Agenda item

It was moved by Mrs Taylor and seconded by Mr Poland:

 

“Following receipt of the Interim Plan Feedback document from the government in June on local government reorganisation proposals for Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland, and comments from the City Mayor of Leicester at the Full Council meeting of Leicester City Council on Thursday 3rd July that “both the County Council Leadership in public, and District Council Leaders in private acknowledge that the case for boundary revision for the city is unarguable”, this County Council resolves to:

(A)      Require that proposals for, or agreements to Devolution and Local Government Reorganisation made on behalf of Leicestershire County Council by the Leader and/or Cabinet and/or Chief Executive, be subject to debate by and a vote of Full Council before submission to the Government. A Special Council meeting will be scheduled in November 2025 in anticipation of this vote;

(B)      Recognise that such a submission would only pass this County Council with the support of opposition Councillors and therefore requires the Leader to consult with all Group Leaders on a weekly basis to update them on progress of discussions with Leicester City Council and/or Rutland County Council and/or the Borough and District Councils;

(C)      Confirm that Leicestershire County Council does not support any expansion of the Leicester City Council area boundaries.”

 

An amendment was moved by Mr D Harrison and seconded by Mr Squires:

 

“That the County Council:

 

1. supports the Leader of the County Council in writing to the Government to request they hold a local referendum given the potential effect of local government reorganisation on Leicestershire and the importance of testing public support;
   
   
2. recognises that, if reorganisation is required by the Government, the key consideration in deciding on a new unitary structure for Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland will be the proposed City boundary extension and therefore must be in an informed position about the consequences of a boundary extension in order to make a final submission for a new unitary structure to the Government in November 2025;
   
   
3. confirms its view that the best option is a two unitary model, one City, one County, and that both authorities must be financially sustainable with the capacity to enable strategic land use planning across the area, providing the optimum structure for devolution of powers, responsibilities and funding;
   
   
4. accordingly regards modelling of the different options for two unitary authorities, and other options, as a prerequisite for informed debate and decision, the initial results from the modelling to be shared with the opposition Group Leaders at the earliest opportunity;

 

5. notes that modelling the financial impact of an extended City boundary on the County is in line with the County Council’s interim plan for reorganisation submitted by the previous administration to the Government in March 2025;

 

6. notes that the submission to be made to the Government in November 2025 is a matter for the Cabinet.”

 

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, Dr Bloxham, Mr Boam, Miss Butler, Mr Cooke, Mr Crook, Mrs Danks, Mr England, Mr Fowler, Mr Hamilton-Gray, Mr D Harrison, Mr P Harrison, Mr Innes, Mrs Knight, Mr McDonald, Mr Morris, Mr Pugsley, Mr Richichi, Mr Robinson, Mr Squires, Mr Tilbury, Mr Whitford.

 

Against the Amendment

 

Mr Bailey, Mrs Bottomley, Mr Bray, Mrs Broadley, Mr Charlesworth, Mr Durrani, Mr Galton, Mr Gamble, Mr Grimley, Dr Hill, Mr Holt, Mr King, Mr Lovegrove, Mr Melen, Mr Miah, Mr Mullaney, Mr O’Shea, Mr Page, Mrs Page, Mr Poland, Mrs Seaton, Mr Smith, Mrs Taylor, Mr Walker.

 

The amendment was not carried, with 22 members voting for the amendment and 24 members voting against.

 

On the original 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 Motion

 

Mr Bailey, Mrs Bottomley, Mr Bray, Mrs Broadley, Mr Charlesworth, Mr Durrani, Mr Galton, Mr Gamble, Mr Grimley, Dr Hill, Mr Holt, Mr King, Mr Lovegrove, Mr Melen, Mr Mullaney, Mr O’Shea, Mr Page, Mrs Page, Mr Poland, Mrs Seaton, Mr Smith, Mrs Taylor, Mr Walker.

 

Against the Motion

 

Mr Abbott, Dr Bloxham, Mr Boam, Miss Butler, Mr Cooke, Mr Crook, Mrs Danks, Mr England, Mr Fowler, Mr Hamilton-Gray, Mr D Harrison, Mr P Harrison, Mr Innes, Mrs Knight, Mr McDonald, Mr Morris, Mr Pugsley, Mr Richichi, Mr Robinson, Mr Squires, Mr Tilbury, Mr Whitford.

 

The original motion was put and carried, with 23 members voting for the motion and 22 members voting against.