Approved Council Motions 2025/26

Council meeting: Wednesday 11 February 2026

Proposer: Councillor Pighills Seconder: Councillor Batstone 

Lead officer: Director of Communities 

Protecting an Independent Patient Voice – Opposition to the Abolition of Healthwatch 

This Council notes that: 

1. Healthwatch England and local Healthwatch bodies are the statutory, independent champions for people who use health and social care services. 

2. The Government has proposed the abolition of Healthwatch England and local Healthwatch as part of its developing NHS 10-Year Health Plan, with functions to be transferred to Integrated Care Boards (ICBs) and local authorities. 

3. National approaches to Government by MPs and policy groups to ask them to reverse this decision have been unsuccessful  

4. District councils, while not directly responsible for the commissioning or delivery of health and adult social care services, have a vital community leadership role and a statutory duty to promote the wellbeing of their residents. 

5. Local Healthwatch organisations provide an accessible, impartial route for residents to raise concerns and share experiences of health and social care services. 

6. Vulnerable, seldom-heard, and digitally-excluded residents in district areas often rely on independent, community-based advocacy to navigate complex health and care systems. 

This Council believes that: 

1. The proposed transfer of Healthwatch functions to ICBs and local authorities risks a loss of independence, creating conflicts of interest  

2. An independent patient voice is essential to transparency, accountability, and public confidence in health and social care systems. 

3. The abolition of Healthwatch would weaken the ability of residents to influence decisions affecting their health and wellbeing, particularly those least able to advocate for themselves. 

4. Removing a nationally recognised, independent statutory body for patient representation risks undermining consistency and democratic accountability across the health and care system. 

5. District councils have a legitimate interest in ensuring that their residents continue to have access to strong, independent advocacy in relation to health and care services. 

This Council therefore resolves to: 

1. Express its concern regarding the Government’s proposal to abolish Healthwatch England and local Healthwatch bodies. 

2. Call on the Government to retain Healthwatch as a fully independent, statutory patient voice at national and local levels. 

3. Support any national campaign seeking to protect Healthwatch. 

4. Write to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care setting out this Council’s concerns. 

5. Write to local Members of Parliament expressing its concern regarding the proposed plans 

6. Support Oxfordshire County Council’s decision to work with partners in creating a local independent voice on health. 

7. Request that the Leader of the Council communicates this position to the County Council, relevant Integrated Care Board, and appropriate local government networks. 

Council meeting: Wednesday 11 February 2026

Proposer: Councillor Whiteman Seconder: Councillor James 

Lead officer: Director of Policy and Programmes 

South East Strategic Reservoir Option (SESRO) now known as the White Horse Reservoir (WHR) – Regulatory Compliance and Customer Protection – RAPID OFWAT PROCESS SCRUTINY 

This Council notes that: 

1. The South East Strategic Reservoir Option (SESRO) is being progressed as a nationally significant water infrastructure project through the RAPID programme overseen by OFWAT. Council also notes the recent name change to “White Horse Reservoir (WHR)”.  

2. The estimated construction cost of WHR has increased by approximately 144% since earlier assessments, rising from around £2.2 billion to an estimated £5.5–£7.5 billion (in 2022/23 prices). This does not include increased land grab procurement or water transfer.  

3. Development and construction costs for WHR are intended to be recovered primarily through water customers’ bills, rather than general taxation. 

4. OFWAT’s RAPID framework is intended to ensure that major water infrastructure schemes demonstrate best value, affordability, efficiency and adaptability, with schemes being re-appraised at each gate where material changes occur. 

5. OFWAT is subject to statutory duties under the Water Industry Act 1991, including: 

• the primary duty to protect the interests of consumers; 

• the duty to promote economy and efficiency; and 

• the duty to have regard to sustainable development. 

This Council further notes that: 

1. Despite the scale of WHR’s cost escalation, there has been no clearly published, transparent re-ranking of the scheme against lower-cost and lower-risk alternatives, such as strategic water transfers, leakage reduction, and demand management. 

2. WHR has been passed into Gate 4 of the OFWAT Rapid scheme despite not meeting the regulators own framework targets and £100m of customer money allowed to be spent on the next Gate (£74m granted upto Gate 3) 

3. Progressing a scheme with materially deteriorated affordability, without transparent reassessment, risks undermining public confidence in the RAPID process and regulatory decision-making. 

This Council resolves to request: 

1. The leader to write to OFWAT to pause further RAPID development funding allowance, and hold WHR at Gate 3 until a transparent, updated comparative assessment has been published, re-ranking the scheme against reasonable alternatives using current cost data. 

2. The leader to write to OFWAT and request publication of an updated affordability and customer bill-impact assessment for SESRO, reflecting the full scale of cost escalation.  

3. The leader to write to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs requesting ministerial assurance that OFWAT’s handling of WHR complies with its statutory duties under the Water Industry Act 1991. 

4. The leader to write to the Secretary of State for DEFRA and ask for the Thames Water, WRMP24 to be resubmitted, not just a costing adjustment due to the fundamental material change to the original signed off by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 

Council meeting: Wednesday 11 February 2026

Proposer: Councillor Cooke Seconder: Councillor Clegg 

Lead officer: Director of Policy and Programmes 

Inadequate Statutory Public Consultation for SESRO 

This Council notes that: 

The Sole Statutory Public Consultation for SESRO was carried out between October 2025 and January 2026 

1. Public Consultations are governed by the Gunning Principles, namely that: 

• Principle 1: Consultations must occur while proposals are still at a formative stage. 

• Principle 2: Sufficient information needs to be supplied for the public to give the consultation ‘intelligent consideration’. 

• Principle 3: There needs to be an adequate time for the consultees to consider the proposal and respond. 

• Principle 4: Conscientious consideration must be given to the consultation responses before decisions are made. 

2. These principles require that final decisions have yet to be taken, that the proposal has crystallized sufficiently that the authority knows what the decision may be and is able to explain it, and notes that whilst it does not require consultation on every possible option provided that the proposed course can still be altered as a result of it 

3. The Public Consultation that was carried out: 

• Insisted explicitly that the proposed course would not be altered, which appears to violate the first of the Gunning Principles 

• Failed to provide sufficient information to give ‘intelligent consideration’ in multiple areas, including Reservoir Safety (Emergency Drawdown and Dam Breach), biodiversity areas to be provided, security of this major strategic asset, watercourse diversion, flood management, traffic effects and access, management of construction, water environment, and more. This looks to certainly violate the second of the Gunning Principles. 

4. A meaningful and valid Public Consultation still needs to be carried out. Such a consultation could provide useful and valid information on which to make “Intelligent Consideration,” as well as provide the possibility that the proposed course could be altered. 

Council resolves to: 

1. Ask the Leader to request of Secretary of State, Ofwat, and the Environment Agency that they: 

1. Direct Thames Water to carry out a fresh Statutory Public Consultation, within which Thames Water are to provide the missing information to allow intelligent consideration. 

2. Remind Thames Water that the Statutory Consultation should allow for an alteration of the proposed course of action. 

2. Ask the Leader to write to all MPs representing parts of the Vale of the White Horse to inform them of our actions and to ask them to push the Secretary of State, Ofwat, and the Environment Agency for the same. 

Council meeting: Wednesday 11 February 2026

Proposer: Councillor Whiteman Seconder: Councillor Dewhurst 

Lead officer: Director of Finance 

Supporting Village Public Houses and Community Licensed Premises as Essential Community Infrastructure 

This Council notes that: 

1. Many villages and rural settlements across the Vale of White Horse contain licensed premises that operate as public houses and function as important community spaces, providing social connection, informal support, and opportunities for community activity, particularly for older or isolated residents. 

2. In a number of villages, the public house is the last remaining communal indoor space available for meetings, clubs, events and informal support, and in some cases provides an important “warm space” function. 

3. Business rates are calculated on the basis of rateable values set by the Valuation Office Agency, often using assumptions about trading potential that may not fully reflect the realities of rural, wet-led or community-focused licensed premises. 

4. Rising operating costs, including energy, staffing and supplies, combined with business rates liabilities, are placing significant pressure on many rural licensed premises, increasing the risk of permanent closure. 

5. This Council has discretionary powers within the Local Government Finance framework to grant business rate relief and hardship relief on a case-by-case basis, where it considers this to be in the interests of the local community. 

6. The loss of a village public house can have wider social consequences, including increased isolation, reduced community resilience, and additional pressure on other public and voluntary services. 

This Council believes that: 

1. Village public houses which are the only such premises within a settlement often perform a role that extends beyond that of a standard commercial operation and should be recognised as making a significant contribution to community wellbeing. 

2. Preventing the avoidable closure of such premises can represent good value for money when weighed against the wider social costs associated with their loss. 

3. Local authorities have an important role in responding to local circumstances and community need, alongside national policy interventions. 

This Council resolves to: 

1. Request officers to prepare a report for the appropriate committee, following confirmation of the Government’s forthcoming changes to business rates relief for licensed premises, setting out: 

• The implications of those national changes for licensed premises operating as village public houses within the Vale of White Horse; 

• the current use of discretionary business rate relief and hardship relief in relation to such premises; and 

• the number of village public house closures within the district over the past five years and any identifiable trends. 

2. Ask officers to consider, within existing statutory and policy frameworks, whether further guidance or criteria would assist decision-making in relation to discretionary relief applications from licensed premises that are the sole public house in a village or rural settlement. 

3. Council to Reaffirm the importance of Asset of Community Value listings, where appropriate, as a tool available to parish councils and communities to help protect valued village public houses, noting that decisions on such listings are made in accordance with existing statutory processes. 

4. Leader of the Council to write to the Government and the Valuation Office Agency to highlight concerns about the valuation of rural and community-focused public houses and to seek assurance that forthcoming national changes adequately reflect the role these premises play in supporting rural communities. 

5. Commit to revisiting the issue of support for village public houses once the impact of the Government’s national changes is clearer, to ensure that local responses remain appropriate, proportionate and responsive to community need. 

Council meeting: Wednesday 10 December 2025

Proposer: Councillor James Seconder: Councillor Dewhurst

Lead officer: Deputy Chief Executive – Place, Head of Development & Corporate Landlord

Private finance in NHS

In October 2025 the local health commissioning body, Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire, and Berkshire West Integrated Care Board (BOB ICB), provided their latest update on delivering a new health centre in Vale of White Horse in Great Western Park on the west side of Didcot*. This health centre is much needed and long overdue in expanding capacity for residents in an area that has seen a great deal of housebuilding and a large population growth in the last 15 years.

The latest block to this Health Centre lies in the private finance delivery of the building. The health centre will be built by a private company with private investment and will then be leased back to the GP practice that will run it. The money for the rent will come largely from the NHS funding which provides the majority of the  GP practice’s income. The health centre will not be built until a GP practice signs a lease to commit to paying the rent level set by the private finance company.  At the moment, the private company want a higher level of rent than a GP practice may be able to pay. 

The financing costs form a significant proportion of the rent being sought by the private finance company.  The cost of financing through the private sector is approximately double what it would be were the government to finance such projects through their own borrowing.

Whilst not wishing to jeopardise the GWP project at this late stage, this council believes that the interminable delays to the delivery of the GWP GP surgery are emblematic of the fundamental weaknesses of the private finance model in the delivery of healthcare estate projects across the UK.

* https://www.bucksoxonberksw.icb.nhs.uk/our-places/great-western-park-didcot-gp-services/

This council resolves:

1. To write to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care with copies to the MP for Didcot and Wantage to:
   1. Highlight the block in delivering a new health centre for our residents in the Didcot area that has arisen from the involvement of private finance in delivering new health care facilities, asking them to take steps to finally deliver this long-promised health facility in a financially sustainable way.
   2. Request that the Secretary of State reflects upon current Government policy on private finance in health care and uses the lesson of the GWP health centre in Didcot to improve the delivery of future projects elsewhere.
   3. Emphasise the clear financial and deliverability advantages of direct Government funding of infrastructure projects of this nature.
2. To copy these letters to all MPs representing the Vale of White Horse District asking for their support in contacting ministers likewise.
3. Ask Cabinet to consider how we can continue to engage with all parties involved in the delivery of the Great Western Park Health Centre to support delivery of this project and ensure that it is financially viable for a GP surgery to execute a lease.

Council meeting: Wednesday 10 December 2025

Proposer: Councillor Foulsham Seconder: Councillor Maddison

Lead officer: Head of Communities

Sanctuary and Fair Treatment for All

Council notes that:

• Vale of White Horse residents have endured successive crises in recent years: Covid, the cost-of-living emergency, underfunding of public services by successive governments. These have left many residents in precarious situations, creating a climate of uncertainty and fear.
• Research shows that rising inequality fuels support for far-right movements, eroding trust in institutions and creating fertile ground for scapegoating and division.
• Against this backdrop, right-wing media and far-right groups have wrongly blamed migrant communities to further their agendas.
• Extensive research, including the Migration Observatory’s 2024 study, finds that migration contributes positively to the UK economy by expanding the labour force, addressing skill shortages, and supporting productivity and growth, with little evidence of wage suppression for native workers. Migrants’ net fiscal impact is generally positive, with greater contributions in taxes than cost to public services.
• Oxfordshire is proud to be the first County Council of Sanctuary, committed to ensuring that everyone who lives here, whether newly arrived or long settled, is treated fairly.

Council therefore resolves to:

1.     Recognise the risks to our communities if the disinformation, suspicion, and intolerance it generates go unchallenged, and commit to addressing them wherever they occur.

2.     Work with partners to ensure the safety and wellbeing of everyone in our communities and that racism is confronted wherever it occurs, in schools, workplaces, and on our streets.

3.     Request that Cabinet support the co-production of a Community Cohesion Action Plan with key stakeholders and in consultation with councillors, including actions to support community-led dialogue and ensure appropriate resourcing is considered during budget setting.

Council meeting: Wednesday 22 October 2025

Proposer: Councillor Stevens Seconder: Councillor James

Lead officer: Deputy Chief Executive – Partnerships

Council notes that:

●   The Thames Water (TW) Water Resources Management Plan 2024 (WRMP24) approved by Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in November 2024 was explicitly an adaptable plan with options, including the South East Strategic Reservoir Option (SESRO) as a preferred option and the Severn Thames Transfer (STT) named as a backup route should SESRO not got ahead.

●   Despite TW assuring the Secretary of State in a published and lengthy response in October 2024 assuring that the cost estimates given then were robust and regularly updated, a capital cost increase from the frequently cited £2.2billion to £6.5 billion +/- £1bn in 2023 pounds was suddenly given in summer 2025.

●   At a Judicial Review on 25^th to 26^th June 2025, local campaigners SaferwaterS and CPRE Oxfordshire challenged, unsuccessfully, the decision to approve the Water Resources Management Plan. In court Thames Water maintained that the expected cost to construct the reservoir would be £2.2bn.  But in mid August, a mere 7 weeks later, Thames Water announced that the expected cost is now two to three times greater than the cost presented in the Water Resource Management Plan.

●    The published October 2024 response also states clearly that the cost increase tipping point between STT and SESRO is at a cost increase for SESRO of  “between £669m and £803m.”

●   RAPID have advised that the Gate 3 decision for STT is currently scheduled to be significantly later than that for SESRO; this would imply that making a meaningful choice of options in a supposedly adaptable plan would therefore become unworkable.

●    Whilst typically a Development Consent Order process does not evaluate the need for a piece of infrastructure, the fact that the perceived approval of SESRO is reliant on the approval of the adaptable TW WRMP necessarily indicates that the choice of option between SESRO and STT should be evaluated, especially given the above.

This Council believes that:

●   The emergence of much higher costs after the Judicial Review means that the “best value” case for SESRO has been fundamentally undermined, especially with respect to the STT alternative, and has had no independent review. SESRO will have huge and lasting impacts on our residents.

●   It is unacceptable for any private corporation to be given effectively a “blank cheque,” regardless of massive increases in cost which would typically necessitate a re-evaluation of cost-effectiveness between two options.

Council resolves to:

1. Ask the Leader to request of the Secretary of State and of RAPID that:
   1. The Secretary of State directs Thames Water to prepare a new Water Resource Management Plan (WRMP) in the light of the very material change in costs.
   2. Whether retaining the old WRMP or preparing an updated one, that:
      1. The RAPID Gate 3 decisions for SESRO and STT should be brought together.
      2. Any DCO process for SESRO should evaluate the cost-effectiveness and plausible timelines of the strategic water options in the TW WRMP24 (namely SESRO and STT), including up-to-date capital, finance, and operational costs directly associated with each, especially should these have changed since the relevant WRMP was approved.
      3. That going ahead with STT in place of SESRO should be regarded as a valid outcome of the DCO and RAPID Gate 3 processes, ensuring that TW cannot continue to escalate the costs and/or lengthen the timelines beyond those approved in any WRMP as they belatedly learn essential design elements and major issues.

2.   Ask the Leader to write to all MPs representing parts of the Vale of the White Horse to inform them of our actions and to ask them to push the Secretary of State and RAPID for the same.

Update: The Leader sent a Letter to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which can be viewed here.

Council meeting: Wednesday 16 July 2025

Proposer: Councillor James Seconder: Councillor Foxhall

Lead officer: Head of Policy and Programmes, Head of Planning

Council notes that:

The Planning and Infrastructure Bill currently passing through Parliament. Despite pleas from across the environmental sector and cross-party support for amendments, the Bill continues to include damaging changes to planning rules such that the environmental movement has now come together to call on ministers to ‘scrap part 3’.

For example, our local wildlife trust BBOWT says “In its current form the legislation will not guarantee adequate environmental recovery, and in fact it risks undermining much of the hard-won progress for environmental protection that has been gained over the last 70 years. It could represent the biggest attack on our environmental protections for a generation.” 

(https://www.bbowt.org.uk/campaign-for-wildlife/planning-and-infrastructure-bill)

Proposed changes to planning decision making which will reduce the power of councils and councillors to act on behalf of their communities – this even though more than one million homes have been granted planning permission since 2015 but not been built. (https://www.planningportal.co.uk/services/weekly-planning-news/planning-news-29-may-2025)

Council believes:

The combined effect of changes introduced by the government since last July, even when taking in to account the welcome additional funding for the Affordable Homes Programme, will in all likelihood fail to deliver the affordable homes that people need in the Vale of White Horse, damage efforts to recover our natural environment and further erode community trust in decision making.

This Council resolves to:

Request that the Leader of the Council:

1.    Writes to the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, and the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, as well as all MPs representing parts of the Vale of White Horse, expressing these concerns, and calling for the withdrawal of part 3 of the Planning and infrastructure Bill.

2.    When writing to our MPs, asks them to oppose measures in part 3 of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill and, should these remain in the Bill, to vote against at final reading.

3.    Shares this resolution with neighbouring councils, local civic groups, nature organisations and the local press, to encourage wider opposition and coordinated advocacy.

Council meeting: Wednesday 16 July 2025

Proposer: Councillor Thompson Seconder: Councillor Hannaby

Lead officer: Head of Policy and Programmes, Head of Planning

Council notes:

Planning committees serve a vital role in local government ensuring that developments and applications throughout the Vale of White Horse are effectively and transparently scrutinized.

The Planning and Infrastructure Bill seeks to ensure consistency across the country in terms of what sort of training is provided to councillors, size of committees, and what type of applications can be heard in public by planning committees. Some of these changes are welcome and there will be variation between councillors and officers as to the ideal size of committees and the training needed.

A proper scheme of delegation is vital for ensuing Vale can deliver housing our residents need, and it is right that the vast majority of applications are delegated and determined by officers without coming to planning committee. However, it is a vital principle of democracy and transparency that applications can be called in by ward members in consultation with local stakeholders and with the agreement of elected members, the Chair/Vice-Chair of planning.

The proposed two-tier structure in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill would not allow for certain applications (those in Tier A) to come before committee under any circumstances. This undermines faith in the planning process, democratic accountability, and local governance. Those applications in Tier A include, inter alia, all householder developers and minor residential developments for up to 9 dwellings, and reserved matters applications.

Tier A applications are often those that are the most locally contentious and where local knowledge provided by town and parish councils and other stakeholders is particularly relevant. Not allowing planning committees to scrutinize would strip away powers from local communities and make the planning process less transparent and democratic.

As part of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill there is an 8-week technical consultation on how to reform planning committees. This runs until 23 July 2025, which asks whether a two-tier categorization setting out which applications must be delegated is desirable.

Council agrees:

1.    To ask Cabinet to ensure that council’s response to the technical consultation on the reform of planning committees emphasizes their importance and centrality as part of local democracy and objects strongly to the two-tiered system of automatic delegation proposed.

2.    To ask the Leader of the Council to monitor the outcome of the technical consultation and to write to the Secretary of State objecting to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill if it proceeds with its division of applications into Tier A and Tier B and automatic scheme of delegation.

3.    To encourage all stakeholders, officers, and councillors to provide comments as part of the consultation process.

Council meeting: Wednesday 16 July 2025

Proposer: Councillor Foxhall Seconder: Councillor James

Lead officer: Head of Policy and Programmes

This Council notes:

• Vale of White Horse District Council has declared a climate emergency and is committed to achieving net zero carbon emissions in its own operations by 2030 and in the district by 2045.
• The district has significant potential for renewable energy development, particularly solar, which must be harnessed in a way that delivers genuine benefits for local communities.
• Community energy organisations which are active across Oxfordshire, have demonstrated how local people can share in the benefits of renewable projects to help fund local net zero projects and reduce fuel poverty.
• Without such a requirement, local communities risk being excluded from the economic and social benefits of the clean energy transition.

This Council believes:

• That new renewable energy infrastructure has the opportunity to contribute positively to the wellbeing and prosperity of the communities hosting them, and this opportunity should be harnessed.
• That the option for local shared ownership or benefit schemes should be offered by large-scale renewable developments to local communities.
• That Vale of White Horse has an opportunity to lead by example in supporting fair, community-led energy.

This Council therefore resolves to:

1. Request that the leader of the Council write to the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, the Minister for Climate, and local MPs to express this Council’s support for clarity on Community Energy benefit options and urge legislative action.
2. Encourage all developers of large-scale renewable energy schemes in Vale of White Horse District to work with community energy groups to maximise opportunities for Community Energy benefits options for local communities.
3. Work with Oxfordshire County Council, neighbouring authorities and Community Energy Organisations to promote community-led energy and maximise local benefit from future renewable energy projects.