Agenda and draft minutes

To record apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillors Coleman, Cox, Crawford, Edwards, Fawcett, Foxhall, Hallett and Hannaby.

To receive declarations of disclosable pecuniary interests, other registrable interests and non-registrable interests or any conflicts of interest in respect of items on the agenda for this meeting. 

None.

To receive notification of any matters which the chair determines should be considered as urgent business and the special circumstances which have made the matters urgent, and to receive any announcements from the chair. 

The Chair advised that she would be hosting a quiz on 19 April and details of a Chair’s dinner, hosted jointly with the Chair of South Oxfordshire District Council, would be made available shortly.

To receive any questions or statements from members of the public that have registered to speak. 

None.

To consider any items set out on the Council agenda for the meeting to be held on 12 February 2025 which may be deferred to this meeting for consideration.

There were no items deferred from the previous Council meeting held on 12 February 2025.

To consider an update report on devolution and local government reorganisation – report to follow.

Mark Stone, Chief Executive, introduced the report which provided an overview of the Government’s plans for devolution in England, with a move to strategic authorities accompanied by a move to unitary authorities in place of county and district councils in areas such as Oxfordshire. The report provided an update on developments and discussions within Oxfordshire to date.

He advised that since the paper was published, Ministry of Housing Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) officials have indicated that they expect Oxfordshire to cease to be ‘two tier’ no later than May 2028 and have offered to meet with officers from across Oxfordshire to discuss how they see the timetable for this unfolding.   As part of this meeting, officers will seek a more definitive timeline that can be made publicly available.  

As the paper noted, officers have requested that MHCLG officials also support a separate meeting with council officers and officers from West Berkshire which was yet to be arranged.   Should the secretary of state continue to proceed with unitarisation, as they had indicated they would, then members elected to any ‘shadow council’, which typically tends to be elected roughly a year before ‘go live’, will be the most influential body on the budgets, culture and operational design of any new council.    Council was invited to note the report because officers believed that there is insufficient information available to enable more formalised decision making at this time.

A number of councillors expressed views regarding the plans and the process.

·       The proposals had little regard to areas such as the Vale which was characterised by rural areas and market towns. 

·       Views expressed in support of devolution – moving decision making, power and funding closer to people to create resilient communities. However, there were no proposals set out to shift power to local communities. The proposals would destroy real local decision making.

·       The proposals were anti-democratic under the guise of democracy and proposed the centralisation of power under the guise of devolution.

·      Views expressed in support of the proposed strategic authority which could provide more local influence over strategic transport, skills and carbon reduction.

·      In the proposals, there was no mention of fair votes, with mayors presumably elected using the first past the post system.

·      The inclusion of a mayor in the proposals covering multiple shire counties could create remote decision making similar to that of the Police and Crime Commissioner. Need for meaningful checks and balance/scrutiny function.

·       Concern expressed regarding the proposed ambitious timeframe. This would reduce the opportunity to consider and debate the proposals allowing only time to influence the implementation.

·       Need to argue for a sufficient number of councillors for a successor authority so that local residents can be provided with the services and support they are entitled. 

·       Any unitary authority should be as small as possible against the criteria to represent the needs of residents.

·       Noted the impact on council staff of both additional work for those involved and the impact of further change and uncertainty, and that a short  ...  view the full minutes text for item 94.