To consider motions from councillors in accordance with Council procedure rule 38.
(1) Motion to be proposed by Councillor Sue Cooper, seconded by
Council notes the economic and environmental importance of rail transport in this area and authorises the leader of the council to write to the Secretary of State for Transport to request the acceleration of the delivery of rail projects of importance to South Oxfordshire. These include:
· Improvements necessary to Oxford City Station
· Reopening of Grove Station
· Upgrading of the route between Didcot and Oxford
· Reopening of the Cowley Branch line
· And any other initiatives which come forward in the current Oxfordshire Rail Connectivity Study
(2) Motion to be proposed by Councillor Robin Bennett, seconded by Councillor Alexandrine Kantor
Council notes that, increasingly, the only type of housing in our area that is genuinely affordable to young families, key workers, and the under-40s in general is social rent housing.
Council asks officers to prepare a report for Cabinet on ways to use council powers and resources to deliver more high-quality, environmentally sustainable, and genuinely affordable housing, at social rent or similar cost. This should include ways to keep such properties genuinely affordable in the long term and ways to release and access low-cost suitable land for projects such as – but not limited to - self-build and community land trusts, as well as projects owned, let or operated by the council itself.
(3) Motion to be proposed by Councillor Robin Bennett, seconder to be notified
Council notes that the UK Government, in tandem with the National Infrastructure Commission, has proposed the construction of a motorway-style expressway between Oxford and Cambridge. This new road will have significant adverse impacts on Oxfordshire: it will create a major source of air and noise pollution, destroy farmland and habitats, increase CO2 emissions - incompatible with the recent Climate Emergency declared by this council in April 2019 and bring more traffic onto the county’s existing roads.
Actual and proposed consultation on the Expressway, and indeed on the Ox-Cam Arc proposal and associated major housing growth across the region, has been wholly inadequate and a proper Strategic Environmental Assessment should have taken place before this project left the drawing board. Instead, it has become the basis for regional planning with little democratic legitimacy.
Whilst this council supports partnership working and strategic planning and practical links with authorities across the region, it does not support the addition of a major road such as the Expressway in a time of climate emergency – as declared by this council on 11 April 2019.
Highways England’s own analysis of the Expressway shows a benefit:cost ratio (BCR) in the range of 1.1 – 1.3, far lower than most other road schemes analysed by the Department for Transport in 2015, (2:1).
The Oxford 2050 plan process has thus far welcomed the perceived benefits of the Oxford-Cambridge Expressway. It is also mentioned as a factor in a wide range of council documents and plans, including LP2034. This council asks that its new position on the Expressway is taken into account in all council documents that refer to it.
The Expressway would cause major harm to the quality of life of residents if it passes through the district; this council wishes to withdraw any assumed consent, including any possibility that roads such as the HIF-funded Thames crossing, or the Stadhampton or Watlington bypasses, could later be used or expanded to form part of the Expressway or act as feeder roads for it.
This council fully supports an upgrade in the East-West rail route, with full electrification, as part of the Ox-Cam arc discussions. Such an upgrade must include inter-modal centres, along it and at both ends, to enable maximum use of rail for freight. Any road upgrades necessary to support the East-West rail route should connect to that route and be proportionate to the primacy of rail freight.
Council therefore resolves to:
· Oppose the Expressway project in all forms, including expansion of existing or new roads in the district to form part of it.
· Support fully-electrified East-West Rail, including freight capacity and connections, and better public transport and active travel connections.
· Update all council documents to reflect this new position on the Expressway and related Arc development proposals.
· Continue to support partnership working, especially with regard to landscape-scale conservation and nature recovery networks.
(4) Motion to be proposed by Councillor Jo Robb, seconded by Councillor Mocky Khan
Council notes that the Oxfordshire Pension Fund, of which it is an employer, has more than £132m of workers’ money – around 6% of its portfolio funds - invested in fossil fuel companies. These companies – which the London Stock Exchange now terms “non-renewables,” are the primary drivers of the climate crisis threatening our planet.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change last year warned that to avoid the most catastrophic consequences of warming, carbon emissions must fall to zero by 2050. Last month, the UK Parliament imposed a binding target of net zero by 2050 and in April, this Council declared a Climate Emergency.
Lloyds of London and Bank of England Governor Mark Carney have both warned that legislation necessary to limit warming combined with the development of renewables would likely result in the rapid “stranding” of fossil fuel assets, requiring large-scale asset write-downs. Fossil fuel companies face the additional peril of a potential wave of third-party liability claims brought by the victims of climate change including sovereign states.
A growing number of pension and investment funds have already announced plans to fully or partially divest from fossil fuels. Southwark Council, Islington Council, SOAS, the United Reform Church, The Church of England and the National Trust have already made significant divestment moves. Globally, the divestment movement has seen more than £6.3trillion leave the fossil fuel industry.
As a result, the fossil fuel industry is facing unprecedented financial, legal and regulatory headwinds.
The Oxfordshire Pension Fund has defended its continued investment in fossil fuels, arguing that to divest would mean losing its influence. This position is untenable. The very raison d’être of fossil fuel companies is the extraction and sale of carbon intensive energy. To the extent these companies are being stewarded towards renewable energy, this transition is happening too slowly. Research by Transition Pathway Initiative, an industry body, found that none of the ten largest publicly listed oil and gas producers are on track to achieve net zero emissions by 2050. None are on track to be aligned with 2 degrees or less of warming by 2050.
The message of divestment is not that fossil fuel companies are evil. But their business threatens our planet and its most vulnerable inhabitants through droughts, heat waves, crop failures, floods, and rising sea levels.
As one of the Oxfordshire LGPS employers, South Oxfordshire District Council calls on the Oxfordshire Pension Fund Committee to act in line with South Oxfordshire and the UK’s declaration of Climate Emergency and in prudent exercise of its fiduciary duties by divesting its investment in an industry whose long-term risk profile in the current political and environmental climate is unacceptably high.
Council:
1) calls on the Oxfordshire Pension Fund to follow the lead of Councils, sovereign wealth funds and other pension and investment funds around the world to divest from non-renewable energy companies whose main purpose is the exploration and/or extraction of fossil fuels;
2) calls on the Oxfordshire Pension Fund to explore reinvestment of its funds into appropriate renewable energy companies at the earliest opportunity;
3) asks the Oxfordshire Pension Fund to acknowledge that shareholder engagement has failed to bring about the pace of change required to limit catastrophic global warming.
Minutes:
The Chairman agreed to alter the order of the agenda to allow for the consideration of the motions prior to the councillor questions.
1. Motion proposed by Councillor Sue Cooper, seconded by Councillor Maggie Filipova-Rivers
“Council notes the economic and environmental importance of rail transport in this area and authorises the leader of the council to write to the Secretary of State for Transport to request the acceleration of the delivery of rail projects of importance to South Oxfordshire. These include:
· Improvements necessary to Oxford City Station
· Reopening of Grove Station
· Upgrading of the route between Didcot and Oxford
· Reopening of the Cowley Branch line
· And any other initiatives which come forward in the current Oxfordshire Rail Connectivity Study”.
The majority of councillors supported the motion to bring about improvements to the rail network in the district, provide a viable alternative mode of transport and protect the environment.
RESOLVED:
To note the economic and environmental importance of rail transport in this area and authorise the leader of the council to write to the Secretary of State for Transport to request the acceleration of the delivery of rail projects of importance to South Oxfordshire. These include:
· Improvements necessary to Oxford City Station
· Reopening of Grove Station
· Upgrading of the route between Didcot and Oxford
· Reopening of the Cowley Branch line
· And any other initiatives which come forward in the current Oxfordshire Rail Connectivity Study.
2. Motion proposed by Councillor Robin Bennett, seconded by Councillor Kellie Hinton
“Council notes that, increasingly, the only type of housing in our area that is genuinely affordable to young families, key workers, and the under-40s in general is social rent housing. Council asks officers to prepare a report for Cabinet on ways to use council powers and resources to deliver more high-quality, environmentally sustainable, and genuinely affordable housing, at social rent or similar cost. This should include ways to keep such properties genuinely affordable in the long term and ways to release and access low-cost suitable land for projects such as – but not limited to - selfbuild, housing co-ops and community land trusts, as well as projects owned, let or operated by the council itself”.
The majority of councillors supported the motion to address the current shortage in affordable and social housing. The current developer model had not delivered the necessary provision of this type of housing. The view was expressed that the council should also seek to bring empty homes back into use.
RESOLVED:
To note that, increasingly, the only type of housing in our area that is genuinely affordable to young families, key workers, and the under-40s in general is social rent housing. Council asks officers to prepare a report for Cabinet on ways to use council powers and resources to deliver more high-quality, environmentally sustainable, and genuinely affordable housing, at social rent or similar cost. This should include ways to keep such properties genuinely affordable in the long term and ways to release and access low-cost suitable land for projects such as – but not limited to - selfbuild, housing co-ops and community land trusts, as well as projects owned, let or operated by the council itself.
3. Motion proposed by Councillor Robin Bennett, seconded by Councillor Alexandrine Kantor
“Council notes that the UK Government, in tandem with the National Infrastructure Commission, has proposed the construction of a motorway-style expressway between Oxford and Cambridge. This new road will have significant adverse impacts on Oxfordshire: it will create a major source of air and noise pollution, destroy farmland and habitats, increase CO2 emissions - incompatible with the recent Climate Emergency declared by this council in April 2019 and bring more traffic onto the county’s existing roads.
Actual and proposed consultation on the Expressway, and indeed on the Ox-Cam Arc proposal and associated major housing growth across the region, has been wholly inadequate and a proper Strategic Environmental Assessment should have taken place before this project left the drawing board. Instead, it has become the basis for regional planning with little democratic legitimacy.
Whilst this council supports partnership working and strategic planning and practical links with authorities across the region, it does not support the addition of a major road such as the Expressway in a time of climate emergency – as declared by this council on 11 April 2019.
Highways England’s own analysis of the Expressway shows a benefit:cost ratio (BCR) in the range of 1.1 – 1.3, far lower than most other road schemes analysed by the Department for Transport in 2015, (2:1).
The Oxford 2050 plan process has thus far welcomed the perceived benefits of the Oxford-Cambridge Expressway. It is also mentioned as a factor in a wide range of council documents and plans, including LP2034. This council asks that its new position on the Expressway is taken into account in all council documents that refer to it.
The Expressway would cause major harm to the quality of life of residents if it passes through the district; this council wishes to withdraw any assumed consent, including any possibility that roads such as the HIF-funded Thames crossing, or the Stadhampton or Watlington bypasses, could later be used or expanded to form part of the Expressway or act as feeder roads for it.
This council fully supports an upgrade in the East-West rail route, with full electrification, as part of the Ox-Cam arc discussions. Such an upgrade must include inter-modal centres, along it and at both ends, to enable maximum use of rail for freight. Any road upgrades necessary to support the East-West rail route should connect to that route and be proportionate to the primacy of rail freight.
Council therefore resolves to:
· Oppose the Expressway project in all forms, including expansion of existing or new roads in the district to form part of it.
· Support fully-electrified East-West Rail, including freight capacity and connections, and better public transport and active travel connections.
· Update all council documents to reflect this new position on the Expressway and related Arc development proposals.
· Continue to support partnership working, especially with regard to landscapescale conservation and nature recovery networks”.
Nicola Mallows, representing Gresswell Environment Trust, addressed Council on this motion. The proposed road was neither financially or philosophically sound. It would divide the county, damage the countryside, increase demand for housing, increase commuter travel and was not sustainable.
Eugenie Buchan addressed Council in support of the motion. Priority should be given to the electrification of the railways. The proposed road would generate a huge housebuilding programme. If Council approved the motion she urged partnership working with other local authorities and suggested that the council communicate its opposition to Government, MPs and Highways England.
Peter Wingfield-Stratford addressed Council. He expressed concern regarding the cost of such a project and the impact on the A34.
The majority of councillors supported the view that the project should be abandoned in favour of more sustainable transport projects including the East-West rail link and local infrastructure projects to enhance cycling infrastructure and public transport. The proposed Expressway offered poor value for money, would have a detrimental impact on the environment, destroy farmland and habitats, increase carbon emissions, worsen air quality, increase noise pollution, attract more traffic and increase congestion on the roads in the district and encourage further speculative building.
With the consent of Council, the mover and seconder of the motion agreed to add the following words to the motion:
· Communicate its opposition to Government, MPs and Highways England
In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 67, which provides for a recorded vote if three members request one, the Chairman called for a recorded vote on the motion which was declared carried with the voting as follows:
|
For |
Against |
Abstain |
|
Councillors |
Councillors |
Councillors |
|
Ken Arlett
|
|
Lynn Lloyd
|
|
Anna Badcock
|
|
Jane Murphy
|
|
Pieter-Paul Barker
|
|
|
|
David Bartholomew
|
|
|
|
Robin Bennett
|
|
|
|
David Bretherton
|
|
|
|
Sam Casey-Rerhaye
|
|
|
|
Sue Cooper
|
|
|
|
Peter Dragonetti
|
|
|
|
Maggie Filipova-Rivers
|
|
|
|
Stefan Gawrysiak
|
|
|
|
Elizabeth Gillespie
|
|
|
|
Sarah Gray
|
|
|
|
Kate Gregory
|
|
|
|
Victoria Haval
|
|
|
|
Simon Hewerdine
|
|
|
|
Lorraine Hillier
|
|
|
|
Kellie Hinton
|
|
|
|
Alexandrine Kantor
|
|
|
|
Mocky Khan
|
|
|
|
Axel Macdonald
|
|
|
|
Leigh Rawlins
|
|
|
|
Jo Robb
|
|
|
|
Sue Roberts
|
|
|
|
David Rouane
|
|
|
|
Anne-Marie Simpson
|
|
|
|
Ian Snowdon
|
|
|
|
David Turner
|
|
|
|
Ian White
|
|
|
|
29 |
0 |
2 |
RESOLVED:
To note that the UK Government, in tandem with the National Infrastructure Commission, has proposed the construction of a motorway-style expressway between Oxford and Cambridge. This new road will have significant adverse impacts on Oxfordshire: it will create a major source of air and noise pollution, destroy farmland and habitats, increase CO2 emissions - incompatible with the recent Climate Emergency declared by this council in April 2019 and bring more traffic onto the county’s existing roads.
Actual and proposed consultation on the Expressway, and indeed on the Ox-Cam Arc proposal and associated major housing growth across the region, has been wholly inadequate and a proper Strategic Environmental Assessment should have taken place before this project left the drawing board. Instead, it has become the basis for regional planning with little democratic legitimacy.
Whilst this council supports partnership working and strategic planning and practical links with authorities across the region, it does not support the addition of a major road such as the Expressway in a time of climate emergency – as declared by this council on 11 April 2019.
Highways England’s own analysis of the Expressway shows a benefit:cost ratio (BCR) in the range of 1.1 – 1.3, far lower than most other road schemes analysed by the Department for Transport in 2015, (2:1).
The Oxford 2050 plan process has thus far welcomed the perceived benefits of the Oxford-Cambridge Expressway. It is also mentioned as a factor in a wide range of council documents and plans, including LP2034. This council asks that its new position on the Expressway is taken into account in all council documents that refer to it.
The Expressway would cause major harm to the quality of life of residents if it passes through the district; this council wishes to withdraw any assumed consent, including any possibility that roads such as the HIF-funded Thames crossing, or the Stadhampton or Watlington bypasses, could later be used or expanded to form part of the Expressway or act as feeder roads for it.
This council fully supports an upgrade in the East-West rail route, with full electrification, as part of the Ox-Cam arc discussions. Such an upgrade must include inter-modal centres, along it and at both ends, to enable maximum use of rail for freight. Any road upgrades necessary to support the East-West rail route should connect to that route and be proportionate to the primacy of rail freight.
Council therefore resolved to:
· Oppose the Expressway project in all forms, including expansion of existing or new roads in the district to form part of it.
· Support fully-electrified East-West Rail, including freight capacity and connections, and better public transport and active travel connections.
· Update all council documents to reflect this new position on the Expressway and related Arc development proposals.
· Continue to support partnership working, especially with regard to landscapescale conservation and nature recovery networks”.
· Communicate its opposition to Government, MPs and Highways England
4. Motion proposed by Councillor Jo Robb, seconded by Councillor Mocky Khan
“Council notes that the Oxfordshire Pension Fund, of which it is an employer, has more than £132m of workers’ money – around 6% of its portfolio funds - invested in fossil fuel companies. These companies – which the London Stock Exchange now terms “nonrenewables,” are the primary drivers of the climate crisis threatening our planet.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change last year warned that to avoid the most catastrophic consequences of warming, carbon emissions must fall to zero by 2050. Last month, the UK Parliament imposed a binding target of net zero by 2050 and in April, this Council declared a Climate Emergency.
Lloyds of London and Bank of England Governor Mark Carney have both warned that legislation necessary to limit warming combined with the development of renewables would likely result in the rapid “stranding” of fossil fuel assets, requiring large-scale asset write-downs. Fossil fuel companies face the additional peril of a potential wave of third-party liability claims brought by the victims of climate change including sovereign states.
A growing number of pension and investment funds have already announced plans to fully or partially divest from fossil fuels. Southwark Council, Islington Council, SOAS, the United Reform Church, The Church of England and the National Trust have already made significant divestment moves. Globally, the divestment movement has seen more than £6.3trillion leave the fossil fuel industry.
As a result, the fossil fuel industry is facing unprecedented financial, legal and regulatory headwinds.
The Oxfordshire Pension Fund has defended its continued investment in fossil fuels, arguing that to divest would mean losing its influence. This position is untenable. The very raison d’être of fossil fuel companies is the extraction and sale of carbon intensive energy. To the extent these companies are being stewarded towards renewable energy, this transition is happening too slowly. Research by Transition Pathway Initiative, an industry body, found that none of the ten largest publicly listed oil and gas producers are on track to achieve net zero emissions by 2050. None are on track to be aligned with 2 degrees or less of warming by 2050.
The message of divestment is not that fossil fuel companies are evil. But their business threatens our planet and its most vulnerable inhabitants through droughts, heat waves, crop failures, floods, and rising sea levels.
As one of the Oxfordshire LGPS employers, South Oxfordshire District Council calls on the Oxfordshire Pension Fund Committee to act in line with South Oxfordshire and the UK’s declaration of Climate Emergency and in prudent exercise of its fiduciary duties by divesting its investment in an industry whose long-term risk profile in the current political and environmental climate is unacceptably high.
Council:
1) calls on the Oxfordshire Pension Fund to follow the lead of Councils, sovereign wealth funds and other pension and investment funds around the world to divest from non-renewable energy companies whose main purpose is the exploration and/or extraction of fossil fuels;
2) calls on the Oxfordshire Pension Fund to explore reinvestment of its funds into appropriate renewable energy companies at the earliest opportunity;
3) asks the Oxfordshire Pension Fund to acknowledge that shareholder engagement has failed to bring about the pace of change required to limit catastrophic global warming”.
The view was expressed that the Oxfordshire Pension Fund
Committee is responsible for the pension fund investment portfolio and makes
decisions on investment opportunities in order to safeguard the pension
scheme and get the best returns. However, the majority of councillors
supported the motion because climate change and investment in fossil fuels
present a long term financial risk to the pension fund. As members of the
pension fund, the council had a fiduciary duty to protect the pension fund from
long-term financial risk associated with the investment in fossils fuels. Fossil
fuel divestment was financially responsible and consistent with the funds’
responsibilities.
RESOLVED:
To note that the Oxfordshire Pension Fund, of which it is an employer, has more than £132m of workers’ money – around 6% of its portfolio funds - invested in fossil fuel companies. These companies – which the London Stock Exchange now terms “nonrenewables,” are the primary drivers of the climate crisis threatening our planet.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change last year warned that to avoid the most catastrophic consequences of warming, carbon emissions must fall to zero by 2050. Last month, the UK Parliament imposed a binding target of net zero by 2050 and in April, this Council declared a Climate Emergency.
Lloyds of London and Bank of England Governor Mark Carney have both warned that legislation necessary to limit warming combined with the development of renewables would likely result in the rapid “stranding” of fossil fuel assets, requiring large-scale asset write-downs. Fossil fuel companies face the additional peril of a potential wave of third-party liability claims brought by the victims of climate change including sovereign states.
A growing number of pension and investment funds have already announced plans to fully or partially divest from fossil fuels. Southwark Council, Islington Council, SOAS, the United Reform Church, The Church of England and the National Trust have already made significant divestment moves. Globally, the divestment movement has seen more than £6.3trillion leave the fossil fuel industry.
As a result, the fossil fuel industry is facing unprecedented financial, legal and regulatory headwinds.
The Oxfordshire Pension Fund has defended its continued investment in fossil fuels, arguing that to divest would mean losing its influence. This position is untenable. The very raison d’être of fossil fuel companies is the extraction and sale of carbon intensive energy. To the extent these companies are being stewarded towards renewable energy, this transition is happening too slowly. Research by Transition Pathway Initiative, an industry body, found that none of the ten largest publicly listed oil and gas producers are on track to achieve net zero emissions by 2050. None are on track to be aligned with 2 degrees or less of warming by 2050.
The message of divestment is not that fossil fuel companies are evil. But their business threatens our planet and its most vulnerable inhabitants through droughts, heat waves, crop failures, floods, and rising sea levels.
As one of the Oxfordshire LGPS employers, South Oxfordshire District Council calls on the Oxfordshire Pension Fund Committee to act in line with South Oxfordshire and the UK’s declaration of Climate Emergency and in prudent exercise of its fiduciary duties by divesting its investment in an industry whose long-term risk profile in the current political and environmental climate is unacceptably high.
Council:
1) calls on the Oxfordshire Pension Fund to follow the lead of Councils, sovereign wealth funds and other pension and investment funds around the world to divest from non-renewable energy companies whose main purpose is the exploration and/or extraction of fossil fuels;
2) calls on the Oxfordshire Pension Fund to explore reinvestment of its funds into appropriate renewable energy companies at the earliest opportunity;
3) asks the Oxfordshire Pension Fund to acknowledge that shareholder engagement has failed to bring about the pace of change required to limit catastrophic global warming.