Agenda and minutes

A webcast of the meeting can be viewed at here.

The Chief Executive reported that no questions had been received under Standing Order 34.

The Chief Executive reported that no questions had been received under Standing Order 7(3) and 7(5).

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.

All Members who were also district councillors declared an Other Registerable Interest in agenda item 7 (Local Government Reorganisation).

There were no other declarations.

There were no declarations of the party whip.

The Chief Executive reported that no petitions had been received under Standing Order 35.

The Chairman sought and obtained the consent of the Commission to vary the order of business from that set out on the agenda.

The Commission considered a joint report of the Chief Executive, the Director of Corporate Resources and the Director of Law and Governance, the purpose of which was to present the Council’s draft business case for local government reorganisation in Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland.  A copy of the report marked ‘Agenda Item 7’ is filed with these minutes.

The Chairman welcomed to the meeting Mr J. Miah CC and Mrs N. Bottomley CC who had been invited to attend for this item.  The Chairman explained that this was to ensure all political parties would be represented in the discussion. Mr Charlesworth CC had also been invited but had been unable to attend.

At the invitation of the Chairman, in introducing the Council’s draft business case, the Leader made the following comments:

“I’d like to thank all officers for their hard work in getting the business case ready, in a very short timescale. It is testament to their professionalism that they have achieved this.

The business case presents our preferred option: creating a single unitary council for Leicestershire and Rutland. We have considered feedback from residents, and this proposal avoids splitting communities or changing city boundaries, which could affect our local heritage. We plan to use area committees and keep parish and town councils involved, so local identity and representation are maintained.

Our approach also aims to involve communities in shaping local services. Through local area committees and area planning committees, the new unitary council for Leicestershire and Rutland will ensure that local people are involved in the decisions that affect them and their local areas.

Combining services across county, district, and Rutland will reduce duplication, improve coordination, and provide consistent, high-quality services. This model avoids the problems that come with breaking up working teams, especially in critical areas like children’s social care, and helps smaller communities like Rutland remain resilient.

Financially, this proposal is strong. Independent analysis estimates annual savings of about £40 million, mainly from management and back-office efficiencies. These savings can be put back into frontline services, helping to protect them in the long term. Our approach is expected to deliver savings more quickly and with less risk than other options.

We have consulted with residents, businesses, voluntary groups, parish and town councils, and staff. Nearly half of survey responses supported a single unitary authority, while over two thirds were against expanding city boundaries and three quarters were against any change at all.

In regard to a City boundary extension and as discussed at the last meeting of the Commission, my view and the view of my Group, is that we need to recognise the City Council’s proposals, even though we do not agree with them.  It is not enough, however, to say that we do not agree with them.  So, our business case sets out an analysis of the different options and in particular what the impact of a City boundary extension would be on the surrounding County.

We believe this option meets all the criteria set by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. It is based on strong evidence, provides real financial benefits, and protects our heritage.

It is the only option that keeps the boundaries of the historic counties of Leicestershire and Rutland intact. Other options, such as creating smaller authorities or expanding city boundaries, don’t offer the same benefits and carry more risks- such as financially unviable councils- and fewer savings.

I hope members of the Commission will be supportive of this proposal and I’m happy to take any questions.”

Arising from discussion the following points were made:

(i)               Members welcomed receipt of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 43.

The Commission considered a report and a supplementary report of the Director of Corporate Resources, the purpose of which was to provide an update on the 2025/26 revenue budget and capital programme monitoring position as at the end of Period 6 (the end of September 2025).  A copy of both reports marked ‘Agenda Item 10’ is filed with these minutes.

Arising from discussion, the following points were made:

(i)               Members expressed deep concern that the sharp rise in the High Needs Block deficit which had almost doubled in less than a year now created a real financial risk to the Council, particularly given the £34m cost avoidance delivered through Newton Europe’s work with the Department in recent years.  Whilst the scale of the increase since May 2025 had been unprecedented, Members noted that the Council was not an outlier, and a similar trend was being reported by other authorities. 

(ii)              The Assistant Director of Children and Family Services reported that the increase stemmed from uncertainty around the government’s SEND White Paper and media speculation about Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP) rights which had undermined parental confidence and prompted early applications for an EHCP. It was noted that parental requests for an EHCP had risen from 19% to 48% since January 2025, meaning the Council had reached its three-year EHCP projection levels early. 

(iii)            Members noted that mitigation measures were in place to address this focusing on reducing EHCP requests through strengthened mainstream provision, address reliance on Independent Specialist Providers which remained a key cost driver nationally, supporting schools to manage exclusions and adopt flexible teaching approaches, and expanding local specialist provision, with 90 additional places planned for 2026 and further expansion thereafter. Members acknowledged the scale of the challenge and urged a collaborative approach with schools and providers to manage demand effectively.

(iv)            The engagement of Newton to carry out an efficiency review and to identify savings across the Council would cost £1.4m.  This was a fixed fee for the investigatory work now being undertaken (phase 1) and any further work to implement recommendations would be a separate decision at a later point. There was the potential that the Council could receive a rebate of £250,000 if it later decided to proceed to implement Newton’s recommendations and engage them further to support that next phase.

(v)             Members acknowledged that no commitment had been made beyond phase 1. Although an upper cost estimate of £30m had been provided, the cost of engaging Newton to assist with phase 2 implementation would be subject to a later decision. This would depend on which recommendations the Council chose to pursue after completing the initial review and what support was required to do this. The Director reassured Members that any decision to proceed with potentially costly recommendations would require the resulting savings to justify the additional expenditure. For phase 2, a performance-based model would be used, meaning some of the fees paid to Newton would be dependent on successful delivery of savings.

(vi)            Concerns were raised regarding timescales and the visibility of planned savings in time for the MTFS to be considered in the New Year.  The Leader emphasised the need for patience while contractual work was completed with Newton who had only been instructed to conduct the review in October.  The Leader commented that early indications were that the process would be positive and he reiterated his commitment to continue to seek to avoid service cuts where possible, focusing instead on efficiency and improvement. 

(vii)          The Council does not have a vacancy freeze in place, but financial controls continued to be in place  ...  view the full minutes text for item 44.

The Commission considered a report of the Chief Executive the purpose of which was to present the draft Annual Delivery Report and Performance Compendium for 2025 which set out the Council’s progress and performance over the past year and which would be presented to full Council on 3 December 2025.  A copy of the report, marked Agenda Item 8 is filed with these minutes.

Arising from discussion, the following points were made:

(i)               Members welcomed the report as well as the Council’s performance which remained strong despite its low funded position.

(ii)             Noting the fall in performance for park and ride journeys, it was questioned why this service did not appear to perform as well in Leicestershire as it did in other areas.  It was suggested this was due to lower parking costs and improved bus services into the City.  It was noted that the Council currently subsidised this service jointly with the City Council.

(iii)            Survey results regarding adult social care satisfaction and quality of life continued to be disappointing, the Council performing marginally lower than other comparative authorities. It was not entirely clear why this was the case as the survey did not allow for the collection of wider feedback. However, some of the issues raised in the CQC Inspection report relating to the complexity of navigating the health and social care system, finding information, waiting times, care staff turnover and tight criteria for access to some services were likely to be factors.  It was noted that due to the Council’s low funding position the threshold to access some of its services had had to be increased over previous years. Members noted that a new Improvement Plan was being progressed following the inspection and aimed to secure increased overall satisfaction levels.  

(iv)           A Member questioned what performance data was available regarding the Council’s Multi Agency Travellers Unit, in particular regarding the education of children from that community.  The Chief Executive undertook to provide more information on this outside the meeting.

RESOLVED:

That the Annual Delivery Report and Performance Compendium for 2025 be noted and welcomed.

The Commission considered a report of the Director of Corporate Resources the purpose of which was to provide an update on the performance of Leicestershire Traded Services (LTS) during 2024/25.  The report also sought the Commission’s views on the future direction of Beaumanor Hall and Park, as part of the Council’s engagement process.  A copy of the report marked ‘Agenda Item 9’ is filed with these minutes.

Arising from discussion, the following comments were made:

(i)           Members acknowledged the reasons for ending the School Food Service. However, recognising the importance of food quality for school children, an area on which the Service had focused, some expressed disappointment that this had been necessary, particularly as the Service had generated a small profit this year. 

(ii)         Whilst positive outcomes had been observed over the current financial year, Members expressed satisfaction that the Council was moving away from operating cafés given high costs and stronger private sector competition.

(iii)        Whilst the proposal to sell Beaumanor Hall had not been taken forward by the current administration some expressed concerns about taxpayers continuing to subsidise a facility that was not widely used by residents in their areas. Members commented that whilst a small profit could be achieved from continuing to run the Hall, this would require significant and ongoing investment. Given this was an aging listed building, this was felt to be unsustainable in the long term.  It was recognised that the Council had to balance financial considerations against cultural heritage.  However, as the lowest funded County Council and in light of the £90m deficit in the Medium Term Financial Strategy, some Members commented that this might need to be revisited again in the future.

(iv)       It was questioned whether running the Century Theatre could be regarded as a strategic fit for the Council and its core business. A Member suggested that the theatre could be better run by the community noting that theatres brought wider health and social benefits. It was noted that this was the only theatre owned and run by the Council.  Members further noted that efforts were being made by the theatre to make it more outward facing, aligning some shows with the school curriculum.

RESOLVED:

That the performance of Leicestershire Traded Services (LTS) during 2024/25 be noted and the Commission’s views on the future direction of Beaumanor Hall and Park be forwarded to the Cabinet for consideration as part of the Council’s ongoing engagement process.

The dates of future meetings of the Scrutiny Commission are:

Wednesday, 28^th January 2026 at 10.00am

Wednesday, 11^th March 2026 at 10.00am

Wednesday, 15^th April 2026 at 10.00am

Wednesday 10^th June 2026 at 10.00am

Wednesday, 2^nd September at 10.00am

Wednesday, 11^th November at 10.00am

RESOLVED:

It was noted that future meetings of the Commission would be held on the following dates and times:

Wednesday, 28^th January 2026 at 10.00am

Wednesday, 11^th March 2026 at 10.00am

Wednesday, 15^th April 2026 at 10.00am

Wednesday 10^th June 2026 at 10.00am

Wednesday, 2^nd September at 10.00am

Wednesday, 11^th November at 10.00am