Agenda and decisions

A webcast of the meeting can be viewed here.

 

The Leader gave a position statement on the following matters:

 

·       Growth and supporting businesses:

o   Breakfast briefings;

o   Bardon Warehousing Unit;

o   Broadnook School;

o   Beef Expo;

o   Zouch Bridge Development;

·       Local Government Reorganisation Update;

·       Melton Mowbray Distributor Road Successes;

·       MTFS and Better Leicestershire Update;

·       Celebrating Carers Week.

 

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

 

·       Special Educational Needs and Disabilities:

o   Accelerated Progress Plan;

o   Education, Health and Care Plan Timeliness;

o   Leicestershire SEND Reforms;

o   Belonging in Education;

·       Targeted Family Help and Children’s Social Care:

o   Joint Targeted Area Inspection;

o   Children in Care;

o   Families First Partnership Programme;

o   Best Start in Life.

 

“That the information contained in the Overview and Scrutiny Annual Report 2025-26, appended to the report, be noted.”

 

1.    This Council notes that the Police and Crime Commissioner for Leicester, Leicestershire, and Rutland has proposed an 18‑month, £2 million scheme to fund private security marshals to patrol town centres across Leicestershire and Rutland.

 

2.    This Council further notes that:

 

·         These marshals, while visible, do not possess police powers, including the power of arrest, formal investigation, or enforcement.

·         The £2 million funding comes directly from the existing policing budget, funded by local taxpayers.

·         There is significant concern from policing professionals, including the Leicestershire Police Federation, that this approach risks diverting funding away from frontline policing.

·         Residents and businesses consistently raise concerns about crime, anti-social behaviour, and the need for a stronger visible police presence, not a substitute service.

 

3.    This Council believes that:

 

(a)  Taxpayers’ money must be used efficiently, transparently, and in ways that deliver tangible outcomes.

(b)  Public confidence in community safety depends on visible, empowered, and accountable police officers, not private contractors with limited authority.

(c)  Investment in fully trained police officers and Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs) provides better value for money, stronger legal enforcement, and long-term benefits to communities.

 

4.    This Council is concerned that:

 

(a)  The proposed scheme risks creating a two-tier system of public safety, where private security fills gaps that should be addressed by properly resourced policing.

(b)  The effectiveness of such marshals is limited to deterrence, without the ability to follow through with enforcement action.

(c)  At a time of financial pressure, this represents a questionable use of limited public funds.

 

5.    This Council therefore resolves to:

 

(a)  Oppose the proposed £2 million private security marshal scheme as an inefficient use of policing resources.

(b)  Call on the Police and Crime Commissioner to halt the procurement process and review the proposal.

(c)  Urge that the £2 million be reallocated to recruit, train, and retain additional frontline police officers and PCSOs, increasing visible patrols and enforcement capability.

(d)  Instruct the Chief Executive to write to the PCC to formally convey this Council’s position and seek a response.

“1.    This Council notes that:

 

(a)    The Police and Crime Commissioner for Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland has proposed a scheme to fund Security Industry Authority licensed contractors to patrol town centres across Leicestershire and Rutland, with indicative funding of up to £2 million from the Crime Prevention Fund reserve.

 

(b)    Residents and businesses consistently raise concerns about crime, anti-social behaviour, and the need for a stronger visible police presence in their communities.

 

(c)    The Police and Crime Panel has considered this matter and has resolved to scrutinise the proposal by requesting that, ahead of any decision being made, it be presented with evidence of research undertaken, what that research indicates, and the Temporary Chief Constable’s proposals in full in a disclosable format.

(d)    No final decision has yet been made by the PCC regarding this scheme.

 

(e)    Leicestershire County Council has no direct jurisdiction over decisions made by the Police and Crime Commissioner, who is independently scrutinised by the Police and Crime Panel and held accountable by the electorate.

 

(f)     The Crime Prevention Fund is a distinct reserve within the policing budget, and any utilisation of such funds would be subject to policing budget rules and relevant legal and regulatory requirements.

 

2.     This Council believes that:

 

(a)    Taxpayers money must be used efficiently, transparently, and in ways that deliver tangible outcomes for communities.

 

(b)    Public confidence in community safety depends on visible, empowered and accountable policing.

 

(c)    Any significant investment in community safety should be preceded by robust evidence of its likely effectiveness, including comparison with alternative approaches such as investment in additional policing capacity.

 

(d)    Proper governance and due process, including scrutiny by the Police and Crime Panel, should be respected and allowed to run its course before conclusions are drawn.

 

3.          This Council is concerned that:

 

(a)  Private security contractors do not possess the constabulary powers, duties and operational responsibilities available to police officers

 

(b)  The evidence supporting the proposal has not yet been made available publicly to demonstrate that the proposed scheme represents the best use of available Crime Prevention Fund reserve when compared with alternative approaches.

 

(c)  At a time of financial pressure on public services, it is essential that all available options are rigorously assessed before committing significant funds.

 

4.     This Council therefore resolves to:

 

(a) Support the Police and Crime Panel’s request that full evidence and the Temporary Chief Constable’s proposals be made available in a disclosable format before any decision is taken.

 

(b) Request that the Chief Executive writes to the Police and Crime Commissioner to convey this Council’s expectation that any proposal involving significant expenditure should be subject to transparent, evidence-based decision making, with full consideration given to alternative approaches, including investment in additional policing capacity.

 

(c)  Request that the Chief Executive’s letter makes clear that this Council would welcome the opportunity to understand the evidence base for any proposed scheme and its anticipated outcomes for Leicestershire communities.

 

(d) Reaffirm this Council’s commitment to working constructively with the Police and Crime Commissioner and other partners to improve community safety across Leicestershire.”

 

1. This Council notes that:

 

(a)  ⁠Residents across Leicestershire have raised concerns regarding the concentration of Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs) and accommodation associated with national asylum dispersal arrangements.

 

(b)  ⁠Residents have expressed concerns regarding pressures on local services, parking, waste management, neighbourhood amenity, community cohesion and the pace of change within established communities.

 

(c)  Local residents and community organisations continue to seek greater transparency regarding the scale and operation of asylum accommodation arrangements within their communities.

 

(d)  Effective democratic governance is strengthened when members are able to bring forward matters arising from their representational responsibilities, ensuring that local experience continues to inform the deliberations of the authority.

 

(e)  Leicestershire County Council is responsible for a range of services which may be affected by significant population changes, including education, public health, transport, social care and community wellbeing.

 

2. This Council believes that:

 

(a)  Existing residents should be appropriately informed and consulted where significant changes are taking place within their communities.

 

(b)  Public confidence is strengthened when decisions affecting local communities are accompanied by transparency, accountability and meaningful engagement.

 

(c)  Local authorities should be provided with sufficient information to understand and plan for any impact on local services arising from national asylum accommodation policies.

 

(d)  Communities function best when residents feel informed, listened to and represented.

 

3. This Council resolves to:

 

(a)  Write to the Home Secretary seeking greater transparency regarding asylum accommodation arrangements affecting Leicestershire and requesting that local authorities be given meaningful engagement and advance notification where placements may have a significant impact on local communities.

 

(b)  Request that the Chief Executive writes to the Home Office seeking information regarding asylum accommodation provision within Leicestershire, including any available information on the use of HMOs associated with Government accommodation contracts and the potential impact on County Council services.

 

(c)  Request that the relevant Director prepares a report for consideration by the appropriate Overview and Scrutiny Committee outlining any known or anticipated impacts of asylum accommodation arrangements and concentrations of HMOs on County Council services, where such information is available.

 

(d)  Request that the Home Office and its contractors engage openly with local authorities and communities where accommodation arrangements are proposed or expanded, recognising the importance of maintaining community confidence.

 

(e)  Reaffirm this Council’s commitment to transparency, democratic accountability, community cohesion and ensuring that the concerns of local residents are properly considered when national policies have significant local consequences.

 

“1.    This Council notes that:

 

(a)    ⁠Residents across Leicestershire have raised concerns regarding the concentration of Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs) and accommodation associated with national asylum dispersal arrangements.

 

(b)    ⁠Residents have expressed concerns regarding pressures on local services, parking, waste management, neighbourhood amenity, community cohesion and the pace of change within established communities.

 

(c)    Local residents and community organisations continue to seek greater transparency regarding the scale and operation of asylum accommodation arrangements within their communities.

 

(d)    Effective democratic governance is strengthened when members are able to bring forward matters arising from their representational responsibilities, ensuring that local experience continues to inform the deliberations of the authority.

 

(e)    Leicestershire County Council is responsible for a range of services which may be affected by significant population changes, including education, public health, transport, social care and community wellbeing.

 

2.         This Council believes that:

 

(a)    Existing residents should be appropriately informed and consulted where significant changes are taking place within their communities.

 

(b)    Public confidence is strengthened when decisions affecting local communities are accompanied by transparency, accountability and meaningful engagement.

 

(c)    Local authorities should be provided with sufficient information to understand and plan for any impact on local services arising from national asylum accommodation policies.

 

(d)    Communities function best when residents feel informed, listened to and represented.

 

3.         This Council resolves to:

 

(a)    Write to the Home Secretary seeking greater transparency regarding asylum accommodation arrangements affecting Leicestershire and requesting that local authorities be given meaningful engagement and advance notification where placements may have a significant impact on local communities.

 

(b)    Request that the Chief Executive writes to the Home Office seeking information regarding asylum accommodation provision within Leicestershire, including any available information on the use of HMOs associated with Government accommodation contracts and the potential impact on County Council services.

 

(c)    Request that the relevant Director prepares a report for consideration by the appropriate Overview and Scrutiny Committee outlining any known or anticipated impacts of asylum accommodation arrangements and concentrations of HMOs on County Council services, where such information is available.

 

(d)    Request that the Home Office and its contractors engage openly with local authorities and communities where accommodation arrangements are proposed or expanded, recognising the importance of maintaining community confidence.

 

(e)    Reaffirm this Council’s commitment to transparency, democratic accountability, community cohesion and ensuring that the concerns of local residents are properly considered when national policies have significant local consequences.”

 

1.    This Council notes:

 

(a)  The vital role that specialist Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) services play in supporting vulnerable children across the county.

(b)  That the Council should seek to maintain high professional standards in specialist SEND services.

(c)  That, when reviewing service delivery models, the Council should have regard to service quality, safeguarding, workforce stability, recruitment and retention, and value for money.

(d)  That significant workforce changes in critical specialist services should be considered in a way that maintains confidence among service users and residents.

(e)  That concerns have been raised regarding possible changes to staffing structures and role requirements within specialist SEND services.

(f)   That poorly managed restructuring can adversely affect workforce morale, retention and service continuity.

 

2.    This Council resolves to request a report to the Children and Families Overview and Scrutiny Committee on:

 

(a)  The proposed future model of early years SEND advisory support.

(b)  How service quality, continuity, and workforce sustainability will be maintained, including the role of professional qualifications where relevant.

(c)  What consideration has been given to maintaining appropriate professional qualifications in role requirements.

(d)  How the views of staff and recognised trade unions have been considered, including alternative models proposed by staff to secure year-round delivery.

(e)  Assurance that any workforce changes will be undertaken in accordance with applicable employment law and the Council’s policies and procedures.

 

“1.  This Council notes:

 

(a)       The vital role that specialist Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) services play in supporting vulnerable children across the county.

(b)       That the Council should seek to maintain high professional standards in specialist SEND services.

(c)        That, when reviewing service delivery models, the Council should have regard to service quality, safeguarding, workforce stability, recruitment and retention, and value for money.

(d)       That significant workforce changes in critical specialist services should be considered in a way that maintains confidence among service users and residents.

(e)       That concerns have been raised regarding possible changes to staffing structures and role requirements within specialist SEND services.

 

(f)         That poorly managed restructuring can adversely affect workforce morale, retention and service continuity.

 

2.      This Council resolves to request a report to the Children and Families Overview and Scrutiny Committee on:

 

(a)       The proposed future model of early years SEND advisory support.

(b)       How service quality, continuity, and workforce sustainability will be maintained, including the role of professional qualifications where relevant.

(c)        What consideration has been given to maintaining appropriate professional qualifications in role requirements.

(d)       How the views of staff and recognised trade unions have been considered, including alternative models proposed by staff to secure year-round delivery.

(e)       Assurance that any workforce changes will be undertaken in accordance with applicable employment law and the Council’s policies and procedures.”

 

1.         This Council notes that:

 

(a)  The recent significant changes to the bus services in Wigston.

(b)  The poor level of any consultation undertaken by the operator concerning these changes.

(c)  The impact on some service users who now must catch 2 buses with the inevitable longer journey times and additional costs.

(d)  The disconnect this has caused to the local community with 2 large estates effectively cut off from each other, with the resultant family and friends having to make alternative arrangements.

(e)  It has made journeys to the local GP, the LRI and train station more difficult and for some impossible (especially the elderly) due to the removal of some routes.

(f)   That the 47/48 and 49 services have been replaced with a changed 47/48 and a 44/44a/44b and 44s service. These more complex services have caused confusion, with users unable to make much sense of the difficult timetables and unsure which stops are for which services. This is verified by the drivers taking the incorrect route on many occasions.

(g)  The Leicestershire Bus Service Improvement Plan 2025 had as one of its objectives ‘to encourage bus use to local facilities’, the recent changes could undermine this.

(h)  The limited ability of the Council to influence the decisions of commercial operators.

 

2.      Therefore, this Council resolves to:

(a)  Continue to engage with Arriva to request a review of the recent changes taking into account the concerns and views of Wigston residents.

(b)  Write to the Traffic Commissioner and ask if they were aware of the lack of consultation before they approved these changes.

 

“1.    This Council notes that:

 

(a)    The recent significant changes to the bus services in Wigston.

(b)    The poor level of any consultation undertaken by the operator concerning these changes.

(c)    The impact on some service users who now must catch 2 buses with the inevitable longer journey times and additional costs.

(d)    The disconnect this has caused to the local community with 2 large estates effectively cut off from each other, with the resultant family and friends having to make alternative arrangements.

(e)    It has made journeys to the local GP, the LRI and train station more difficult and for some impossible (especially the elderly) due to the removal of some routes.

(f)     That the 47/48 and 49 services have been replaced with a changed 47/48 and a 44/44a/44b and 44s service. These more complex services have caused confusion, with users unable to make much sense of the difficult timetables and unsure which stops are for which services. This is verified by the drivers taking the incorrect route on many occasions.

(g)    The Leicestershire Bus Service Improvement Plan 2025 had as one of its objectives ‘to encourage bus use to local facilities’, the recent changes could undermine this.

(h)    The limited ability of the Council to influence the decisions of commercial operators.

 

2.     Therefore, this Council resolves to:

(a)    Continue to engage with Arriva to request a review of the recent changes taking into account the concerns and views of Wigston residents.

 

(b)    Work via the Enhanced Bus Partnership to seek to develop an approach to community engagement ahead of bus service changes.”