The Overview and Scrutiny Committee of West Oxfordshire Council met on Wednesday 14 October 2026 to discuss the Infrastructure Funding Statement for 2025/26, review the performance of the Witney and Chipping Norton Charter Markets, and consider the Council's fleet decarbonisation strategy. The committee also discussed proposals for delivering new social rented homes at Woodford Way in Witney, received updates from task and finish groups, and reviewed the committee's work programme.

Infrastructure Funding Statement (IFS) 2025/26

Councillor Liz Leffman, Executive Member for Planning and Infrastructure, presented the Infrastructure Funding Statement (IFS) for 2025/26. The statement detailed how developer contributions, primarily through Section 106 agreements, were secured, received, allocated, and spent during the financial year. The Council secured nearly £3.4 million in new Section 106 contributions and 272 affordable homes. Expenditure on infrastructure projects increased by 72% compared to the previous year, with £1.89 million invested. This increased spending led to a 7% reduction in the overall balance of Section 106 funds held by the Council. The report also noted the introduction of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) charging, though no CIL receipts were collected during this reporting period.

Councillor Leffman explained that Section 106 funds are legally tied to specific development impacts and cannot be easily redirected. She clarified that while funds might be pooled, they are earmarked for specific projects and cannot be arbitrarily moved. The committee discussed the challenges faced by parish councils in utilising Section 106 funds, particularly when they do not own land or have specific needs that align with the S106 agreements. The introduction of CIL was highlighted as a more flexible alternative for broader infrastructure needs, with a portion of CIL receipts being allocated to parish and town councils. The committee was assured that training and support would be provided to parish and town councils regarding the use of Section 106 and CIL.

The committee noted the report.

12-Month Performance Report: Witney and Chipping Norton Charter Markets

Councillor Duncan Enright, Deputy Leader of the Council and Executive Member for Economic Development, presented the 12-month performance report for the Witney and Chipping Norton Charter Markets, managed by Cotswold Markets Ltd since August 2025. The report indicated that the arrangement had been successful, with occupancy rates exceeding targets, significant improvements in trader confidence and satisfaction, and overwhelmingly positive customer feedback. Operational and promotional improvements had also been introduced.

The report recommended extending the current management agreement with Cotswold Markets Ltd for a further two years, to July 2029. This extension aims to provide certainty for traders and support the continued development of the markets. Councillor Enright highlighted the positive impact on town centre vitality, increased footfall, and support for local businesses.

During the discussion, Councillor Doherty raised the possibility of evening markets, similar to those in Cirencester, to boost the evening economy. Sam Stronach, Economic Development Manager, confirmed this would be explored. Councillor Cosier congratulated the team on the positive report, and Councillor Marsh questioned the impact of High Street roadworks on the markets, noting a two-week closure had occurred. He also questioned the phased extension of the contract, advocating for a straightforward two-year extension. Councillor Leffman, speaking as Executive Member for Oxfordshire County Council, explained that the phased extension was to provide flexibility around potential Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) timelines. Councillor Massie inquired about areas for improvement, and Emma Phillips, Market Towns Officer, mentioned plans for music and lighting to enhance the market atmosphere. Councillor Watson raised concerns about the impact of the Woodford Way development on parking, which was discussed further under that agenda item. Councillor Rylett expressed support for the report and the extension. Councillor Mead also supported the report, noting the positive impact on the local economy. Councillor Early asked about the potential for overspill onto newly created High Street areas, and Councillor Levy supported the idea of evening markets. Councillor Marsh also commented on the importance of footfall and the positive impact of the current management. Councillor Watson asked about the impact of the High Street works, and Councillor Leffman explained the phased extension was to provide flexibility around LGR. Councillor Massie asked about areas for improvement, and Councillor Phillips mentioned plans for music and lighting. Councillor McCarroll asked about the potential for overspill onto new High Street areas. Councillor Levy supported the idea of evening markets. Councillor Marsh commented on the importance of footfall and the positive impact of the current management.

The committee noted the report.

Fleet Decarbonisation and the Transition to Zero Emission Vehicles

Councillor Alistair Wray, Executive Member for Environment, introduced the report on fleet decarbonisation and the transition to zero-emission vehicles. The report sought approval for the 2026/27 fleet replacement programme, the strategy for decarbonising the fleet, and the adoption of certified Hydrotreated Vegetable Oil (HVO) as a transitional fuel. The Council's fleet has exceeded its intended lifespan, leading to increased breakdowns and reliance on hired vehicles.

Si Pocock-Cluley, Environmental Services and Waste Transformation Lead, presented the strategy, which adopts a ZEV First principle but acknowledges that current heavy vehicle technology and depot infrastructure are not yet mature for large-scale electrification. Therefore, the proposed approach is to replace ageing vehicles using certified HVO as a transitional fuel while continuing to prepare for future electrification through trials and infrastructure planning. Option 4, procuring new vehicles and using certified HVO, was recommended.

The committee engaged in a detailed discussion about the options, with concerns raised about the feasibility of immediate electrification due to technology and infrastructure limitations, particularly in rural areas. The financial implications of HVO, which is approximately 20% more expensive than diesel, were discussed, but balanced against the high repair costs of the current ageing fleet. The potential for repowering vehicles to electric in the future was also mentioned. Councillor Mead questioned the sustainability of HVO sourcing, and officers confirmed that certified HVO would be procured through Ubico, with robust assurance frameworks in place. Councillor Evans questioned the seven-year lifespan of new vehicles and the cost-effectiveness of replacing them with HVO-fuelled vehicles versus waiting for electric options. Councillor Crozier strongly supported the proposal, emphasising the need to address vehicle downtime and its impact on residents. Councillor Mead expressed discomfort with HVO due to potential greenwashing and questioned oversight of its availability and carbon impact. Councillor Watson questioned the decision to replace vehicles now rather than deferring for two years and accepting higher repair costs, given the potential for LGR and the development of electric vehicle technology. Councillor Rylett asked about the sourcing of HVO and its carbon footprint. Councillor Evans questioned the cost-effectiveness of replacing vehicles with HVO-fuelled ones versus waiting for electric alternatives. Councillor Crozier highlighted the unreliability of the current fleet and the potential impact on residents. Councillor Mead expressed concerns about HVO certification and the carbon impact of vehicle lifespans.

The committee noted the report.

Woodford Way Housing Development

Councillor Geoff Saul, Executive Member for Housing and Community Safety, presented the report on the proposed delivery of up to 60 new social-rented homes at Woodford Way, Witney. He highlighted the significant need for affordable housing in West Oxfordshire, with over 1,800 households on the housing waiting list and a particular shortage of one and two-bedroom homes. The report proposed allocating £415,000 of Section 106 funding to progress the scheme to the planning application stage, entering into a long lease with SOHA Housing as the Registered Provider partner, and delegating authority to the Director of Place to finalise transfer terms.

The committee engaged in a lengthy debate about the proposal. Councillor Watson raised concerns about the impact on town centre parking, questioning the availability of data to support the proposal and the Council's multiple roles in the process. Daniel Taylor, Director of Place, explained that the design process would determine parking provision and that safeguards would be in place to manage the Council's various roles. Councillor Gansler supported the project but questioned the choice of SOHA Housing and whether the Council could become its own provider. Councillor Mead expressed disappointment, arguing that the proposal was being rushed and that alternative sites for housing and parking solutions had not been adequately explored. She also raised concerns about the impact on businesses and hospital workers due to potential parking loss. Councillor Marsh strongly supported the proposal, criticising the focus on parking over housing need and highlighting the Council's ownership of the land. Councillor Early questioned the environmental and building standards for SOHA Housing, and Councillor Marsh reiterated support for the proposal. Councillor Watson asked about the availability of data regarding parking. Councillor Crozier expressed disappointment with the report's lack of data and the absence of a trial, arguing for a delay to gather more evidence. Councillor Marsh countered that parking was a red herring and that the priority should be providing council housing. Councillor Early asked about the environmental and building standards for SOHA Housing. Councillor Watson requested further data on parking. Councillor Mead expressed concerns about the rushed nature of the proposal and the lack of comprehensive data. Councillor McCarroll shared his lived experience of parking in Witney, suggesting that parking availability was not as critical as perceived. Councillor Early asked about the environmental and building standards for SOHA Housing. Councillor Watson requested further data on parking. Councillor Mead expressed concerns about the rushed nature of the proposal and the lack of comprehensive data. Councillor McCarroll shared his lived experience of parking in Witney, suggesting that parking availability was not as critical as perceived.

The committee noted the report and recommended that the Executive include a trial of the car park layout in future considerations.

Updates from Task and Finish Groups

Councillor Andrew Beaney, Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, provided an update on the task and finish groups. The committee discussed the terms of reference for the Private Management Companies Task and Finish Group and noted interest from members in joining this group and the Mental Health Task and Finish Group. Councillor Cosier expressed interest in the Private Management Companies group, highlighting the need for legal support for residents facing issues with management companies. Councillor Levy also supported the need for legal support. Councillor Early suggested including social housing associations in the scope of the Private Management Companies group.

Committee Work Programme

The committee reviewed proposed changes to its work programme to align with executive reporting timelines, including moving the community grants report to December and the charter markets report to October. An additional meeting in February was proposed to discuss nature recovery and community safety partnership items, allowing for the cancellation of the April meeting due to pre-election purdah. Councillor Early raised concerns about scrutinising reports after they had been considered by the Executive, but was assured that recommendations could still be made.

Executive Work Programme

The committee reviewed the Executive Work Programme. Concerns were raised about unspent Section 106 funding that was restricted to specific purposes, such as leisure facilities, and suggestions were made to explore redirecting these funds towards priorities like solar panels, climate projects, or flood resilience. Andrew Brown, Head of Democratic and Electoral Services, advised that changing the use of Section 106 funding was legally complex but noted that future reports on developer contributions would provide opportunities for scrutiny. A briefing session was also mentioned where these issues could be discussed with officers.

The committee noted the report and discussed selecting items for pre-decision scrutiny.