Minutes:
(A)
Mrs Page asked the following question of
the Leader or his nominee:
“Could the Council please confirm what measures and policies
are in place to ensure effective, timely communication to members and
how compliance to communication is measured?”
Mr D Harrison replied as follows:
“Mrs Page will
recall the all member briefing on customer services
and dealing with divisional issues which took place on Thursday 5 June and
addressed a number of the issues set out in her
question. I would remind her of the
following information which was provided during that briefing:
In terms of general
communication to members, the weekly Member Digest is circulated on a
Tuesday. This includes the latest
Council news, information worth noting, details of upcoming meetings and all
member briefings and provides links to the Council’s events and have your say
pages.
There is also a
WhatsApp group for members where County Council news is shared. This is publicly available information which
members can then share in their own WhatsApp group.”
(B)
Mrs Taylor asked the following question
of the Leader or his nominee:
“‘During the Full Council meeting on the 24th of September, the Lead Member for Children and Families said:
“She {Deborah Taylor} also mentioned the fact that schools are underfunded which is why I find it quite bizarre, I’ll even say hypocritical Mr Chairman, that the previous Lead Member will stand here and say to the Full Council that schools are underfunded when roughly about this time last year her administration chose to move just under £3m, I think it was £2.8m away from the schools funding block into the high needs block to deal with a deficit which all of us have said here is not something we could fix as a local authority. So, I think championing that schools should have more funding, that there’s an issue in schooling, at the same time as taking away £2.8m valuable money to a lot of schools, is something we should all remember.”
The day before this meeting, on the 23rd of September, the Children and Family Services Department launched a consultation to pursue the same 0.5% transfer from the School Block to the High Needs Block for the 2026/27 financial year, with the stated intention of continuing the SEND Investment Fund. Can I, therefore, ask the Lead Member when he made those comments at Full Council:
1. Does he believe schools in Leicestershire are underfunded?
2. Did he know at the time he spoke at Full Council that his department had launched the consultation on transferring money from the Schools Block to the High Needs Block the day before?
3. Did the Lead Member pre-judge the outcome of this consultation by deciding before it had started that he would not support a transfer of money from the Schools Block to the High Needs Block, regardless of the outcome of the consultation? If so, why did he spend officer time and taxpayers' money carrying out the consultation exercise?
4.
If the Lead Member did in fact have an open mind
on that issue, does he stand by his comments made to Full Council that if he
decides to support the transfer of money from the School Block to the High
Needs Block, that will indicate he would be hypocritical to be concerned about
school funding? If not, would that show him to be hypocritical in his comments
at Full Council?”
Mr Pugsley replied as follows:
“1. Despite
an increase in funding to schools from national government, schools across
Leicestershire are facing increasing financial challenges as
a result of unfunded or partially funded pay rises, soaring energy bills
and increasing costs required to support children to learn in the most
effective way.
2.
Yes, I
was aware that a consultation had been launched on transferring money from the
Schools Block to the High Needs Block.
3.
No, I
did not prejudge the outcome of the consultation. The consultation was launched
to seek the views of schools across Leicestershire on the block transfer in order to inform the decision of Cabinet on whether to ask
the Secretary of State to agree a Schools Block Transfer.
4.
I
considered the outcome of the consultation alongside the pressures on the High
Needs Block of the Dedicated Schools Grant. The matter was considered at
Cabinet on 18th November, where it was agreed to pursue an
alternative option for funding to deliver pupil outreach support and work with
schools to support ongoing mainstream inclusion.”
(C)
Mr O’Shea asked the following questions
of the Leader or his nominee:
“In the Hinckley Times published on Wednesday, 30th April 2025, one day before this year’s County Council elections, there was an article published where Reform UK is quoted saying:
‘Reform UK won’t make empty promises while the council is in such a state. Reform Councillors elected in May will introduce a British-style Doge to audit Leicestershire County Council, cancel the fraudulent contracts and stop waste’ (Hinckley Times, 30/04/25, p.6).
1. Can the Leader advise whether he has
found any fraudulent
contracts?
2. If so, can he advise if those have been reported to Leicestershire Police as is indicated should happen at an early stage under 9.3 of Leicestershire County Council’s Anti-Fraud and Corruption Policy?
If no fraudulent contracts have been found, can the Leader tell me:
3. What evidence do Reform UK have to make the statement that there are fraudulent contracts at Leicestershire County Council, and can the Leader share that with this Council please?
4. Does the Leader agree there was evidence at the time the article was written in April, that fraudulent contracts were in place at Leicestershire County Council? If so, as a sitting County Councillor, what action did he take – at that time before the election – to report this suspected fraud to either senior officers or the police?
5. If the Leader cannot provide this evidence, does he accept Reform UK was misleading people for electoral advantage? Will he apologise to the public for that, and to officers at this authority for disparaging them and bringing into question their integrity without the evidence to back that up?”
Mr D Harrison replied as follows:
“1. No fraudulent procurement contracts have been identified in the current (2025/26) financial year.
2. The Council has a zero-tolerance approach to fraud and other financial irregularity. This is set out in the Council’s Anti-Fraud & Corruption Policy. Where investigations have a potential criminal element to them, the established process is that dialogue will take place between the investigating department, Internal Audit and the Director of Law and Governance regarding grounds for making a referral to the Police. At present, there is a historical case of procurement fraud that remains the subject of a significant and complex police investigation, involving other agencies too. In addition to the ongoing police action, contracts with the provider were terminated and losses fully recovered by the County Council.
3. Mr. O’Shea has been very selective in the article to which he’s referring. The same article quoted the Conservative group leader saying they wanted to ensure the County Council remains a “financially sound and efficient council”, but the sorry fact is they left this Council’s finances in dire straits, which is why we have commissioned Newton to carry out a top to bottom efficiency review of every penny this Council spends, including looking at contracts and procurement processes. I am confident their work will bring results and shine a light on those areas forgotten by the Conservatives in their 24 years running this Council.
4. As I have said in previous answers to this Council since I became Leader back in May, the election addresses selectively referred to by Mr O’Shea were published centrally by the Reform UK party and I did not have any control over their content. Mr O’Shea has been an elected member of this County Council since 2013 and should be used to the nature of robust political language at election times contained in party political literature.
5. I am confident that the review into the Council’s finances, procurement and spending will provide evidence of areas to save money and where we can make improvements to service delivery and how they are commissioned. Since May 2025, and as reported to the September 2025 full Council meeting in my Position Statement, we have made significant progress where the previous administration failed. For example, following a review of home care procurement fees, working with Reform UK Members and the Adult Social Care team at least £1m of savings is targeted to the contracts agreed by the previous Administration. The Children and Family Services Department expect to save over £800,000 this year by holding back recruitment of non-essential jobs. If Mr O’Shea wants examples of failure, I suggest he looks to his own benches.”
(D) Mrs Taylor asked the following question of
the Leader or his nominee:
“I have serious safety concerns with dangerous and
obstructive parking on Cropston Road, Anstey, outside
Nomads Football Club.
There are vehicles parked over pavements, on grassed areas, and now cars are parking on the blind bend with double yellow lines in situ across the weekends.
I have asked for parking enforcement to visit the area on
Sunday mornings, but this has not happened.
Can the lead member please take some action to ease the
pressure on this busy bus route?”
Mr Tilbury replied as follows:
“The Council is aware of the parking issues in the vicinity of Anstey Nomads Football Club and acknowledges the concerns raised by Mrs Taylor about some of the irresponsible parking behaviours of a minority of those attending the site and their lack of regard for other users of the highway.
As the highway authority, the Council has introduced parking restrictions (double yellow lines) to try and deter visitors parking irresponsibly and these are enforced by Civil Enforcement Officers (CEOs) who patrol the area. It is recognised that Sunday mornings tend to be the main period that parking issues occur and as such patrols are made to Anstey on Sundays to try and combat the indiscriminate parking by users of the football club. However, there is a finite resource, and the CEOs cannot be in all areas at all times.
There is the option of additional paid enforcement, however this would be subject to the CEOs’ availability and willingness to volunteer to carry out additional hours.
We can confirm that CEOs have attended Cropston
Road, Anstey on several occasions as listed below. However, only one penalty
charge notice (PCN) was issued where the vehicle was parked in contravention of
the restrictions. The attending CEOs did note a significant number of vehicles
parked on verges but, as these are not subject to restrictions in place, no
other PCNs were issued.
Since the football season has started, CEOs attended the site as follows:
Unfortunately, whilst there is off-road parking at the football club, it is insufficient for the volume of users attending the site at certain times.
Previously, the Parish Council and Anstey Nomads worked together to create an events order that facilitated the use of ‘no waiting at any time’ parking cones on the unrestricted parts of the highway in 2021, which could also be enforced by CEOs. The Temporary Traffic Regulation Order (TTRO) lasted for 18 months and has since ended. We are aware that Anstey Nomads are still engaging with the Parish Council and also the Local Beat team/Police on how they can work together to improve the situation, but there has been no appetite from the parties for a further events order as yet.
The success of the order would be subject to the availability of volunteers to place and remove the cones, which is suspected to be an issue during the previous events TTRO period. The Council will raise this again with the football club and the Parish Council to see if the circumstances have changed and there is now appetite from them for a further events order.
As a final point of note, if there is dangerous or obstructive parking then the Police have on the spot powers to carry out enforcement. Members of the public can report such incidents to the Police via their non-emergency 101 number or via their website reporting traffic issues: https://www.leics.police.uk/ro/report/rti/rti-b/report-a-road-traffic-incident/”
Mrs Taylor asked the following supplementary question:
“I thank the Lead Member for his answer and his shared concerns about dangerous and obstructive parking on roads. He has mentioned that there's a finite resource. This issue causes concerns across many areas in Leicestershire, not just in my area. Could the Lead Member please look at increasing this budget and employing more civil enforcement officers?”
Mr Tilbury replied as follows:
“I sympathise with your predicament because I've got a similar one in my ward with a local football club. There's not an easy way around it because it's a real fine line between balancing encouraging the people to park well and enforcement. I think the best thing for me to do is probably arrange a visit to come and see the site first and then we can look at it together. You can give your input on what you think you need to do, and I will do the same on my part. I and the Director of Environment and Transport can then come up with a solution for you.”
(E)
Mrs Taylor asked the following question
of the Leader or his nominee:
“Following the report to the Corporate Governance Committee on 24th November identifying that there have been 34 Complaints under the Members’ Code of Conduct since 1st October 2024, can the Leader confirm:
1.
How many of the complaints are about members of
the current administration?
2. How many member complaints were received in the first seven months after the County Council elections in May 2021?”
Mr D Harrison replied as follows:
“1. For comparative purposes and in the
interests of transparency, the response includes data relating to members other
than the administration. Between 1st
May 2025 and 12th November 2025, the complaints received were as
follows:
|
|
Number of complaints |
|
Administration members |
35 |
|
Non-administration members |
3 |
The information provided above
includes complaints which are at an early stage in the process and have not yet
been subject to the initial assessment test. It is also important to note that
7 of the 38 complaints failed the initial test as they raise issues that are
not capable of being investigated under the Code of Conduct.
2. Between 1st May 2021 and 1st December 2021 there were 4 complaints in total.”
Mrs
Taylor asked the following supplementary question:
“Given the sharp increase in complaints compared to previous years, what impact has this had on the Council's resources, particularly in terms of staff costs, staff time, and the cost associated with processing and investigating these complaints?”
Mr D
Harrison replied as follows:
“Obviously, you're aware of the finances and there's processes going on. We're living in a very tight situation and period in local government. We're not the only Council across the country suffering, but we are just looking at costs and expenses appropriately.”
(F) Mrs Bottomley asked the following
question of the Leader or his nominee:
“How does the administration intend to use the new powers to
franchise bus services to ensure that residents in smaller villages can access
fit for purpose and functional public transport?”
Mr Tilbury replied as follows:
“We have recently commissioned an initial feasibility study into the suitability of bus franchising for Leicestershire. Officers are currently in the early stages of evaluating the findings.
Under our current enhanced bus partnership model, we have the partnership working and flexibility in place to plan services which are community focussed. During the past 12 months, we have utilised the Bus Service Improvement Plan grant funding to review and re-design 80% of the County’s bus network resulting in enhanced service provision. This has included numerous trial services being put in place following the feedback obtained at our extensive public engagement sessions, and the introduction of 11 digital demand responsive services (DDRT) resulting in many settlements having access to public transport when there previously was none.
We are continuing with the review of the bus network at present and will consider franchising options further when we are fully apprised of the findings of the franchising feasibility study. A further consideration in relation to franchising and potential options would need to take account of the outcome of local government reorganisation to ensure that the appropriate geography is included.”
(G)
Mrs Bottomley asked the following
question of the Leader or his nominee:
“What data is the administration basing their desire to have 50% on site working from staff on? What evidence is there that this will improve the services we provide and is cost effective?”
Mr Fowler replied as follows:
“Thank you for your
question about the evidence and reasoning behind the Council’s proposal for a
50% on-site working model.
The proposal is
based on a combination of internal data, feedback from management, public and
private sector-wide trends, alongside the need to balance service quality, cost
effectiveness, and staff wellbeing.
As a local
authority, we are a front-facing organisation, and our workforce is our most
important and valued resource. Maintaining staff visibility and accessibility
is essential for public confidence and for delivering effective services.
We want to make the
best use of our Council offices, providing space for our staff as well as
renting out areas to other public sector organisations. By adopting a more
structured approach to attendance, we expect to make better use of our
resources and strengthen team cohesion.
We also believe that
a structured hybrid model will help us maintain or even improve service
quality. It does this by supporting collaboration, knowledge sharing, and team
responsiveness. Working remotely can limit networking, peer support, and
informal learning. Reduced in-person interaction may also impact career
progression and inclusion, particularly for newer staff. We believe that
face-to-face environments are better for mentoring and professional
development.
Mental health issues
are a major cause of absence within the Council, and working arrangements
significantly influence wellbeing. We believe that the balanced proposal will
reduce the often blurred boundaries between home and work and feelings of
isolation; alongside enabling staff to work remotely and flexibly for a
proportion of their working week.
The proposed policy
is also about fostering a sense of organisational identity and fairness. Many
of our roles, especially those on the frontline, require a physical presence.
We believe that all staff should spend time on-site, given the nature of Council
services.
We believe it is
reasonable to ask staff (hybrid workers) to balance their time between working
on-site and working remotely.
Importantly, we
would monitor the impact of this policy and report back to the Employment
Committee, to ensure it meets its objectives and remains cost effective.”
Mrs Bottomley asked
the following supplementary question:
“Since no clear or
measurable evidence has been presented to show that the current arrangements
are negatively affecting service quality, collaboration, staff wellbeing, or
organisational performance, could members please be provided with the following
information:
·
On how
many occasions have members of the public attended County Hall and been unable
to receive adequate support specifically because the relevant staff are working
from home?
·
How many
staff have reported that working from home has negatively impacted their career
progression, sense of isolation or team cohesion?
·
The
number of staff who have raised concerns about the introduction of the 50%
on-site working requirement.
·
The
anticipated total cost of implementing this policy, including any
refurbishment, workspace adjustments, and parking or access arrangements needed
to support this increased on-site attendance.
·
How is
this data being collected or gathered?
This would allow
members to understand the actual evidence base and whether the proposed change
is proportional and cost effective.”
Mr Fowler replied as
follows:
“It's difficult
because there are contradictory reports across the private and public sector
that say that some arrangements are better for people at home, some are better
for in the office. We've taken it that because this is a public organisation
and that the taxpayers are obviously funding people's salaries, we think it's
the right move to make to get people back into the office because, based on the
evidence we've seen, it increases productivity and collaboration. In terms of
the actual numbers, I don't have them to hand right now, but I'm sure that can
be arranged, that we can give you something supplementary. I can speak to you
afterwards if you like. I do hear the concerns because it is about flexibility
and making sure that we've got the balance right because for some roles it may
be that it's much easier to do things at home but for some, especially when
it's a public facing organisation as I said in my response, it is vital that
there has to be somebody there to answer a call or answer somebody coming in
and wanting to speak.”
(H)
Mrs
Taylor asked the following question of the Leader or his nominee:
“The Leader has mentioned his £72 million saving plans for Leicestershire several times in this chamber and recently during his BBC Radio Leicester interview on 2nd October 2025.
Therefore, could the Leader:
1. Share this plan with members?
2. Confirm that the plan has been shared with the Chief Executive?
3. Why has the Leader not implemented his £72 million saving plan during the past 6 months since he has been running the council, but instead overspent on the budget by £8.1 million?
4. Why was this plan not part of the Tender Documents for the deep dive into this council’s finances?”
Mr D Harrison replied as follows:
“1. I’m not sure what the £72 million figure
Mrs Taylor is referring to. Perhaps it
was during my time as a Conservative councillor and I challenged her for the
role of deputy leader of the group, where I may have used the figure as a
general and hypothetical example to look at finding some savings within the
organisation. Although supported by a significant number of her colleagues at
the time, my challenge was not successful. However, what remains unarguable
since taking over as Leader of the County Council in May, is the dire state of
the finances inherited by my Administration.
2.
The outgoing Chief Executive and his team of
chief officers are fully behind my plans to engage Newton as expert external
consultants to carry out a comprehensive efficiency review leaving no stone
unturned, having a laser focus to reduce costs, identify efficiencies and
ultimately savings this Council must find if it is to close the £90 million
financial black hole left to us by the last Conservative administration.
3.
Newton will help us identify savings and the
£8.1 million overspend she refers to was an estimate
for the current year made in September, I’m sure she will welcome the £5
million reduction in overspend reported earlier this month. I am confident that
by the time this Council sets its precept and agrees its budget in February
2026, the MTFS will be back in balance.
4.
The review of this County Council’s finances,
spending, commissioning and procurement processes and activities referred to in
paragraph 3 above is unrestricted in scope.
I am confident that this efficiency review will result in significant
savings opportunities to allow this Council to regain sound finances and enable
a sustainable future.”
Mrs Taylor asked the
following supplementary question:
“Could the Leader
clarify what the £72 million figure refers to as he mentioned it during his BBC
Radio Leicester interview on 2nd October 2025, when he was the
Reform Leader and not a member of the Conservative Party? Does this figure
represent a specific budget line, a combined savings target or a hypothetical
example as previously stated?”
Mr Harrison replied
as follows:
“It's the figure that I submitted during an election process where I contested the deputy leadership with you, and I was able to explain to members what I thought at that time. That was the beginning phase of trying to find efficiencies which was unsuccessful at that time. Yes, I have tried in the past but now I understand the sophistication and how it works. With a company like Newton's now, with a great record both nationally and internationally, this is the fourth time they're working with us. It is a different project, but I knew in those stages we had to do something. It was all ignored so of course the debt grew, everything else happened, and here we are today. Hopefully from the start of this with Newton we will find where we can balance our budget. It's going to be critical going forward because we've got other areas of debt growing nationally, unconstrained, that the Government's not even attending to. We’re left with it and we're paying the interest as well.
I have believed for a long time we have to review how we operate the business and the efficiency of the business. Hopefully we will get a conclusion which will be helpful to the Council as a body because we just couldn't carry on as we are.”
(I)
Mr Poland asked the following question of
the Leader or his nominee:
“SuDS [sustainable drainage
systems] ponds are a vital measure to mitigate the flood risk of new
developments in our communities. If they are not maintained properly, however,
they cannot operate as efficiently as they are designed to and therefore reduce
the protection offered to residents.
1.
Can the Lead Member tell me if Leicestershire
County Council plays any role in advising on the design, operation and ongoing
maintenance of SuDS ponds to Local Planning
Authorities?
2. Does the County Council specify who should be responsible for the maintenance of SuDS ponds in perpetuity (or could it if it doesn’t already) and is there any mechanism in place to ensure that maintenance work is carried out on an ongoing basis?”
Mr Tilbury replied as follows:
“1. Leicestershire County Council, in its capacity as the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) is consulted by Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) during the planning process for major developments only. The LLFA provide advice on designs to the LPA on full and reserved matters applications, on such matters as the position of SuDS and suitable access for maintenance from the public highway and/or shared access ways.
The LLFA recommends appropriate conditions to the LPA, relating to surface water drainage and maintenance. The LPAs are responsible for setting conditions as part of the planning approval process and enforcing against any non-compliance of those conditions.
The County Council does not specify who is responsible for the ongoing maintenance of SuDS. The LLFA gives standing advice on maintenance to LPAs that states ‘Note that it is the responsibility of the Local Planning Authority, under the National Standards for Sustainable Drainage Systems, to ensure that a system to facilitate the future maintenance of SuDS features can be managed and maintained in perpetuity before commencement of the works.
2. If adopted by the relevant water company, then they will be the responsible body for maintenance. If adopted by the County Council in its capacity as the Local Highway Authority (LHA), then the County Council will be responsible for ongoing maintenance.
The majority of SuDS on development sites are retained by the developer, therefore they are privately maintained by an appointed management company. The developer is responsible for maintenance during construction until such point that they appoint a maintenance company, or it is adopted by the water authority or the County Council. Failure to ensure adequate maintenance of SuDS would constitute a breach of planning conditions for the LPA to enforce.”
(J)
Mr Charlesworth asked the following
question of the Leader or his nominee:
“It has come to my notice following a request from a resident in my Ward, for me to seek answers about the offline status of a CCTV roadside camera in Wigston, that the camera in question had been offline between 02/01/25 and 25/06/25, six months in total. This information was supplied to me by Leicestershire County Council following my request.
Further, my resident informed me that the same camera was also offline in late August 2025, due to "technical difficulties." This information was given to my resident by the Traffic Prosecution Team at Leicestershire Police, when they requested CCTV footage from the relevant provider, to assist their investigation into a potential "hit and run" traffic collision in Wigston.
Questions:
1.
Given the offline history of this camera, how
widespread is this problem across the City and County, as it
would appear that the public and the police, who rely on these cameras
for safety and crime detection/ prevention are being let down?
2.
Given that Area Traffic Control at Leicester
City Council manage the CCTV inventory, can they now be approached
formally to provide this information?
3.
Has maintenance of and investment in, the CCTV
infrastructure been systematically neglected to the detriment of public safety
and crime prevention/detection and if so, is this neglect going under the radar
of public and police awareness?
4.
What assurances can be given regarding the current status of the CCTV provision and infrastructure
given that residents and council tax payers have every
right to expect this significant element of public safety to be functioning and
maintained?
5. I now request as a matter of urgency, a root and branch investigation into the current status of the CCTV network in the Leicester City and Leicestershire local authorities.”
Mr Tilbury replied as follows:
“1. The primary purpose of these cameras located in the County is for monitoring live traffic, rather than for safety and crime detection/ prevention purposes. These traffic cameras are managed by Leicester City Council on Leicestershire County Council’s behalf and are used to validate data provided by traffic signal installation detectors cut into the road or mounted on traffic signal installations. They are an additional support for managing the road network, and as such when they are not operational, it does not constitute a safety risk for the public. Whilst the police can request footage recorded within 28 days of an incident happening, there is no guarantee that the camera would have been viewing that area of the junction at the time and could not be relied upon, even if fully operational at the time.
The initial fault for the traffic management camera in question at the location of Bull Head Street / Moat Street, Wigston was caused by a power supply issue that would normally be resolved as an urgent matter, however access to the CCTV’s power supply was obstructed by large telecommunications cabinets that were installed directly in front of the access point.
Leicestershire County Council’s Street Lighting team initially investigated the problem, but due to the limited access they were unable to resolve the issue. After communication between the relevant parties, the CCTV contractor was able to isolate the power to the CCTV cabinet before it reached that access point. Once the power supply fault had been resolved however, a second fault with the camera itself was identified, which took further time to repair.
Unfortunately, this meant that it was offline from 2 January 2025 to 25 June 2025.
2. All Camera Inventory Information is
provided on the LCC Open Leicester data site (https://data.leicester.gov.uk/explore/dataset/cctv-cameras/information/?sort=camera_no&location=10,52.65903,-1.12781&basemap=jawg.streets).
This is Leicester City Council’s full CCTV inventory and includes all type of
cameras, including those for public safety/crime prevention. Non-traffic
cameras are not part of the service level agreement (SLA) that Leicestershire
County Council has with Area Traffic Control for traffic monitoring purposes.
3. The camera in question is a traffic management camera and all cameras managed by Leicester City Council on Leicestershire County Council’s behalf have the primary purpose of monitoring live traffic, not for safety and crime detection/prevention.
All traffic cameras under the
ATC inventory are under a CCTV service contract. Key Performance Indicator
(KPIs) reports show an above 95% attendance rate within the agreed response
times by Graded Urgency (4hr/24hr/72hr). When cameras remain offline for a
longer period, it is primarily because of an issue with the power supply or
telecommunications to that camera and then becomes a third-party issue that may
have a longer time frame to resolve.
4. All traffic cameras managed by Leicester City Council as part of the SLA with Leicestershire County Council have the primary purpose of monitoring live traffic, not for safety and crime detection/ prevention and KPI reports show an above 95% attendance rate within the agreed response times. Further capital investment is planned over the next two years to upgrade older cameras and communications from analogue technology to digital forms of communication. This will further improve reliability, maintenance, and connectivity to CCTV to allow ATC to monitor and manage the traffic network.
5. Any further requests for an investigation into all CCTV managed by Leicester City Council, including those in public areas, should be made directly to them.
Traffic management cameras managed by Leicester City Council as part of the SLA with Leicestershire County Council are in good working order as shown by the KPI reports. Where this has fallen below expectations is primarily when there is an issue with the power supply or telecommunications to that camera. Further capital investment is planned over the next two years to upgrade older cameras and communications that will further improve reliability, maintenance, and connectivity to CCTV.”
(K)
Mrs Taylor asked the following question
of the Leader or his nominee:
“1. Since the County Council elections in May 2025, can the Leader confirm whether he or any member of his Administration has had any contact whatsoever with Reform UK’s DOGE Team regarding their repeated public offer to conduct a free, in-depth audit of Leicestershire County Council’s finances?
Specifically:
2. Did the DOGE Team formally offer to visit and examine the Council’s books at no cost to the taxpayer?
3. If so, why has the Administration never taken up this offer and instead chosen to spend £1.4 million of public money on an external consultant to do the same work?
4. Has the Administration ever issued a formal invitation for the DOGE Team to attend the authority, and if not, why not?”
Reply by Mr D Harrison:
“1. At the Scrutiny Commission’s meeting on 8
September 2025, in response to questions from Members regarding the so-called
DOGE team. I confirmed they had been invited to the County Council. However, I
also said at that same meeting I felt the appointment of an external consultant
would be the best approach to address the high level of savings that the County
Council was required to deliver. This is what the Administration ultimately
decided to approve.
2. Not officially. However, Reform UK has
said that it expected all councils it controls to be invited to conduct an
audit. This is not the case in Leicestershire.
3. Newton is a professional organisation
with expertise across the services provided by local government and has worked
with this Council on previous occasions in both adults and children’s services,
commissioned by the previous Administration. It has an impressive track record
of identifying areas for savings and service transformation. Newton was
appointed on that basis and after an open procurement process to carry out the
Efficiency Review.
4. No, for the reasons referred to in answer 3 above.”
(L) Mr Boam asked the following question of the Leader or his nominee:
“Following the routing of the Arriva bus service 12 along
Church Lane, Whitwick in August 2025, there have been many complaints and
concerns raised by residents about the suitability of Church Lane as a bus
route. Those concerns have centred around the characteristics of Church Lane
and buses (particularly the standard large buses) adding to an already
congested road, the safety of the route and the siting of bus stops in the
vicinity of residents’ properties. In response Leicestershire County Council (LCC)
committed to collate and review feedback received in conjunction with the
operator, Arriva.
Can the Lead Member provide an outline of the review
findings and what the position is on Church Lane continuing to be served by
buses. In answering the question can the Lead Member cover:
· Why the service is being routed along Church Lane and not Brooks Lane as previously.
· Who decided on this bus service running along Church Lane.
· Who assessed the suitability and appropriateness of Church Lane being served by buses as well as bus stops.
· Any operational issues experienced along Church Lane since the service was introduced.
·
The performance of the service including
patronage from Church Lane.”
Mr Tilbury replied as follows:
“Leicestershire County Council is fully aware of residents’ concerns being raised about bus service 12 routeing along Church Lane and has been continually reviewing feedback received along with the performance of the service in liaison with Arriva, the commercial operator of the service.
Arriva made the commercial decision to route its service 12 along Church Lane having considered passenger requests for improved access to and from the Whitwick Health Centre and the Whitwick, Dumps Road area alongside driver observations and usage data. The service is fully funded by Arriva.
Service 12 previously operated via Brooks Lane in Whitwick. This routing did not allow for return travel to the Whitwick Health Centre on North Street which restricted access to bus travel for residents. Re-routing via Church Lane opened access to more passenger journeys.
The changes to this commercial service, which receives no subsidy from the County Council, were registered with the Traffic Commissioner and subsequently approved.
Service 12 is now an hourly service operating Monday-Saturday between Hinckley and Coalville via Whitwick. The service operates with 1 bus per hour, and the bus does not park or idle at the bus stops along Church Lane.
As the changes resulted in increased return journey access for bus passengers in Whitwick no objections were raised by the County Council when Arriva registered them with the Traffic Commissioner.
Church Lane is a typical Leicestershire Street with business access, resident parking issues and ad-hoc congestion where traffic often needs to wait behind parked vehicles for oncoming traffic to pass. Whilst much of the Leicestershire bus network serves roads like Church Lane with standard size buses, the smaller bus being utilised for this route, which is equivalent to the size of a food delivery van, is more than adequate in size to suitably navigate through Church Lane. It has been noted however that on occasion a standard size vehicle has been used on the route when Arriva have not had a small vehicle available.
Arriva undertook their own assessment of the appropriateness of the routing via Church Lane and in their professional driver capacity, were confident that the route was suitable to operate a bus service.
In support of the route changes, the County Council reviewed and assessed the suitability and safety of the 5 new bus stop locations identified by Arriva along Church Lane to support the bus service and access for its passengers. No concerns were picked up as part of this assessment. The stops are currently temporarily denoted by concrete-based lollipop signs.
Other than some initial issues experienced in week 1 with some heightened parking obstruction, Arriva has confirmed that the route is operating well, with their drivers not experiencing any issues and the service is running smoothly and is punctual.
Arriva are seeing an increase in patronage in Whitwick since these changes were made. On review of a comparable 6-week period prior to the route changes, 37 passenger journeys were made from Brooks Lane, whereby during the initial 6-weeks following the changes, 217 passenger journeys were made from Church Lane.
Patronage has also increased overall across Whitwick with 922 journeys in 6 weeks previously and 1467 in the initial 6 weeks following the service changes. A growth in patronage of 37%.
In light of the above, Arriva have advised that they intend to continue operating the current route on a commercial basis for the foreseeable future. The County Council will therefore be seeking to formalise the bus stops with permanent flags and poles.”
Mr Boam asked the following supplementary question:
With so many Whitwick residents quite frankly furious about buses on the totally unsuitable route down Church Lane, can the Lead Member for Highways confirm whether the Council still has any power to stop this route or reroute the bus elsewhere?”
Mr Tilbury replied as follows:
“I confirm it's a commercial route which means the County Council will not subsidise it at all. It is the bus company's decision.”