Agenda and minutes

To issue a welcome to those present, and to confirm if there are any apologies for absence.

The Chair welcomed those present to the meeting.

Apologies were received from the seconder to the Call-in Councillor Kitterick.

Members are asked to declare any interests they may have in the business to be discussed on the agenda.

Members were asked to declare any interests they may have in the business to be discussed.

No declarations were made.

The Membership of the Commission will be confirmed and noted.

The membership of the Commission for 2026/27 was noted. 

Members will be asked to note the meeting dates of the commission for 2026-27:

26 August 2026

11 November 2026

19 January 2027

25 February 2027

The Commission noted the meeting dates for the municipal year. 

The Commission noted that an additional meeting may be required to consider issues relating to young people who are not in education, employment or training (NEETs) as well as an update on the Market Place.

The Commission will be asked to note the Terms of Reference.

The Commission noted its Terms of Reference as set out in Appendix A. 

The Chair raised concerns regarding response times to enquiries submitted by councillors on behalf of constituents. Members were advised that there is an expectation that officers respond within ten working days. However, this standard is not always achieved.

The Chair highlighted concerns regarding responses from some service areas including highways.

Two Executive decisions taken by the City Mayor on 22 July 2026 relating to major transport infrastructure funding has been the subject of a 5-member call-in under the procedures at Rule 12 of Part 4D, City Mayor and Executive Procedure Rules, of the Council’s Constitution.

The Committee is recommended to either:

a)    Note the report without further comment or recommendation. (If the report is noted the process continues and the call in will be considered at a future meeting of Full Council); or

b)    Comment on the specific issues raised by the call-in. (If comments are made the process continues and the comments and call in will be considered at a future meeting of Full Council); or

c)    Resolve that the call-in be withdrawn (If the committee wish for there to be no further action on the call-in, then they must actively withdraw it. If withdrawal is agreed the call-in process stops, the call-in will not be considered at a future meeting of Full Council and the originaldecision takes immediate affect without amendment).

The Monitoring Officer submitted a report informing the Commission that the Executive Decision taken by the City Mayor on 22 July 2026 relating to St Margaret's Junction Improvement Funding and Leicester Railway Station Funding Support from the Department for Transport has been subject to a 5-member call-in under Rule 12 of Part 4D, the City Mayor and Executive Procedure Rules of the Council’s Constitution.

The Chair clearly outlined the process that she would follow in determining how to resolve the call-in from the below options to:

a)    Note the report without further comment or recommendation. (If the report is noted the process continues and the call in will be considered at a future meeting of Full Council); or

b)    Comment on the specific issues raised by the call-in. (If comments are made the process continues and the comments and call in will be considered at a future meeting of Full Council); or

c)    Resolve that the call-in be withdrawn (If the committee wish for there to be no further action on the call-in, then they must actively withdraw it. If withdrawal is agreed the call-in process stops, the call-in will not be considered at a future meeting of Full Council and the original decision takes immediate affect without amendment).

The Chair invited the proposer of the call-in, Councillor Porter, to make their case. The following points were raised:

·         Councillor Porter introduced the call-in and stated that the purpose of the Call-In was to seek greater transparency regarding the significant reduction in the funding requirement for the St Margaret's Junction scheme and the increased funding requirement for the Leicester Railway Station project.

·         He questioned why the St Margaret's Junction scheme, which had previously formed part of a substantially larger Levelling Up Fund bid, could now be delivered for considerably less funding and sought clarification on whether any aspects of the original scheme had been removed or scaled back.

·         He requested an explanation for the failure of the previous procurement exercise for the railway station project and sought assurances that revised procurement arrangements would reduce the risk of further delays and cost increases.

The City Mayor responded advising the commission with the following points:

·         The Leicester Railway Station was a major gateway to the city but was currently inadequate in meeting the needs of passengers and visitors.

·         Delivering the project has required extensive collaboration between the Council, Government, Network Rail and other rail industry partners.

·         Progress had been affected by the complexity of bringing together multiple stakeholders and agreeing a scheme that could be delivered.

·         The revised St Margaret’s junction proposal represented a more practical and achievable solution than previous options.

·         Improvements around the station would be better integrated with the surrounding transport infrastructure.

The City Transport Director and the Development Team Programme Manager delivered a presentation outlining the background to both schemes as attached with the minutes and responded to the specific issues raised within the call-in notice: 

·         Regarding St Margaret's Junction, members heard that the original Levelling Up Fund submission  ...  view the full minutes text for item 230.

There being no other further business, the meeting closed at 18:45pm.