Agenda and decisions

A webcast of the meeting can be viewed at Committee meetings at Leicestershire County Council - YouTube

The Leader gave a position statement on the following matters:

·       Member Conduct;

·       Local Government Reorganisation;

·       Building Local and Regional Strategic Relationships;

·       Villages Together.

The Lead Member for Resources gave a position statement on the Efficiency Review.

The Lead Member for Environment and Transport gave a position statement on the following matters:

·       Getting ready for winter (gritting and flood ready);

·       Response to Storm Claudia.

The Chairman of the Scrutiny Commission gave a position statement on the work of the Scrutiny Commission.

“That the Annual Delivery Report and Performance Compendium 2025 be approved.”

Motion 1

“(a)     That the proposed changes to the Constitution, as set out in Appendix A to this report, other than those which relate to Standing Orders (the Meeting Procedure Rules), be approved;

Motion 2 – Procedural Motion in accordance with Standing Order 37

(b)           That the changes to Standing Orders (The Meeting Procedure Rules), as set out in Appendix B to this report, be approved.”

(NOTE: Standing Order 37 requires that this procedural motion, having been moved and seconded, stands adjourned until the next ordinary meeting of the Council.)

“(a)     That Jane Moore be appointed Chief Executive and Head of Paid Service with effect from 4 December 2025, with remuneration at Grade 22, spinal column point 71, of the Leicestershire County Council Salary Scale 2025-26;

(b)           That Jane Moore be appointed as Electoral Registration Officer and Returning Officer with effect from 4 December 2025.”

(a)  That this Council:

(i)               Recognises the vital role played by carers in supporting vulnerable individuals across Leicestershire and acknowledges the unique challenges they face in accessing services, employment, and community participation;

(ii)              Notes that the Care Act 2014 grants carers the right to:

·     A Carer’s Assessment, regardless of the amount or type of care provided;

·     Support services and personal budgets where eligible;

·     Information, advice and preventative support to maintain wellbeing;

·     Independent advocacy where needed.

(iii)    Notes that the Children and Families Act 2014 entitles all young carers and parent carers to a needs assessment;

(b)  That this Council therefore resolves to:

(i)           Formally recognise carers as a group requiring particular consideration and support, specifically:

·         To ensure carers are consulted and involved in shaping services;

·         To review service delivery to remove barriers for carers;

(i)           Assess future decisions, services and policies made and adopted by the Council to determine the impact of changes on carers;

(ii)         Ensure that these commitments are incorporated into the refresh of the Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland Carers Strategy and any other relevant policies and strategies.

“(a)     That this Council:

(i)             Recognises the vital role played by carers in supporting vulnerable individuals across Leicestershire and acknowledges the unique challenges they face in accessing services, employment, and community participation;

(ii)            Notes that the Care Act 2014 grants carers the right to:

·     A Carer’s Assessment, regardless of the amount or type of care provided;

·     Support services and personal budgets where eligible;

·     Information, advice and preventative support to maintain wellbeing;

·     Independent advocacy where needed.

(iii)      Notes that the Children and Families Act 2014 entitles all young carers and parent carers to a needs assessment;

(b)           That this Council therefore resolves to:

(i)             Formally recognise carers as a group requiring particular consideration and support, specifically:

·     To ensure carers are consulted and involved in shaping services;

·     To review service delivery to remove barriers for carers;

(ii)        Assess future decisions, services and policies made and adopted by the Council to determine the impact of changes on carers;

(iii)       Ensure that these commitments are incorporated into the refresh of the Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland Carers Strategy and any other relevant policies and strategies.”

(a)      That this Council notes the recent announcement by Keir Starmer’s Labour Government of plans to introduce a mandatory Digital ID scheme for all UK residents.

(b)      That this Council further notes that the Government’s plan:

(i)        Could require every resident to obtain a Digital ID to access public services and entitlements;

(ii)       Could risk criminalising millions of people, particularly older people, those on lower incomes, or those without access to digital technology;

(iii)      Raises significant privacy and civil liberties concerns;

(iv)      Could result in billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money being wasted on a massive IT project, with no clear benefit or safeguards.

(c)       That this Council believes that Labour’s scheme:

(i)    Represents an expensive measure that will undermine public trust;

(ii)  Will do nothing to address the real priorities facing communities such as delivering more police on the streets, properly funding local schools and fixing broken roads and pavements;

(iii) Fails to protect our core British values of liberty, privacy and fairness.

(d)      That this Council welcomes the Liberal Democrats’ consistent national opposition to Labour’s ID cards, having previously defeated Labour’s original plans for ID cards in 2010, and opposes Labour’s renewed attempt to impose them in digital form.

(e)      That this Council resolves:

(i)       To formally oppose the Labour Government’s Digital ID plans;

(ii)      To request the Leader of the Council and the Chief Executive write to the Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Minister for Digital Infrastructure expressing this Council’s firm opposition to Labour’s mandatory Digital ID system and calling for the plans to be scrapped;

(iii)     To work with local voluntary, digital inclusion and civil liberties groups to ensure that no resident in Leicestershire is penalised or excluded as a result of any national identification scheme.

“(a)     That this Council notes the recent announcement by Keir Starmer’s Labour Government of plans to introduce a mandatory Digital ID scheme for all UK residents.

(b)           That this Council further notes that the Government’s plan:

(i)             Could require every resident to obtain a Digital ID to access public services and entitlements;

(ii)           Could risk criminalising millions of people, particularly older people, those on lower incomes, or those without access to digital technology;

(iii)          Raises significant privacy and civil liberties concerns;

(iv)          Could result in billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money being wasted on a massive IT project, with no clear benefit or safeguards.

(c)           That this Council believes that Labour’s scheme:

(i)             Represents an expensive measure that will undermine public trust;

(ii)           Will do nothing to address the real priorities facing communities such as delivering more police on the streets, properly funding local schools and fixing broken roads and pavements;

(iii)          Fails to protect our core British values of liberty, privacy and fairness.

(d)           That this Council welcomes the Liberal Democrats’ consistent national opposition to Labour’s ID cards, having previously defeated Labour’s original plans for ID cards in 2010, and opposes Labour’s renewed attempt to impose them in digital form.

(e)           That this Council resolves:

(i)             To formally oppose the Labour Government’s Digital ID plans;

(ii)           To request the Leader of the Council and the Chief Executive write to the Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Minister for Digital Infrastructure expressing this Council’s firm opposition to Labour’s mandatory Digital ID system and calling for the plans to be scrapped;

(iii)          To work with local voluntary, digital inclusion and civil liberties groups to ensure that no resident in Leicestershire is penalised or excluded as a result of any national identification scheme.”

(a)  That this Council notes:

(i)    The increasing number of children and young people in our county with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND);

(ii)  The growing pressure on schools, local authorities, and families to meet complex needs with limited resources;

(iii) That current funding levels for SEND provision are insufficient to meet statutory obligations and ensure equitable access to education.

(b)  That this Council believes:

(i)    Every child deserves access to high-quality education, regardless of their needs;

(ii)  Underfunding SEND services risks long-term harm to children’s development, wellbeing, and life chances;

(iii) Local authorities must be adequately resourced to deliver the support required under the Children and Families Act 2014.

(c)  That this Council resolves to write to the Secretary of State for Education, urging an immediate review and uplift of SEND funding allocations for Leicestershire County Council.

“(a)     That this Council notes:

(i)    The increasing number of children and young people in our county with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND);

(ii)   The growing pressure on schools, local authorities, and families to meet complex needs with limited resources;

(iii) That current funding levels for SEND provision are insufficient to meet statutory obligations and ensure equitable access to education.

(b)           That this Council believes:

(i)    Every child deserves access to high-quality education, regardless of their needs;

(ii)   Underfunding SEND services risks long-term harm to children’s development, wellbeing, and life chances;

(iii) Local authorities must be adequately resourced to deliver the support required under the Children and Families Act 2014.

(c)           That this Council resolves to write to the Secretary of State for Education, urging an immediate review and uplift of SEND funding allocations for Leicestershire County Council.”

(a)  This Council notes:

(i)    That instances of surface water and fluvial flooding across Leicestershire are becoming more frequent and severe, posing risks to life, property, and transport networks.

(ii)  That road closures during flood events may at times be delayed because the Council’s Operational Highways teams and emergency services cannot always attend immediately.

(iii) That Nottinghamshire County Council operates a Community Flood Signage Scheme (CFSS), which enables trained community Flood Wardens (who are employees of Nottinghamshire County Council) to deploy signage and temporarily close roads when pre-agreed flood trigger levels are reached, under the direction and authorisation of the County Council’s Flood Risk Management Team.

(iv) That this scheme has been recognised nationally for improving public safety, reducing emergency response demands, and strengthening local resilience.

(b)  This Council has undertaken an initial feasibility assessment introducing a CFSS and recognises:

(i)    That empowering local communities to act swiftly and safely during flooding events could significantly enhance public safety.

(ii)  That subject to resolving legal and regulatory issues and with appropriate training, insurance, and operational protocols, community Flood Wardens could responsibly assist the Council in closing roads that are temporarily impassable due to flooding.

(iii) That implementing a CFSS in Leicestershire would align with the Council’s objectives as the Lead Local Flood Authority and demonstrate proactive flood management.

(c)  To introduce such a scheme this Council notes:

(i)    That Volunteer Flood Wardens (VFWs) are currently managed by the Local Authority Resilience Partnership. The Resilience Partnership Management Board does not support the introduction of CFSS due to concerns over resource pressures, particularly during a severe weather event.

(ii)  In light of the Resilience Partnership Management Board’s position, the management responsibility of the CFSS would need to be transferred to the Council from the Resilience Partnership in order to facilitate the scheme, including updating the role and responsibilities of the team providing the necessary training, supervision and oversight to effectively manage the responsibility and liabilities associated with a volunteer scheme of this nature.

(iii) That a transfer of responsibilities and appointing the necessary resource would need to be managed to avoid disruption to services during the higher flooding risk time of year for the County Council’s flood risk and drainage teams.

(iv) That implementation of the CFSS would be dependent on both the ability and willingness of VFWs to take on additional responsibilities and for those VFWs to be available at the time of a flood event. In addition, it may not be that VFWs are operating in the areas most at risk of safety or property impacts.

(v)  Not all locations would be suitable for action by VFW, including high speed roads and isolated locations. These locations would continue to be addressed by the Local Highway Authority even where a CFSS was implemented.

(d)  This Council therefore resolves to:

(i)    Introduce a pilot scheme of enhanced resources allocated to prioritise ‘quick response’ to locations where road closures could reduce the risk to life (in addition to existing sites) and risk of property flooding caused by bow waves or other relevant locations promoted by VFWs. Initial locations during the pilot would be based on existing reports and local knowledge. Additional locations may be added over time dependent on the evaluation of the pilot. The objectives are similar to a CFSS but with the benefits of wider coverage and consistent application.

(ii)  Work with VFWs to identify suitable locations for signage warning where a route is liable to flooding or where bow waves can cause internal property flooding.

(iii) Engage with the communities impacted by bow wave flooding to help and guide  ...  view the full agenda text for item 10d