There were no declarations of interest made.

The Chair reminded the Committee that item 7 contained an exempt appendix and requested that if any member wished to discuss this, they indicate this to allow the Committee to enter private session. 

The Committee is asked to approve the minutes of the meeting held on 1 July 2025 as a true and accurate record.

The Committee resolved to approve the minutes of the meeting held on 1 July 2025 as a true and accurate record.  

Public addresses relating to matters of business for 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 Wednesday, 30 July 2025.

The Committee heard one public address from Mr. Glazebrook from Friends of Grandpont Nature Park. 

The Chair invited Mr. Glazebrook to address the Committee as follows: 

Almost 2000 people, the vast majority of them local residents, have now signed the petition against the Oxpens River Bridge and its connecting paths. There are many reasons people are up in arms - the ecological destruction involved, the lack of democratic consultation, the fact that there are already two excellent pedestrian and cycle bridges within quarter of a mile of the site, the misuse of £10million of public money intended to facilitate affordable housing - but what I want to focus on today is how the bridge singularly fails to meet its own intended purpose - to provide a floodproof connection from Osney Mead to Oxpens.  

The local plan 2036, at pages 134-135, specifies the need for a new pedestrian and cycle bridge to link Osney Mead with the other side of the river. The local plan also makes clear that a flood evacuation path out of Osney Mead is required for planning permission to be granted for the site. The notes on Policy SP2, covering Osney Mead, state that “The site specific flood risk assessment must demonstrate how the development will be safe otherwise planning permission will not be granted. It is recognised that the FRA may not be able to demonstrate a dry risk/ low hazard rating route to dry land.” (134, 9.23)  

So the local plan specifies the need for both a new bridge linking Osney Mead to the other side of the river, and a floodproof route out of Osney Mead. These two things have subsequently been combined into plans for a single floodproof connection reaching all the way from Osney Mead across the river, as is made clear in several official documents, including for example, the pathworks optioneering report commissioned by the City Council and produced by Stantec in 2022.  

But there is a problem. The Council decided not to build this bridge directly from Osney Mead to Oxpens, as envisaged by the local plan, but instead to build it on adjacent community-owned green space, from Grandpont Nature Park to Oxpens Meadow. What this meant was that, to reach this new bridge from Osney Mead, users would now have to go across a stream and under a railway bridge along a section of the towpath that frequently floods.  

To solve this problem, the City Council commissioned Stantec to develop a project called the Osney Pathworks, to create a new floodproof path linking Osney Mead to the planned new bridge. The preferred plan was to erect floodwalls under the railway bridge. But the Environment Agency vetoed this proposal in 2022, as it would cause further flooding elsewhere. None of the other solutions suggested by Stantec meet current standards, and their report admitted there is no solution available which adequately addresses the flooding issue whilst also meeting current safety standards for cycling and walking.  

This remains the case today. There  ...  view the full minutes text for item 25.

Councillor addresses relating to matters of business for this agenda, up to five minutes is available for each address.

The request should be received by the Director of Law, Governance and Strategy by 5.00 pm on Wednesday, 30 July 2025.

The Committee heard one address from Councillor Muddiman.   

The Chair invited Councillor Muddiman to address the Committee as follows: 

Dear Scrutiny Committee. 

The controversial Oxpens Bridge, which would be in my ward, is on your agenda today. I urge you to use all your powers of scrutiny on this item, when considering the upcoming Cabinet decision to allocate further funds to this project.  

Because: 

1. It is not a sensible use of millions of pounds of public funds to build a new river bridge for the small number of affordable homes that might be built on the Oxpens/Osney Mead developments. 

2. Cyclists and pedestrians travelling between the train station and these 2 developments are unlikely to use this route.  

3. There already are 3 routes over the River Thames on this section of the river, all within 2 minutes cycle ride of the proposed new bridge. 2 of them are car free. 

4. If these funds are to provide infrastructure for affordable homes, they could be much better spent elsewhere, e.g. A bridge over the ring road at Barton to provide a safe route for school children.  

5. If these funds are to enable the future development of Osney Mead, by providing safe egress in times of flood, then this bridge does not provide that.  

6. Any pedestrians or cyclists leaving Osney Mead to escape a flood, would still need to pass under the railway bridge to reach the bridge and higher ground. This area regularly floods, and this project does not provide a flood free route. 

7. Any future plan to link the existing cycle path from Osney Mead to the proposed Oxpens Bridge would need to lower the footpath under the railway bridge, beside the river, in an area that already floods regularly. There are no current funds for this and no solution that does not impact flooding, on the flood plain. 

8. If Oxford University would like a new bridge at this location they should fund it. Not the public purse.  

It would be unwise to delegate authority to officers to allocate additional funding to this highly controversial project when: 

1. The outcome of legal proceedings is still unknown. 

2. From a cost-benefit analysis, the multi-million-pound bridge would provide infrastructure to a relatively small number of new homes and the funds could provide far greater benefit elsewhere. 

3. Existing bridges close to the proposed site already provide a car free link over the River Thames.  

4. The proposed bridge does not provide a flood free exit from Osney Mead, which may be needed to gain planning permission for future development on Osney Mead.  

For full transparency on this controversial project, I urge you to recommend that Cabinet must authorise any further spending, rather than a delegated officer. 

The Chair thanked Councillor Muddiman and invited questions from the Committee; there were none.  

The Chair thanked Councillor Muddiman.   

Cabinet, at its meeting on 13 August 2025, will consider a report to agree to the virement of underspend in the current capital programme to increase the project budget in the capital programme for the Oxpens bridge; to accept additional funding for the construction of the bridge from external bodies, and to agree to amending and entering legal agreements as necessary for the funding, construction and transfer of the bridge.

Councillor Alex Hollingsworth, Cabinet Member for Planning and Culture, Tom Bridgman, Deputy Chief Executive – Place, and Jenny Barker, Regeneration Lead have been invited to present the report and take part in discussions.

The Committee is asked to consider the report and agree any recommendations.

Appendix 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 Committee to pass a resolution to exclude the press and public from the meeting in accordance with the provisions of Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, specifying the grounds on which their presence could involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as described in specific paragraphs of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act if and so long as, in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.

(The Access to Information Procedure Rules – Section 15 of the Council’s Constitution – sets out the conditions under which the public can be excluded from meetings of the Council)

Cabinet, at its meeting on 13 August 2025, will consider a report to agree to the virement of underspend in the current capital programme to increase the project budget in the capital programme for the?Oxpens?bridge; to accept additional funding for the construction of the bridge from external bodies, and to agree to amending and entering legal agreements as necessary for the funding, construction and transfer of the bridge.  

The report was before the Scrutiny Committee to consider and make any recommendations to Cabinet. 

Councillor Alex Hollingsworth, Cabinet Member for Planning and Culture, and Jenny Barker, Regeneration and Development Lead, were present to respond to questions.  

The Chair invited Councillor Hollingsworth and the Regeneration and Development Lead to present the report. 

Councillor Hollingsworth introduced the report and explained that the principle and original plans for the Oxpens River Bridge project are evidenced in documentation dated back to at least 2008, including policies which were approved by the Council. Several examples were provided including a 2013 SPD. The Committee heard therefore, that the project has been in the pipeline for a long time and did not suddenly appear in 2021.  

The Regeneration and Development Lead introduced the Cabinet report, explaining that it seeks to update members on the considerable amount of work that has been undertaken in preparation for delivery of the project in 2026. The Committee heard that the opportunity to deliver the Oxpens Bridge in 2026 had been identified based on the ability to shut the river to move the sections of the bridge into place, and the fact that the area floods in winter months. Furthermore, the Regeneration and Development Lead also explained that the report seeks delegation to enable the Council to enter into necessary agreements, including funding, to enable the delivery of the project.  

In relation to the bridge itself, the Regeneration and Development Lead also highlighted the benefits the project would bring to walking and cycling residents of Oxford, and the opportunities it will bring for growth in the West End of the city. An overview of the funding complexities of the project was also provided.  

The Chair thanked Councillor Hollingsworth and the Regeneration and Development Lead for their presentation.  

The Chair asked that members firstly focus on questions suitable for public discussion, and reserve questions requiring confidential session discussion for later.  

Councillor Ottino queried why funds need to be transferred to cover deficits, and whether if further funding from external sources is not obtained, the project could go ahead.   

Councillor Altaf-Khan recognised that the delays experience in the project to date caused the requirement for additional money. The Cabinet Member was therefore asked whether it is expected that other considerable projects in the future would also require additional funding.  

Councillor Rowley sought clarification on where the powers for delegating extra funding lie, and secondly, whether there is confidence that as much as possible has been done to mitigate further cost increases.  

Councillor Hollingsworth, in response to Councillor Altaf-Khan’s question, explained that it is  ...  view the full minutes text for item 27.

The Work Plan is driven to a very large extent by the Cabinet Forward Plan. The Scrutiny Committee agrees its priorities for items coming onto the Forward Plan, which then form part of its Work Plan.

The Committee is recommended to confirm its agreement to the Work Plan, or agree any amendments as required.

The Chair informed the Committee that an updated work plan had now been published.  

The Scrutiny and Governance Advisor informed the Committee that the work programme was published on the Council website and would be updated monthly to support alignment with other committee workstreams and to support transparency. It was also noted that any adjustments to the workplan would be agreed by the Chair.  

The Committee agreed the workplan. 

At its meeting on 9 July 2025, Cabinet considered a report from Scrutiny and responded to the following recommendations:

·       Domestic Abuse Policy for Service Users

·       Tourism (and ABID presentation)

·       Citizen Experienced Strategy

·       Annual Review of the Housing, Homelessness & Rough Sleeping Strategy 2023-28

The Committee is asked to:

1.     Note Cabinet’s responses to its recommendations.

The Chair informed the Committee that he had attended the last meeting of Cabinet and explained that of the 8 recommendations put forward from the Scrutiny Committee, 6 were agreed in full, 1 was agreed in part, and 1 was rejected. The Chair provided a summary of Cabinet’s decisions on all 8 of the recommendations, as detailed within the agenda.  

The Committee noted Cabinet’s responses to its recommendations. 

Councillor Hollingsworth and the Regeneration and Development Lead left the meeting and did not return. 

Since the Scrutiny Committee’s previous meeting on 10 July 2025, the following Working Groups have met:

• Climate and Environment Working Group (22 July 2025)
  
  

The Committee is asked to:

1. Endorse the recommendations from Working Groups.

The Chair informed the Committee that the Climate and Environment Working Group had met on 22 July. 

The Scrutiny and Governance Advisor summarised the four recommendations made.  

The Committee endorsed the recommendations from Working Groups. 

Scrutiny Committee

·       9 September 2025

·       14 October 2025

·       11 November 2025

·       2 December 2025

·       13 January 2026

·       3 February 2026

·       10 March 2026

·       7 April 2026

All meetings start at 6:00 pm.

The Committee noted the dates of future meetings.