Agenda and minutes

To note that Mr. Bill Piper CC has been appointed Chairman of the Growth, Highways, Transport and Waste Overview and Scrutiny Committee in accordance with Rule 6(a) of the Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rule (Part 4E of the County Council’s Constitution).

RESOLVED:

That it be noted that Mr Bill Piper CC had been appointed Chairman of the Growth, Highways, Transport and Waste Overview and Scrutiny Committee in accordance with Rule 6(a) of the Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rules (Part 4E of the County Council’s Constitution).

It was moved by Mr Bill Piper CC and seconded by Mr Graham Cooke CC:

“That Mr Peter Morris CC be elected Vice Chairman for the period until the next Annual Meeting of the Council.”

It was moved by Mrs Deborah Taylor CC and seconded by Mrs Brenda Seaton CC:

“That Mr Simon Bradshaw CC be elected Vice Chairman for the period until the next Annual Meeting of the Council”.

The Chairman informed Members that both candidates had been duly proposed and seconded. In accordance with item 4 of Standing Order 27 a secret ballot would therefore take place.

The Chief Executive announced the results of the ballot, as follows: four votes for Mr Peter Morris CC, four votes for Mr Simon Bradshaw, and three abstentions.

Mr Peter Morris CC withdrew his nomination and the motion “That Mr Simon Bradshaw CC be elected Vice Chairman for the period until the next Annual Meeting of the Council” was again put and carried.

RESOLVED:

The minutes of the meeting held on 5 March 2026 were taken as read, confirmed and signed.

The Chief Executive reported that one question had been received under Standing Order 32 from Mr Ray Sutton:

“The context is the May 21st site visit to the signal-controlled four-way junction in Kegworth located on the old A6 route half a mile from M1 J24: LCC Highways officers, two district councillors and the chair of parish observed frequent HGVs turning Right/North from the East with their trailers entering the already narrow stop and wait lane for Right/West turning traffic from the North.

Will the Highways Lead prioritise a review of the adequacy of () standard modelling in relation to lived road usage, (ii) the design of this major junction in relation to vehicle, cyclist and pedestrian safety on multiple routes through the junction, and (iii) the interaction of long wheelbase vehicles on the North/East and North/West routes if a planned warehouse development were to add frequent conflicting HGV traffic North and West.”

Reply by the Chairman:

Council highways officers attended a site meeting with County Councillors, Mr Tilbury CC and Mr Pugsley CC, on 21 May 2026 to discuss a live planning application (25/00236/FULM) relating to the Former RBS Data Centre. The purpose of the visit was to discuss the application and associated concerns; during the visit, highways officers did witness HGV manoeuvres whilst engaging in discussions.

The planning application site in question would be accessed via Packington Hill. The specific manoeuvre identified by Mr Sutton regards HGVs turning right out of Side Ley heading north onto Derby Road. This relates to existing traffic manoeuvres and not any manoeuvres associated with the planning application traffic.

Swept path analysis is industry standard methodology, and this has been provided in support of the planning application, using a topographical base; there is no reasonable alternative methodology that could be undertaken.

As part of the planning application, in addition to swept path analysis of relevant manoeuvres, and junction capacity assessments, an assessment of Personal Injury Collision (PIC) data has been undertaken which identified that there have been two recorded PICs at this junction within the last five years. When considering the circumstances of each PIC, there is no evidence to suggest that the development proposal would exacerbate the likelihood of further such incidents occurring.

Southbound right-turners on Derby Road, turning into Packington Hill would be held at the stop line, and not be positioned in the right-turn pocket when vehicles exiting Side Ley, heading north would be undertaking that manoeuvre. Therefore, this does not pose a risk of conflict.

Noting the concerns over interactions between HGVs travelling north from Derby Road and turning right onto Side Ley and left on Packington Hill simultaneously, the applicant has demonstrated that there would be no demand for development HGV traffic to access Derby Road from the south. Any existing HGV traffic turning right into Side Ley would therefore not be affected by the development proposals.

Highways officers are therefore satisfied that no further assessment in relation to 25/00236/FULM is required. However, to fully assess the concerns which do not relate to the planning application, Council signal engineers will carry out observations week commencing 1 June when usual traffic conditions have resumed following half term break. Once this has been completed, officers will then assess options, and an update can be provided by 5 June.

Supplementary question

Mr Sutton requested clarification on how an upcoming assessment, scheduled for this week, would reconcile previous ‘swept path modelling’ conclusions with the actual lane encroachment and vehicle interactions witnessed firsthand by Council officers on 21 May, specifically under conditions of queue spillback and vehicles being forced beyond the stop line at  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

The Chief Executive reported that no questions had been received under Standing Order 7.

There were no urgent items for consideration.

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

No declarations were made.

There were no declarations of the party whip.

Stop the bus changes! 

A petition is to be presented by Mr. Michael Charlesworth CC, with 1281 signatures.

Supporting information (from https://www.change.org/p/stop-bus-service-changes-in-wigston):

The recent changes to the bus services in Wigston have caused significant inconvenience and disruption for many residents. These alterations have led to longer waiting times, reduced frequency of buses, and even the elimination of certain routes that many members of our community rely on daily. For those who depend on public transportation to get to work, school, or medical appointments, these changes are not just a minor inconvenience but a major disruption to their daily lives.

Wigston residents, particularly the elderly and those without access to a car, are disproportionately affected by these service cuts. With limited alternative options, these individuals face challenges in maintaining their independence and fulfilling essential tasks. Additionally, the changes contradict the goals of promoting eco-friendly transportation and reducing traffic congestion, which are crucial for creating a sustainable future for our town.

It is essential that the Leicestershire county council and transportation authorities reconsider and revoke these changes, restoring the original bus services or providing adequate alternatives that meet the needs of the entire community. Some possible solutions could include reinstating the eliminated routes, increasing the frequency of buses on busy lines, and ensuring that all areas of Wigston are well-served.

We need your support to urge the local authorities to act swiftly and address these issues. By signing this petition, you can help make a difference for our community and ensure that everyone has access to reliable and efficient public transportation in Wigston. Please sign and help us restore the bus services that many of us depend upon.

The Chief Executive reported that the following petition had been received under Standing Order 33:

Stop the Bus Changes

The petition contained 1,281 verified signatures and was formally presented to the Committee by Mr Michael Charlesworth CC who highlighted the following primary concerns:

(i)         No public consultation had taken place regarding the service changes.

(ii)        The bus operator had suggested that public dissatisfaction was primarily driven by local roadworks rather than the bus service revisions which was inaccurate; residents were specifically angry about the bus changes.

In presenting the petition Mr Michael Charlesworth CC encouraged residents to submit their concerns directly to the relevant Council departments to ensure their feedback was formally logged.

The Director of Growth, Environment and Transport reported that the bus services in question were commercial routes and some were in-part subsidised by the County Council. Bus operators were not legally required to consult the public before making changes to those routes but simply had to register these with the Traffic Commissioner.

It was also noted that officers had met with Mr Michael Charlesworth CC and the bus operator in May to discuss resident concerns and, whilst the operator was unwilling to return all services to previous levels due to low usage on certain routes, they had agreed to explore targeted improvements.

It was highlighted that officers had attended a public forum at the Wigston Community Centre on 20 May to collect passenger feedback. Additionally, three inspectors had been deployed to observe services and engage with passengers directly to identify specific issues, such as the need for better timetable clarity and bus stop facilities.

Members expressed concern that while the Council could liaise with operators, it could not require commercial entities to change their decisions. However, the Director assured the Committee that the Authority would continue to work with the bus operator to address community concerns based on the ongoing feedback it had received.

RESOLVED:

That the Director be requested to continue to liaise with Mr Michael Charlesworth CC, residents and the bus operator regarding concerns raised about the bus route changes, and that an update on the outcome of the work being undertaken be provided to Members in due course.

The Committee considered a report of the Director of Growth, Environment and Transport, the purpose of which was to provide an update on ‘Home to School Transport 2025/26 and Key Priorities for 2026/27’. A copy of the report marked ‘Agenda Item 10’ is filed with these minutes.

Arising from discussion, the following points were made:

(i)            Members acknowledged the challenges the Department faced as this area remained one of the most significant pressure points within the Council, with 2,700 school transport applications processed so far this year. It was highlighted that that the Council successfully met all eligible transport requests that were submitted within the required timescales, facilitating over 3.1m pupil journeys during the period. The Service operated within its budget, with expenditure recorded at £6.9m. Key achievements included reductions in mainstream transport costs due to efficiency reviews and the retendering of contracts, despite facing inflationary and market-related pressures.

(ii)          Members expressed concerns regarding the contracts handed back by operators. It was noted that this was often due to a lack of awareness regarding specific pupil requirements at the time of tendering or rising fuel costs linked to current international conflicts.

(iii)         It was noted that the Authority faced challenges regarding the late notification of transport needs. This had been identified as a persistent issue, which restricted the Department’s ability to plan efficiently and secure the best value for money contracts.

(iv)         The Committee was informed of enhancements to safeguarding procedures, including the standardisation of enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks as well as improved face-to-face identification and English speaking requirements for operators delivering this type of transport. Members were assured this was not due to a safeguarding issue and was in response to a legal case elsewhere in the country.

(v)          It was highlighted that a potential saving of over £0.5m had been identified for delivery by 2029/30 through the implementation of an independent travel training programme. Responsibility for this initiative had, however, been transferred to the Children and Family Services Department as its purpose was to focus on building confidence in young people to encourage and enable them to travel independently where appropriate. 

(vi)         Priorities for the coming year included the implementation of a short-notice procurement framework and preparation for future changes in procurement law to ensure that the Service was prepared for a retendering exercises in 2028/29.

RESOLVED:

That the report on the ‘Home to School Transport Annual Report 2025/2026 and Key Priorities for 2026/2027’ be noted.

The Committee considered a report of the Director of Growth, Environment and Transport regarding the development of the 'Enabling Transport Choice Strategy', a key component underpinning the fourth Local Transport Plan (LTP4). A copy of the report marked ‘Agenda Item 11’ is filed with these minutes.

Arising from the discussion, the following points were made:

(i)            It was noted that an engagement exercise had been conducted, which sought feedback on the draft Strategy. This process had resulted in over 1,000 responses being received via both traditional engagement and a digital social pinpoint map that allowed residents to highlight specific local examples and travel patterns.

(ii)          Members questioned the methods of engagement, suggesting that the draft documentation was complex, which could impact public understanding. It was suggested that future engagement material should be more visual, accessible, and structured to explain the Strategy’s practical impact on local streets.

(iii)         It was highlighted that the importance of removing barriers to public transport for accessing employment, education, and essential services were key to the success of the Strategy.

(iv)         Members raised concerns regarding the Council's ability to influence local planning and development effectively, particularly in areas facing significant growth and increased pressure on journey times, such as the A6 corridor and northwest Leicestershire. It was considered increasingly necessary for new developments to have robust infrastructure and sustainable travel options.

(v)          A Member suggested that there was a demand for better connectivity and integration between different transport modes such as buses and trains. It was noted that data collected from the pinpoint mapping exercise had been incorporated into the future pipeline for local transport grant investments and this would help identify hotspots and connectivity gaps.

RESOLVED:

That the Committees comments be considered as part of the formal consultation on the draft process for the draft 'Enabling Transport Choice Strategy’ and presented to the Cabinet at its meeting in September.

The Committee considered a report of the Director of Growth, Environment and Transport which provided an update on the introduction and roll-out of weekly household food waste collections across the County. A copy of the report marked ‘Agenda Item 12’ is filed with these minutes.

Arising from the discussion, the following points were made:

(i)            It was noted that three district councils had already rolled out the collections since the end of March, with three other district councils scheduled across the period up to November 2026. Only one borough council was noted to have delayed its roll-out beyond that point, which presented an associated risk under current Government expectations.

(ii)          It was explained that collected food waste was treated through anaerobic digestion (AD), a sealed biological process that generated two products: biogas, which was used as renewable energy, and bio-fertiliser, a nutrient-rich material suitable for agricultural use. The County Council had secured three contracts for AD treatment. Members were assured that current contracts were geographically dispersed and that the industry was prepared for the increased levels forecasted.

(iii)         It was noted that analysis had suggested that approximately 26% of residual black bag waste consisted of food waste and that the new waste collection stream could increase local recycling rates. It was highlighted that the project had been included in the Medium Term Financial Strategy, with savings forecasted by 2029/30 due to the more favourable fees for AD compared to residual waste disposal.

(iv)         Members raised their concerns about reports of rats biting through external food waste containers. It was clarified that while this was a concern for Waste Collection Authorities, it would be monitored closely.

(v)          Concerns about potential odours from treatment facilities were addressed with Members being assured that the AD process was entirely contained and sealed, removing typical smell issues.

RESOLVED:

That the update on ‘Food Waste Collections’ be noted.

The next meeting of the Growth, Highways, Transport and Waste Overview and Scrutiny Committee is scheduled for 3 September 2026 at 2.00pm.

RESOLVED:

It was noted that the next meeting of the Committee would be held on 3 September 2026 at 2.00pm.