Agenda and minutes

There were no position statements.

It was moved by Mrs Taylor, seconded by Mr Poland and carried unanimously:

 

“(a)    That subject to (b) below, the Local Transport Plan (LTP4) Core Document, attached as Appendix A to the report, be approved;

 

(b)      That the Director of Environment and Transport, following consultation with the Cabinet Lead Member, be authorised to update the LTP4, including the focused strategies, Multi-Modal Area Investment Plans (MMAIPs), and the County Strategic Transport Investment Plan, as a result of evidence arising from the delivery of the LTP4 Core Document and consideration of future iterations of the Medium Term Financial Strategy.

 

It was moved by Mr Tilbury, seconded by Mr Whitford and carried unanimously:

 

“That the Local Nature Recovery Strategy for Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland be approved.”

 

It was moved by Mr Bray, seconded by Mr Cooke and carried unanimously:

 

“That the Corporate Governance Committee Annual Report 2024-25, attached to the report, be noted.”

 

It was moved by Mrs Taylor, seconded by Mr Mullaney and carried unanimously:

 

“That the information contained in the Overview and Scrutiny Annual Report 2024-25, appended to the report, be noted.”

 

It was moved by Mr Harrison and seconded by Mrs Taylor:

 

“That the proposed changes to the terms of reference of the Council’s Overview and Scrutiny Committees, as set out in the Appendix to this report, and any consequential amendments to the Constitution required as a result of these changes, be approved.”

 

The motion was put and not carried, with 22 members voting for the motion and 27 members voting against.

 

"Following the outcome of the election in which the Conservatives lost their majority fighting on a platform of one unitary authority for the whole of Leicestershire this County Council resolves to:

 

(a)  Withdraw the bid with the Government for one unitary authority for the whole of Leicestershire and support the proposals from the Borough and District Councils and Rutland County Council for two Unitary authorities for Leicestershire (a North and a South);

 

(b)  Record its objection to any proposal that would involve parts of the County of Leicestershire being taken over by an enlarged Leicester City Authority.”

 

It was moved by Mr Mullaney and seconded by Mr Bray:

 

"Following the outcome of the election in which the Conservatives lost their majority fighting on a platform of one unitary authority for the whole of Leicestershire this County Council resolves to:

 

(a)    Withdraw the bid with the Government for one unitary authority for the whole of Leicestershire and support the proposals from the Borough and District Councils and Rutland County Council for two Unitary authorities for Leicestershire (a North and a South);

 

(b)    Record its objection to any proposal that would involve parts of the County of Leicestershire being taken over by an enlarged Leicester City Authority.”

 

An amendment was moved by Mr D Harrison and seconded by Mr Boam:

 

“That

i)               following advice from chief officers on the proposals for local government reorganisation (LGR) from the district councils and Rutland, which include a proposed north/south split of the county, the County Council believes that the proposal if implemented:

 

(a)  would lead to a significant risk to the stability of countywide services, particularly social care.

 

(b)  would also cause unnecessary disaggregation of services leading to cost increases, duplication and reduced economies of scale for upper tier functions such as highways, waste disposal and social care.

 

It is also noted that:

 

(c)  the County Council was informed by the leaders of the district councils and Rutland at a meeting in January 2025 that, following earlier meetings to which the County Council had not been invited, those leaders supported a unitary authority for Leicester with an extended boundary and two unitary authorities for the remaining area of Leicestershire and Rutland.

 

(d)  the County Council under the previous administration changed its position when the Government refused a request to delay elections to join the fast-track LGR programme to unlock devolution.

 

(e)  the County Council is not aware that the district councils and Rutland have changed their position from January 2025 but are currently carrying out a ‘public engagement’ exercise on a proposal which does not support an extended City boundary.

 

ii)              the County Council believes it is important to be open and transparent in the LGR process.

 

iii)            the County Council is therefore unable to support the proposals from the district councils and Rutland for two unitary authorities for Leicestershire, which would create unviable new authorities, contrary to Government requirements as set out in the Devolution White Paper that new unitary councils must be the right size to achieve efficiencies, improve capacity and withstand financial shocks.

 

iv)            the County Council is having constructive discussions with the City Council and there is joint agreement that the best option for LGR in Leicester and Leicestershire is a two unitary model, one City, one County, that both authorities must be financially sustainable with the capacity to enable strategic land use planning across City and County, providing the optimum structure for devolution of powers, responsibilities and funding.”

 

On the amendment being put and before the vote was taken, five members rose asking that a named vote be recorded.

 

The vote was recorded as follows:

 

For the Amendment

 

Mr Abbott, Mr Bailey, Dr Bloxham, Mr Boam, Mr Bradshaw, Miss Butler, Mr Cooke, Mr Crook, Mrs Danks, Mr England, Mr Fowler, Mr Grimley, Mr Hamilton-Gray, Mr D Harrison, Mr P Harrison, Mr Innes, Mr King, Mrs Knight, Mr Lovegrove, Mr McDonald, Mr Melen, Mr Morris, Mr O’Shea, Mr Orson, Mr Page, Mrs Page, Mr Poland, Mr Richichi, Mr Rudkin, Mrs Seaton, Mr Smith, Mr Squires, Mrs Taylor, Mr Tilbury, Mr Whitford

 

Against the Amendment

 

Mr Bools, Mrs Bottomley, Mr Bray, Mr Charlesworth, Mr Durrani, Mr Galton, Mr  ...  view the full minutes text for item 25a

“In the interests of seeking a way forward which we can all support and in recognition of the omission of the Chancellor to address issues in Leicestershire in either the Budget or the Spending Review, this Council resolves to make representation to the Government in order to persuade it:

 

(i)    To provide fair funding for the County Council as Leicestershire remains rooted at the bottom of the league;

 

(ii)  To provide adequate resources for the maintenance of the three emergency services in the County, Fire, Police and Ambulance, all of which are profoundly under funded;

 

(iii) To outline the action it intends to take to tackle continuing flooding problems;

 

(iv) To address the issue of retention, recruitment and improvements in the NHS and Social Care across the County;

 

(v)  To bring forward an early programme to road and rail schemes across the County including the A5, Junction 21 and the long promised Coventry – Leicester rail project.”

 

With the consent of the Council, Mr Mullaney moved the following altered motion, seconded by Mrs Pendlebury:

 

“In the interests of seeking a way forward which we can all support and in recognition of the omission of the Chancellor to address issues in Leicestershire in either the Budget or the Spending Review, this Council resolves to make representation to the Government in order to persuade it:

 

(i)    To provide fair funding for the County Council as Leicestershire remains rooted at the bottom of the league;

 

(ii)     To provide adequate resources for the maintenance of the three emergency services in the County, Fire, Police and Ambulance, all of which are profoundly under funded;

 

(iii)    To outline the action it intends to take to tackle continuing flooding problems;

 

(iv)    To address the issue of retention, recruitment and improvements in the NHS and Social Care across the County;

 

(v)     To bring forward an early programme to road and rail schemes across the County including the A5, Junctions 21 and 24 of the M1, the A46 Hobby Horse Island and the long promised Coventry – Leicester rail project.”

 

The motion was put and carried, with 42 members voting for the motion and no members voting against.