Agenda and minutes

A webcast of the meeting can be viewed here.

The minutes of the meeting held on 11 March 2026 were taken as read, confirmed and signed.

The minutes of the Special Meeting held on 18 March 2026 were taken as read, confirmed and signed.

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

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.

Mr P. King CC declared an Other Registerable Interest in agenda item 9 (The Leicester and Leicestershire Business Skills Partnership) and agenda item 10 (Place Marketing – Leicester and Leicestershire) as he was Deputy Leader at Harborough District Council with a portfolio for economic development and tourism.

There were no declarations of the party whip.

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

Mr Peter Chandler, Head of Economic Regeneration at Leicester City Council, has been invited to attend for this item.

The Leader, Mr D. Harrison CC, and the Deputy Leader, Mr C. Crook CC, have been invited for this and the following item.

The Commission considered a report of the Director of Public Health Law and Governance regarding the governance and function of the Leicester and Leicestershire Business and Skills Partnership.  A copy of the report marked ‘Agenda Item 9’ is filed with these minutes.

Arising from discussion, the following points were made:

(i)           The Partnership was currently fully funded to the end of the 2027/28 financial year from reserves previously held by the Leicester and Leicestershire Local Enterprise Partnership (LLEP) which had been disbanded last year. Members noted that no funding was being allocated by the County or City Council.  Funding beyond 2028 and operating models and potential new joint arrangements would require review and this would likely be undertaken alongside local government reorganisation.

(ii)         Members questioned how the Partnerships work linked to existing countywide and place-based partnerships, and how intelligence and local knowledge would flow between those arrangements.  It was noted that place-based partnerships were generally operational and focused on specific town centre/business priorities, whereas the arrangements covered by the Leicester and Leicestershire Business and Skills Partnership were more strategic and, in part, to provide a mechanism through which government responsibilities and funding could be devolved locally (often with conditions and reporting requirements attached).

(iii)        A review was underway to map relevant groups and governance arrangements across the area.  This would be considered by the Business Board and appropriate executive/leadership forums for realignment.

(iv)       A Member challenged the current Business Board membership and suggested that this did not appropriately reflect small and medium-sized businesses as well as larger organisations.  The Member commented that this had been a previous criticism of the LLEP and it was disappointing that such arrangements had been continued.

(v)         Members sought clarification on the meaning of “enterprise zones”, including whether these were intended as deregulation/low-tax areas or primarily defined geographic locations.  It was noted that there were four zones currently operating across Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland; MIRA Technology Park, Loughborough University Science and Enterprise Park, Charnwood Campus, Space Park Leicester and Leicester Waterside.  These were physical locations identified to support business growth and job creation. Reporting arrangements to government were in place to demonstrate outputs and outcomes for each zone. 

(vi)       A Member questioned if further enterprise zones were planned across the county. It was noted that as regional governance developed, including combined authority/mayoral arrangements, decisions would likely be taken at a regional/sub-regional level regarding future arrangements.  However, it was expected that the consolidation rather than the expansion of new or existing zones would be more likely.

(vii)      Members emphasised the need for clear evidence of what had been delivered to date, how funding had been spent and what difference had been made as a result of the Partnership’s work.  It was suggested that a future report including more detailed measures and key performance indicators would be helpful, including benchmarking with comparable areas.

(viii)    In response to questions about the Employment Hub and support for young people, the Director outlined that the Hub was currently focused on City residents with aspirations to expand into the County subject to funding being made available.  Employment and skills activity could support programmes aimed at young people, including targeted work to support those who were not in education, employment or training.

RESOLVED:

(a)  That the update on the work and functions of the Leicester and Leicestershire Business and Skills Partnership be noted;

(b)  That consideration be given to a further report being presented to a future meeting of the Commission, providing more detailed performance measures/KPIs and clearer evidence of outputs, outcomes achieved by the Partnership.

Mr Mike Denby, Director of Inward Investment & Place Marketing at Leicester City Council has been invited to attend for this item.

The Commission considered a report of the Director of Public Health, Law and Governance, the purpose of which was to provide an update on the work of the Place Marketing team for Leicester and Leicestershire.  A copy of the report marked ‘Agenda Item 10’ is filed with these notes.

The Chairman welcomed Mike Denby, Director of Inward Investment & Place Marketing at Leicester City Council to the meeting and who had attended to present on this item.

Arising from discussion, the following points were made:

(i)               In response to questions from members about the extent to which it remained a challenge to encourage visitors who were drawn to Leicester City to also visit attractions in the wider county, and whether initiatives such as joint ticketing could assist in improving cross-promotion, Mr Denby advised that there had historically been an “invisible border” but that collaboration across the area had improved year-on-year. It was noted that the growth strategy included specific objectives to strengthen cross-area working, with events acting as a key driver of external visitors.

(ii)              Current work to align and link events (for example, coordinating itineraries around major events such as the county fair and local food markets) so that visitors were encouraged to extend their stay and attend multiple activities across the City and County was welcomed.

(iii)            Members asked for a breakdown of where visitors were travelling from, including the proportion coming from outside the area compared with local residents. The Director confirmed that this data was tracked and could be presented in more detail in future reporting. However, the current position was that approximately 67% were local visitors and 33% external visitors.  External visitors had increased over recent years from around 27% three years previously.

(iv)            Members questioned the branding of the service as “Visit Leicester”, and why the title did not more explicitly reference the county.  Members also expressed concerns that social media content appeared to be more city-focused than county-focused. Mr Denby explained that the name had been informed by a perception survey undertaken when the organisation was first established some years ago. This had indicated that “Leicester” was the most widely recognised destination “hook” for visitors from outside the area, and that once visitors were attracted, the offer promoted experiences across the whole region. Mr Denby provided assurance that the service sought to operate fairly and transparently across both areas.  Members suggested that the branding might benefit from being reviewed given the time since it had last been considered.

(v)             A “Hidden Gems” campaign was being developed as part of the new strategy. Alongside promoting major “anchor” attractions, the campaign would focus on a “next tier” of lesser-known places, such as Charnwood Forest that had applied for UNESCO status. These were places/experiences that local residents might be familiar with but which visitors from outside the area had not yet discovered.  This would include, within larger attractions, smaller individual venues or café facilities for example.  Members noted that work with district partners was underway to compile a comprehensive list of ‘hidden gems’ and to use this to encourage visitors to undertake additional activities during evenings or on subsequent days, thereby supporting longer stays and wider dispersal of visitor spend. It was noted that the campaign was expected to roll out within the coming months and run over an extended period, supported by a dedicated budget.

(vi)            Members commented that, while the report contained strong performance figures, it would be helpful to include comparative information, for example, benchmarking tourism and inward investment outcomes against other comparable areas.  Mr Denby confirmed that comparator analysis was undertaken but  ...  view the full minutes text for item 88.

The Lead Member for Children and Familiy Services, Mr C. Pugsley CC has been invited to attend for this and the following item.

The Commission, acting in its capacity as the designated Crime and Disorder Committee, considered a report of the Director of Children and Family Services which presented the draft Youth Justice Strategic Plan for 2026–2027 for comment.  A copy of the report marked ‘Agenda Item11’ is filed with these minutes.

Arising from discussion the following points were made:

(i)           Members noted the statutory basis of the Plan and the longstanding partnership governance arrangements put in place to support this across Leicestershire and Rutland which included oversight through the Youth and Justice Partnership Board.  The Board brought together senior leaders from all local authorities, the Police, Probation Service, Health and Education.

(ii)         The principle underpinning the Plan continued to be a ‘child first’ approach, recognising that most who came into contact with the youth justice system were not fully grown adults making well-informed, well-thought through decisions, but often children with unmet needs, vulnerabilities and safeguarding concerns. 

(iii)        The Plan continued to place emphasis on prevention, early intervention, diversion and safeguarding alongside strengthening work to improve outcomes for victims, reducing unnecessary escalation and criminalization and ensuring a coordinated partnership response to support children at the highest risk of harm, exploitation and serious violence.

(iv)       Members were advised of national reform uncertainty affecting youth justice structures and reporting requirements.  For this reason a single year plan had been prepared.  This would allow for a further review to be undertaken in a years’ time to respond to further changes on the horizon, for example, regarding SEND and Social Care reforms which impact on Youth Justice. The Director confirmed that, at present funding for the service remained stable and that this would not be affected by the one year plan approach. 

(v)         Members raised concerns about the lack of clear performance data and benchmarking information within the report.  Members suggested that the inclusion of baseline information and targets relating to matters such reoffending rates, the number of first-time entrants, remands and custody and how these compared to neighbouring authorities would be helpful to understand how effective the previous Plan had been and to help identify areas for future improvement.  The Director advised that Leicestershire experienced very low numbers of first-time entrants and remands, and explained challenges regarding national data definitions, police reporting systems and recent reporting changes introduced by the Government, all of which had resulted in mixed data being available that was not entirely helpful.  The Director assured members that local cohort tracking work was being developed to improve insight and this would feature in the next report to the Commission in a years’ time.

(vi)       Members asked what actions were being taken to address the racial disproportionality of those caught in the youth justice system. It was acknowledged that this was a national issue that required a multi-agency approach. The Director advised that work was underway to develop a partnership plan on this issue, with planned focus sessions to be held by the Board to strengthen accountability and response.  Members highlighted the role of local leisure/community facilities in diversion and asked whether the Council could support protection of such provisions which due to lack of funding were now being threatened. Officers advised that preventative provision was important in keeping children out of the system as they provided useful points for children to meet and engage with adults they trusted who could provide additional means of support outside the family. 

(vii)      It was noted that the deferred prosecution approach was used in limited circumstances around low-level motoring offences to enable assessment and targeted intervention without the need to face disproportionate long-term consequences in adult motoring  ...  view the full minutes text for item 89.

The Commission considered a report of the Director of Children and Family Services, the purpose of which was to provide an annual update on the work of the Safer Communities Team and to seek its views on the draft Domestic Abuse Reduction Strategy 2026 – 2029.  A copy of the report marked ‘Agenda Item 12’ is filed with these minutes.

Arising from discussion, the following points were made:

(i)               Members noted with disappointment that the East Midlands Elected Member Prevent Network Meeting had folded and emphasised the value of regional discussions and Home Office briefings to support elected members’ understanding of Prevent and related community safety issues. It was suggested that the Lead Member should seek to re-establish this group to strengthen cross-boundary working, recognising that risks did not align to local authority borders.

(ii)              In response to questions about Prevent activity and trends, the Director advised that during quarter 3 (October 2025 to the end of December 2025) referrals had been particularly busy but had since settled, with higher volumes in Charnwood and Hinckley.  It was noted that the District Prevent representative sat within Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council and undertook significant work with schools and local agencies on referral pathways.

(iii)            Over half of the persons referred to the local Police Prevent Team were recorded as having no identified ideology, followed by right-wing extremism, with Islamic extremism the lowest category.  Around 10% of referrals were female which was higher than in previous years and, whilst the average referral age cited was 35, the largest age group referred were between 11 and 15 years, suggesting schools played a key role in making referrals.

(iv)            Members asked for further detail on Prevent training in schools.  The Director reported that work was undertaken with Designated Safeguarding Leads. Whilst academies might source training from private providers this had to be accredited.  The Council also shared information to governors, safeguarding leads and through headteachers’ briefings.  Training had also been delivered to parents.

(v)             Members highlighted online vulnerability and the influence of high-profile online figures on young people.  The Director confirmed that training and awareness regarding online risks and early intervention work in this area continued to be a priority.

(vi)            Members questioned how the Council communicated its Prevent work and whether the annual update sufficiently reflected issues such as antisemitism, far-left extremism and other forms of radicalisation. The Director clarified that the Council did not actively promote its Prevent activity but did deliver training across schools, and for members and staff.  Unfortunately, public-facing messaging had been misconstrued and had previously generated significant negative feedback for the service.  As a result, communications were managed carefully to protect the Council’s reputation and community cohesion while continuing operational work.

(vii)          Members welcomed the joint work taking place with partners to address all forms of hate crime and hate incidents across Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland.  It was noted that further direction was anticipated nationally following the Southport review, including consideration of the ‘front door’ to Prevent and whether this would be through a single agency or a partnership approach. 

(viii)         Members emphasised the importance of being clear that the Council would not tolerate any form of extremism and that residents needed reassurance and practical information on how this would be addressed.  It was suggested that improved feedback mechanisms for members would support consistent messaging to communities.

(ix)            In relation to domestic abuse, members questioned the availability of ‘safe accommodation’ of which there was currently a shortfall.  The Director advised that the primary constraint was the wider lack of housing supply across the region.  However, work was underway  ...  view the full minutes text for item 90.

The next meeting of the Commission is scheduled to take place on 11 May 2026.

RESOLVED:

It was noted that the next meeting of the Commission would be held on Monday, 11^th May at 10.00am.