Decision details

Decision Maker: City Mayor (Individual Decision)

Decision status: Item Requisitioned

Is Key decision?: Yes

Is subject to call in?: Yes

Purpose:

Decision:

Reasons for the decision:

Alternative options:

Publication date: 05/08/2026

Date of decision: 13/08/2026

Issue status: The decision is currently being reconsidered

This decision has been called in by:

• Councillor Patrick Kitterick who writes We the undersigned believe this decision needs further scrutiny before more money is approved. The Market is one of Leicester's oldest and most important public spaces. So any decisions about its future needs to be based on a clear plan, honest figures and proper scrutiny.The council is now asking the Mayor to approve another £1.9 million, to be borrowed over 40 years, after the project was delayed by around 10 months because of archaeological discoveries. We completely accept that protecting the city's heritage matters. But archaeology was a known risk before work even started. The council itself says early discussions took place with archaeological advisers to manage the risks and costs. That makes it entirely reasonable to ask: what allowance was originally made for this and why is another £1.9 million suddenly needed now? There are also big changes to the scheme itself. Instead of a more permanent structure, the council is now proposing 72 larger demountable stalls, while saying a permanent structure might be considered again in the future. That leaves taxpayers wondering is this a long-term solution or just a temporary fix that will need even more public money later? Then there's the £150,000 rent-free period for traders. We understand they've faced disruption and deserve support, but before signing off that amount, we need to know how it was worked out, who benefits, how much each business gets, and why 100% rent relief is needed. Most importantly, the original business case has been overtaken by changes to cost, design and timescales. The council should provide an updated version showing the full cost, the impact of extra borrowing, the expected benefits and how success will be measured. We also need to know whether the current design is the one people were consulted on, or whether it's changed significantly since residents and traders gave their views. We're not against investment in the market, quite the opposite. We want it to succeed and to stay a thriving part of Leicester into the future. But after so many changes, local taxpayers deserve to know exactly what they're being asked to pay for. Before any final decision, we believe the council should fully answer these questions: i) What was the original total budget and how does it compare to the current one? ii) What allowance was made for archaeology and other known risks? iii) Why is an extra £1.9 million needed now and what will it cost to borrow over 40 years? iv) What's the new completion date and what extra costs will the delay create? v) Is the 72-stall plan permanent or temporary? vi) If it's temporary, what's the future cost of a permanent structure? vii) What evidence supports the £150,000 rent relief and why is it necessary? viii) What measurable benefits will the revised scheme bring? ix) Does the current scheme still deliver what was originally promised? x) What safeguards are in place to stop more cost increases and delays? This is a major investment in one of Leicester's most historic places. The council cannot just ask for approval and trust that everything will be fine. The public deserves a clear explanation of what the final scheme will cost, what they'll get and why this is a long term plan or short term plan. That's why we believe this decision should be "Called In" so these questions can be properly answered before even more public money is wasted."
• Councillor Nigel Porter who writes We the undersigned believe this decision needs further scrutiny before more money is approved. The Market is one of Leicester's oldest and most important public spaces. So any decisions about its future needs to be based on a clear plan, honest figures and proper scrutiny.The council is now asking the Mayor to approve another £1.9 million, to be borrowed over 40 years, after the project was delayed by around 10 months because of archaeological discoveries. We completely accept that protecting the city's heritage matters. But archaeology was a known risk before work even started. The council itself says early discussions took place with archaeological advisers to manage the risks and costs. That makes it entirely reasonable to ask: what allowance was originally made for this and why is another £1.9 million suddenly needed now? There are also big changes to the scheme itself. Instead of a more permanent structure, the council is now proposing 72 larger demountable stalls, while saying a permanent structure might be considered again in the future. That leaves taxpayers wondering is this a long-term solution or just a temporary fix that will need even more public money later? Then there's the £150,000 rent-free period for traders. We understand they've faced disruption and deserve support, but before signing off that amount, we need to know how it was worked out, who benefits, how much each business gets, and why 100% rent relief is needed. Most importantly, the original business case has been overtaken by changes to cost, design and timescales. The council should provide an updated version showing the full cost, the impact of extra borrowing, the expected benefits and how success will be measured. We also need to know whether the current design is the one people were consulted on, or whether it's changed significantly since residents and traders gave their views. We're not against investment in the market, quite the opposite. We want it to succeed and to stay a thriving part of Leicester into the future. But after so many changes, local taxpayers deserve to know exactly what they're being asked to pay for. Before any final decision, we believe the council should fully answer these questions: i) What was the original total budget and how does it compare to the current one? ii) What allowance was made for archaeology and other known risks? iii) Why is an extra £1.9 million needed now and what will it cost to borrow over 40 years? iv) What's the new completion date and what extra costs will the delay create? v) Is the 72-stall plan permanent or temporary? vi) If it's temporary, what's the future cost of a permanent structure? vii) What evidence supports the £150,000 rent relief and why is it necessary? viii) What measurable benefits will the revised scheme bring? ix) Does the current scheme still deliver what was originally promised? x) What safeguards are in place to stop more cost increases and delays? This is a major investment in one of Leicester's most historic places. The council cannot just ask for approval and trust that everything will be fine. The public deserves a clear explanation of what the final scheme will cost, what they'll get and why this is a long term plan or short term plan. That's why we believe this decision should be "Called In" so these questions can be properly answered before even more public money is wasted."
• Councillor Scott Kennedy-Lount who writes We the undersigned believe this decision needs further scrutiny before more money is approved. The Market is one of Leicester's oldest and most important public spaces. So any decisions about its future needs to be based on a clear plan, honest figures and proper scrutiny.The council is now asking the Mayor to approve another £1.9 million, to be borrowed over 40 years, after the project was delayed by around 10 months because of archaeological discoveries. We completely accept that protecting the city's heritage matters. But archaeology was a known risk before work even started. The council itself says early discussions took place with archaeological advisers to manage the risks and costs. That makes it entirely reasonable to ask: what allowance was originally made for this and why is another £1.9 million suddenly needed now? There are also big changes to the scheme itself. Instead of a more permanent structure, the council is now proposing 72 larger demountable stalls, while saying a permanent structure might be considered again in the future. That leaves taxpayers wondering is this a long-term solution or just a temporary fix that will need even more public money later? Then there's the £150,000 rent-free period for traders. We understand they've faced disruption and deserve support, but before signing off that amount, we need to know how it was worked out, who benefits, how much each business gets, and why 100% rent relief is needed. Most importantly, the original business case has been overtaken by changes to cost, design and timescales. The council should provide an updated version showing the full cost, the impact of extra borrowing, the expected benefits and how success will be measured. We also need to know whether the current design is the one people were consulted on, or whether it's changed significantly since residents and traders gave their views. We're not against investment in the market, quite the opposite. We want it to succeed and to stay a thriving part of Leicester into the future. But after so many changes, local taxpayers deserve to know exactly what they're being asked to pay for. Before any final decision, we believe the council should fully answer these questions: i) What was the original total budget and how does it compare to the current one? ii) What allowance was made for archaeology and other known risks? iii) Why is an extra £1.9 million needed now and what will it cost to borrow over 40 years? iv) What's the new completion date and what extra costs will the delay create? v) Is the 72-stall plan permanent or temporary? vi) If it's temporary, what's the future cost of a permanent structure? vii) What evidence supports the £150,000 rent relief and why is it necessary? viii) What measurable benefits will the revised scheme bring? ix) Does the current scheme still deliver what was originally promised? x) What safeguards are in place to stop more cost increases and delays? This is a major investment in one of Leicester's most historic places. The council cannot just ask for approval and trust that everything will be fine. The public deserves a clear explanation of what the final scheme will cost, what they'll get and why this is a long term plan or short term plan. That's why we believe this decision should be "Called In" so these questions can be properly answered before even more public money is wasted."
• Councillor Hazel Orton who writes We the undersigned believe this decision needs further scrutiny before more money is approved. The Market is one of Leicester's oldest and most important public spaces. So any decisions about its future needs to be based on a clear plan, honest figures and proper scrutiny.The council is now asking the Mayor to approve another £1.9 million, to be borrowed over 40 years, after the project was delayed by around 10 months because of archaeological discoveries. We completely accept that protecting the city's heritage matters. But archaeology was a known risk before work even started. The council itself says early discussions took place with archaeological advisers to manage the risks and costs. That makes it entirely reasonable to ask: what allowance was originally made for this and why is another £1.9 million suddenly needed now? There are also big changes to the scheme itself. Instead of a more permanent structure, the council is now proposing 72 larger demountable stalls, while saying a permanent structure might be considered again in the future. That leaves taxpayers wondering is this a long-term solution or just a temporary fix that will need even more public money later? Then there's the £150,000 rent-free period for traders. We understand they've faced disruption and deserve support, but before signing off that amount, we need to know how it was worked out, who benefits, how much each business gets, and why 100% rent relief is needed. Most importantly, the original business case has been overtaken by changes to cost, design and timescales. The council should provide an updated version showing the full cost, the impact of extra borrowing, the expected benefits and how success will be measured. We also need to know whether the current design is the one people were consulted on, or whether it's changed significantly since residents and traders gave their views. We're not against investment in the market, quite the opposite. We want it to succeed and to stay a thriving part of Leicester into the future. But after so many changes, local taxpayers deserve to know exactly what they're being asked to pay for. Before any final decision, we believe the council should fully answer these questions: i) What was the original total budget and how does it compare to the current one? ii) What allowance was made for archaeology and other known risks? iii) Why is an extra £1.9 million needed now and what will it cost to borrow over 40 years? iv) What's the new completion date and what extra costs will the delay create? v) Is the 72-stall plan permanent or temporary? vi) If it's temporary, what's the future cost of a permanent structure? vii) What evidence supports the £150,000 rent relief and why is it necessary? viii) What measurable benefits will the revised scheme bring? ix) Does the current scheme still deliver what was originally promised? x) What safeguards are in place to stop more cost increases and delays? This is a major investment in one of Leicester's most historic places. The council cannot just ask for approval and trust that everything will be fine. The public deserves a clear explanation of what the final scheme will cost, what they'll get and why this is a long term plan or short term plan. That's why we believe this decision should be "Called In" so these questions can be properly answered before even more public money is wasted."
• Councillor Abdul Osman who writes We the undersigned believe this decision needs further scrutiny before more money is approved. The Market is one of Leicester's oldest and most important public spaces. So any decisions about its future needs to be based on a clear plan, honest figures and proper scrutiny.The council is now asking the Mayor to approve another £1.9 million, to be borrowed over 40 years, after the project was delayed by around 10 months because of archaeological discoveries. We completely accept that protecting the city's heritage matters. But archaeology was a known risk before work even started. The council itself says early discussions took place with archaeological advisers to manage the risks and costs. That makes it entirely reasonable to ask: what allowance was originally made for this and why is another £1.9 million suddenly needed now? There are also big changes to the scheme itself. Instead of a more permanent structure, the council is now proposing 72 larger demountable stalls, while saying a permanent structure might be considered again in the future. That leaves taxpayers wondering is this a long-term solution or just a temporary fix that will need even more public money later? Then there's the £150,000 rent-free period for traders. We understand they've faced disruption and deserve support, but before signing off that amount, we need to know how it was worked out, who benefits, how much each business gets, and why 100% rent relief is needed. Most importantly, the original business case has been overtaken by changes to cost, design and timescales. The council should provide an updated version showing the full cost, the impact of extra borrowing, the expected benefits and how success will be measured. We also need to know whether the current design is the one people were consulted on, or whether it's changed significantly since residents and traders gave their views. We're not against investment in the market, quite the opposite. We want it to succeed and to stay a thriving part of Leicester into the future. But after so many changes, local taxpayers deserve to know exactly what they're being asked to pay for. Before any final decision, we believe the council should fully answer these questions: i) What was the original total budget and how does it compare to the current one? ii) What allowance was made for archaeology and other known risks? iii) Why is an extra £1.9 million needed now and what will it cost to borrow over 40 years? iv) What's the new completion date and what extra costs will the delay create? v) Is the 72-stall plan permanent or temporary? vi) If it's temporary, what's the future cost of a permanent structure? vii) What evidence supports the £150,000 rent relief and why is it necessary? viii) What measurable benefits will the revised scheme bring? ix) Does the current scheme still deliver what was originally promised? x) What safeguards are in place to stop more cost increases and delays? This is a major investment in one of Leicester's most historic places. The council cannot just ask for approval and trust that everything will be fine. The public deserves a clear explanation of what the final scheme will cost, what they'll get and why this is a long term plan or short term plan. That's why we believe this decision should be "Called In" so these questions can be properly answered before even more public money is wasted."

Accompanying Documents:

• Leicester Market Redevelopment Executive Decision PDF 102 KB
• Leicester Market Redevelopment - Decision Notice PDF 99 KB