Agenda, decisions and minutes

A webcast of the meeting can be viewed here.

County Service

 

The Chairman reminded members he would be hosting the County Service on Sunday 26^th October at 3.00 p.m. at St John the Baptist in Hugglescote with the Bishop of Loughborough, The Right Reverend Saju Muthalaly, preaching. All members had been invited.

 

Remembrance

 

On Tuesday 11^th November, the Chairman would be leading the County Council’s tributes at the annual Remembrance Service at the Stand Easy memorial at County Hall.  He hoped that members would be able to join him.

 

 

It was moved by the Chairman, seconded by Mr Hamilton-Gray and carried:-

 

“That the minutes of the meeting of the Council held on 2 July 2025, copies of which have been circulated to members, be taken as read, confirmed and signed.”

 

It was moved by the Chairman, seconded by Mr Hamilton-Gray and carried:-

 

“That the minutes of the Extraordinary meeting of the Council held on 30 July 2025, copies of which have been circulated to members, be taken as read, confirmed and signed.”

 

The Chairman invited members who wished to do so to make declarations of interest in respect of items on the agenda for the meeting.

 

Mr Orson and Mr Bailey both declared a Non Registerable Interest in the Notice of Motion on Protecting Rural Communities from the Impact of Reckless Tax Reform due to their agricultural land holdings and the potential financial implications of the reforms for them.  The issue affected them and their business more than most other people who were not farmers and might therefore be considered to affect their views on the matter.  The Chairman therefore confirmed that the Monitoring Officer had approved a dispensation for both Mr Orson and Mr Bailey to allow them to take part in the discussion and vote on the matter on the grounds that this was in the public interest – namely to allow an informed debate, including the views of members who had knowledge of the sector and impact of the IHT proposals on the sector.

 

(A)            Mr Bray asked the following question of the Leader or his nominee:

 

“At the meeting on 30^th July 2025 the Leader moved an amendment which included a commitment to write to the Government to ask for a referendum on local government reform, which I support. Given that the amendment was not passed by the Council, will the Leader now commit the Council to holding a referendum ourselves?”

Mr D. Harrison replied as follows:

“Mr Bray is aware that the Reform UK administration supports calls for a local referendum. This is why it was proposed in the amendment at the full Council meeting on 30^th July 2025, which his Group failed to support.  Holding a unilateral referendum by the County Council would be an uncosted burden on the tax payers of this County and would need the support of this Council to pass.”

 

(B)      Mrs Taylor asked the following question of the Leader or his nominee:

 

“1.      Can the Leader advise why he appointed Mr Boam as the Deputy Leader of this Council in May, and what were the changes of circumstances in the three months following that appointment which led him to sack Mr Boam as Deputy Leader and from Cabinet?

2.        Can the Leader confirm that this Cabinet will remain in post for the foreseeable future to provide stability?”

Mr D. Harrison replied as follows:

“1.      Mr Boam was elected Deputy Leader of the Reform UK administration by its elected members in May this year and his name was therefore nominated by the Leader at the Annual Meeting of the County Council.  In August of this year, it became evident that Mr Boam could not continue with his duties as Adult Social Care Lead Member. The Reform UK group decided the right course of action was to remove Mr Boam from his positions.

 

2.               Cabinet positions are appointed by the Leader of the Council, and I have every confidence we now have the right team in place.”

 

Mrs Taylor asked the following supplementary question:

 

“I thank the Leader for his answer and just a point of clarity, he said the

Deputy Leader, Mr Boam had been elected by the Reform UK administration elected members in May. Could he confirm if the current new Deputy Leader had also been elected by the Reform UK administration this time?”

 

 

Mr D. Harrison replied as follows:

 

“A very simple response. Yes.”

 

(C)      Mr Bray asked the following question of the Leader or his nominee:

 

“The work that the County Council has done to roll out superfast fibre broadband across parts of Leicestershire is to be commended, however residents in Curzon Close, Burbage in my Division have been battling with their leasehold company and Openreach to try and get their street connected, so far to no avail. 

Would the Leader ask officers to take up the case for people in Curzon Close and surrounding streets and work with these companies to get the homes connected?”

 

Mr Fowler replied as follows:

“Superfast Leicestershire, a Government funded programme to increase digital connectivity, brought Superfast broadband to over 78,000 Leicestershire premises between 2013 and 2021.  The Council is now working with Building Digital UK to support gigabit-capable, full fibre broadband delivery to at least 17,000 homes and businesses in areas not covered by commercial broadband plans by 2032.

 

Openreach, Virgin Media, and CityFibre have delivered gigabit capable broadband in Burbage as part of their commercial build.  Unfortunately, it appears that Curzon Court has not been included.

Officers have contacted Openreach to understand why Curzon Court has been excluded.  Openreach can find no record of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32.

The Leader gave a position statement on the following matters:

 

·        The Council’s Medium Term Financial Strategy

·        Notable achievements since May

·        Local Government Reorganisation

·        Meeting with the Lord Lieutenant

·        Meeting with Staff Network Representatives

 

The Lead Member for Adults and Communities gave a position statement on the Care Quality Commission Assessment of the County Council.

 

The Lead Member for Children and Family Services gave a position statement on the following matters:

 

·        Special Educational Needs

·        Children in Care

·        Admissions and School Improvement

·        Music

·        Families First Partnership Programme

 

The Lead Member for Environment and Flooding gave a position statement on flooding and flood management.

 

The Leader gave a position statement on the following matters:

 

·        The Council’s Medium Term Financial Strategy

·        Notable achievements since May

·        Local Government Reorganisation

·        Meeting with the Lord Lieutenant

·        Meeting with Staff Network Representatives

 

The Lead Member for Adults and Communities gave a position statement on the Care Quality Commission Assessment of the County Council.

 

The Lead Member for Children and Family Services gave a position statement on the following matters:

 

·        Special Educational Needs

·        Children in Care

·        Admissions and School Improvement

·        Music

·        Families First Partnership Programme

 

The Lead Member for Environment and Flooding gave a position statement on flooding and flood management.

 

A copy of the position statements is filed with these minutes.

 

“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.”

 

It was moved by Mr D. Harrison, seconded by Mrs Taylor and carried unanimously:

 

“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.”

 

“1.      This Council notes:

 

a)      That 6,365 agriculture, forestry, and fishing businesses have closed in the past year—more than in any year since quarterly records began in 2017 (ONS).

b)      That the majority of these closures occurred in the first half of the year, following the Chancellor’s October 2024 announcement to slash inheritance tax relief for family farms.

c)       That only 3,190 new businesses were created in the sector during the same period, leaving a net loss of 3,175—evidence of the fastest contraction on record.

 

2.                This Council believes:

 

a)      That the Chancellor’s decision to reduce inheritance tax relief has dealt a devastating blow to generational farming families, many of whom now face impossible financial choices.

 

b)      That this policy was implemented without adequate consultation or impact assessment and has disproportionately harmed rural communities.

 

c)       That the Government must be held accountable for the consequences of its actions and take immediate steps to reverse the damage.

 

3.                This Council resolves to:

 

a)      Condemn the Chancellor’s decision to reduce inheritance tax relief for family farms and call for its urgent reversal;

b)      Demand that the Government introduce emergency support for rural businesses affected by the policy, including transitional relief and access to financial advice;

c)       Request a full impact assessment on rural business viability, to be shared with local authorities and farming unions;

d)      Stand in solidarity with farming families and rural workers and commit to championing their interests at every level of government.”

 

 

“1.     That this Council notes:

a)      That 6,365 agriculture, forestry, and fishing businesses have closed in the past year—more than in any year since quarterly records began in 2017 (ONS).

b)      That the majority of these closures occurred in the first half of the year, following the Chancellor’s October 2024 announcement to slash inheritance tax relief for family farms.

c)       That only 3,190 new businesses were created in the sector during the same period, leaving a net loss of 3,175—evidence of the fastest contraction on record.

 

2.                That this Council believes:

 

a)         That the Chancellor’s decision to reduce inheritance tax relief has dealt a devastating blow to generational farming families, many of whom now face impossible financial choices.

 

b)         That this policy was implemented without adequate consultation or impact assessment and has disproportionately harmed rural communities.

 

c)         That the Government must be held accountable for the consequences of its actions and take immediate steps to reverse the damage.

 

3.                That this Council resolves to:

 

a)      Condemn the Chancellor’s decision to reduce inheritance tax relief for family farms and call for its urgent reversal;

b)      Demand that the Government introduce emergency support for rural businesses affected by the policy, including transitional relief and access to financial advice;

c)       Request a full impact assessment on rural business viability, to be shared with local authorities and farming unions;

d)      Stand in solidarity with farming families and rural workers and commit to championing their interests at every level of government.”

 

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

“1.     That this Council notes:

a)      That 6,365 agriculture, forestry, and fishing businesses have closed in the past year—more than in any year since quarterly records began in 2017 (ONS).

b)      That the majority of these closures occurred in the first half of the year, following the Chancellor’s October 2024 announcement to slash inheritance tax relief for family farms.

c)       That only 3,190 new businesses were created in the sector during the same period, leaving a net loss of 3,175—evidence of the fastest contraction on record.

 

2.                That this Council believes:

 

a)      That the Chancellor’s decision to reduce inheritance tax relief has dealt a devastating blow to generational farming families, many of whom now face impossible financial choices.

 

b)      That this policy was implemented without adequate consultation or impact assessment and has disproportionately harmed rural communities.

 

c)       That the Government must be held accountable for the consequences of its actions and take immediate steps to reverse the damage.

 

3.                That this Council resolves to:

 

a)      Condemn the Chancellor’s decision to reduce inheritance tax relief for family farms and call for its urgent reversal;

b)      Demand that the Government introduce emergency support for rural businesses affected by the policy, including transitional relief and access to financial advice;

c)       Request a full impact assessment on rural business viability, to be shared with local authorities and farming unions;

d)      Stand in solidarity with farming families and rural workers and commit to championing their interests at every level of government.”

 

The motion was put and carried, with 45 members voting for the motion and 2 members voting against.

“1.      This Council notes that:

 

a)           The Government’s current Planning and Infrastructure Bill makes provision for housing development and infrastructure investment but does not go far enough in ensuring that new and existing homes are adequately protected from the increasing risk of flooding.

 

b)           Climate change is increasing the frequency and severity of flooding events across the UK, placing thousands of households at risk of damage, disruption, and loss.

 

c)           Local planning authorities are currently restricted in their ability to ensure developments are flood-resilient. For example:

 

d)           Planning law largely limits councils to considering the management of surface water within the site boundary, with limited powers to require or enforce measures for water once it leaves the site.

 

e)           Councils cannot always insist on the use of sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) or require developers to demonstrate the long-term adequacy of drainage and outflow arrangements into wider catchments.

 

f)             Once a development is built, responsibility for managing downstream or cumulative flood risk typically falls to local authorities or agencies, without dedicated funding from central government.

 

2.                This Council believes that:

 

a)           Flood prevention and resilience must be a central part of all planning and infrastructure decisions, not an afterthought.

b)           Developers must be held accountable not only for water management on-site, but also for the impact their developments have on neighbouring land and communities downstream.

c)           Local authorities should be empowered and properly resourced to require the highest standards of flood resilience in all new developments, and to invest in infrastructure that protects existing communities.

d)           Without stronger measures, the Planning and Infrastructure Bill risks locking in avoidable future costs, damages, and risks for residents and taxpayers.

 

 

 

 

3.                This Council therefore resolves to:

 

a)           Write to the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, and the relevant local MPs, calling for the Planning and Infrastructure Bill to be amended to:

 

                                      i.         Strengthen requirements on developers to use robust, sustainable drainage solutions that demonstrate effectiveness both on-site and downstream;

 

                                     ii.         Give councils clear powers to refuse or condition developments where surface water and flood risk management plans are inadequate beyond the site boundary;

 

                                   iii.         Provide long-term, ring-fenced funding for councils to invest in flood prevention and resilience measures, including off-site infrastructure;

 

b)       Work with neighbouring councils, the Local Government Association, and relevant agencies to lobby for stronger national policy on flooding and planning, taking an accumulative view of the risks.

 

“1.      That this Council notes that:

 

a)      The Government’s current Planning and Infrastructure Bill makes provision for housing development and infrastructure investment but does not go far enough in ensuring that new and existing homes are adequately protected from the increasing risk of flooding.

 

b)      Climate change is increasing the frequency and severity of flooding events across the UK, placing thousands of households at risk of damage, disruption, and loss.

 

c)       Local planning authorities are currently restricted in their ability to ensure developments are flood-resilient. For example:

 

d)      Planning law largely limits councils to considering the management of surface water within the site boundary, with limited powers to require or enforce measures for water once it leaves the site.

 

e)      Councils cannot always insist on the use of sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) or require developers to demonstrate the long-term adequacy of drainage and outflow arrangements into wider catchments.

 

f)        Once a development is built, responsibility for managing downstream or cumulative flood risk typically falls to local authorities or agencies, without dedicated funding from central government.

 

2.                That this Council believes that:

 

a)      Flood prevention and resilience must be a central part of all planning and infrastructure decisions, not an afterthought.

b)      Developers must be held accountable not only for water management on-site, but also for the impact their developments have on neighbouring land and communities downstream.

c)       Local authorities should be empowered and properly resourced to require the highest standards of flood resilience in all new developments, and to invest in infrastructure that protects existing communities.

d)      Without stronger measures, the Planning and Infrastructure Bill risks locking in avoidable future costs, damages, and risks for residents and taxpayers.

 

3.                That this Council therefore resolves to:

 

a)     Write to the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, and the relevant local MPs, calling for the Planning and Infrastructure Bill to be amended to:

 

                              i.         Strengthen requirements on developers to use robust, sustainable drainage solutions that demonstrate effectiveness both on-site and downstream;

 

                            ii.         Give councils clear powers to refuse or condition developments where surface water and flood risk management plans are inadequate beyond the site boundary;

 

                           iii.         Provide long-term, ring-fenced funding for councils to invest in flood prevention and resilience measures, including off-site infrastructure;

 

b)   Work with neighbouring councils, the Local Government Association, and relevant agencies to lobby for stronger national policy on flooding and planning, taking an accumulative view of the risks.”

It was moved by Mrs Bottomley and seconded by Mrs Pendlebury:

 

“1.      That this Council notes that:

 

a)      The Government’s current Planning and Infrastructure Bill makes provision for housing development and infrastructure investment but does not go far enough in ensuring that new and existing homes are adequately protected from the increasing risk of flooding.

 

b)      Climate change is increasing the frequency and severity of flooding events across the UK, placing thousands of households at risk of damage, disruption, and loss.

 

c)       Local planning authorities are currently restricted in their ability to ensure developments are flood-resilient. For example:

 

d)      Planning law largely limits councils to considering the management of surface water within the site boundary, with limited powers to require or enforce measures for water once it leaves the site.

 

e)      Councils cannot always insist on the use of sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) or require developers to demonstrate the long-term adequacy of drainage and outflow arrangements into wider catchments.

 

f)        Once a development is built, responsibility for managing downstream or cumulative flood risk typically falls to local authorities or agencies, without dedicated funding from central government.

 

2.                That this Council believes that:

 

a)      Flood prevention and resilience must be a central part of all planning and infrastructure decisions, not an afterthought.

b)      Developers must be held accountable not only for water management on-site, but also for the impact their developments have on neighbouring land and communities downstream.

c)       Local authorities should be empowered and properly resourced to require the highest standards of flood resilience in all new developments, and to invest in infrastructure that protects existing communities.

d)      Without stronger measures, the Planning and Infrastructure Bill risks locking in avoidable future costs, damages, and risks for residents and taxpayers.

 

3.                That this Council therefore resolves to:

 

a)     Write to the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, and the relevant local MPs, calling for the Planning and Infrastructure Bill to be amended to:

 

                              i.         Strengthen requirements on developers to use robust, sustainable drainage solutions that demonstrate effectiveness both on-site and downstream;

 

                            ii.         Give councils clear powers to refuse or condition developments where surface water and flood risk management plans are inadequate beyond the site boundary;

 

                           iii.         Provide long-term, ring-fenced funding for councils to invest in flood prevention and resilience measures, including off-site infrastructure;

 

b)   Work with neighbouring councils, the Local Government Association, and relevant agencies to lobby for stronger national policy on flooding and planning, taking an accumulative view of the risks.”

 

On the motion 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 motion

 

Mr Abbott, Dr Bloxham, Mr Boam, Mrs Bottomley, Mr Bradshaw, Miss Butler, Mr Chapman, Mr Crook, Mrs Danks, Mr England, Mr Fowler, Mr Galton, Ms Gray, Mr Grimley, Mr Hamilton-Gray, Mr Dan Harrison, Mr Paul Harrison, Dr Hill, Mr Holt, Mr Innes, Mr King, Mrs Knight, Mr McDonald, Mr Melen, Mr Miah, Mr Morris, Mr Mullaney, Mr O’Shea, Mr Orson, Mr Page, Mrs Page, Mrs Pendlebury, Mr Poland, Mr Pugsley, Mr Richichi, Mr Robinson, Mr Rudkin, Mr Smith, Mr Squires, Mrs Taylor, Mr Thorp, Mr Tilbury, Mr Walker, Mr Whitford.

 

The motion was carried with 44 members voting for the motion.  There were no votes against the motion.