"Following the outcome of the election in which the Conservatives lost their majority fighting on a platform of one unitary authority for the whole of Leicestershire this County Council resolves to:
(a) Withdraw the bid with the Government for one unitary authority for the whole of Leicestershire and support the proposals from the Borough and District Councils and Rutland County Council for two Unitary authorities for Leicestershire (a North and a South);
(b) Record its objection to any proposal that would involve parts of the County of Leicestershire being taken over by an enlarged Leicester City Authority.”
Minutes:
It was moved by Mr Mullaney and seconded by Mr Bray:
"Following the outcome of the election in which the
Conservatives lost their majority fighting on a platform of one unitary
authority for the whole of Leicestershire this County Council resolves to:
(a) Withdraw the bid with the Government for one
unitary authority for the whole of Leicestershire and support the proposals
from the Borough and District Councils and Rutland County Council for two
Unitary authorities for Leicestershire (a North and a South);
(b) Record its objection to any proposal that would involve parts of the County of Leicestershire being taken over by an enlarged Leicester City Authority.”
An amendment was moved by Mr D Harrison and seconded by Mr Boam:
“That
i) following advice from chief officers on the proposals for local government reorganisation (LGR) from the district councils and Rutland, which include a proposed north/south split of the county, the County Council believes that the proposal if implemented:
(a) would lead to a significant risk to the stability of countywide services, particularly social care.
(b) would also cause unnecessary disaggregation of services leading to cost increases, duplication and reduced economies of scale for upper tier functions such as highways, waste disposal and social care.
It is also noted that:
(c) the County Council was informed by the leaders of the district councils and Rutland at a meeting in January 2025 that, following earlier meetings to which the County Council had not been invited, those leaders supported a unitary authority for Leicester with an extended boundary and two unitary authorities for the remaining area of Leicestershire and Rutland.
(d) the County Council under the previous administration changed its position when the Government refused a request to delay elections to join the fast-track LGR programme to unlock devolution.
(e) the County Council is not aware that the district councils and Rutland have changed their position from January 2025 but are currently carrying out a ‘public engagement’ exercise on a proposal which does not support an extended City boundary.
ii) the County Council believes it is important to be open and transparent in the LGR process.
iii) the County Council is therefore unable to support the proposals from the district councils and Rutland for two unitary authorities for Leicestershire, which would create unviable new authorities, contrary to Government requirements as set out in the Devolution White Paper that new unitary councils must be the right size to achieve efficiencies, improve capacity and withstand financial shocks.
iv) the County Council is having constructive discussions with the City Council and there is joint agreement that the best option for LGR in Leicester and Leicestershire is a two unitary model, one City, one County, that both authorities must be financially sustainable with the capacity to enable strategic land use planning across City and County, providing the optimum structure for devolution of powers, responsibilities and funding.”
On the amendment being put and before the vote was taken,
five members rose asking that a named vote be recorded.
The vote was recorded as follows:
For the Amendment
Mr Abbott, Mr Bailey, Dr Bloxham, Mr Boam, Mr Bradshaw, Miss Butler, Mr Cooke, Mr Crook, Mrs Danks, Mr England, Mr Fowler, Mr Grimley, Mr Hamilton-Gray, Mr D Harrison, Mr P Harrison, Mr Innes, Mr King, Mrs Knight, Mr Lovegrove, Mr McDonald, Mr Melen, Mr Morris, Mr O’Shea, Mr Orson, Mr Page, Mrs Page, Mr Poland, Mr Richichi, Mr Rudkin, Mrs Seaton, Mr Smith, Mr Squires, Mrs Taylor, Mr Tilbury, Mr Whitford
Against the Amendment
Mr Bools, Mrs Bottomley, Mr Bray, Mr Charlesworth, Mr Durrani, Mr Galton, Mr Gamble, Ms Gray, Dr Hill, Mr Holt, Mr Mullaney, Mrs Pendlebury, Mr Walker
The amendment was put and carried, with 35 members voting for the amendment and 13 members voting against.
On the substantive motion being put and before the vote was taken, five members rose asking that a named vote be recorded.
The vote was recorded as follows:
For the Substantive Motion
Mr Abbott, Mr Bailey, Dr Bloxham, Mr Boam, Mr Bradshaw, Miss
Butler, Mr Cooke, Mr Crook, Mrs Danks, Mr England, Mr Fowler, Mr Grimley, Mr
Hamilton-Gray, Mr D Harrison, Mr P Harrison, Mr Innes, Mr King, Mrs Knight, Mr
Lovegrove, Mr McDonald, Mr Melen, Mr Morris, Mr O’Shea, Mr Orson, Mr Page, Mrs
Page, Mr Poland, Mr Richichi, Mr Rudkin, Mrs Seaton, Mr Smith, Mr Squires, Mrs
Taylor, Mr Tilbury, Mr Whitford
Against the Substantive Motion
Mr Bools, Mrs Bottomley, Mr Bray, Mr Charlesworth, Mr
Durrani, Mr Galton, Mr Gamble, Ms Gray, Dr Hill, Mr Holt, Mr Mullaney, Mrs
Pendlebury, Mr Walker
The substantive motion was put and carried, with 35 members
voting for the amendment and 13 members voting against.