To consider motions from councillors in accordance with Council procedure rule 38.
Council notes that EU nationals are part of our shared communities. They are our husbands, wives, parents, friends and colleagues. They are an integral part of a vibrant and thriving South Oxfordshire.
Since 2016 EU nationals were promised again and again that "there will be no change for EU citizens already lawfully resident in the UK and […] will be treated no less favourably as they are at present”.
After three years of living in limbo, their homes and livelihoods are in danger of being threatened by the further uncertainty brought about by the prospect of an even more chaotic no-deal Brexit.
According to the Home Office’s July statistics, only a third of EU nationals have applied for the Settled Status and 42% of them have been granted the inferior Pre-Settled status leading them to reapply for the Settled status later on. There is no possibility of knowing how many EU nationals need to apply, leaving vulnerable and unaware EU nationals left at risk of becoming unlawful residents the mercy of the Home Office’s “Hostile Environment”. Lack of clarity regarding differentiating between EU citizens arriving before and after the UK’s exit from the EU could lead to discrimination in the labour market and may prevent many from accessing the services that they are entitled to.
Another Windrush-like scandal could be unfolding right before the eyes of this Council and we mustn’t be passive observers to it.
Therefore, the Council asks that:
1. Officers report on how the Council can mitigate adverse impacts on the rights of EU nationals (including but not limited to advising on what the Council can do to help landlords and employers to be better informed about immigration status and therefore avoid potential discrimination against EU nationals)
2. The Leader of the Council writes to EU citizens resident in the district giving advice on applying for Settled Status. This notice shall inform EU citizens of any potential consequences of not applying for the EU Settlement scheme.
3. The Leader of the Council writes to the Home Secretary seeking clarification and suggesting improvements for the European Settlement scheme, which include:
· Providing physical proof of Settled status that can be used to access services
· Confirming that there will be no changes to the rights of settled EU citizens that they currently have by ratifying the Immigration Bill as primary legislation before the exit day
· Replacing the current European Settlement scheme with a registration scheme without a deadline where EU citizens are considered lawful by default and can request a proof of immigration status only when they are asked to demonstrate it.
·
(2) Motion to be proposed by Councillor David Bartholomew, seconded by Councillor Anna Badcock:
Reading Borough Council is proposing to build a vast new bridge over the Thames at Caversham to alleviate Reading’s traffic problems. It is included in their Draft Local Plan as a top transport priority. The bridge would take off at the Thames Valley business park near Reading and land near the Playhatch roundabout in Oxfordshire. The only onwards option for traffic would be through the congested streets of Henley or along the narrow B481 country road through Oxfordshire villages.
To date, Reading and other Berkshire councils that are supporting the scheme have focused almost entirely on the costs of building the bridge and the benefits it will bring to Reading. While they recognise that the bridge would have a substantial impact on the Oxfordshire road network, the Berkshire councils blithely state these will be dealt with by unspecified and uncosted ‘mitigation measures’.
This council calls on the Leader to write to the leaders of Reading Borough Council, Wokingham Borough Council and Bracknell Forest Council, together with MPs John Howell, John Redwood, Matt Rodda and Theresa May, stating that:
a) In the context of the Climate Emergency a car-based solution to a car-based problem that would pour thousands of cars and HGVs into Oxfordshire is totally inappropriate and should a new bridge be built it should be restricted to public transport, cyclists and pedestrians;
b) Notwithstanding the above, if a car-based solution is pursued, the proposed bridge and necessary mitigation measures (i.e. improvements to the Oxfordshire road network) are not considered as two separate projects, but as one single project in order that the benefits, disadvantages and costs of the complete scheme can be holistically assessed.
(3) Motion to be proposed by Councillor Sue Roberts, seconded by Councillor Simon Hewerdine:
On 11 April 2019, South Oxfordshire District Council declared a Climate Emergency, noting that the 2018 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report states that we had just 12 years to act. Council resolved that it needs to commit to aggressive reduction targets and carbon neutrality as quickly as possible.
Since then, there has been a continual onslaught of extreme weather events that further highlight the climate emergency. In July, the European heat wave killed 868 in France, and set a new temperature high for the UK of 38.5°C. There were unprecedented wildfires in the Arctic. In September, Hurricane Dorian killed 50 in the Bahamas and left 70,000 homeless. More generally, we have severe ice melting at the poles, and sea level rise at the upper end of forecasts.
In September, Professor Sir David King, former Chief Scientist for the UK, said the world had changed faster than predicted by the IPCC. Whereas mean global temperature rises have matched predictions, individual extreme weather events have accelerated in intensity and frequency. In this grave situation, he says, the UK should aim to cut greenhouse gas emissions to almost zero, by 2040 rather than 2050.
South Oxfordshire District Council (SODC) has set up a Climate Emergency Advisory Committee (CEAC). At its first official meeting on the 19th September it recommended the very challenging targets proposed here. It should be noted that other councils have set targets for their districts and cities to reach net zero-carbon by 2030, some even earlier. The Labour Party at its recent conference has also set a 2030 net zero-carbon target for the country.
Officers prepared options for CEAC to consider, including a focus only on Council operations; extending this to taking action on net zero-carbon over district-actives where Council has responsibilities, whilst responding reactively wherever possible to new initiatives for the district; and finally, for full net zero-carbon for the whole district. The cross-party committee unanimously agreed to a fully net zero-carbon district by 2030, with Council, in its own operations, to be net zero-carbon by 2025.
These targets are premised on the fact that SODC should be in a new building by 2025, and that it can influence outsourced contractors to provide us with a net zero-carbon supply chain. The aim for a net-zero carbon total district is to ensure that Council has a true target in the sense that it knows what it is that it is aiming to get to zero-carbon, and to ensure that its actions are more than purely reactive; rather, Council shall set up an ambitious new programme working with other actors to achieve its target.
Council resolves to:
Agree the unanimous recommendations of its cross-party Climate Emergency Advisory Committee to:
• Aim to reach net-zero carbon emissions across all of the operations of South Oxfordshire District Council by the target year of 2025
• Aim to reach net-zero carbon emissions for the whole District of South Oxfordshire by 2030
Minutes:
(1) Motion moved by Councillor Alexandrine Kantor and seconded by Councillor Anne-Marie Simpson:
Council notes that EU nationals are part of our shared communities. They are our husbands, wives, parents, friends and colleagues. They are an integral part of a vibrant and thriving South Oxfordshire.
Since 2016 EU nationals were promised again and again that "there will be no change for EU citizens already lawfully resident in the UK and […] will be treated no less favourably as they are at present”.
After three years of living in limbo, their homes and livelihoods are in danger of being threatened by the further uncertainty brought about by the prospect of an even more chaotic no-deal Brexit.
According to the Home Office’s July statistics, only a third of EU nationals have applied for the Settled Status and 42% of them have been granted the inferior Pre-Settled status leading them to reapply for the Settled status later on. There is no possibility of knowing how many EU nationals need to apply, leaving vulnerable and unaware EU nationals left at risk of becoming unlawful residents at the mercy of the Home Office’s “Hostile Environment”. Lack of clarity regarding differentiating between EU citizens arriving before and after the UK’s exit from the EU could lead to discrimination in the labour market and may prevent many from accessing the services that they are entitled to.
Another Windrush-like scandal could be unfolding right before the eyes of this Council and we mustn’t be passive observers to it.
Therefore, the Council asks that:
· Providing physical proof of Settled status that can be used to access services
· Confirming that there will be no changes to the rights of settled EU citizens that they currently have by ratifying the Immigration Bill as primary legislation before the exit day
· Replacing the current European Settlement scheme with a registration scheme without a deadline where EU citizens are considered lawful by default and can request a proof of immigration status only when they are asked to demonstrate it.
An amendment moved by Councillor Powell to replace 2 above with the following was accepted by the mover and seconder of the original motion with the agreement of Council:
“The Leader of the Council writes to EU citizens resident in the district giving advice on applying for Settled Status (within the constraints of GDPR). This notice shall direct EU citizens to resources, including the Council’s website, providing up-to-date information on the application process and the potential risks of not applying to the EU Settlement Scheme”.
Councillors expressed the view that non-UK EU nationals are an integral and valuable part of the community and that the council should do everything possible to ensure information and clarity is provided to those affected.
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
|
|
|
Anna Badcock
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
George Levy |
|
|
Lynn Lloyd
|
|
|
Axel Macdonald
|
|
|
Jane Murphy
|
|
|
Caroline Newton |
|
|
Andrea Powell |
|
|
Leigh Rawlins
|
|
|
Jo Robb
|
|
|
Sue Roberts
|
|
|
David Rouane
|
|
|
Anne-Marie Simpson
|
|
|
Alan Thompson
|
|
|
David Turner
|
|
|
Ian White
|
|
|
Celia Wilson
|
|
|
35 |
0 |
0 |
RESOLVED:
That Council notes that EU nationals are part of our shared communities. They are our husbands, wives, parents, friends and colleagues. They are an integral part of a vibrant and thriving South Oxfordshire.
Since 2016 EU nationals were promised again and again that "there will be no change for EU citizens already lawfully resident in the UK and […] will be treated no less favourably as they are at present”.
After three years of living in limbo, their homes and livelihoods are in danger of being threatened by the further uncertainty brought about by the prospect of an even more chaotic no-deal Brexit.
According to the Home Office’s July statistics, only a third of EU nationals have applied for the Settled Status and 42% of them have been granted the inferior Pre-Settled status leading them to reapply for the Settled status later on. There is no possibility of knowing how many EU nationals need to apply, leaving vulnerable and unaware EU nationals left at risk of becoming unlawful residents at the mercy of the Home Office’s “Hostile Environment”. Lack of clarity regarding differentiating between EU citizens arriving before and after the UK’s exit from the EU could lead to discrimination in the labour market and may prevent many from accessing the services that they are entitled to.
Another Windrush-like scandal could be unfolding right before the eyes of this Council and we mustn’t be passive observers to it.
Therefore, the Council asks that:
2. The Leader of the Council writes to EU citizens resident in the district giving advice on applying for Settled Status (within the constraints of GDPR). This notice shall direct EU citizens to resources, including the Council’s website, providing up-to-date information on the application process and the potential risks of not applying to the EU Settlement Scheme.
· Providing physical proof of Settled status that can be used to access services
· Confirming that there will be no changes to the rights of settled EU citizens that they currently have by ratifying the Immigration Bill as primary legislation before the exit day
· Replacing the current European Settlement scheme with a registration scheme without a deadline where EU citizens are considered lawful by default and can request a proof of immigration status only when they are asked to demonstrate it.
(2) Motion moved by Councillor David Bartholomew, seconded by Councillor Anna Badcock:
Reading Borough Council is proposing to build a vast new bridge over the Thames at Caversham to alleviate Reading’s traffic problems. It is included in their Draft Local Plan as a top transport priority. The bridge would take off at the Thames Valley business park near Reading and land near the Playhatch roundabout in Oxfordshire. The only onwards option for traffic would be through the congested streets of Henley or along the narrow B481 country road through Oxfordshire villages.
To date, Reading and other Berkshire councils that are supporting the scheme have focused almost entirely on the costs of building the bridge and the benefits it will bring to Reading. While they recognise that the bridge would have a substantial impact on the Oxfordshire road network, the Berkshire councils blithely state these will be dealt with by unspecified and uncosted ‘mitigation measures’.
This council calls on the Leader to write to the leaders of Reading Borough Council, Wokingham Borough Council and Bracknell Forest Council, together with MPs John Howell, John Redwood, Matt Rodda and Theresa May, stating that:
a) In the context of the Climate Emergency a car-based solution to a car-based problem that would pour thousands of cars and HGVs into Oxfordshire is totally inappropriate and should a new bridge be built it should be restricted to public transport, cyclists and pedestrians;
b) Notwithstanding the above, if a car-based solution is pursued, the proposed bridge and necessary mitigation measures (i.e. improvements to the Oxfordshire road network) are not considered as two separate projects, but as one single project in order that the benefits, disadvantages and costs of the complete scheme can be holistically assessed.
Councillor Robb moved and Councillor Casey-Rerhaye seconded an amendment to delete part b of the original motion. Those councillors in support of the amendment expressed the view that the council should not support the building of a bridge for cars and HGVs. The provision of such a bridge was not compatible with the climate emergency. However, other councillors expressed the view that the inclusion of b was pragmatic and required to ensure that, if a bridge is progressed, measures are put in place to mitigate against the impact on Oxfordshire and particularly the existing road network.
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 amendment which was declared lost with the voting as follows:
For |
Against |
Abstain |
Councillors |
Councillors |
Councillors |
Pieter-Paul Barker
|
Ken Arlett
|
Sue Cooper
|
Robin Bennett
|
Anna Badcock
|
Elizabeth Gillespie
|
Sam Casey-Rerhaye
|
David Bartholomew
|
George Levy |
Peter Dragonetti
|
David Bretherton
|
Andrea Powell |
Maggie Filipova-Rivers
|
Stefan Gawrysiak
|
|
Sarah Gray
|
Victoria Haval
|
|
Kate Gregory
|
Lorraine Hillier
|
|
Simon Hewerdine
|
Mocky Khan
|
|
Kellie Hinton
|
Lynn Lloyd
|
|
Alexandrine Kantor
|
Axel Macdonald
|
|
Jo Robb
|
Jane Murphy
|
|
Sue Roberts
|
Caroline Newton |
|
David Rouane
|
Leigh Rawlins
|
|
Anne-Marie Simpson
|
Alan Thompson
|
|
|
David Turner
|
|
|
Ian White
|
|
|
Celia Wilson
|
|
14 |
17 |
4 |
Councillor Rawlins moved and Councillor Hewerdine seconded an amendment to include the following wording at the end of the original motion:
“Council recognises the challenges of Reading’s traffic congestion and pressure on cross-Thames capacity. However, before any bridge proposal is advanced, Council calls on Cabinet and officers to engage with Reading Borough Council to develop mutually acceptable measures to REDUCE cross-Thames car and commercial vehicle volumes through a variety of joined-up mitigation measures. These should include exploration of scope for Park-and-Ride facilities and improved rapid bus services to the station and key business parks in the town”.
Those councillors in support of the amendment expressed the view that the council had a duty to co-operate with Reading Borough Council to develop mutually acceptable measures to reduce cross-Thames car and commercial vehicle volumes through a variety of joined up mitigation measures including park and ride, improved rapid bus services to the railway station and key business parks in the town. However, a number of councillors expressed the view that the amendment ‘muddied the waters’ and that the council should concentrate on opposing the construction of a bridge.
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 amendment which was declared lost with the voting as follows:
For |
Against |
Abstain |
Councillors |
Councillors |
Councillors |
Pieter-Paul Barker
|
Ken Arlett
|
Robin Bennett
|
Sue Cooper
|
Anna Badcock
|
Sam Casey-Rerhaye
|
Elizabeth Gillespie
|
David Bartholomew
|
Peter Dragonetti
|
Sarah Gray
|
David Bretherton
|
Maggie Filipova-Rivers
|
Simon Hewerdine
|
Stefan Gawrysiak
|
Victoria Haval
|
Leigh Rawlins
|
Kate Gregory
|
Alexandrine Kantor
|
|
Lorraine Hillier
|
Sue Roberts
|
|
Kellie Hinton
|
|
|
Mocky Khan
|
|
|
George Levy |
|
|
Lynn Lloyd
|
|
|
Axel Macdonald
|
|
|
Jane Murphy
|
|
|
Caroline Newton |
|
|
Andrea Powell |
|
|
Jo Robb
|
|
|
David Rouane
|
|
|
Anne-Marie Simpson |
|
|
Alan Thompson
|
|
|
David Turner
|
|
|
Ian White
|
|
|
Celia Wilson
|
|
6 |
22 |
7 |
Those councillors who spoke in support of the motion expressed the view that the council should oppose the building of a bridge for cars and HGVs, that if a bridge is progressed it should be restricted to public transport, cyclists and pedestrians and that if a car based bridge is constructed measures should be put in place to protect the AONB in Oxfordshire, the inadequate road network and rural villages.
After debate and on being put to the vote the motion was agreed.
RESOLVED:
That Reading Borough Council is proposing to build a vast new bridge over the Thames at Caversham to alleviate Reading’s traffic problems. It is included in their Draft Local Plan as a top transport priority. The bridge would take off at the Thames Valley business park near Reading and land near the Playhatch roundabout in Oxfordshire. The only onwards option for traffic would be through the congested streets of Henley or along the narrow B481 country road through Oxfordshire villages.
To date, Reading and other Berkshire councils that are supporting the scheme have focused almost entirely on the costs of building the bridge and the benefits it will bring to Reading. While they recognise that the bridge would have a substantial impact on the Oxfordshire road network, the Berkshire councils blithely state these will be dealt with by unspecified and uncosted ‘mitigation measures’.
This council calls on the Leader to write to the leaders of Reading Borough Council, Wokingham Borough Council and Bracknell Forest Council, together with MPs John Howell, John Redwood, Matt Rodda and Theresa May, stating that:
a) In the context of the Climate Emergency a car-based solution to a car-based problem that would pour thousands of cars and HGVs into Oxfordshire is totally inappropriate and should a new bridge be built it should be restricted to public transport, cyclists and pedestrians;
b) Notwithstanding the above, if a car-based solution is pursued, the proposed bridge and necessary mitigation measures (i.e. improvements to the Oxfordshire road network) are not considered as two separate projects, but as one single project in order that the benefits, disadvantages and costs of the complete scheme can be holistically assessed.
(3) Motion moved by Councillor Sue Roberts, seconded by Councillor Simon Hewerdine:
“On 11 April 2019, South Oxfordshire District Council declared a Climate Emergency, noting that the 2018 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report states that we had just 12 years to act. Council resolved that it needs to commit to aggressive reduction targets and carbon neutrality as quickly as possible.
Since then, there has been a continual onslaught of extreme weather events that further highlight the climate emergency. In July, the European heat wave killed 868 in France, and set a new temperature high for the UK of 38.5°C. There were unprecedented wildfires in the Arctic. In September, Hurricane Dorian killed 50 in the Bahamas and left 70,000 homeless. More generally, we have severe ice melting at the poles, and sea level rise at the upper end of forecasts.
In September, Professor Sir David King, former Chief Scientist for the UK, said the world had changed faster than predicted by the IPCC. Whereas mean global temperature rises have matched predictions, individual extreme weather events have accelerated in intensity and frequency. In this grave situation, he says, the UK should aim to cut greenhouse gas emissions to almost zero, by 2040 rather than 2050.
South Oxfordshire District Council (SODC) has set up a Climate Emergency Advisory Committee (CEAC). At its first official meeting on the 19th September it recommended the very challenging targets proposed here. It should be noted that other councils have set targets for their districts and cities to reach net zero-carbon by 2030, some even earlier. The Labour Party at its recent conference has also set a 2030 net zero-carbon target for the country.
Officers prepared options for CEAC to consider, including a focus only on Council operations; extending this to taking action on net zero-carbon over district-actives where Council has responsibilities, whilst responding reactively wherever possible to new initiatives for the district; and finally, for full net zero-carbon for the whole district. The cross-party committee unanimously agreed to a fully net zero-carbon district by 2030, with Council, in its own operations, to be net zero-carbon by 2025.
These targets are premised on the fact that SODC should be in a new building by 2025, and that it can influence outsourced contractors to provide us with a net zero-carbon supply chain. The aim for a net-zero carbon total district is to ensure that Council has a true target in the sense that it knows what it is that it is aiming to get to zero-carbon, and to ensure that its actions are more than purely reactive; rather, Council shall set up an ambitious new programme working with other actors to achieve its target.
Council resolves to:
Agree the unanimous recommendations of its cross-party Climate Emergency Advisory Committee to:
• Aim to reach net-zero carbon emissions across all of the operations of South Oxfordshire District Council by the target year of 2025
• Aim to reach net-zero carbon emissions for the whole District of South Oxfordshire by 2030”
The majority of councilors supported the motion which would allow the council to have targets to aim for and to set an example to the wider community. The view was expressed that Council should receive annual updates on progress against the targets.
After debate and on being put to the vote the motion was agreed.
RESOLVED:
That On 11 April 2019, South Oxfordshire District Council declared a Climate Emergency, noting that the 2018 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report states that we had just 12 years to act. Council resolved that it needs to commit to aggressive reduction targets and carbon neutrality as quickly as possible.
Since then, there has been a continual onslaught of extreme weather events that further highlight the climate emergency. In July, the European heat wave killed 868 in France, and set a new temperature high for the UK of 38.5°C. There were unprecedented wildfires in the Arctic. In September, Hurricane Dorian killed 50 in the Bahamas and left 70,000 homeless. More generally, we have severe ice melting at the poles, and sea level rise at the upper end of forecasts.
In September, Professor Sir David King, former Chief Scientist for the UK, said the world had changed faster than predicted by the IPCC. Whereas mean global temperature rises have matched predictions, individual extreme weather events have accelerated in intensity and frequency. In this grave situation, he says, the UK should aim to cut greenhouse gas emissions to almost zero, by 2040 rather than 2050.
South Oxfordshire District Council (SODC) has set up a Climate Emergency Advisory Committee (CEAC). At its first official meeting on the 19th September it recommended the very challenging targets proposed here. It should be noted that other councils have set targets for their districts and cities to reach net zero-carbon by 2030, some even earlier. The Labour Party at its recent conference has also set a 2030 net zero-carbon target for the country.
Officers prepared options for CEAC to consider, including a focus only on Council operations; extending this to taking action on net zero-carbon over district-actives where Council has responsibilities, whilst responding reactively wherever possible to new initiatives for the district; and finally, for full net zero-carbon for the whole district. The cross-party committee unanimously agreed to a fully net zero-carbon district by 2030, with Council, in its own operations, to be net zero-carbon by 2025.
These targets are premised on the fact that SODC should be in a new building by 2025, and that it can influence outsourced contractors to provide us with a net zero-carbon supply chain. The aim for a net-zero carbon total district is to ensure that Council has a true target in the sense that it knows what it is that it is aiming to get to zero-carbon, and to ensure that its actions are more than purely reactive; rather, Council shall set up an ambitious new programme working with other actors to achieve its target to:.
Agree the unanimous recommendations of its cross-party Climate Emergency Advisory Committee to:
• Aim to reach net-zero carbon emissions across all of the operations of South Oxfordshire District Council by the target year of 2025
• Aim to reach net-zero carbon emissions for the whole District of South Oxfordshire by 2030.
01235 422520
(Text phone users add 18001 before dialing)
South Oxfordshire District Council
Abbey House, Abbey Close,
Abingdon
OX14 3JE