Agenda and minutes

A webcast of the meeting can be viewed here.

 

The Chairman reported with great sadness the death of the former Leader of the County Council, Mr Nick Rushton.

 

Mr Rushton was a Member of the County Council from 1989 – 1993 representing the Ashby de la Zouch electoral division and 2001 – 2025 representing the Breedon electoral division which in 2005 became the Valley electoral division.

 

During his first period of service on the County Council, Mr Rushton served mainly on the Economic Development and Employment Committee and the Environment Committee. In 1992, he became a member of the Policy and Resources Committee, the committee system equivalent to the Cabinet.

 

Following his re-election to the County Council in 2001, Mr Rushton served as a member of the Scrutiny Commission. He became Cabinet Lead Member for Highways and Transportation in 2005 and was appointed Deputy Leader of the Council in 2006.  After a short period away from the Cabinet, he became Deputy Leader with the Resources portfolio in 2010.  In 2012, he became Leader of the Council, a position he held until 2025.  He was a highly respected Leader across the political spectrum whose focus was always on the residents of Leicestershire.

 

Mr Rushton chaired the Combined Fire Authority from 2015 – 2024.

On the national and regional scene, he was a former Vice-Chairman of the County Councils Network and a past spokesman for Finance.

 

In May 2026 Mr Rushton was appointed an Honorary Alderman in recognition of his many years of distinguished service to the residents and communities of Leicestershire, guiding the County Council through periods of significant challenge and change.

 

The response from members to his appointment as an Honorary Alderman demonstrated huge respect for his leadership of the Council.  Members joined with the Chairman in holding a minute’s silence for Mr Rushton.

 

At the invitation of the Chairman, members of the County Council paid their personal tributes to Mr Rushton.

 

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

 

All members declared a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in the Notice of Motion on Local Government Reorganisation, noting that some members were also district or borough councillors in Leicestershire.

 

The Corporate Governance Committee on 23 June 2025 had approved a dispensation for members to allow them to take part in any discussion and vote on any matter relating to the office they hold at the County Council, so all members were able to stay in the room and vote on this matter.

 

Mr Grimley also declared an other registrable interest in the Notice of Motion on Local Government Reorganisation, as his wife worked for Leicester City Council.

 

“This County Council condemns the government’s proposal for local government reorganisation in Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland.

 

Their proposal to drag 100,000s of county residents into Leicester City, overwhelmingly against their will, is an undemocratic disgrace. 

 

Council notes that the Liberal Democrat group opposes the government’s proposal to put the rest of Leicestershire and Rutland into one Unitary authority, believing such an authority will be too remote from many residents.

 

We call on the government and the new Prime Minister to go back to the drawing board and put together new plans for Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland. Plans which will keep the city boundary the same as it currently is and ensure the residents of Leicestershire and Rutland have local government that can reflect their local needs and interests.”

 

(A requisition for an Extraordinary Meeting of the Council for the purpose of considering this motion was put forward by the following members of the Council in accordance with the Local Government Act 1972, Schedule 12, paragraph 3:

 

Mr M Mullaney CC

Mr S Bray CC

Ms A Pendlebury CC

Mr M Bools CC

Dr S Hill CC

Mr S Galton CC

Mrs L Broadley CC

Mr D Gamble CC

Mr M Durrani CC

Mr B Walker CC

Mr N Holt CC.)

 

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

 

 “1.    This County Council condemns the government’s proposal for Local Government reorganisation in Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland.

 

2.         Their proposal to drag 100,000s of Leicestershire County residents into Leicester City, overwhelmingly against their will, is an undemocratic disgrace.

 

3.         This Council notes that the Liberal Democrat group opposes the government’s proposal to put the rest of Leicestershire and Rutland into one Unitary authority, believing such an authority will be too remote from many residents.

 

4.         Public consultation on the proposals demonstrated significant opposition to the expansion of Leicester City's boundaries, with 88% of respondents opposing such expansion.

 

5.         Any future local government structure must deliver effective public services, strong local representation, value for money and long-term financial sustainability.

 

6.         This Council believes that:

 

(a)  Leicester City's existing boundaries should be retained and that communities should not be transferred into Leicester City against their wishes.

 

(b)  The results of public consultation should be properly respected and reflected in any future proposals.

 

(c)  Decisions on the future structure of local government in Leicestershire should be based on evidence, sustainability, service effectiveness, and democratic accountability.

 

(d)  The Government's decision-making process should be transparent, evidence-based, and capable of withstanding public scrutiny. Where decisions appear inconsistent with the evidence submitted or fail to reflect the outcome of public consultation adequately, it is appropriate for the Council to consider all available legal remedies including judicial review.

 

7.            This Council therefore resolves to:

 

(a)  Note that legal advice is being sought on the lawfulness and robustness of the Government’s decision-making process in relation to local government reorganisation in Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland and, subject to that advice, consider what further steps, including any available legal remedies, may be appropriate if reasonable grounds are identified for doing so.

 

(b)  Call on the Government to safeguard local democracy by confirming that, should the timetable for this reorganisation slip beyond 1 April 2028, the scheduled May 2027 elections for the district and borough councils, Leicester City Council, the City Mayor and Rutland Council will proceed as soon as is possible, in order to maintain democratic accountability across Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland during any extended transition period.

 

(c)  Call on the government and the new Prime Minister to go back to the drawing board and put together new plans for Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland. Plans which will keep the city boundary the same as it currently is and ensure the residents of Leicestershire and Rutland have local government that can reflect their local needs and interests.”

 

[With the consent of the Council, the meeting adjourned from 3.30pm – 4.20pm.]

 

With the concurrence of Mr Smith, her seconder, and the consent of the Council, Mrs Taylor withdrew a proposed amendment to the motion.

 

In accordance with Standing Order 16, and with the consent of the Council, Mr Mullaney proposed and Mr Bray seconded the following alteration to paragraph 3 of the motion:

 

“3.     This Council notes that the Liberal Democrat group opposes the Government’s proposal to put the rest of Leicestershire and Rutland into one Unitary authority, believing such an authority will be too remote from many residents.  They also oppose City expansion.  This Council also notes that the Reform and Conservative groups support a one Leicestershire Council with no expansion of the City.”

 

On the altered motion, including the revised paragraph 3, 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,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24.