Minutes:
(A)
Mr Bray asked the following question of
the Leader or his nominee:
“At the meeting on 30th July 2025 the Leader moved
an amendment which included a commitment to write to the Government to ask for
a referendum on local government reform, which I support. Given that the
amendment was not passed by the Council, will the Leader now commit the Council
to holding a referendum ourselves?”
Mr D. Harrison replied as follows:
“Mr Bray is aware
that the Reform UK administration supports calls for a local referendum. This
is why it was proposed in the amendment at the full Council meeting on 30th
July 2025, which his Group failed to support.
Holding a unilateral referendum by the County Council would be an
uncosted burden on the tax payers of this County and
would need the support of this Council to pass.”
(B) Mrs Taylor asked the following question of
the Leader or his nominee:
“1. Can the Leader advise why he appointed Mr
Boam as the Deputy Leader of this Council in May, and what were the changes of
circumstances in the three months following that appointment which led him to
sack Mr Boam as Deputy Leader and from Cabinet?
2. Can the Leader confirm that this Cabinet
will remain in post for the foreseeable future to provide stability?”
Mr D. Harrison replied as follows:
“1. Mr
Boam was elected Deputy Leader of the Reform UK administration by its elected
members in May this year and his name was therefore nominated by the Leader at
the Annual Meeting of the County Council.
In August of this year, it became evident that Mr Boam could not
continue with his duties as Adult Social Care Lead Member. The Reform UK group
decided the right course of action was to remove Mr Boam from his positions.
2.
Cabinet
positions are appointed by the Leader of the Council, and I have every
confidence we now have the right team in place.”
Mrs Taylor asked the following supplementary question:
“I thank the Leader for his answer and just a point of clarity, he said the
Deputy Leader, Mr Boam had been elected by the Reform UK administration elected members in May. Could he confirm if the current new Deputy Leader had also been elected by the Reform UK administration this time?”
Mr D. Harrison replied as follows:
“A very simple response. Yes.”
(C) Mr Bray asked the following question of
the Leader or his nominee:
“The work that the County Council has done to roll out superfast
fibre broadband across parts of Leicestershire is to be commended,
however residents in Curzon Close, Burbage in my Division have been
battling with their leasehold company and Openreach to try and get their street
connected, so far to no avail.
Would the Leader ask officers to take up the case for people in Curzon Close
and surrounding streets and work with these companies to get the homes
connected?”
Mr
Fowler replied as follows:
“Superfast Leicestershire, a Government funded programme to increase digital connectivity, brought Superfast broadband to over 78,000 Leicestershire premises between 2013 and 2021. The Council is now working with Building Digital UK to support gigabit-capable, full fibre broadband delivery to at least 17,000 homes and businesses in areas not covered by commercial broadband plans by 2032.
Openreach, Virgin Media, and CityFibre
have delivered gigabit capable broadband in Burbage as part of their commercial
build. Unfortunately, it appears that
Curzon Court has not been included.
Officers have contacted Openreach to understand why Curzon
Court has been excluded. Openreach can
find no record of a build request.
Curzon Court is an age restricted housing complex and therefore any
installation to the premises will require the full support of the leasehold
company.
If further details in respect of the leasehold company can be provided to broadband@leics.gov.uk, Officers will investigate this further with Openreach.”
(D) Mr Charlesworth asked the following
question of the Leader or his nominee:
“This Autumn the Government has introduced a £650 million
electric car grant scheme; this will make EV ownership more affordable and
accessible. However, if you live in a terraced property in Leicestershire, you
will not be able to take advantage of this scheme if you need to charge your
vehicle at home – as most owners do. This is because the County Council’s
current policy on charging forbids any cross-pavement charging methods. Many
other local authorities have adopted various methods to address this issue;
when is Leicestershire going to adopt a policy that meets the needs of its
residents?”
Mr
Whitford replied as follows:
“The County Council recognises the importance of electric
vehicles in supporting the delivery of an efficient transport network, enabling
people to get about in their daily lives. As a result, officers are currently
investigating the potential for a pilot scheme to support cross-pavement
charging methods in the County. Following the introduction of the Government’s
£650m electric car grant scheme, the County Council will be applying for a
grant to support the introduction of the pilot scheme. Although a relatively
small amount is available, this should be sufficient to investigate
cross-pavement charging methods in Leicestershire. The application process
closes at the end of October and dependent on the outcome, the scheme could be
rolled out in 2026.”
(E) Mr Orson asked the following question of
the Leader or his nominee:
“In June, our local NHS Trust announced the pause of birthing and postnatal services at St Mary’s Birth Centre, Melton Mowbray—the only midwife-led unit in Leicestershire. For many families, this centre has been more than a place of care; it has been a sanctuary of safety, dignity, and support during life’s most vulnerable moments.
This decision strikes at the heart of our Joint Health and Wellbeing Strategy, which rightly prioritises the first 1001 days of a child’s life—a window where compassionate, community-based care can shape lifelong outcomes.
Will the Leader commit to:
• Standing with campaigners who seek to restore and protect vital services at St Mary’s, especially postnatal care and breastfeeding support, which are so often undervalued yet profoundly impactful
• Ensuring the petition brought to County
Hall today is formally presented to our key partner on the Health and Wellbeing
Board, University Hospitals of Leicester, at its next meeting?
This is not just about buildings or budgets—it’s about babies, mothers, and the kind of care we choose to champion.”
Reply by
Mr Squires:
“Pausing births and inpatient care at the Centre from 7 July was a difficult but necessary step, given the safety risks to mums and babies caused by staffing issues. I know senior staff at University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust and the Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland Integrated Care Board are working together to determine the next steps for St Mary's Birth Centre.
This includes discussing the safety risks and what can be done to mitigate them. I have been told that no decision has yet been made but it is anticipated this will happen before January 2026.
Like Mr Orson, I am concerned at the potential loss of the St Mary’s Centre and would urge the NHS to consider the issues of postnatal care and breastfeeding that he has highlighted. I would welcome the presentation of the petition at the Health and Wellbeing Board.”
Mr Orson asked the following supplementary question:
“I was presented with a petition on this matter just before the meeting. I've handed it to Democratic Services, and I asked that this be handed to the Board tomorrow and thank you for that. But the question is, would Councillor Squires agree that those currently assessing their birth choices need certainty and the continual holding position of a decision being anticipated before January is becoming untenable. Given we are now approaching the halfway point in this pause, will he press the Trust to be more open and concrete about their timeline for announcing their future plans for St. Mary's?”
Mr Squires replied as follows:
“I can confirm I'm already doing that and awaiting a reply.”
(F) Mr Walker asked the following question of
the Leader or his nominee:
“A number of residents are facing flooding on Sapcote Road, Burbage, particularly nos. 141 to 149. This is caused by water run-off from a neighbouring field. Would the Leader please look at this situation and update myself and the residents on the proposed remedial action.”
Mr Tilbury replied as follows:
“The County Council is aware of the flooding issues at 141 – 149 Sapcote Road, Burbage. National flood risk mapping shows parts of the area to be at high risk from surface water flooding. This is most likely to occur following periods of seasonally wet weather when the ground becomes saturated, or when intense rainfall occurs following periods of dry weather.
In its role as the Lead Local Flood Authority, the Council
investigated flooding which occurred at this location in autumn 2019. The
Council also investigated public highway drainage assets in its role as the
Local Highway Authority, and worked in partnership with Severn Trent Water, who
manage public sewer assets nearby.
The neighbouring field mentioned in the question is privately owned land. Measures to reduce the risk of surface water flooding from the field were considered in 2020; however, such work would be subject to landowner agreement as there is no statutory responsibility for the landowner to agree to or undertake any works. Neither are there any powers to enforce the landowner to carry out any works. To date, an agreement is yet to be reached.
At the time, the Council also encouraged property owners to be flood-ready and consider resilience measures to reduce the potential impacts of flooding.
We have had limited recent correspondence from the community. Officers will therefore arrange a discussion with Mr Walker to understand further the current situation from the community perspective. We are also aware that Severn Trent Water have been contacted regarding their assets on Sapcote Road.”
(G) Mr Bray asked the following question of the
Leader or his nominee:
“Now that schools have returned, I'm getting comments
from parents and neighbours about parking issues in the Westfield Road,
Northfield Road and Coventry Road areas at school drop off and pick up times.
People are concerned about inconsiderate parking and more importantly
pedestrian safety.
Could the Leader please update me on what action the County Council has taken and any further measures proposed to alleviate problems in this area.”
Mr Whitford replied as follows:
“These concerns were raised previously in September 2024 by Mr Bray. Officers responded by commissioning surveys to assess whether a pedestrian crossing would be required, inclusive of a school crossing patrol. Mr Bray was provided with a copy of the outcome of these assessments including the results and proposed actions in December 2024. The investigations and actions are summarised below.
Pedestrian
Crossing Request
When assessing the justification for a crossing, the County Council uses an assessment involving both pedestrian and vehicle flows. This assessment results in a score, which in Leicestershire is called the Crossing Justification Value (CJV) and this will determine if there is justification for a crossing or not. The results of any surveys carried out are then placed into one of the following types of categories:
Upon reviewing the assessment for this particular location, the results showed a score of 0.072. This value falls below any threshold of intervention whereby crossing facilities are justified. It is also pertinent to highlight that Westfield Junior School does benefit from the presence of an existing uncontrolled crossing point, which goes above and beyond what is justified when referring to the CJV.
The results of this survey taken last year remain relevant as we are not aware of any change in the environment or development taking place in the vicinity which would contribute towards changes in travel patterns.
School Crossing Patrol
We can confirm that the crossing point in front of Westfield Junior School was previously used for a School Crossing Patrol (SCP) until 2015 where the service was withdrawn due to not meeting the required CJV values. In line with the concerns raised along Westfield Road, officers conducted a new assessment on 3rd October 2024, at the same formal crossing point to re-evaluate eligibility.
This assessment as per the Road Safety GB SCP guidelines, includes all children walking to school and crossing the road in the vicinity of the Priority Narrowing. It includes all vehicle traffic in both directions. There are additional weightings for larger vehicles (i.e. anything that is not a car). There are additional factor multipliers for age of children, width of carriageway and proximity to junctions.
For an SCP site to be established, the assessment must meet a threshold of 4,000,000 or above. At its busiest, the Westfield Road site achieved a result of 1,664,331 meaning that an SCP would not be supported at this location.
School Keep Clear
Previously, the school keep clear marking which existed along Westfield Road was only an advisory marking as the school had not responded to previous calls for schools to work with us to change these markings to a mandatory marking which could be enforced (the marking on Ashford Road is mandatory and is included on the enforcement route).
When concerns were raised in September 2024, the Council again offered to convert this to a mandatory marking inclusive of installing a second marking on the other side of the road to create a clear parking zone which would offer unobstructed visibility for parents/guardians and children crossing the road.
Officers conducted the necessary consultation for the Traffic Regulation Orders to make the existing marking mandatory and introduce the second marking. This was implemented with all new signs and road markings introduced on 11th April 2025.
Other measures
Westfield Road also benefits from extensive traffic calming in the form of road narrowings, speed cushions, speed tables and a 20mph Advisory School Zone with twin amber flashing lights.
These measures aim to highlight the school and reduce the speed of traffic using the road.
As with all schools in Leicestershire, the school has been offered Road Safety Education training.
The Sustainable Travel Team (Choose How You Move) have also offered support to the school in developing a travel plan. This would include the implementation of active travel initiatives aimed at reducing congestion at the school gate by encouraging more pupils and parents to walk, cycle or wheel to and from school. Although the school has not yet taken up this offer, information and resources have been provided directly to them.
Following a request from the Head Teacher, the team provided bespoke maps showing walking and cycling routes within a mile radius of the school. The Head Teacher also expressed an interest in Bikeability, which has been booked for w/c 19th January 2026.”
(H) Mr Smith asked the following questions of
the Leader or his nominee:
“At the Scrutiny Commission meeting on 8 September 2025, the Leader of the County Council stated that he will cut council tax without cutting services in the upcoming budget.
Can the Lead Member confirm whether reducing staff numbers is being considered as a means of addressing the widening deficit, and if so, what assessment has been made of the likely impact this would have on the delivery of our services, on residents’ wellbeing, and on staff morale across the authority?”
Mr D. Harrison replied as follows:
“Due to the significant financial challenge that the County Council faces it is important that we look at all Council activities so that the best options for change are identified.
It would be wrong to just target staff, as Mr Smith seems to be suggesting.
As a council we exist to provide services to the residents of Leicestershire, so any service changes will be carefully considered so that their impact is fully understood.
Our workforce is highly valued, whether their role is directly delivering a service or part of a support function.
If any changes are made, people will want to be treated honestly and fairly. This has always been my approach. For changes under my administration, I will ensure that there is clear communication about why change is needed, meaningful consultation and implementation in a professional and supportive way.”
(I)
Mrs Bottomley asked the following
questions of the Leader or his nominee:
“When can we expect to see a Local Government Reorganisation proposal from the administration? With the deadline being in two months time, what steps are being taken to ensure that adequate consultation can take place, and our residents are allowed to have their voices heard?”
Mr D. Harrison replied as follows:
“At its recent meeting the Cabinet highlighted the importance of modelling the different options for reorganisation which have so far been put forward. The outcomes are not yet known but they will be made available to all members. I’m conscious of the time that is left before a submission to Government has to be made but I want our consultation and the final proposal to be informed by evidence, particularly the impact on the County of any extension of the City boundary.
I respect the views of residents, which have been recognised in this chamber at our last meeting, but I expect the Government also to take other factors into account when they assess final proposals.”
(J) Mrs Bottomley asked the following
questions of the Leader or his nominee:
“After the reallocation of £2 million into “flooding”, when
can our residents have details on what exactly that money is now going to be
spent on?”
Mr Tilbury replied as follows:
“The County Council has been working to shape proposals for how this reallocated funding is to be spent on flood mitigation initiatives including expected outcomes. The proposals will be presented to Cabinet on 28th October for approval.”
(K) Mrs Bottomley asked the following
questions of the Leader or his nominee:
“Leicestershire County Council’s section 19 report is significantly overdue compared to other local authorities, what steps are being taken to ensure that the report is published as quickly as possible, and that any future reports will not be delayed to this extent?”
Mr Tilbury replied as follows:
“Whilst there are no
statutory timescales for the publication of a formal flood investigation, the
completion and publication of outstanding formal (Section 19) flood
investigations is a high priority for the Council. Over the last two years
Leicestershire has experienced a high number of major flood events resulting in
properties being internally flooded. The flood events in January 2024 (storm
Henk) and January 2025 were the worst recorded in Leicestershire’s recent
history with well over 1000 properties being internally flooded across the two
events. This has resulted in a high volume of formal flood investigations for
the Flood Risk Management Team.
There are various
other workstreams which must continue whilst investigations are being
progressed. These are detailed in the Local Flood Risk Management Strategy for
Leicestershire. The Council
has also had to administer Property Flood Resilience Repair Grants with no
additional resource provided from the Government, and deal with high volumes of
flooding related enquiries.
Investigations also
require significant amounts of consultation with other agencies. The process is
detailed in the Leicestershire Formal Flood Investigations
Policy available on the Council’s website.
The Council has
allocated an additional £400,000 to help with the completion of existing
investigations and other resource pressures.
It is fully
recognised that the publishing of Section 19 investigation reports is very
important for communities; however, I would reassure people that where actions
are agreed by all parties, we do not wait for the report to be published before
progressing them. A list of outstanding investigations with estimated
publication dates is available on the Council’s website. These dates are currently the best estimates for publication. In the
meantime, to provide communities with clarity on actions and their progress,
multi-agency action plans are being prepared and shared with communities.
The speed of
completion of future investigations will be improved by additional funding
enabling greater resource to be directed to carrying out these formal
investigations.”
Mrs Bottomley asked the following supplementary question:
“Thank you for the response. While we are repeatedly assured that actions are being taken in the absence of the section 19 flooding report, myself, parish councils, flood wardens, and residents have no details as to what these actions are. Can we please have some clarity around what steps will be taken and when by who to ensure that communities are fully informed and can track progress while we await the report?”
Mr Tilbury replied as follows:
“The interim action plan of the section 19 reports will be revealed in the next couple of weeks around mid-October.”