relation to development to be discharged, disapplied or otherwise modified if a developer pays the nature restoration levy (called “cash to trash”^[2] by the RSPB). This fund would be used according to a plan prepared by Natural England, not the local authority.

This council believes these measures go entirely against the spirit of effective local decision-making and evidence-based environmental protection.

Council agrees with the Office for Environmental Protection:

In our considered view, the bill would have the effect of reducing the level of environmental protection provided for by existing environmental law. As drafted, the provisions are a regression.^[3]

Council also agrees with the 32 environmental organisations^[4] and 81 environmentalists and academics who publicly criticised the bill, calling for a “Pause to bad law”.^[5]

Council also agrees with Labour MP Chris Hinchcliff, who pointed out that “profit maximisation” is the biggest barrier to development, not “clear processes that uphold democracy and nature”.^[6]

Council calls for the preservation of planning committees’ current powers, and for a strong presumption towards environmental mitigation on-site or close by in preference to levy payment.

Council asks the Leader to write to Oxford’s MPs communicating these concerns with the bill.

Councillor Smowton, Seconded by Councillor Fouweather, proposed the motion as set out in the briefing note. 

Following the debate and on being put to a vote, the following motion was lost.

Council resolved to:

Reject the following motion:

Council notes that the Planning and Infrastructure Bill^[1] will, if passed, significantly change the way this council makes planning decisions. Council believes these changes will curtail local democratic oversight and reduce environmental protections.

Clause 51 gives the Secretary of State powers to decide which applications are heard at committee, and to dictate the size and composition of planning committees. This would remove opportunities for councillors to judge whether the harm and benefits of applications are appropriately balanced.

Part 3 would permit environmental obligations in relation to development to be discharged, disapplied or otherwise modified if a developer pays the nature restoration levy (called “cash to trash”^[2] by the RSPB). This fund would be used according to a plan prepared by Natural England, not the local authority.

This council believes these measures go entirely against the spirit of effective local decision-making and evidence-based environmental protection.

Council agrees with the Office for Environmental Protection:

In our considered view, the bill would have the effect of reducing the level of environmental protection provided for by existing environmental law. As drafted, the provisions are a regression.^[3]

Council also agrees with the 32 environmental organisations^[4] and 81 environmentalists and academics who publicly criticised the bill, calling for a “Pause to bad law”.^[5]

Council also agrees with the then Labour MP Chris Hinchcliff, who pointed out in June this year that “profit maximisation” is the biggest barrier to development, not “clear processes that uphold democracy and nature”.^[6]

Council calls for the preservation of planning committees’ current powers, and for a strong presumption towards environmental mitigation on-site or close by in preference to levy payment.

Council asks the Leader to write to Oxford’s MPs communicating these concerns with the bill.

Council notes:

1.  Throughout the summer and into September, protests have taken place outside hotels housing asylum seekers across the UK, many directly organised by far-right groups.^[1] 

2.  Over 100,000 people marched in London at a demonstration addressed by a number of far right figures.^[2]

3.  These demonstrations have also taken place on numerous occasions in Oxford outside the Kassam Stadium Holiday Inn.^[3]

4.  Alongside this, this summer also saw a racist attack on Central Oxford Mosque.^[4]

5.  Oxford City Council has consistently made clear that it wants to see a fairer migration system, that refugees are welcome in our city, and that policies like immigration detention and removal are harmful.^[5] This was most recently and clearly illustrated through our obtaining of City of Sanctuary status.^[6]

6.  The government has recently announced new policies designed to create a more restrictive migration and asylum system, most notably through the suspension of family reunion.^[7]

Council believes: 

1.  Oxford is a city proud of its diversity and its history of solidarity with people from all across the world. 

2.  The protests and attacks seen this summer are deeply worrying, and are designed to intimidate and divide our communities. 

3.  Attempts by politicians, media outlets and commentators to whip up hate and to blame migrants and refugees for the problems in our society should be condemned.

4.  Hostile attitudes towards migrants are in part driven by central government policies which seek to create a more hostile environment for migrants and refugees. 

5.  Neither hotel accommodation, nor detention centres are fair, humane or suitable accommodation for people seeking asylum, and a drawn-out, lengthy process for reviewing asylum applications is harmful for those enduring it. 

6.  People seeking asylum should not be prevented from working while their claims are being processed.

7.  Enabling family reunion is a basic cornerstone of a humane and fair asylum system and suspending it risks putting people who would otherwise be allowed to enter the UK in significant danger.

8.  Hostile rhetoric and policies directed at migrants and people seeking asylum make many Oxford residents less safe by fueling xenophobia and racism. 

Council resolves: 

1.  To request the Leader of the Council and the Cabinet Member for Safer Oxford:

1.  Reiterate the council’s commitment to stand with and support all of Oxford’s diverse communities and to oppose attempts to divide and intimidate. 

2.  Write to the Home Secretary reiterating this council’s opposition to the re-opening of Campsfield Immigration Removal Centre and to the decision to suspend family reunion applications. 

3.  To publicly support and campaign for people seeking asylum to be permitted to work and accommodated within communities.

Council resolved to:

Agree with the following motion:

Council notes:

1.  Throughout the summer and into September, protests have taken place outside hotels housing asylum seekers across the UK, many directly organised by far-right groups.^[1] 

2.  Over 100,000 people marched in London at a demonstration addressed by a number of far right figures.^[2]

3.  These demonstrations have also taken place on numerous occasions in Oxford outside the Kassam Stadium Holiday Inn.^[3]

4.  Alongside this, this summer also saw a racist attack on Central Oxford Mosque.^[4]

5.  Oxford City Council has consistently made clear that it wants to see a fairer migration system, that refugees are welcome in our city, and that policies like immigration detention and removal are harmful.^[5] This was most recently and clearly illustrated through our obtaining of City of Sanctuary status.^[6]

6.  The government has recently announced new policies designed to create a more restrictive migration and asylum system, most notably through the suspension of family reunion.^[7]

Council believes: 

1.  Oxford is a city proud of its diversity and its history of solidarity with people from all across the world. 

2.  The protests and attacks seen this summer are deeply worrying, and are designed to intimidate and divide our communities. 

3.  Attempts by politicians, media outlets and commentators to whip up hate and to blame migrants and refugees for the problems in our society should be condemned.

4.  Hostile attitudes towards migrants are in part driven by central government policies which seek to create a more hostile environment for migrants and refugees. 

5.  Neither hotel accommodation, nor detention centres are fair, humane or suitable accommodation for people seeking asylum, and a drawn-out, lengthy process for reviewing asylum applications is harmful for those enduring it. 

6.  People seeking asylum should not be prevented from working while their claims are being processed.

7.  Enabling family reunion is a basic cornerstone of a humane and fair asylum system and suspending it risks putting people who would otherwise be allowed to enter the UK in significant danger.

8.  Hostile rhetoric and policies directed at migrants and people seeking asylum make many Oxford residents less safe by fueling xenophobia and racism. 

Council resolves: 

1.  To request the Leader of the Council and the Cabinet Member for Safer Oxford:

1.  Reiterate the council’s commitment to stand with and support all of Oxford’s diverse communities and to oppose attempts to divide and intimidate. 

2.  Write to the Home Secretary reiterating this council’s opposition to the re-opening of Campsfield Immigration Removal Centre and to the decision to suspend family reunion applications. 

3.  To publicly support and campaign for people seeking asylum to be permitted to work and accommodated within communities 

Councillor Powell, Seconded by Councillor Jarvis, proposed the motion as set out in the briefing note. 

Council agreed to suspend standing orders to extend the meeting by 30 minutes to continue the debate on this motion.

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

Council noted:

1.  Throughout the summer and into September, protests have taken place outside hotels housing asylum seekers across the UK, many directly organised by far-right groups.^[1] 

2.  Over 100,000 people marched in London at a demonstration addressed by a number of far right figures.^[2]

3.  These demonstrations have also taken place on numerous occasions in Oxford outside the Kassam Stadium Holiday Inn.^[3]

4.  Alongside this, this summer also saw a racist attack on Central Oxford Mosque.^[4]

5.  Oxford City Council has consistently made clear that it wants to see a fairer migration system, that refugees are welcome in our city, and that policies like immigration detention and removal are harmful.^[5] This was most recently and clearly illustrated through our obtaining of City of Sanctuary status.^[6]

6.  The government has recently announced new policies designed to create a more restrictive migration and asylum system, most notably through the suspension of family reunion.^[7]

Council resolved that it believes: 

1.  Oxford is a city proud of its diversity and its history of solidarity with people from all across the world. 

2.  The protests and attacks seen this summer are deeply worrying, and are designed to intimidate and divide our communities. 

3.  Attempts by politicians, media outlets and commentators to whip up hate and to blame migrants and refugees for the problems in our society should be condemned.

4.  Hostile attitudes towards migrants are in part driven by central government policies which seek to create a more hostile environment for migrants and refugees. 

5.  Neither hotel accommodation, nor detention centres are fair, humane or suitable accommodation for people seeking asylum, and a drawn-out, lengthy process for reviewing asylum applications is harmful for those enduring it. 

6.  People seeking asylum should not be prevented from working while their claims are being processed.

7.  Enabling family reunion is a basic cornerstone of a humane and fair asylum system and suspending it risks putting people who would otherwise be allowed to enter the UK in significant danger.

8.  Hostile rhetoric and policies directed at migrants and people seeking asylum make many Oxford residents less safe by fueling xenophobia and racism. 

Council resolved: 

1.  To request the Leader of the Council and the Cabinet Member for Safer Oxford:

1.  Reiterate the council’s commitment to stand with and support all of Oxford’s diverse communities and to oppose attempts to divide and intimidate. 

2.  Write to the Home Secretary reiterating this council’s opposition to the re-opening of Campsfield Immigration Removal Centre and to the decision to suspend family reunion applications. 

3.  To publicly support and campaign for people seeking asylum to be permitted to work and accommodated within communities.

Thames Water has become a by-word for incompetence in utilities management. Having managed to discharge raw sewage into the region’s waterways for almost 300,000 hours in 2024^[1], the company faced record breaking fines from Ofwat this year. In an ironic twist, Thames Water pleaded poverty when negotiating the fine downwards- committing to paying less than 20% of the £122.7 million fine within the next four and a half years. A fine made larger and of course less affordable by the £170 million in dividends paid out over the last two years.^[2] The failure of water companies across the country is being rewarded with huge executive salaries: The average pay for water company CEOs in 2022 was £1.7 million.^[3]

People of Oxford are fed up of polluted waterways that used to be fit for leisure activities, fed up of aging burst water pipes flooding our streets^[4], and dismayed at the daft plans for an enormous reservoir which tears up local landscape and is costly and un-necessary.^[5]

Yes, we have been here before, our Council passed a motion pushing for the nationalisation of Thames Water back in January 2023. But the government still chooses not to take bold action to take back control of our water supply, deciding instead that a new regulator will solve the problems. Our Council has the opportunity to push for a rethink, to urge the government to renationalise Thames Water.

This Council resolves to:

-          Request that the Leader or Deputy Leader of the Council writes to Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Emma Reynolds, with Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Water and Flooding Emma Hardy, stating that water privatisation has failed the people of Oxford and that our water supplier needs to be brought in to public hands.

-          Request that the Leader or Deputy Leader of the Council writes to Thames Water CEO Chris Weston, seeking an explanation for the deplorable state of our water infrastructure. Asking, why our city suffered so much disruption from burst water mains this summer, and what is being done to ensure that the same won’t be repeated again.

-          Request that the Leader or Deputy Leader of the Council writes to Chris Weston seeking a resolution of when we will see an end to routine (outside of recognised extreme wet weather conditions) dumping of raw sewerage overflow in to Oxford’s local waterways.

-          Request that the Leader or Deputy Leader of the Council engages with local groups such as Windrush Against Sewage Pollution and Boycott Thames Water, to establish what more the Council can do to support their campaigns and to push for better standards from our water supplier.

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

This Council–

?      Reaffirms that asylum seekers, refugees and migrants more generally remain welcome in Oxford, and that the City stands by its Local Authority of Sanctuary status.

?      Believes that demonstrations outside asylum seeker accommodation are likely to convey the opposite impression.

?      Calls for the asylum backlog to be addressed through increased resources and processing efficiency, not through relocation that would cause needless disruption to individuals’ living circumstances.

?      Believes that negative assumptions concerning an individual, and particularly regarding risk of crime, must never be based on their asylum seeker or refugee status, national origin, religion, cultural background, age, gender or any other protected characteristic, but rather must always be based on hard evidence relating to specific individuals.

?      Believes that tightening eligibility for refugee status would inevitably harm people who are fleeing war and conflict, as well as triggering a race to the bottom with other countries receiving refugees, and therefore this course should not be pursued.

?      Backs granting a temporary work permit to asylum seekers who face a long wait outside their control, thereby enabling them to support themselves through earnings rather than requiring public support throughout their wait.

?      Believes that Brexit has substantially harmed this country’s ability to handle asylum cases by weakening cooperation between different European countries’ immigration services.

?      Calls on the Government to recommit to the United Kingdom as an open, diverse and welcoming place, and desist from hostile rhetoric such as suggesting housing asylum applicants in unsuitable accommodation such as warehouses^[1], or overzealously pursuing hotel closures and backlog reduction in a manner that tonally matches those overtly hostile to asylum seekers and refugees, thereby legitimising such views.

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

Council notes:

?      The cost of the Oxpens bridge has substantially increased since its original approval, and is running considerably behind other Growth Deal projects.

?      That government has the option to repurpose the money for use in other active travel schemes and entrust the County Council to manage this.

?      Government can and does vary the rules of the Deal from time to time. Thus far, government has rightly prioritised the spirit and objectives of the Deal above the letter of the agreement.

?      Doubt remains that the Oxpens bridge will be able to provide a dry route to Osney Island and thereby unlock housing, due to the low-lying railway underpass in-between.

?      The Growth Board (now Future Oxfordshire Partnership) was strongly urged against pursuing the Oxpens bridge project to begin with.

Council therefore believes it would be sensible to examine alternatives, and open a conversation with the County and/or the Ministry on options that deliver greater benefits for the residents of Oxford.

Council therefore resolves to ask the Leader to write to the relevant Minister, in full consultation with the accountable body for the Growth Deal funds, requesting that in the event of the bridge not going ahead:

?      That the Growth Deal by varied as necessary to permit the funds to be used for other specified purposes in Oxford;

?      That other options be explored to better employ the funds, including but not limited to:

?      Resurrecting the substantive scheme for Woodstock Road improvements to mitigate the effect of housing development to the north;

?      Revisiting the pedestrian bridge across the A40 at Barton Park which was dropped at planning stage, resulting in very real and significant safety concerns for residents;

?      Resurrecting the long-discussed plan for a foot/cycle bridge across the Thames at Jackdaw Lane, providing a safe and convenient alternative to the challenging Plain roundabout for residents of south and east Oxford.

Council notes that each of these schemes has been worked up in detail, and are thus available to re-visit, making any one of them attractive to a government which has the best interests of Oxford’s residents at heart.

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