Councillor Harley, Councillor Hollingsworth, Councillor Regisford, Councillor Stares, Councillor Altaf-Khan, Councillor Corais, and Councillor Jupp sent apologies. 

Councillor Djafari-Marbini, Councillor Latif, Councillor Rehman, Councillor Yeatman and Councillor Turner would be arriving late.  

Councillor Jarvis noted that in relation to motion 18C, he is a member of the Unite Union but explained that he holds no formal or decision-making power with the organisation.  

Councillor Ottino, Councillor Arshad and Councillor Rowley noted they were also members of the Unite Union.  

Minutes of the ordinary meeting of Council held on 26 January 2026 and the budget meeting on 23 February 2026.

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

Council resolved to approve the minutes of the meetings held on 26 January 2026 and the budget meeting of Council on 23 February 2026.  

Any proposed changes will be circulated with the briefing note.

There were no new 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

The Lord Mayor reminded Council that all Member SIM cards had now been delivered and would require swapping unless alternative agreements had been made with the Democratic Services team. Council was also reminded of the Lord Mayor’s Quiz due to take place on Friday, 27 March and The Lord Mayor informed Council of her visit to Oxford’s twin city with a delegation of arts organisations. The Council’s new Section 151 Officer, Alistair Rush, was introduced. 

Councillor Mundy and Councillor Yeatman joined the meeting. 

The Deputy Lord Mayor noted his recent time spent with volunteers across the city who support children to enjoy reading; he expressed his thanks. 

The Sheriff informed Council that he had presided over the ceremony of nine new freemen. 

Councillor Diggins joined the meeting.  

The Leader of the Council made two announcements. Firstly, Council was informed of the proposed civic office holders for the next municipal year: Councillor Munkonge as Lord Mayor, Councillor Upton as Deputy Lord Mayor, and Councillor Linda Smith as Sheriff. Secondly, Council heard a statement relating to the Ultimate Picture Palace which had been a recent concern for many Members and a historic success story for Oxford. The Leader of the Council outlined that since 2022 it had been a community-owned independent cinema after over 1200 local investors bought shares in order to protect the art deco building which dates back to 1911. It has been listed as a community asset since 2025 and as grade 2 listed since 1994; details of this were provided to emphasise the value of the Ultimate Picture Palace. Council heard that the owners of the site, Oriel College, no longer intend to keep the UPP as a community-owned cinema and a campaign has arisen locally to persuade them otherwise. The Leader of the Council emphasised to Members that there is a possibility Oriel College may submit a planning application for a change of use for the site, and any Members who sit on the Planning Committee must be mindful of whether support given to such campaigns will prejudice or be perceived to prejudice the open-minded assessment of any future applications. It was noted that the Council wishes the campaign every success.  

Councillor Arshad left the meeting. 

The City Rector reflected on events associated with 25 March throughout history, noting that the date historically marked the start of the new year. Council also heard that in Lord of the Rings, 25 March marked the date which the ring of evil was destroyed and the City Rector expressed hope that this could apply to the present context in which adults and children are experiencing so much sadness. Members of Council were urged to seek out hope and compassion.  

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, 17 March 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.

None. 

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).

None. 

The Director of Housing has submitted a report to approve the following policies: electrical safety, and legionella policies to ensure the maintenance of the housing stock.

Recommendation: That Council resolves to:

1.    Approve the Electrical Safety Policy

2.    Approve the Legionella Policy

Council resolved to:

1.     Approve the Electrical Safety Policy

2.     Approve the Legionella Policy

The Director of Housing has submitted a report to approve the following policies: electrical safety, and legionella policies to ensure the maintenance of the housing stock. 

Councillor Linda Smith introduced the report, noting that these two HRA policies add to the suite of policies Council has previously considered. Council understood the importance of these policies for setting out what tenants, lease holders and shared owners can expect from the Council as the landlord to ensure the safety of their homes. The report and policies also provide transparency and accountability. Councillor Linda Smith summarised the actions taken by the Council to meet the high standards required through the Regulator for Social Housing; these were summarised in detail.  

There were no questions from Council.  

Councillor Linda Smith moved the report. Upon being seconded by Councillor Brown, the recommendations were put to a vote and agreed.  

Council resolved to:

1.     Approve the Electrical Safety Policy

2.     Approve the Legionella Policy

The Director of Housing has submitted a report to approve the new draft Social Housing Allocations Scheme for Oxford, following public consultation.

Recommendation: That Council resolves to:

1.    Approve the new draft Social Housing Allocations Scheme for Oxford;

2.    Delegate authority to the Director of Housing, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Housing and Communities, to authorise the date on which the Allocations Scheme is implemented, noting the explanation and timelines in paragraph 23;

3.    Delegate authority to the Director of Housing, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Housing and Communities, to make minor changes to the Allocations Scheme in order to comply with changes to legislative and statutory guidance, related Council policies (approved by Cabinet) and to make technical changes to ensure the effective and efficient functioning of the scheme.

Council resolved to:

1.    Approve the new draft Social Housing Allocations Scheme for Oxford;

2.    Delegate authority to the Director of Housing, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Housing and Communities, to authorise the date on which the Allocations Scheme is implemented, noting the explanation and timelines in paragraph 23;

3.    Delegate authority to the Director of Housing, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Housing and Communities, to make minor changes to the Allocations Scheme in order to comply with changes to legislative and statutory guidance, related Council policies (approved by Cabinet) and to make technical changes to ensure the effective and efficient functioning of the scheme.

The Director of Housing has submitted a report to approve the new draft Social Housing Allocations Scheme for Oxford, following public consultation. 

Councillor Linda Smith introduced the report and emphasised the housing affordability issues in Oxford. Council understood that despite efforts, demand for social housing continues to be greater than the supply; over 3900 households are currently on the local housing register. Councillor Linda Smith outlined that allocation of social housing must be fairly and transparently and explain the steps within this report designed to support this. Council understood that that allocation scheme had completed a consultation period and improvements had been identified and implemented; much of the existing allocation scheme was understood to be working well and has been retained. 

Councillor Arshad rejoined the meeting.  

Councillor Fouweather welcomed the report but queried how the new allocation scheme would fit with the Council’s existing damp and mould policy. Councillor Linda Smith noted that separate policies to manage damp and mould were approved by Council in November 2024 and the matters are also taken seriously. 

Councillor Fouweather suggested that allocations scheme, as set out, does not pay attention to the damp and mould policy as people affected would not be automatically given increased allocation. Councillor Linda Smith explained that that the Council does not wish for any property to be affected by damp and mould, therefore people will be moved as required on a case-by-case basis, but the allocation scheme does not automatically make provision for this as a normal scenario.  

Councillor Fouweather queried what impact the implementation phases of the Social Housing Act 2023 would have on the new allocations scheme in 2026 and 2027. Councillor Linda Smith committed to setting out a detailed response in writing.  

Councillor Miles requested clarification relating to the qualification of tenants who live in social housing outside of the city but need to relocate or commute in order to work in Oxford. It was suggested this could cause hardship. Secondly, Councillor Miles asked how far outside of the city people must live for the relevant clause to apply. Councillor Linda Smith explained that this would be considered on a case-by-case basis and committed to write with a detailed response.  

Councillor Rowley welcomed the improvements to the allocation scheme as set out in the report and asked, in relation to page 126, whether any changes have occurred for those families with children between the ages of 18 and 22. Councillor Linda Smith explained that there would be no changes for existing tenants, but that those bidding for a new property would be affected. 

Councillor Linda Smith moved the report. Upon being seconded by Councillor Brown, the recommendations were put to a vote and agreed. 

Council resolved to:

1.    Approve the new draft Social Housing Allocations Scheme for Oxford;

2.    Delegate authority to the Director of Housing, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Housing and Communities, to authorise the date on which the Allocations Scheme is implemented, noting the explanation and timelines in paragraph 23;  ...  view the full minutes text for item 124.

The Head of People has submitted a report for Council to approve the Annual Pay Policy Statement.

Recommendation: Council resolves to:

1.    Approve the Annual Pay Policy Statement 2026/27 as set out in Appendix 1 to this report 

2.    Agree the proposed pay agreement for April 2026 and April 2027 reached with Unison and Unite as set out in paragraph 3. 

Council resolved to:

1.       Approve the Annual Pay Policy Statement 2026/27 as set out in Appendix 1 to this report 

2.       Agree the proposed pay agreement for April 2026 and April 2027 reached with Unison and Unite as set out in paragraph 3. 

The Head of People has submitted a report for Council to approve the Annual Pay Policy Statement. 

Councillor Chapman introduced the report noting that it is a legislative requirement to seek Council’s approval and summarised that the report sets out the agreed two-year local pay agreement with Unison and Unite which takes effect from 1 April 2026. Council understood that this includes a cost of living pay aware of 3.5% or £1500, whichever is higher, and a further 3% from 1 April 2027. Councillor Chapman thanked all those involved in the negotiations and encouraged Council to celebrate the report. Further features of the pay deal were also summarised in detail.  

Councillor Taylor, noting that Oxfordshire County Council does not pay the Oxford living wage, asked what can be done to reassure officers of their future salaries given the incoming changes resulting from Local Government Reorganisation. Councillor Chapman outlined that the future local government structure is currently unknown but suggested that traditionally, salary deals are taken across to new authorities for a period to ensure some stability for staff. This pay deal would therefore likely apply to existing Oxford City Council and Oxford Direct Services staff in the immediate period following Local Government Reorganisation.  

Councillor Chapman moved the report. Upon being seconded by Councillor Arshad, the recommendations were put to a vote and agreed. 

Council resolved to:

1.       Approve the Annual Pay Policy Statement 2026/27 as set out in Appendix 1 to this report 

2.       Agree the proposed pay agreement for April 2026 and April 2027 reached with Unison and Unite as set out in paragraph 3. 

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.

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

1. Minutes of the Cabinet meeting held on 11 February 2026 

. 

Councillor Turner joined the meeting during this item. 

There were no questions. 

2. Minutes of the Cabinet meeting held on 18 March 2026 

Councillor Smowton, in reference to the Integrated Performance Report, asked whether noted unbudgeted excursions under ICT costs, are now being more effectively managed in the medium term. Councillor Chapman set out the four main cost areas in this category and emphasised the unexpected costs incurred from the cyber incident last year. Councillor Turner also emphasised that many of the costs noted within the report would be one-off.  

Councillor Rehman joined the meeting 

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, 11 March 2026.

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

71 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?32 supplementary questions and responses asked and given at the meeting are set out in the minutes pack. 

Councillor Lygo left and rejoined the meeting during this item.  

 
Councillor Gant left the meeting during this item and did not return. 

The Lord Mayor suggested items 15, 16 and 17 be considered before the break.  

The Director of Law, Governance and Strategy (Monitoring Officer) and the Transition Director have submitted a report to update Council on the arrangements and board for The Oxfordshire Children’s Trust and the Council’s work for Children and Young People in the city.

Recommendation: Council resolves to:

1.    Note the report and the documents appended to it

The Director of Law, Governance and Strategy (Monitoring Officer) and the Transition Director have submitted a report to update Council on the arrangements and board for The Oxfordshire Children’s Trust and the Council’s work for Children and Young People in the city.  

Councillor Munkonge introduced the report, noting that the report summarises the collaborative work undertaken to improve health, wellbeing and outcomes for children and young people across Oxfordshire. A summary of this Council’s work was provided and COuncillor Munkonge also highlighted key challenges which remain in relation to improving SEND services.  

Councillor Turner reflected on several examples of positive and inclusive work of this district council and asked whether as well as targeted initiatives, whether more general opportunities for all young people could be supported. Councillor Munkonge confirmed that there would be more opportunities.  

Councillor Miles asked whether future updates could include information on the city centre playground proposals. Councillor Munkonge confirmed this is a rolling project.  

Council noted the report and the documents appended to it. 

The Director of Law, Governance and Strategy (Monitoring Officer) and the Transition Director have submitted a report to update Council on the work of the Oxford Strategic Partnership, 2024 to 2025.

Recommendation: Council resolves to:

1.    Note the update outside organisation report on the work of the Oxford Strategic Partnership, 2024 to 2025.

The Director of Law, Governance and Strategy (Monitoring Officer) and the Transition Director have submitted a report to update Council on the work of the Oxford Strategic Partnership, 2024 to 2025. 

Councillor Brown introduced the report and thanked those officers who had contributed. Council understood that partnership's priorities are regularly reviewed to ensure work is as effective as possible and the report summarised work within the last year; examples were provided. 

Councillor Miles noted that a small budget is assigned this workstream and asked what the money is used for specifically. Councillor Brown noted the budget covered necessary secretariat costs. Councillor Miles queried how many days work this equated to; Councillor Brown committed to offering a more detailed written response.  

Councillor Fouweather asked where the OSP fits alongside the Greater Oxford Development Corporation, and whether the Leader agreed that it demonstrates bureaucratic overload. Councillor Brown noted that all the parallel bodies mentioned are important and hold different responsibilities and aims which sometimes positively overlap; a summary of each was delivered. 

Councillor Mundy, in reference to point 49 of the report and Zero Carbon Oxford, asked whether a positive example is being set for how the local authorities can support decarbonisation. Councillor Brown confirmed that current work does set a positive example and referred to examples connected to local leisure centres and the council’s housing stock. 

Council noted the update 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.

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

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 the Scrutiny Committee had been busy in recent months, making a total of 41 recommendations, including those from the Budget Review Group. Council heard a summary of topics discussed including the nighttime economy, devolution, and fly tipping and that 24 recommendations had been agreed by Cabinet. Councillor Powell thanked the Committee, Cabinet Members, and supporting officers.  

Councillor Malik asked why the Scrutiny Committee had not considered improvement to the nighttime economy in the city centre. Councillor Powell explained that the Committee’s discussion had been informed by the report from the Cabinet Member which had indicated an already extensive focus on the city centre.   

Councillor Jarvis, as a member of the Scrutiny Committee, suggested that recommendation 5 on the nighttime economy did not accurately align with the discussion held by the Committee.   Councillor Powell acknowledged this and committed to contacting the Cabinet Member to update the wording of the recommendation to make the necessary inclusions. 

Councillor Miles thanked Councillor Powell for chairing the Committee this municipal year and asked whether a summary of the urgent decisions taken would be provided, as promised last year. Councillor Powell committed to ensuring this would be included the annual report of the Committee. 

Council noted the report. 

Following the conclusion of this item, Council adjourned and took a break from 18.30 to 19.00. 

The meeting resumed at 19.00 

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, 17 March 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 2 addresses and Cabinet members responded.   

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

Councillor Turner rejoined the meeting following the break during this item. 

Councillor Roz Smith left and rejoined the meeting during this item. 

Councillor Latif joined the meeting during this item. 

The petition organiser may address Council upon the petition for up to 5 minutes at the start of this item.

Council is asked to consider a petition meeting the criteria for debate under the Council’s petitions scheme.

The full text of the petition is contained in the accompanying report.

If a member wishes to propose a substantive motion/recommendation on the petition they must let the Director of Law, Governance and Strategy have that motion or recommendation by 5pm on Tuesday, 17 March 2026 (three working days before the Council meeting). These are then published in the Council briefing note. Any amendments to these must be submitted by 11am on the day of the meeting (Monday 23 March 2026).

If no substantive motion is agreed, Council is asked to note the petition.

Council resolved to:

1.    Note the contents of the report

2.    Hear the address by the petition organiser

3.    Debate the proposal contained within the petition and any relevant motion or recommend

4.    Recommended to Cabinet that further opportunities to provide free access to the Museum to local people be explored

Council had received one petition. 

Council heard one address and the Leader of the Council response.  

The full text of the petition, the address, and the response are enclosed within the minutes pack.  

Councillor Brown introduced the report and outlined an amendment to the fourth recommendation set out in the report. Council understand the report now sought agreement to recommend to Cabinet that further opportunities to provide free access to the Museum to local people be explored. 

The Lord Mayor reminded Council that 15 minutes were available for debate. 

Councillor Muddiman noted her personal commitment to securing a sign from the Botley Road bridge for display at the museum. She expressed her hope that residents will be able to visit the exhibition for free and emphasised her belief that free entry to national museums should be ensured, as initially introduced by the Government in 2001. The impacts of the cost-of-living crisis on people’s ability to access cultural activities was noted and the importance of the walk-in principle was emphasised. Councillor Muddiman informed Council that in December 2025, the Hodge review of the Arts Council England recommended that charging should only be enforced for international tourists when visiting museums; it should remain free for all UK residents.  

Councillor Smowton noted his support for keeping entry to the museum free and expressed the view that the cost of ensuring this would be marginal to the Council. Councillor Smowton emphasised the need to ensure a fair balance between free access to cultural assets for residents and supporting a healthy council budget.  

Councillor Malik noted his concern in relation to contradictory figures presented in previous discussions and asked what action is being taken to correct this.  

Councillor Turner noted his ideal preference that the Museum would remain free, however emphasised the need for the Council to make considered financial choices whilst protecting and promoting cultural and historical assets. Council Turner suggested that the appropriate channel for changing the museum free would have been the Budget Council meeting.  

Councillor Hunt supported Councillor Muddiman’s suggestion that the walk-in principle should be supported and suggested that additional effort is made to signpost tourists and the public to the museum and to emphasise Oxford’s cultural quarter. Furthermore, Councillor Hunt suggested that separate free and paid exhibitions be created to support access for all and to retain an income stream for the museum.  

Councillor Miles suggested that some of the paintings held in the Town Hall that do not support or align with the Council’s values be sold in order to fund the preservation of other aspects of the city's history that do align with the council’s values, such as the museum. 

Councillor Taylor disagreed with Councillor Miles’ suggestion, suggesting it did not support a long-term viable solution.  

Councillor Miles explained that reinvestment of these assets could support income and shares could generate a better financial return to support the Council’s service delivery costs.  

Councillor Yeatman noted concern that charging for museum entry could reduce attendance rates which would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 132.

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, 11 March 2026 are listed below.

As Council deferred the business, including the motions submitted by the Liberal Democrat and Green Groups, at the meeting on 26 January 2026, these will be taken first.

Cross party motions are taken first. Motions will then be taken in turn from the Liberal Democrat Group (resubmitting their motion from January Council), Green Group (resubmitting their motion from January Council), Oxford Independent Group, Real Independent Group, Labour Group, Green Group, Oxford Independent Alliance 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, 20 March 2026so 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)    Better use of Oxpens Bridge Funding (Proposed by Cllr Jupp, Seconded by Cllr Miles)

b)    Prisoners for Palestine hunger strikes (Proposed by Cllr Jarvis, Seconded by Cllr Mundy)

c)    Support for Mini Plant Oxford (Proposed by Cllr Linda Smith, Seconded by Cllr Ottino)

d)    Condemnation of Attempted Election Postponement (Proposed by Cllr Smowton, Seconded by Cllr Miles)

e)    Stop the War in Iran (Proposed by Cllr Powell, Seconded by Cllr Djafari-Marbini)

Councillor Diggins left the meeting at the start of this item and did not return.  

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: 

18b) Prisoners for Palestine hunger strikes (Proposed by Councillor Jarvis, Seconded by Councillor Mundy) 

18c) Support for Mini Plant Oxford (Proposed by Councillor Linda Smith, Seconded by Councillor Ottino) 

Motions taken but lost: 

18a) Better use of Oxpens Bridge Funding (Proposed by Councillor Jupp, Seconded by Councillor Miles) 

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

18d) Condemnation of Attempted Election Postponement (Proposed by Councillor Smowton, Seconded by Councillor Miles)  

18e) Stop the War in Iran (Proposed by Councillor Powell, Seconded by Councillor Djafari-Marbini) 

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.

Council resolved to:

Reject the following motion:

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.  

• £8.8 million of the funding for the proposed Oxpens Bridge came from the Government Growth Deal via Oxfordshire County Council and £1.5 million of the funding came from Homes England. 

• These 2 funds should be spent on unlocking affordable homes, which this bridge does not do. 

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. 

Councillor Miles, seconded by Councillor Smowton, proposed the motion as set out in the briefing note. This was self-amended by the amendment set out in the briefing note, omitting one paragraph. Councillor Muddiman formally withdrew her amendment.  

Councillor Brown, Councillor Jarvis, Councillor Diggins and Councillor Henwood rejoined the meeting during the debate of this motion. 

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

At the conclusion of this item Councillor Diggins left the meeting and did not return. 

*****

Council resolved to:

Reject the following motion:

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.  

• £8.8 million of the funding for the proposed Oxpens Bridge came from the Government Growth Deal via Oxfordshire County Council and £1.5 million of the funding came from Homes England. 

• These 2 funds should be spent on unlocking affordable homes, which this bridge does not do. 

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. 

Council notes 

1. Since September 2024 eight remand prisoners detained as a result of alleged activities with Palestine Action have participated in hunger strikes, including at least one individual from Oxford.¹ 

2. The prisoners are expected to be on remand for over a year before they face a trial², despite the CPS guidance suggesting the maximum time anyone should be held on remand is 182 days.³ 

3. Among the demands of the hunger strikers are:⁴ 

a.    Immediate bail for the prisoners held on remand. 

b.    While they are imprisoned, for the prisoners to be able to send and receive communications without restriction, surveillance, or interference from the prison administration. 

c.     The right to a fair trial. 

d.    For Palestine Action to be de-proscribed. 

4. All of those participating in the hunger strikes were detained for alleged activities with Palestine Action prior to parliament adding it to the list of proscribed organisations.? 

5. While some of the hunger strikers have ended their action, at the time of writing, four are still refusing food and are facing serious risk of long term health issues or death.⁵ 

6. 67 MPs - including Oxford West and Abingdon MP Layla Moran - have signed an Early Day Motion calling for the Secretary of State for Justice to ensure the treatment of the hunger strikers is “humane” and that their human rights are upheld.⁶ 

7. A number of other councils, including Belfast⁷ and Derry⁸, have passed motions expressing solidarity with the hunger strikers and for the government to enter proper negotiations with the prisoners to bring an end to the strikes. 

Council believes 
 

1. It is extremely concerning that these prisoners have felt that they had no other recourse to protest against their prison conditions but to engage in hunger strikes. 

 
Council resolves 
 

1. To request that the leader of the council:? 

a.    Write to the Secretary of State for Justice and other relevant government ministers, requesting that they? 

                        I.         Meet with the families and representatives of those on hunger strike. 

                      II.         Enter negotiations to bring the hunger strikes to an end and to prevent any loss of life or long term health complications. 

                     III.         Do everything they can to ensure that the prisoners on remand have their human rights respected and that they are treated humanely. 

b.    Write to local MPs Anneliese Dodds and Layla Moran requesting that they work to ensure that government ministers carry out the requests in resolves 

Council resolved to:

Support the following motion:

Council notes

1.  Since September 2024 eight remand prisoners detained as a result of alleged activities with Palestine Action have participated in hunger strikes, including at least one individual from Oxford.^[1]

2.  The prisoners are expected to be on remand for over a year before they face a trial^[2], despite the CPS guidance suggesting the maximum time anyone should be held on remand is 182 days.^[3]

3.  In January 2026, the last hunger strike terminated their protest, bringing the hunger strikes to an end^[4]

4.  Among the demands of the hunger strikers were:^[5]

a)  Immediate bail for the prisoners held on remand.

b)  While they are imprisoned, for the prisoners to be able to send and receive communications without restriction, surveillance, or interference from the prison administration.

c)  The right to a fair trial.

d)  For Palestine Action to be de-proscribed.

5.  All of those participating in the hunger strikes were detained for alleged activities with Palestine Action prior to parliament adding it to the list of proscribed organisations. 

6.  71 MPs - including Oxford West and Abingdon MP Layla Moran - have signed an Early Day Motion calling for the Secretary of State for Justice to ensure the treatment of the hunger strikers is “humane” and that their human rights are upheld.^[6]

7.  A number of other councils, including Belfast^[7] and Derry^[8], passed motions expressing solidarity with the hunger strikers and for the government to enter proper negotiations with the prisoners to bring an end to the strikes.

Council believes

1.  It is extremely concerning that these prisoners have felt that they had no other recourse to protest against their prison conditions but to engage in hunger strikes.

Council resolves

1.  To request that the leader of the council: 

a)    Write to the Secretary of State for Justice and other relevant government ministers, requesting that they, or officials representing them

                                           i.         Where written consent has been given by the prisoner, meet with the families and representatives of those who have been on hunger strike to discuss the conditions they have faced.

                                          ii.         Do everything they can to ensure that prisoners, whether they are on remand or serving custodial sentences, have their human rights respected and that they are treated humanely.

                                         iii.         Review, far more regularly and systematically whether any proscribed organisation still needs to be proscribed. 

                                        iv.         In light of the High Court ruling on Palestine Action, move to de-proscribe the group and cease attempts to overturn the ruling. 

                                          v.         Because it conflicts with an individual's right to free speech, review whether simply saying you support a proscribed organisation should be an arrestable offence.

b)    Write to local MPs Anneliese Dodds and Layla Moran requesting that they work to ensure that government ministers carry out the requests in resolves 1.

Councillor Jarvis, seconded by Councillor Mundy, proposed the motion as set out in the briefing note with additional self-amendments. Councillor Ottino formally withdrew his amendment. 

Councillor Arshad left the meeting and rejoined during debate of this motion. 

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

Councillor Djafari-Marbini left the meeting at the conclusion of this item and did not return.  

****

Council resolved to:

Support the following motion:

Council notes

1.  Since September 2024 eight remand prisoners detained as a result of alleged activities with Palestine Action have participated in hunger strikes, including at least one individual from Oxford.^[1]

2.  The prisoners are expected to be on remand for over a year before they face a trial^[2], despite the CPS guidance suggesting the maximum time anyone should be held on remand is 182 days.^[3]

3.  In January 2026, the last hunger strike terminated their protest, bringing the hunger strikes to an end^[4]

4.  Among the demands of the hunger strikers were:^[5]

a)  Immediate bail for the prisoners held on remand.

b)  While they are imprisoned, for the prisoners to be able to send and receive communications without restriction, surveillance, or interference from the prison administration.

c)  The right to a fair trial.

d)  For Palestine Action to be de-proscribed.

5.  All of those participating in the hunger strikes were detained for alleged activities with Palestine Action prior to parliament adding it to the list of proscribed organisations. 

6.  71 MPs - including Oxford West and Abingdon MP Layla Moran - have signed an Early Day Motion calling for the Secretary of State for Justice to ensure the treatment of the hunger strikers is “humane” and that their human rights are upheld.^[6]

7.  A number of other councils, including Belfast^[7] and Derry^[8], passed motions expressing solidarity with the hunger strikers and for the government to enter proper negotiations with the prisoners to bring an end to the strikes.

Council believes

1.  It is extremely concerning that these prisoners have felt that they had no other recourse to protest against their prison conditions but to engage in hunger strikes.

Council resolves

1.  To request that the leader of the council: 

a)    Write to the Secretary of State for Justice and other relevant government ministers, requesting that they, or officials representing them

                                           i.         Where written consent has been given by the prisoner, meet with the families and representatives of those who have been on hunger strike to discuss the conditions they have faced.

                                          ii.         Do everything they can to ensure that prisoners, whether they are on remand or serving custodial sentences, have their human rights respected and that they are treated humanely.

                                         iii.         Review, far more regularly and systematically whether any proscribed organisation still needs to be proscribed. 

                                        iv.         In light of the High Court ruling on Palestine Action, move to de-proscribe the group and cease attempts to overturn the ruling. 

                                          v.         Because it conflicts with an individual's  ...  view the full minutes text for item 135.

The UK automotive sector is in the midst of a low-volume crisis, and while different car plants are affected in different ways, it would not be an exaggeration to say that the Mini Plant Oxford has been (and continues to be) one of the worst hit. 

As one of the biggest employers in Oxford, a significant number of agency workers’ jobs have been lost as the plant adjusts to the government reinstating the 2030 ban date on new Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) models, the only models the plant currently builds. 

In addition, and due to there being no Electric models being manufactured at Plant Oxford, the increased Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) target for 2026 will potentially create a situation whereby ICE production will be need to be artificially lowered to ensure BMW can hit the 33% via imports, or it will be subject to either a £12,000 fine per car or pushed into buying credits from Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) such as Tesla. 

Economic growth is the number one mission of the government. Growth will fund our public services, enable investment in our hospitals and schools, and, most importantly, raise living standards for everyone. So it is vital different government departments work in harmony to support UK jobs and industry. It's especially important that the Department of Transport understands the impact of policies like the ZEV mandate on jobs here in Oxford. 

This council therefore resolves to ask the Leader of the Council to write to the Secretary of State for Transport Heidi Alexander to ask her to: 

1. Meet with Unite the Union and its representatives at the factory to hear their concerns and to support?their work to make Oxford the future home of affordable EV production. 

2. Engage to as full an extent as possible with BMW on the UK’s transition to electric vehicles and policies which affect demand for new vehicles and investment and jobs in the UK automotive sector.

Council resolved to:

Support the following motion:

Challenges for the automotive manufacturing sector have impacted countries including France, Italy and the UK, resulting in falling car production figures. This is driven by a number of factors, including competition from cheaper imports.

As one of the biggest employers in Oxford, a significant number of agency workers’ jobs have been lost at the Mini Plant Oxford.

The plant needs to adjust to the government reinstating the 2030 ban date on new Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) models, the only models the plant currently builds.  Also, due to there being no Electric models being manufactured at the Oxford plant, the Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) target for 2026 will potentially create a situation whereby ICE production will need to be artificially lowered to ensure BMW can hit the 33% target via imports. This is to prevent it being subject to either a £12,000 fine per car or pushed into buying credits from Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) such as Tesla. 

Economic growth is the number one mission of the government.

Growing the economy increases tax revenue, and is one way of funding improvements to public services.

It is vital different government departments work in harmony to support UK jobs and industry. It's especially important that the Department for Transport and the Department for Business and Trade understand what support car plants including our Mini Plant need in order to adapt to the ZEV targets and be ready for the end of new ICE vehicle production. 

This council therefore resolves to ask the Leader of the Council to write to the Secretary of State for Transport Heidi Alexander to ask her to: 

1.  Meet with Unite the Union and its representatives at the factory to hear their concerns and to support?their work to make Oxford the future home of affordable EV production.

2.  Engage to as full an extent as possible with BMW on the UK’s transition to electric vehicles and policies which affect demand for new vehicles and investment and jobs in the UK automotive sector.

3.  Seek support for full economic re-integration with the EU, including pursuit of a customs union and European single market membership, in order to minimise friction to trade and employment.

Councillor Lindas Smith, seconded by Councillor Ottino, proposed the motion as set out in the briefing note, incorporating the two amendments set out in the briefing note. 

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

****

Council resolved to:

Support the following motion:

Challenges for the automotive manufacturing sector have impacted countries including France, Italy and the UK, resulting in falling car production figures. This is driven by a number of factors, including competition from cheaper imports.

As one of the biggest employers in Oxford, a significant number of agency workers’ jobs have been lost at the Mini Plant Oxford.

The plant needs to adjust to the government reinstating the 2030 ban date on new Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) models, the only models the plant currently builds.  Also, due to there being no Electric models being manufactured at the Oxford plant, the Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) target for 2026 will potentially create a situation whereby ICE production will need to be artificially lowered to ensure BMW can hit the 33% target via imports. This is to prevent it being subject to either a £12,000 fine per car or pushed into buying credits from Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) such as Tesla. 

Economic growth is the number one mission of the government.

Growing the economy increases tax revenue, and is one way of funding improvements to public services.

It is vital different government departments work in harmony to support UK jobs and industry. It's especially important that the Department for Transport and the Department for Business and Trade understand what support car plants including our Mini Plant need in order to adapt to the ZEV targets and be ready for the end of new ICE vehicle production. 

This council therefore resolves to ask the Leader of the Council to write to the Secretary of State for Transport Heidi Alexander to ask her to: 

1.  Meet with Unite the Union and its representatives at the factory to hear their concerns and to support?their work to make Oxford the future home of affordable EV production.

2.  Engage to as full an extent as possible with BMW on the UK’s transition to electric vehicles and policies which affect demand for new vehicles and investment and jobs in the UK automotive sector.

3.  Seek support for full economic re-integration with the EU, including pursuit of a customs union and European single market membership, in order to minimise friction to trade and employment.

This council notes that: 

• On 18th December 2025, the Minister of State for Local Government and Homelessness wrote¹ to council leaders requesting views on the potential postponement of their local election in May 2026. 

• The Chief Executive of the Electoral Commission wrote² that they were “disappointed by both the timing and substance of [that] statement”, that it created “unprecedented” uncertainty, that “we do not think that capacity constraints are a legitimate reason for delaying long planned elections” and that “there is a clear conflict of interest in asking existing Councils to decide how long it will be before they are answerable to voters”. 

• On 22nd January 2026, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government announced³ the postponement of 29 areas’ elections. 

• The Secretary’s letter identifies “postponement was not sought”⁴ as a reason why an area’s elections would go ahead, implying that all authorities receiving a postponement had expressly sought one. 

• There was a clear difference in political control between those councils whose elections would be postponed and those that would go ahead as scheduled, with the Local Government Chronicle reporting⁵ that 16 out of 19 Labour-controlled, 4 out of 9 Conservative-controlled, 1 out of 8 Lib Dem controlled and 8 out of 27 NOC councils were set for postponement. 

• On 16th February 2026, the Secretary of State withdrew⁶ his decision to postpone elections citing “recent legal advice”. 

This council believes that: 

• As a matter of principle, elections should only be postponed in extraordinary circumstances. 

• Any future foreseeable election postponement, whether due to local government reorganisation or any other cause, should be signposted as far as possible in advance, not floated for the first time immediately before the Christmas break and long after the proposed LGR timeline was announced. 

• There is indeed a fundamental conflict of interest in inviting councils to substantially control whether their own election goes ahead, and so any future postponement should be determined by clearly set objective parameters, not whether councils choose to seek or not seek delay. 

• The legal reasoning for the late withdrawal of the planned postponements should be published so as to reduce uncertainty about any further delays. 

This council requests that: 

• The Leader of the Council write to the Secretary of State expressing this Council’s condemnation of the timing and criteria for their proposed election postponements, attaching a copy of this motion. 

• The Leader further request the publication of the legal advice that led to the late reversal of the Secretary’s decision. 

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

Council notes 

1. On February 28th 2026, the United States of America and Israel launched joint airstrikes on Iran.¹? 

2. That in response to these actions, Iran responded by utilising missiles and drone strikes against US military bases in the Persian Gulf including amongst others, Bahrain, Oman and Qatar.²? 

3. That there has not been any resolution of the UN security council or other lawful basis for these actions.? 

4. That the conflict has already resulted in the deaths of thousands of civilians including hundreds of children at Minab school.³? 

5. That at this time of global uncertainty and trauma, caused by the actions of the US and Israel, the UK government is once again reneging on its international obligations by reducing the rights of people seeking asylum and introducing Trumpian “visa breaks”.⁴? 

6. That the these attacks were launched while negotiations between the US and Iran had been heralded as yielding ‘significant progress’ just two days before the attack.⁵ 

7. That Iranian residents of Oxford City have raised their significant concern and anxiety for their family and Friends, many of whom they have been unable to make contact with.?⁶ 

8. That Oxford is home to a diverse range of residents, many of whom are facing extreme anxiety regarding family and friends still located in Iran, as well as other neighbouring countries.? 

9. That both Oxford Universities have committed the University of Sanctuary scheme but their ability to offer spaces to talented international students has been undermined by policies such as the visa break.⁷ 

Council believes 

1. That the aggression shown by the US and Israel do nothing to make the world safer and have already resulted in an unacceptable loss of life.? 

2. That as an accredited City of Sanctuary, Oxford has a moral and ethical obligation to speak against moves by the UK government to reduce the rights of people to seek sanctuary, particularly at this moment of global uncertainty.? 

3. That reducing the grant of leave to remain given to refugees to 30 months is cruel and, at this moment of global uncertainty, represents the UK turning its back on the international community.? 

4. That the introduction of “visa breaks” targeted at nationals of Afghanistan, Cameroon, Myanmar and Sudan as a result of a “surge in asylum claims from legal routes” is incompatible with the UK’s purported humanitarian commitments and undermines social cohesion in the UK.? 

Council resolves? 

1. To request that the leader of the Council: 

a.    Write to the Secretary of State for Defence and the Prime Minister, requesting that they: 

                                 I.         Clearly condemn the unlawful aggression of the United States of America and Israel? 

                               II.         Operationalise safe and managed routes for people to enter the UK in search of Sanctuary from the conflict.? 

b.    Write to the Secretary of State for the Home department requesting that they: 

                                 I.         Reverse the decision to reduce the period of refugee settlement to 30 months. 

                               II.         Reverse the “Visa-break” policy

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