Agenda and minutes

To adopt and sign as a correct record the Council minutes, and the confidential minutes, of the meeting held on 12 December 2024. 

RESOLVED: to approve the minutes and confidential minutes of the meeting held on 12 December 2024 and agree that the Chair sign them as such.

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. 

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 provided general housekeeping and procedural advice. She had attended a number of events recently the highlights being the High Sheriff Law lecture and the past Chairs’ Lunch.

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

Three members of the public addressed Council on agenda item 18 – Clifton Hampden Neighbourhood Development Order (NDO).

Mr Baxter called for an inquiry into what had gone wrong with the Neighbourhood Development Order.

Kate Lowe highlighted the amount of work undertaken by residents progressing the NDO and spoke against the recommendation not to take the NDO forward.

Councillor Fielding, representing Clifton Hampden Parish Council, spoke in support of the examiner’s recommendation not to take the NDO forward.

To receive any petitions from the public. 

None.

Cabinet, at its meeting on 30 January 2025, considered the attached report of the head of finance on the treasury management activity for the first half of 2024/25.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL:  to approvethe treasury management mid-year monitoring report 2024/25.

Council considered Cabinet’s recommendations, made at its meeting on 30 January 2025, on the treasury management performance in the first six months of 2024/25.

Councillor Barker, Cabinet member for finance, reported that income from investments was likely to be above budget by the financial year end predominantly due to higher than expected balances and above budgeted interest rates achieved on new deposits. The report set out performance against benchmarks for the first six months of the financial year. There had been no borrowing during the first half of the year and borrowing was unlikely for the remainder of the year also. The council had remained within all prudential indicators and counterparty limits.

Both the Joint Audit and Governance Committee, at its meeting on 27 January and Cabinet, at its meeting on 30 January 2025, were content that the treasury management activities had been carried out in accordance with the treasury management strategy and policy.

The view was expressed that whilst the council had no direct investments during the financial year with companies engaged in environmentally harmful activities, it did invest in companies that had an indirect impact and that this should be reflected in reports and such investments reduced.

RESOLVED: to

1. approve the head of finance’s report to Cabinet on 30 January 2025;

2. note that Cabinet is satisfied that the treasury activities are carried out in accordance with the treasury management strategy and policy.

Cabinet, at its meeting on 30 January 2025, considered the attached report of the head of finance on the council’s treasury management and investment strategy for 2025/26.

RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: to

1.   approve the treasury management strategy 2025/26 set out in Appendix A to the head of finance’s report to Cabinet on 30 January 2025;

2.   approve the prudential indicators and limits for 2025/26 to 2027/28 as set out in Appendix A to the head of finance’s report to Cabinet on 30 January 2025;

3.   approve the annual investment strategy 2025/26 set out in Appendix A to the head of finance’s report to Cabinet on 30 January 2025, and the lending criteria detailed in table 6;

4.   approve the Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) Policy in appendix E to the head of finance’s report to Cabinet on 30 January 2025.

Council considered Cabinet’s recommendations made at its meeting on 30 January 2025 on the council’s treasury management and investment strategy for 2025/26. This set out how the council’s treasury service would support the financing of capital investment decisions, and how treasury management operated day to day. The strategy also set out the prudential indicators, providing limits within which the treasury function must operate.

Councillor Barker, Cabinet member for finance, highlighted there were no changes to the counterparty selection criteria in the proposed strategy for 2025/26. However, following a recommendation by the Joint Audit and Governance Committee officers will work with the council’s treasury advisors MUFG Corporate Markets Treasury Limited, formally known as Link treasury Services, to consider potential alternative options for the council’s current investment in Unit Trusts.

Both Cabinet and the Joint Audit and Governance Committee had supported the strategy together with approving the prudential indicators and limits and approving the annual investment strategy and lending criteria and the Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) Policy.

Views were expressed in support of the redeployment of investments towards an ESG portfolio to support the priorities of the council.

RESOLVED: to

1. approve the treasury management strategy 2025/26, as set out in appendix A to the report of the head of finance to the Cabinet meeting on 30 January 2025;

2. approve the prudential indicators and limits for 2025/26 to 2027/28, as set out in appendix A to the report;

3. approve the annual investment strategy 2025/26, as set out in appendix A to the report, and the lending criteria detailed in table 6 in appendix A to the report; and

4. approve the Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) policy in Appendix E.

Cabinet, at its meeting on 30 January 2025, considered the report of the head of finance on the council’s capital strategy for 2025/26 to 2034/35.   

RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: to

1.   approve the capital strategy 2025/26 to 2034/35 attached at appendix 1 of the head of finance’s report to Cabinet on 30 January 2025, and

2.   to agree the strategy for flexible use of capital receipts which is contained as annex A of the capital strategy.

Council considered Cabinet’s recommendations made at its meeting on 30 January 2025 on the capital strategy for 2025/26 to 2034/35.

Councillor Barker, Cabinet member for finance, reported that the strategy would provide the parameters within which capital expenditure and investment decisions would be made once the supporting requirements were in place. Limited changes to the strategy reflected:

• Changes to the council plan objectives
• A change to the accounting treatment of Leasing by the adoption of International Financial Reporting Standard 16
• Adjustment to the strategy for the flexible use of capital receipts (Annex A) to remove the need to utilise these as the previously intended use, to cover expenditure, was covered by underspends in 2023/24.

RESOLVED: to

1. approve the capital strategy 2025/26 to 2034/35, as set out in appendix 1 of the head of finance’s report to Cabinet on 30 January 2025; and

2. agree the strategy for flexible use of capital receipts, which is contained as annex A of the capital strategy.

Cabinet, at its meeting on 30 January 2025, considered the attached report of the head of finance on the adoption of an amended (reduced) empty duration before a long-term empty property premium becomes applicable.

RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: that, with effect from 1 April 2026, the following amendments are made to the council’s long-term empty property premiums (LTEPP):

1. to reduce the current empty property duration allowed, prior to a council tax LTEPP commencing, down from two years to one year. This change is provided for within the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023

2. adopt all LTEPP exceptions laid out within the Council Tax (Prescribed Classes of Dwellings and Consequential Amendments) (England) Regulations 2024, published on 1 November 2024 (listed within the body of the report).

Council considered Cabinet’s recommendations, made at its meeting on 30 January 2025, on the adoption of an amended empty duration before a long-term empty property premium becomes applicable.

Councillor Barker, the Cabinet member introduced the item and moved Cabinet’s recommendations. The purpose of the change was to incentivise empty property owners to bring houses back into use sooner by reducing the current two year duration down to one year.

RESOLVED: That, with effect from 1 April 2026, the following amendments are made to the council’s long-term empty property premiums (LTEPP):

(a)  to reduce the current empty property duration allowed, prior to a council tax LTEPP commencing, down from two years to one year. This change is provided for within the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023

(b)  adopting all LTEPP exceptions laid out within the Council Tax (Prescribed Classes of Dwellings and Consequential Amendments) (England) Regulations 2024, published on 1 November 2024 (listed within the body of the report of the head of finance to Cabinet at its meeting on 30 January 2025).

Cabinet, at its meeting on 30 January 2025, considered the attached report of the head of finance on the the draft revenue budget 2025/26, and the capital programme to 2029/30.

RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: to

1.    set the revenue budget for 2025/26, as set out in Appendix A.1 to the head of finance’s report to Cabinet on 30 January 2025; 

2.    approve the capital programme for 2025/26 to 2029/30 as set out in Appendices D.1 and D.2 to the report, together with the capital programme changes as set out in Appendices D.3 and D.4 to the report;

3.    set the council’s prudential limits as listed in Appendix E to the report;

4.    set the medium-term financial plan to 2029/30 as set out in Appendix F to the report;

5.    allocate £590,000 to fund the Communities Capital and Revenue grant scheme

The chair referred to regulations that require councils to record the names of those councillors voting in favour, against or abstaining from any vote on the budget, including amendments, and the council tax. In accordance with the regulations, she would call for a named vote on each of these matters at this meeting.

Council noted the report of the chief finance officer on the robustness of the budget estimates and the adequacy of the reserves.

Councillor Barker, Cabinet member for finance, presented Cabinet’s proposals for the revenue budget and capital programme. He moved and Councillor Rouane seconded a motion to approve Cabinet’s recommendations as follows:

1.    set the revenue budget for 2025/26 as set out in appendix A.1 to the head of finance’s report to Cabinet on 30 January 2025;

2.    approve the capital programme for 2025/26 to 2029/30 as set out in appendix D.1 and D.2 to this report, together with the capital programme changes as set out in appendix D.3 and appendix D.4 to the head of finance’s report to Cabinet on 30 January 2025;

3.    set the council’s prudential limits as listed in appendix E to the head of finance’s report to Cabinet on 30 January 2025;

4.    set the council’s medium-term financial plan to 2029/30 as set out in appendix F to the head of finance’s report to Cabinet on 30 January 2025;

5.    allocate £590,000 to fund the Communities Capital and Revenue grant scheme.

In moving the Cabinet recommendations, Councillor Barker, the Cabinet member for finance introduced the draft budget, noting that the proposed budget covered the council’s costs and protected services with money going into reserves instead of taking it out providing a stable financial position going forward. The budget allocated further funds to continue supporting the community hub during a difficult time for some residents.  He noted that the national review of local government and the importance for the district council to ensure it has clarity on how services will be funded going forward.

The majority of members welcomed and supported the budget. The budget would ensure the continued delivery of the council’s key services to residents including housing and infrastructure projects. The budget committed a further £10 million to support housing need in the district, funding to deliver improved leisure facilities including a new floodlit multi-use games area in Berinsfield and funding was also included to assist with work towards the decarbonisation of leisure centres. The council’s Community Hub would continue to be funded  providing support and advice to those residents with cost of living concerns, helping people to meet the cost of energy bills and household essentials/food and additional funds would be made available through the council grant schemes, including ward councillor grants, to support community projects.

In accordance with regulations requiring councils to record the names of those members voting in favour, against or abstaining from any vote on the council tax the chair called for a recorded vote which was carried with the voting being as follows:

To consider the report of the head of finance on the setting of the council tax for the 2025/26 financial year – report to follow.

Council considered the report of the head of finance on the setting of the Council Tax for the 2025/26 financial year.

In accordance with regulations requiring councils to record the names of those members voting in favour, against or abstaining from any vote on the council tax the chair called for a recorded vote which was carried with the voting being as follows:

RESOLVED:

1.     To note that at its meeting on 12 December 2024 the council calculated the council tax base 2025/26:

(a) for the whole council area as 63,639.9 [Item T in the formula in Section 31B of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, as amended (the “Act”)]; and

(b) for dwellings in those parts of its area to which a parish precept relates as in column 1 of appendix 1.

2.     That the council tax requirement for the council’s own purposes for 2025/26 (excluding parish precepts) is £9,624,898

3.     That the following amounts be calculated for the year 2025/26 in accordance with Sections 31 to 36 of the Act:

(a) £98,756,241 being the aggregate of the amounts which the council estimates for the items set out in Section 31A(2) of the Act taking into account all precepts issued to it by parish councils.

(b) £80,952,526 being the aggregate of the amounts which the council estimates for the items set out in Section 31A(3) of the Act.

 (c) £17,803,715 being the amount by which the aggregate at (3)(a) above exceeds the aggregate at (3)(b) above, calculated by the council, in accordance with Section 31A(4) of the Act as its council tax requirement for the year. (Item R in the formula in Section 31B of the Act).

(d) £279.76 being the amount at (3)(c) above (Item R), all divided by Item T (1(a) above), calculated by the council, in accordance with Section 31B of the Act, as the basic amount of its council tax for the year (including parish precepts).

(e) £8,178,817 being the aggregate amount of all special items referred to in Section 34(1) of the Act, as set out in column 2 of appendix 1.

(f) £151.24 being the amount at (3)(d) above less the result given by dividing the amount at (3)(e) above by Item T (1(a) above), calculated by the council, in accordance with Section 34(2) of the Act, as the basic amount of its council tax for the year for dwellings in those parts of its area to which no parish precept relates.

4.     To note that for the year 2025/26 Oxfordshire County Council has stated the following amounts in precepts issued  ...  view the full minutes text for item 76.

Cabinet, at its meeting on 30 January 2025, considered the attached report of the head of policy and programmes on the proposed Council Plan 2025-2029.

RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: to adopt the Council Plan – The way ahead

Council considered Cabinet’s recommendation, made at its meeting on 30 January 2025, on the adoption of the Council Plan – The Way Ahead. Councillor Casey-Rerhaye, the Cabinet member, introduced the item and moved Cabinet’s recommendations.

Councillors welcomed the priorities set out in the Plan which had been shaped by councillor involvement at briefings and committee meetings and with excellent resident engagement including in person events.

RESOLVED: to approve the South Oxfordshire District Council Plan 2025-2029 as attached at Appendix 1 of the report of the head of policy and programmes to the Cabinet meeting of 30 January 2025.

To consider the report of the head of corporate services on the adoption of a pay policy statement to meet the requirements of the Localism Act - attached.

Council considered the report of the head of corporate services on the adoption of a pay policy statement to meet the requirements of the Localism Act.

RESOLVED: to approve the statement of pay policy for 2025/26 attached to the report of the head of corporate services to the Council meeting on 13 February 2025.

To consider the recommendations of the Cabinet member for planning on the neighbourhood plan for Berinsfield.

The referendum on the Berinsfield Neighbourhood Plan will be held on Thursday 7 February 2025. If the referendum results in a Yes vote the recommendations of the Cabinet member will be circulated prior to the Council meeting.

Council considered the recommendation of Councillor Simpson, Cabinet member for planning, to make the Berinsfield Neighbourhood Development Plan part of the development plan for South Oxfordshire.

RESOLVED: to

1.    To make the Berinsfield Neighbourhood Development Plan, so that it becomes part of the council’s development plan.

2.    To authorise the head of policy and programmes, in consultation with the Cabinet member for planning and in agreement with the Qualifying Body -  Berinsfield Parish Council, to correct any spelling, grammatical, typographical or factual errors together with any improvements from a presentational perspective.

To consider the recommendations of the Cabinet member for planning on the neighbourhood plan for Thame.

The referendum on the Thame Neighbourhood Plan will be held on Thursday 7 February 2025. If the referendum results in a Yes vote the recommendations of the Cabinet member will be circulated prior to the Council meeting.

Council considered the recommendation of Councillor Simpson, Cabinet member for planning, to make the Thame Neighbourhood Development Plan 2 part of the development plan for South Oxfordshire.

RESOLVED: to

1.    To make the Thame Neighbourhood Development Plan 2, so that it becomes part of the council’s development plan.

2.    To authorise the head of policy and programmes, in consultation with the Cabinet member for planning and in agreement with the Qualifying Body -  Thame Town Council, to correct any spelling, grammatical, typographical or factual errors together with any improvements from a presentational perspective.

To consider the recommendations of the Cabinet member for planning on the neighbourhood plan for Wallingford.

The referendum on the Wallingford Neighbourhood Plan will be held on Thursday 7 February 2025. If the referendum results in a Yes vote the recommendations of the Cabinet member will be circulated prior to the Council meeting.

Council considered the recommendation of Councillor Simpson, Cabinet member for planning, to make the Wallingford Neighbourhood Development Plan Review part of the development plan for South Oxfordshire.

RESOLVED: to

1.    To make the Wallingford Neighbourhood Development Plan Review, so that it becomes part of the council’s development plan.

2.    To authorise the head of policy and programmes, in consultation with the Cabinet member for planning and in agreement with the Qualifying Body -  Wallingford Town Council, to correct any spelling, grammatical, typographical or factual errors together with any improvements from a presentational perspective.

To consider the Cabinet member for planning’s recommendation on the Clifton Hampden Neighbourhood Development Order. The Individual Cabinet Member Decision made on 3 February 2025 is attached.

RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL:

1.    To determine that the Burcot and Clifton Hampden Neighbourhood Development Order does not meet three of the relevant seven basic conditions, specifically:

·       Having regard to national policies and advice containing guidance issued by the Secretary of State it is appropriate to make the Order.

·       The making of the Order contributes to the achievement of sustainable development.

·       The making of the Order is in general conformity with the strategic policies contained in the development plan for the area.

2.    To accept the Examiner’s recommendation and resolve that the Burcot and Clifton Hampden Neighbourhood Development Order be refused.

Council considered the recommendation of Councillor Simpson, Cabinet member for planning, to accept the examiner’s recommendation to refuse the Burcot and Clifton Hampden Neighbourhood Development Order.

In introducing the recommendations Councillor Simpson thanked the members of the public for addressing Council.

She noted that the examiner’s report, published in January 2025, identified fundamental disagreements between key parties and concluded that there was insufficient clarity to determine whether the order met the necessary basic conditions—particularly regarding inappropriate development in the Green Belt. As a result, the examiner recommended that the council refuse the order. The council’s options were limited by law. Under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the council must refuse the proposal if it is not satisfied that the draft Order meets the basic conditions, complies with legal requirements, or could do so with modifications. In this case, as outlined in the reasons for the decision in the Individual Cabinet Member Decision, there was a lack of clarity regarding the specifics of the Order and no local agreement on the package of measures it included. Given this uncertainty, the council was unable to determine whether the Order met the required basic conditions or whether it would do so with modifications. Consequently, the council could not be satisfied that the Order met the basic conditions, and as such, it was recommended the proposal be refused.

RESOLVED: to

1.    determine that the Burcot and Clifton Hampden Neighbourhood Development Order does not meet three of the relevant seven basic conditions, specifically:

·       Having regard to national policies and advice containing guidance issued by the Secretary of State it is appropriate to make the Order.

·       The making of the Order contributes to the achievement of sustainable development.

·       The making of the Order is in general conformity with the strategic policies contained in the development plan for the area.

2.    accept the Examiner’s recommendation and resolve that the Burcot and Clifton Hampden Neighbourhood Development Order be refused.

To consider the Cabinet member for planning’s recommendation on the Crowmarsh Neighbourhood Development Plan Review. The Individual Cabinet Member Decision made on 3 February 2025 is attached.

RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: to

1.    To make the revised Crowmarsh Neighbourhood Development Plan, as set out in Appendix 2 of this report, so that it becomes part of the council’s development plan.

2.    To delegate to the Head of Policy and Programmes, in consultation with the appropriate Cabinet Member and in agreement with the Qualifying Body, Crowmarsh Parish Council, the making of minor (non-material) modifications, the correction of any spelling, grammatical, typographical or factual errors together with any improvements from a presentational perspective.

Council considered the recommendation of Councillor Simpson, Cabinet member for planning, to make the Crowmarsh Neighbourhood Development Plan part of the development plan for South Oxfordshire.

RESOLVED: to

1.    To make the Crowmarsh Neighbourhood Development Plan, so that it becomes part of the council’s development plan.

2.    To authorise the head of policy and programmes, in consultation with the Cabinet member for planning and in agreement with the Qualifying Body -  Crowmarsh Parish Council, to correct any spelling, grammatical, typographical or factual errors together with any improvements from a presentational perspective.

To receive the report of the Leader of council. 

Councillor Rouane, Leader of the council, noted that the preparation of the budget and local government reorganisation had been his focus . 

To receive the attached update report.

Council noted the Future Oxfordshire Partnership update report attached to the agenda for the Council meeting held on 13 February 2025.

To receive questions from councillors in accordance with Council procedure rule 33.

A.    Question from Councillor Snowdon to Councillor Rouane, Leader of the council

At the December full council meeting an extremely late motion recommending approving the award a huge councillor allowance increase was approved by Liberal, Labour, and Green councillors.  As Leader you responded to the BBC with the quote claiming “I want to hear different voices: people who are at home caring for their disabled child” giving the impression you hoped this increase might attract a more diverse councillor. However, it appears the council no longer wish to attract new councillors with this increase or perhaps the silence by design, accident or simply due to embarrassment. 

Apart from the fact that the carer of a child would already be able to claim childcare costs, can the leader explain why our brilliant communications team who put out so much information and detail on the district council’s website and social media about motions approved at full Council along with prosecutions of taxi drivers, fly tippers, advertise events and performances and so on, yet this motion to hugely increase councillors allowances was not communicated in any form? 

B.    Question from Councillor Snowdon to Councillor Bennett, Cabinet member for economic development and regeneration

It is exactly two years ago since I asked the question at full council about the lack of delivery of conditioned infrastructure for the residents of Great Western Park in Didcot and now six years as portfolio holder. I am sure you will agree with me the huge benefits of allotments not just for growing nutritious food, flowers, exercise but mental health benefits. If a developer builds a house with the wrong type of bricks planning enforcement will take action and yet you allow residents to be without even one of the legally conditioned allotments for years. Perhaps allowing the developers to do as they like is a lack of effort as portfolio holder for six years or you do not feel allotments are as important to residents as I do.

So, I'll ask again, are you happy that residents of a high-density housing development many with small or no gardens have still not a single one of their three planning conditioned allotments yet? 

1. Question from Councillor Snowdon to Councillor Rouane, Leader of the council.

At the December full council meeting an extremely late motion recommending approving the award a huge councillor allowance increase was approved by Liberal, Labour, and Green councillors.  As Leader you responded to the BBC with the quote claiming “I want to hear different voices: people who are at home caring for their disabled child” giving the impression you hoped this increase might attract a more diverse councillor. However, it appears the council no longer wish to attract new councillors with this increase or perhaps the silence by design, accident or simply due to embarrassment. 

Apart from the fact that the carer of a child would already be able to claim childcare costs, can the leader explain why our brilliant communications team who put out so much information and detail on the district council’s website and social media about motions approved at full Council along with prosecutions of taxi drivers, fly tippers, advertise events and performances and so on, yet this motion to hugely increase councillors allowances was not communicated in any form? 

Response

I thank Councillor Snowdon for the question and his continued interest in this topic. 

Firstly, a small clarification, the item considered by Council in December was the report of the Independent Renumeration Panel who made recommendations for councillors’ allowances.

There are many factors taken into consideration when determining which avenues to pursue in communicating a service, a decision or a matter arising from any council meeting. The primary reason we issue a press release to draw the press’s attention to something they may not otherwise cover, such as a prosecution for fly tipping. In this case the story was in social media almost before the meeting had ended and so we were receiving requests for comment from the print and broadcast media. That being the case it was more appropriate to respond to the specific questions raised rather than issue a full statement. The communications team issued statements to the Herald Series and Oxford Mail; the Henley Standard; and BBC Oxford - those are three of our biggest local media organisations and so I refute the suggestion that this was not communicated in any form.

Another factor is that it's often most effective to inform an audience at the point in time that the topic is most relevant. In this instance, the most effective time to let people know about the support available to those thinking of becoming a councillor, is when registrations are open to stand as a councillor. As Councillor Snowdon will know currently the next planned district council elections are in 2027. That is the moment in time it's best to encourage a wider section of our communities to consider becoming councillors, rather than doing so just before Christmas two and a half years before the next election. 

This was a contributing factor to the decisions around how and when to communicate about this decision of Council. 

Supplementary question and answer

In response  ...  view the full minutes text for item 86.

To consider motions from councillors in accordance with Council procedure rule 38. 

Motion to be proposed by Councillor Powell, seconded by Councillor Casey -Rerhaye:

Support for a More Democratic Devolution Process for South Oxfordshire

This Council believes that:

1. The current devolution process as it affects South Oxfordshire must prioritise democratic governance and accountability to ensure that decisions are made in the best interests of South Oxfordshire residents.

2. The current high cost of standing for metro mayoral elections in England, including a £5,000 deposit and a £5,000 contribution for inclusion in a candidate booklet, deters capable and independent individuals from running for office. While it is essential to discourage frivolous candidacies, alternative mechanisms, such as requiring candidates to gather a specified number of signatures from electors, could achieve this more effectively.  Reducing the financial barriers to standing for election would foster greater participation and diversity among candidates, strengthening democracy.

3. Spending limits for mayoral elections are disproportionately high, with an allowance of up to £150,000 for areas with significant populations. This potentially creates a significant barrier to genuine democratic participation and fair competition.

4. Until 2023, mayoral elections in England were conducted under the Supplementary Vote system, which provided a fairer voting mechanism compared to the First Past the Post system now in use. Reintroducing a fairer voting system would ensure a more representative and democratic outcome.

5. An assembly or committee made up of democratically elected representatives from the constituent authorities, with appropriate political balance, would enhance the devolution process by providing necessary oversight and scrutiny of the mayor's decisions, ensuring power is exercised transparently and in the best interest of South Oxfordshire’s residents.

This Council resolves to:

1. Submit a formal request in writing to the Electoral Commission to call for the cost of standing for the mayoral election to be lowered by reducing deposit requirements, and introducing an alternative mechanism, such as requiring signatures from electors, to discourage frivolous candidacies and to ensure fair and equitable competition among candidates;

2. Support the reintroduction of a fairer voting system rather than First Past the Post for mayoral elections in England;

3. Support the establishment of a democratically representative committee or assembly as part of the devolution process, to provide oversight and scrutiny of the mayor’s decisions, and write to the Local Government Association (LGA) to investigate whether this move could be backed and supported nationally;

4. Write a letter to the Leader of Oxfordshire County Council, the relevant minister in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG), and our local MPs, stating the council's position with regard to recommendations one, two and three (above) and seeking their support for these reforms.

5. Support the above positions during the devolution process in our interactions with Oxfordshire County Council, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and other relevant stakeholders.

Council deferred consideration of the motion set out at agenda item 23 of the Council agenda to the additional Council meeting scheduled for Thursday 20 February.

To consider whether to exclude members of the press and public from the meeting for the following item of business under Section 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 as amended on the grounds that:

(i)     It is likely that there will be disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 3 of Schedule 12A, and

(ii)    the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.

Not required.

To adopt and sign as a correct record the confidential Council minutes of the meeting held on 12 December 2024.

Item considered in public session.

RESOLVED: to approve the confidential minutes of the meeting held on 12 December 2024 and agree that the Chair sign them as such

Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillors Arlett, Filipova-Rivers, Gordon-Creed, Axel Macdonald and Topping.