Oxford’s “Walkable City” Plan: A Masterclass in Bureaucratic Excess

As a long-term resident of Oxford, I’ve always admired the city’s charm—its historic streets, picturesque lanes, and, above all, the fact that it’s already one of the most walkable cities in the UK. So, imagine my bewilderment when I stumbled upon the latest Cabinet report, “Making Oxford a Truly Walkable City“, which reads less like a practical strategy and more like a satire of local government waste. 

£30,000 to Reinvent the Wheel (or the Walking Map)

The report earnestly proposes spending £30,000–£40,000 to create yet another walking map of Oxford—despite admitting that multiple guides already exist, both online and in shops. The City Council’s own website links to the Oxford Pedestrian Association’s detailed map, launched in 2023, complete with surface types, seating locations, and even toilet stops. The County Council also hosts active travel resources, including route plans and design standards. 

Yet, the report solemnly weighs two options: 

  • Option 1: Spend £30,000 in-house to design a map, plus £5,000 annually to keep it updated.
  • Option 2: Outsource the job for £35,000–£40,000, plus up to £10,000 per year in maintenance.

The mind boggles. In what universe does a map—of a city that hasn’t significantly changed its layout in the past decade—require such lavish expenditure? Are we expecting sudden tectonic shifts in the High Street? A mysterious new quadrangle materialising overnight? 

The Real Agenda: The War on Cars 

Let’s not pretend this is about “walkability.” Oxford’s streets are already pedestrian-friendly, and the report itself admits there’s “no obvious gap” to fill. Instead, this fits neatly into the council’s broader ideological crusade, as outlined in the Oxford Local Plan 2036, which explicitly prioritises “minimising car use” above all else. 

The report pays lip service to accessibility (a legitimate concern for disabled residents) but then casually dismisses practical measures—like mandating Dutch-style kerbs—because it’s “not the City Council’s responsibility.” Meanwhile, they’ve happily splurged

  • £500,000 on an “Infrastructure Place Study” for the Cowley Branch Line
  • £397,000 on resurfacing St Michael’s Street (so café tables don’t wobble), and
  • £248,000 to make Market Street “less vehicle-dominated.”

The Irony of “Investment” 

The report boasts of the council’s commitment to walking, citing projects like £33,000 for the Oxford Greenways Project and £120,000 on the “Broad Meadow” pedestrian experiment. Yet, when pressed to actually improve infrastructure—say, by fixing potholes or enforcing pavement parking bans—the response is always the same: “That’s the County Council’s job.” 

The most telling line? “There is minimal risk to this recommendation, however… not taking the initiative could have a negative impact on the council’s reputation.”

Translation: We’re doing this to look busy, not because it’s needed. 

A Better Idea: Stop the Waste 

If the council truly cared about walkability, it would:

  1. Enforce existing pavement parking laws (instead of just writing letters to the Transport Secretary). 
  2. Fix broken footpaths rather than commissioning redundant maps. 
  3. Stop treating drivers as cash cows while pretending pedestrianisation is altruistic. 

But no—instead, we get another costly, duplicative project, dressed up as progress. Oxford doesn’t need more bureaucracy. It needs competence. 

A bemused (and still perfectly mobile) Oxford resident.

Dear Member

We are introducing more regular updates to members, so that you can keep abreast of what we are doing…. Up to now, our best intentions for doing this have been thwarted by the extent to which our relatively small team has been stretched across a myriad of activities. It is hard work being a new political group! And we are sorry that our communications have not been more frequent.

This is about to change…. New skills on our team, coupled with our growing experience and confidence in our role, now enable us to commit to keeping you more well informed. So, this is the first of a new stream of IOA updates.
 

Protecting Democracy in Oxford

As you know, a major part of our Mission is to instigate a return to genuine democracy, putting the majority public voice front and centre in all decision-making.

So, you can imagine how concerned we were when the Government gave Oxford City Council the opportunity to postpone (which really means cancel) the elections planned for this May; even more so when we observed that the Labour leadership of Oxford City Council were keeping very quiet about their intentions.

So, we sprung into action, and this took up a lot of our time and attention in January.
Here is a summary of what happened.

On 18 December, the Secretary of State wrote to all 63 Council Leaders where the council was scheduled to hold local elections in May 2026 and where the council is about to be involved in local government reorganisation.  The letter offered councils the opportunity to indicate if they felt that cancellation of their elections in May 2026 would release essential capacity to deliver the local government reorganisation (LGR).
The deadline for their response was Thursday 15 January 2026.

There was no public comment from Oxford City Council, nor apparently any plans for a full council discussion on the issue. The Labour leadership at City Council appeared to be trying to avoid any debate as to whether or not the elections should go ahead.

This prompted IOA action! 
(All the letters referenced below, can be found on our website at the links provided.)

  • David Henwood, leader of the IOA group on the council, worked alongside other opposition group leaders to try to force a special meeting of the full Council
  • Simultaneously, on 5 January, the IOA wrote a letter to Susan Brown, Leader of Oxford City Council, copied to all other members of the council’s Cabinet, setting out the arguments for holding the elections as planned, and urging the City Council to do the right thing by confirming to the Government that the elections should go ahead. LINK 1
  • As a result, on 6 Jan, Susan Brown confirmed that a special meetong of the city council would take place at 5pm on Wed 14 January, immediately before the Government’s response deadline of 15 Jan.
  • On 9 January, the IOA emailed a letter to every councillor on Oxford City Council, setting out the reasons why elections should go ahead and urging them to use the opportunity, at the meeting on 14 Jan, to influence the decision and ensure that democracy is observed through the elections going ahead. LINK 2
  • When the agenda for the meeting on 14 Jan came out, it was apparent that there was no motion, and therefore no vote, planned for the meeting.
  • The accompanying briefing paper recommended that “Members consider and debate the issues set out in this report in relation to the Oxford City Council 2026 local elections”. This falls far short of the Council reaching a decision, let alone recording in a vote the strength of views.
    We considered this to be totally unsatisfactory – effectively setting the stage for the decision to be taken OUTSIDE the Council chamber.

    So we wrote another letter.

  • On 12 January, IOA wrote to the Council’s Chief Executive, Caroline Green, and the Monitoring Officer, Emma Jackman, raising procedural concerns about the meeting and the lack of a vote, and making specific reference to the Council’s own constitution.     LINK 3
  • Caroline Green (CG) replied on 13 January, arguing that all was OK, and that “there is no decision (key or otherwise) for the council to take”.   LINK 4
  • The IOA emailed both local MPs, Anneliese Dodds LINK 5 and Layla Moran LINK 6, with a copy of our letter to the Chief Executive, pointing out that we had received an inadequate reply, and asking them to get involved.

    Layla Moran’s office responded saying she could not respond to anyone other than one of her constituents, even though we made it clear we were writing on behalf of her constituents in Oxford.

    There was no reply at all from Anneliese Dodds or her office.

  • The IOA responded to CG’s reply on 14 January, challenging several aspects of her argument.  LINK 7
  • CG responded by email on 14 January, assuring us that the response sent to the Secretary of State would “reflect the comments of councillors made in the chamber”; and refusing our request for IOA councillors to “see a copy of the response to be sent to the Minister before it goes”, saying that they could not commit to this “given the timelines involved in terms of a need to reply by Thursday this week”.  LINK 8
  • Meanwhile, our councillor David Henwood, along with other opposition councillors, was still pushing for councillors to have a vote at the meeting. The request was denied again on the afternoon of the meeting.
  • On the afternoon of the meeting (14 Jan), IOA led a protest outside the Town Hall, which was reported in the Oxford Mail and on the BBC.
    Several IOA members observed the meeting from the public gallery.
  • A significant majority of councillors spoke in favour of the elections going ahead, complained at there not being a vote at full council, and asked that their comments be included in the minutes.
  • When the letter was shared with councillors (after it had been sent on 15 Jan) it became apparent that it under-played the strength of feeling of councillors at the meeting, and over-emphasised concerns about capacity issues; and it did not give a clear answer as to whether the elections should go ahead.
    It was a clear attempt to facilitate the Government postponing the Oxford elections on capacity grounds, whilst also being able to say that the letter reported the full council’s preference for elections going ahead.
  • IOA then sent directly to the Minister of State, a letter signed by all four of our city councillors, pointing out that the letter from the Leader of the City Council did not reflect the strength of feeling of the Council, and that it over-stated capacity issues. We further highlighted that three claims made regarding capacity issues were incorrect or illogical.  LINK 9
  • In the accompanying email the IOA requested that the letter be brought to the attention of both the Minister of State, and the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, who would be making the decision.
  • On Monday 19 Jan, the Secretary of State wrote to Cllr Susan Brown, pointing out that her response had not been clear whether or not it was requesting that elections be postponed. His letter explicitly stated that he was taking account of her representation “and the other representations I have received” in coming to a final decision.  LINK 10
  • It was later confirmed that Oxford City Council elections will go ahead.

We believe that the energy and persistence we put in to this has contributed to the elections going ahead in May.

Meanwhile, we have also continued to shine a light on other issues, and to prepare for May elections.


Other News:

We are continuing to support the legal action against the County Council against the Congestion Charge, raising awareness where we can, and looking into the reported data and various claims. This included a letter of ours printed in the Oxford Mail on 6 Jan, countering claims about the interpretation of the consultation results, and several other letters on related topics.

David Henwood and Anne Stares, after considerable effort, arranged a visit by Andrew Gant to Littlemore on 22 Jan, for a meeting where local residents were able to ask questions and challenge proposals regarding transport measures.

David Henwood made the national news (The Times, The Daily Mail, Metro) with his approach to fighting crime with Japanese wooden clappers, or hyoshigi. This of course was always designed to draw attention to the increasing crime issues in the local area, and put pressure on the Councils and TVP to take action.

 

Live consultations:

There are two significant consultations currently running.
We encourage you to take a look at these and consider responding; and please encourage others to do the same.

BACK