Agenda and minutes

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

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Singh Sangha.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Osman.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Rae Bhatia.  Councillor Orton would substitute.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Batool – she would join online.

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 had in the business to be discussed.

Councillors Batool and Malik declared an interest in the item on the UK Shared Prosperity Fund (UKSPF), they worked for an organisation that received funding form the UKSPF to support projects.  They would leave the meeting at the beginning of this item.

The minutes of the meeting of the Economic Development, Transport and Climate Emergency Scrutiny Commission held on Wednesday 8^th January have been circulated, and Members will be asked to confirm them as a correct record.

AGREED:

That the minutes of the meeting of the Economic Development, Transport and Climate Emergency Scrutiny Commission held on 8 January 2025 be confirmed as a correct record.

The Chair is invited to make any announcements as they see fit. 

The Chair reminded public present that they were there to observe, other than the member of the public who had submitted a question and statement.

The Chair announced that there would be a short break to allow for those observing Ramadan to break fast.

Any questions, representations and statements of case submitted in accordance with the Council’s procedures will be reported.

The following question and statement were submitted by Mr Wynd:

Approximately a year ago I read a story that Green Party was trying to get funds for a kid’s park in Clarendon Park as residents were having to fund it themselves. I'm not sure of the outcome of this whether the council have addressed this open space for the public.

In addition to this I highlight the design of the Rally open space, a path has been put straight through the middle of this instead of widening the old path route.

I was invited to help save Tudor Rally adventure playground along with eight other kids play schemes via a protest. I'm glad to see with the pressure placed on the council they backed down and have now funded these schemes.

The development plans for Beaumont Park, so another loss of open space.

I invite the other councillors to highlight any other loss of open spaces they have encountered. I say this as the council’s argument for the market to be left as an open space lacks its validity.

The council announced their original proposition for the new market and convinced the traders to move to Green Dragon Square, they demolished the old market then realised this was a great open space for the public. I'm unsure how they didn't realise this before as I have seen three developments in this meeting where they used footage from the air. Why wasn't this utilised for the market, who knows.

I attended a meeting last year where I highlighted to the attendees that I had seen the Leicester public asking for a larger market/ undercover space. I also voiced this in the last meeting.

In a previous scrutiny meeting it was highlighted that four propositions would be unveiled, this never came to light but in the last meeting I was advised that three other propositions existed and could be considered. It is unclear but seems that none of these propositions were any bigger for the public to vote on.

The council has agreed with themselves that the 1 proposition they put forward was a success and is now pushing forward to the planning stage. The story was run by both the BBC and Leicester Live, and in their Facebook groups the council took a right slating over the proposals, very little agreement with the council’s proposals.

I posted in a Leicester based Facebook group about the above and proposition that was going to be implemented and got nearly 500 like reacts indicating they agreed the council had not got this right.

I asked two times this year what was happening over the market and got no response, Then the council announced they were pushing on with their plans. It looks like the decision had already been made.

I have spoken to Leicester Media Online who say they have received a lot of objections about the  ...  view the full agenda text for item 127.

The following statement and question was presented to the Commission by Mr Nick Wynd:

Approximately a year ago I read a story that Green Party was trying to get funds

for a kid’s park in Clarendon Park as residents were having to fund it

themselves. I'm not sure of the outcome of this whether the council have

addressed this open space for the public.

In addition to this I highlight the design of the Rally open space, a path has been

put straight through the middle of this instead of widening the old path route.

I was invited to help save Tudor Rally adventure playground along with eight

other kids play schemes via a protest. I'm glad to see with the pressure placed

on the council they backed down and have now funded these schemes.

The development plans for Beaumont Park, so another loss of open space.

I invite the other councillors to highlight any other loss of open spaces they have

encountered. I say this as the council’s argument for the market to be left as an

open space lacks its validity.

The council announced their original proposition for the new market and

convinced the traders to move to Green Dragon Square, they demolished the

old market then realised this was a great open space for the public. I'm unsure

how they didn't realise this before as I have seen three developments in this

meeting where they used footage from the air. Why wasn't this utilised for the

market, who knows.

I attended a meeting last year where I highlighted to the attendees that I had

seen the Leicester public asking for a larger market/ undercover space. I also

voiced this in the last meeting.

In a previous scrutiny meeting it was highlighted that four propositions would be

unveiled, this never came to light but in the last meeting I was advised that three

other propositions existed and could be considered. It is unclear but seems that

none of these propositions were any bigger for the public to vote on.

The council has agreed with themselves that the 1 proposition they put forward

was a success and is now pushing forward to the planning stage. The story was

run by both the BBC and Leicester Live, and in their Facebook groups the

council took a right slating over the proposals, very little agreement with the

council’s proposals.

I posted in a Leicester based Facebook group about the above and proposition

that was going to be implemented and got nearly 500 like reacts indicating they

agreed the council had not got this right.

I asked two times this year what was happening over the market and got no

response, Then the council announced they were pushing on with their plans. It

looks like the decision had already been made.

I have spoken to Leicester Media Online who say they have received a lot of

objections about the market. They are awaiting a statement from the council

before running a new  ...  view the full minutes text for item 127.

Any petitions received in accordance with Council procedures will be reported.

The Monitoring Officer reported that none had been received.

A verbal update will be given on the Market Place development plans.

The Head of Economic Regeneration gavea verbal update on the market place development plans. Key points to notes were as follows:

• As detailed above, development options had come to EDTCE scrutiny in December 2024, but a formal decision had not yet been made.
• The public consultation was completed with 1667 responses.
• 60% of respondents were in support of the proposal for the market being located in front of the food hall along with a flexible space for events and activities.
• There had been a broad range of comments which would be taken into consideration, and these had been grouped into themes.  The most frequent comment – made by 347 people – was that the proposed option would be a “Great redevelopment of the market; It's a great idea to redevelop the market, utilising the space for a mix of market activities, events, and festivals. Leicester needs an attractive and thriving market to boost footfall to the city centre.”
• A range of other comments were predominantly positive and mentioned the history/heritage of the market, increasing greenery in the space, and several constructive suggestions were made about the need to tackle anti-social behaviour, parking, transport and other operational matters.
• An ongoing dialogue would continue with market traders throughout the process. It was recognised that there was a range of different trader preferences and requirements, some for example were receptive to operating from alternative premises in the city centre. There were currently 23 vacant city centre properties and details of these were being shared with traders.
• The City Mayor had met with  trader representatives prior to the press release on the 13^th February, and had offered a further meeting if traders would like, and they had been encouraged to bring ideas and suggestions.
• The traders were keen to return to their original location but had advised that they may not require the same amount of space as previously held. They had highlighted the potential for the remaining space being used flexibly.

·       Designs, planning applications and costing were being developed further before a decision could be made.

The Chair reminded the committee that a special EDTCE Scrutiny meeting had taken place to discuss the future of the market, and 3 key issues had been raised:

• Provision for dry goods traders.
• The design of the building.
• The location of the market.

The Chair requested that these matters would be taken into consideration.

The Chair noted that if a petition were to be submitted this could be considered by the Committee.

In response to questions, it was noted that:

·       Previous scrutiny comments had been brought to the attention of the City Mayor and many valid points would be considered going forward to inform the development.

·       Aesthetics had been of consideration when developing plans, whilst balancing the trader requirements.

·       Regarding timescale, a planning application would be made for the open square, and this was expected in the next few months. The market building would take more time to design so a planning application was anticipated  ...  view the full minutes text for item 129.

The Director of Tourism, Culture and Inward Investment and the Director of LLEP submit a report to update the Scrutiny Commission on the work of the Business and Skills Partnership for Leicester and Leicestershire.

The Chair proposed an agenda variance, bringing forward the item on the Update on Leicester and Leicestershire Business Skills Partnership.  The Commission agreed.

The Director of Leicester & Leicestershire Enterprise Partnership (LLEP) gave an overview of the report. Key points to note were as follows:

• Funding had been withdrawn for Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) in the spring budget of 2023, with a termination of funds in April 2024. LEP functions transferred to upper tier local authorities, leading to the creation of LLEP.
• A business board was formed with two key purposes: to represent local businesses in regional decision making, and to work with the local leaders to create a comprehensive strategy. The board included local business representatives and local educational establishments.
• The City Mayor and interim leader held regular meetings with the Chair of the business board.
• The 2 enterprise zones were over 4 sites. The Post LEP arrangements were currently under discussion with City, County and District Councils.
• Enterprise zone implementation groups had been created.
• Skills and Apprenticeships were a key priority in enhancing economic growth.
• Partnership work was vital in securing a robust pipeline, the Employment Hub and FE colleges were working on a number of collaborative endeavours.
• The Career Hub engaged with education providers and employers, to provide help to young people, focussing particularly on the disadvantaged.
• There was a range of projects to support disadvantaged young people, including Unbox Your Future and We discover, the latter was a SEND research project.
• The Leicester and Leicestershire Careers hub had received additional funding to support pilots and the Hub had become England’s first Pilot Logistics Beacon Hub.
• The Business Gateway Growth Hub supported local businesses through various initiatives, including raising awareness of fraud. Future plans included workshops and one-to-one support.
• The East Midlands Create Growth Programme supported creative businesses and was expected to run until March 2025, but this could be extended to March 2026.
• A green paper had been released by the government in October 2024 on the new Industrial strategy. This was a 10-year plan to provide certainty and stability to businesses looking to invest in high growth sectors. In November, the Leicester Leicestershire Business Skills Partnership (LLBSP) hosted an interactive consultation on the Green Paper with local business leaders, education providers, and key stakeholders to share their insights and priorities.
• A government response had been received on timelines and next steps, this could come back to scrutiny.

In response to questions from the committee, it was noted that:

• The budget of the LLBSP varied. There was previous core funding to LEPS and a sum of money had been provided to manage the transition. A plan was in place to manage this fund until the end of 2026. It was hoped that positive government announcements would come imminently.
• In terms of staffing, some roles had changed. The strategy was to move decision making back to local government.
• VAL represented the voluntary sector.
• There was an urban / rural challenge and representation across the patches was needed.
• Metrics  ...  view the full minutes text for item 130.

The Director of Tourism, Culture and Inwards Investment submits a report following on the impact of the pilot year (2023-24) and an update on the 2024-25 programme.

The Chair proposed an agenda variance, bringing forward the item on the Update on Leicester and Leicestershire Business Skills Partnership.  The Commission agreed.

The Director of Tourism, Culture and Inwards Investment submitted a report following on the impact of the pilot year (2023-24) and an update on the 2024-25 programme.

The Head of Adult Education presented the report.  Key points to note were:

·       The report covered the pilot year of 2023-24 and assessed the situation at the current point in 2024-25.

·       In 2023-24 there was a target of 200 participants, of which 198 had enrolled and 155 had completed their course.

·       There had been a significant increase in the number of courses in 2024-25, with eleven currently running.

·       30% of the funding was dependent on employment outcomes.  Therefore, strong employment links were needed before a bootcamp could be started.

·       Bootcamps were offered on Digital Marketing, Construction and Cybersecurity.

·       Most County residents enrolled on the Anicca Digital Marketing Bootcamp, whereas most of the other learners were city residents.

·       There was good representation based on geography.

·       Those participants with pre-existing qualifications ranged from Level 1 qualifications up to degree level.  Many graduates wanted to take part to become more employable.  This was legitimate through the funding, but not what was expected.

·       There would be twelve bootcamps this year, and a broader range of providers and subject areas had been sought.  Examples included garment production, sewing and repair, pharmacy, agriculture, solar installation, tutor training (aimed at helping people to teach emerging subjects), environment management and software development.

·       This was a more challenging year as there were a range of providers who had not been involved with bootcamps before, and as such, they had struggled in getting up and running. 

·       A challenge was that funding was allocated on a financial year basis, which meant that there was not much time to set up once funding was confirmed.

·       Funding had now been confirmed for the next financial year and it was hoped to speed up the commissioning process to speed up the start of delivery.

·       The most successful programme had been Cyber Security, through which there were strong links with employers such as East Midlands Airport, meaning that good jobs had been secured by participants.

Members were invited to comment and ask questions, Responses were as follows:

·       With regards to a query on the utilisation of monies, it was explained that in this year’s programme, providers had six months following the end of the course to provide job outcomes.  This would typically come later in the programme, to it would not be expected that the money be halfway spent at this point.

·       In response to a point made about bootcamps not meeting targets, it was explained that funding was reallocated to those in demand.  It was aimed to make this easier to do earlier in the programme in 2025-26.

·       The outcomes in the first wave were above the national level of performance.  The Department for Education (DfE) were met with to review performance.

·       In response  ...  view the full minutes text for item 131.

The Director of Tourism, Culture and Inward Investment submits a report providing an update on the UK Shared Prosperity Fund (UKSPF) programme, including plans for the transition year for 2025-26.

Councillors Batool and Malik left the meeting prior to this item as they had an interest in the item.

The Director of Tourism, Culture and Inward Investment submitted a report providing an update on the UK Shared Prosperity Fund (UKSPF) programme, including plans for the transition year for 2025-26.

The head of Economic Development presented the report.  Key points to note were:

·       The UKSPF was brought in by the previous government to replace the EU funding that areas had received prior to Brexit.  The funding was significantly less (around 50% less) than that previously received from the EU.

·       The UKSPF was a three-year programme and the government had allocated funding for the transition.

·       There was £8.8m to spend on the programme and this was backloaded, reflecting the phasing out of EU funding.

·       There was a need to spend money and deliver outcomes for local businesses and people.

·       At December 2024, there was £2.8m to spend.  Spending needed to be evidenced and then claimed.

·       There were 25 projects across the programmes, focused around three areas: Communities & Place, Business Support and People & Skills.

·       Seventeen of the projects were delivered by external organisations.  Many of these were consortia of different delivery partners, meaning that it involved around 30 organisations overall.  These funded both internal projects and externally commissioned projects.

·       The UKSPF provided vital support for businesses through advice in relation to sustainability; support around low carbon including decarbonisation plans, dedicated support for black owned businesses and social enterprises and support for manufacturing businesses.

·       ESOL support was provided for residents, particularly those who were economically inactive.

·       Digital inclusion was supported.

·       The impacts would be evidenced by the close of the programme.

·       1638 households had been supported with energy efficiency advice.

·       Economically inactive individuals had been supported through organisations which provided basic skills training which complimented the bootcamps, providing Level 1 and 2 qualifications to create a pathway.

·       Work had been undertaken to close the programme.

·       Less money had been allocated for next year, although Leicester had received 75% of the year three funding, which was higher than the national allocation of 60%.  However, this still meant that there was less money to allocate and spend.

·       There was a range of internal and external teams waiting to see if they could continue work.  A decision had been made to continue projects and delivery, and 80% of the funding to external partners had been allocated, this had been very well received.  This would continue across the span of the programme.

·       It had been possible to determine priorities and maintain and commission new services to address economic issues faced by the city.

The Chair noted that it was sad to see funding reduced, but it was good that money was going to the grassroots.

AGREED:

1)    That the report be noted.

The Director of Tourism, Culture and Inward Investment submits a report for the Commission to consider and comment upon the development of the UKSPF funded ESOL projects in 2024-25.

The Director of Tourism, Culture and Inward Investment submitted a report for the Commission to consider and comment upon the development of the UKSPF funded ESOL projects in 2024-25.

The Regeneration Programmes & Projects Manager attended the meeting remotely to assist with the discussion.

The Head of Adult Education presented the report.  Key points to note were:

·       Everyday English focussed on economically inactive individuals who were not currently accessing other ESOL provision due to a lack of eligibility or reluctance or due to asylum seeker status.

·       Twin Training focussed on those who were seeking work and/or upskilling.

·       Learning had been provided to 487 individuals.  This had exceeded the targets set.

·       Everyday English offered short coursed both through Council venues and venues of partners.

·       Enrichment activities were offered to facilitate practicing English in real-life.

·       Wraparound support was provided to help people access all support and opportunities available.

·       The partnership was strong, built on a network developed through the Multiply maths project.

·       Sessions were offered in which people were encouraged to practice English through doing another practical activity, e.g. cooking.

·       The UKSPF had allowed flexibility to deliver less traditional education.

·       IT skills were offered alongside ESOL.

Members were invited to comment and ask questions, Responses were as follows:

·       In response to a query about the context of the offers it was noted that the intention was to fill the gaps that existing ESOL provision left with a range of models of delivery and locations.  This opened up opportunities and added wraparound support to progress into other provision.

·       In response to a question about indications of success with regard to boosting employability via Twin Training, it was explained that there was no overall employability outcome target as English was just one element.  It was further clarified that there was an employment target for women, and this was on track to be achieved.

·       It was clarified that the £275k grant for Everyday English was shared between the organisations involved.

·       In response for a request for feedback on the trips to Leicester Museum and Art Gallery and Belgrave Hall, it was noted that following the initial trip, many participants had returned during half term with their children.  It was noted that people were going to places in the city that they had never been to before despite living here.

·       In response to a query about whether the programmes could continue with the UKSPF funding reduced to 75%, it was affirmed that a smaller programme could be delivered.  Further sources of funding were being looked at.

·       In response to a question about the ethnicity of participants, it was noted that those in the category ‘other’ were from a number of backgrounds.

·       In response to a query about the potential for other groups to provide services, it was confirmed that organisations could contact the Council on projects, and that the Council were happy to bring in new partners and make links.

AGREED:

1)    That the report be noted.

2)    That comments made by members of this commission to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 133.

The Chair of the Economic Development, Transport and Climate Emergency Scrutiny Committee will provide a verbal update on the Executive response to the Electric Vehicle Charging Points Scrutiny review report.

The Chair of the Economic Development, Transport and Climate Emergency Scrutiny Committee gave a verbal update on the Executive response to the Electric Vehicle Charging Scrutiny review report.

The Chair provided a verbal update on the response from the Executive as follows:

·       There was much to consider in the Commission’s extremely thorough report on electric vehicle charging. The task group had identified the challenges that face us as well as the issues we need to explore.

·       In particular, it was right that the Council push back on the Government’s targeting of LEVI funding towards street charging. As the report correctly pointed out, street charging was not appropriate or workable in Leicester, with so much of the housing stock being terraced properties.

·       A better way forward would be to invest in high power destination charging points, and an interesting discussion had taken place about the possibility of siting these at public facing council buildings such as libraries, leisure centres and museums.

·       Soon officers would bring forward an EV charging strategy which would recommend that the Council focus on delivering charging points that maximised turnover of users to create as much benefit from the fewest installations. First and foremost these should be located to drive traffic to city council assets.

The Chair invited members to consider the response, and to raise any queries either outside the meeting or at the next meeting of the Commission.

AGREED:

1)    That the update be noted.

Members of the Commission will be asked to consider the work programme and make suggestions for additional items as it considers necessary.

The work programme was noted. 

There being no further items of urgent business, the meeting finished at 19:59.