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 form Councillor Clarke.

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.

There were no declarations of interest.

The minutes of the meeting of the Economic Development, Transport and Climate Emergency Scrutiny Commission held on 5 November 2025 have been circulated, and Members will be asked to confirm them as a correct record.

It was noted that Councillor Cassidy was present at the previous meeting on 5 November 2025 but had not been recorded as present in the minutes.

AGREED:

1)    That the minutes of the meeting of the Economic Development, Transport and Climate Emergency Scrutiny Commission held on 5th November 2025 be confirmed as a correct record.

2)    Councillor Porter to receive a response from Andrew L Smith regarding the legality of the concrete blocks on Aylestone Road as noted in the previous meeting.

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

There were no Chair’s Announcements.

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

The Monitoring Officer reported that none had been received.

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

The Monitoring Officer reported that none had been received.

An Executive decision taken by the City Mayor on 26 November 2025 relating to a land exchange arrangement has been the subject of a 6-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c)    Resolve that the call-in be withdrawn (If the committee wish for there to be no further action on the call-in, then they must actively withdraw it.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).

An Executive decision taken by the City Mayor on 26 November 2025 relating to a land exchange arrangement has been the subject of a 6-member call-in under the procedures at Rule 12 of Part 4D, City Mayor and Executive Procedure Rules, of the Council’s Constitution.

The procedure rules state that a scrutiny committee or any five councillors may request formally that the decision be called-in for a further review by giving notice in writing to the Monitoring Officer within five working days of the decision.

The 6 Councillors who signed the call in were: Councillor Kitterick (Proposer), Councillor Porter (Seconder), Councillor Rae Bhatia, Councillor Chauhan, Councillor Westley and Councillor Kennedy-Lount.

The Chair clearly outlined the process that she would follow in determining how to resolve the call-in. The Commission was 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 original decision takes immediate affect without amendment).

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

• Concerns regarding the overall value and strategic implications of the proposed land exchange. While acknowledging that the Council may reasonably seek to acquire land and pay an appropriate premium, it was argued that the proposal would result in the Council exchanging a larger area of land for a smaller site, with additional financial costs to the Council including paying the Stamp Duty to facilitate the exchange. 
• Concerns were expressed regarding the valuation assumptions underpinning the decision, with Councillor Kitterick questioning whether sufficient weight had been given to the relative size, location and development potential of the land being disposed of by the Council. Councillor Kitterick highlighted that there are viable buildings on site, with there appearing to be a local training college on site although the revenue lost is unknown and details of the tease term terminations. 
• It was noted that the land pursued does not seem to have any viable buildings that are lettable.
• Reference was made to the strategic importance of the existing land to the St George’s Street area, including its proximity to the ring road, the Cultural Quarter and the Phoenix site, and concerns were raised that the Council could lose long-term control of a key gateway site.
• Councillor Kitterick further noted that previous land disposals of the area had resulted in fragmented ownership and reduced influence over future development and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 196.

The Director of Finance submits a report setting out the City Mayor’s proposed Draft General Fund Revenue Budget for 2026/27.

As the reports on the Revenue Budget and Capital Programme were related, they were taken as one item.

The Director of Finance submitted a report setting out the City Mayor’s proposed Draft General Fund Revenue Budget for 2026/27, and a report on the City Mayor’s proposed Draft Three-Year Capital Programme 2026/27.

The Head of Finance (City Development & Neighbourhoods) gave an overview of the reports, key points to note were as follows:

• It was noted that the draft settlements were complex and included the amalgamation of existing grants.
• The Revenue report set out the budget for 2026/27, and the medium-term financial strategy for the following two years.
• The draft Budget reflected the Government’s Fair Funding consultation over the summer; however, despite an improved financial position, a budget gap remained, requiring continuation of the five-strand strategy agreed by Council last year, including the following:

o   Budget savings of £23m

o   Constraining growth in areas such as Social Care and Homelessness

o   A reduction in the Capital Programme

o   Releasing one off monies to buy time

o   A programme of property sales, which was now planned to reduce the cost of borrowing

• It was proposed that the strategy be extended to March 2029.
• The budget built in scope to meet ongoing cost increases in Social Care, homelessness and housing benefits.
• The scope for additional investment was limited, but includes amounts for areas previously supported by grants that were no longer available.
• Revenue Budget points directly relevant to the EDTCE Scrutiny commission included:

o   £450k to cover the shortfall in market income

o   £1m to replace the loss of the UK Shared Prosperity Fund

• The General Fund Draft Capital Report sought approval of just under £130m over the next three years.
• In 2025/26, the Capital Programme moved to being funded primarily through government grants and borrowing, and this approach would continue in 2026/27.
• The aim was to alleviate the revenue pressure placed by borrowing Capital Programme, by using £60m of capital receipts.
• Draft Capital Programme points directly relevant to the EDTCE Scrutiny commission included the allocation of:

o   Just over £16m for the continuation of the highways

                          maintenance programme

o   £12.35m in local transport grants to support transport networks

o   £150k for the maintenance work at the LCB depot

o   £1.2m for local environmental works

o   £900k towards flood strategy work

The Chair invited questions and comments from the Commission, asking that matters be addressed separately for each item. The following key points were discussed in relation to the Draft General Fund Revenue Budget:

• The draft report included fair funding figures from the summer consultation.
• Proposals regarding parking charges were separate decisions and would be reported independently.
• It was clarified that Pride in Place and UK Shared Prosperity Fund were different funds. Pride in Place would be reflected in the Capital Programme Report to Council.
• Key Points discussed for the Draft Three Year Capital Programme included:
• Final figures on pot-hole management, including multi-year grant figures would be included within the final report.
• Under the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 197.

The Director of Tourism, Culture and Economy submits a report providing an update on the Get Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland Working Plan.

The Director of Tourism, Culture and Economy submitted a report updating on ‘Get LLR Working’.

The Director of Tourism, Culture and Economy provided an overview of the report, key points to note:

• The Director provided a background into the formal governance arrangements, agreeing ways of working with partners, ongoing discussions with partners on addressing labour market challenges and data analysis of the labour market across Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland.
• It was noted that Leicester City Council would be the accountable body for the Get LLR Working ten-year plan.
• The Director also referred to the efforts to map existing provision for inactive cohorts involving health, skills and employment support. Further to this, identifying any duplication, gaps and opportunities for future action by the Council or collaborating partners.
• The overall aim was highlighted to improve the employment rates to 80%, it was noted that there are stark differences across the geography in districts and Leicester City.
• It was noted that 35,000 people need supporting into work across the LLR and highlighted that the Leicester City accounts for almost 31,000 of those individuals.
• The Director clarified that a new cross-LLR partnership has been developed from scratch over the past six months including partners in local authorities, DWP, health partners, Voluntary and Community Sector, Universities and Colleges as well as business representative organisations.
• A core working group will oversee delivery and review projects whilst wider engagement mechanisms will ensure broader stakeholder involvement as the plan evolves.
• The Regeneration Programmes and Projects Manager explained that the plan is intended to be a live, iterative document, providing a framework rather than a fixed set of final actions.
• Projected timelines were shared with the commission noting that the initial work would commence in late spring, a draft submission in June, final sign-off by October with publication by December 2026.

Members were invited to comment and ask questions; responses were as follows:

• A question arose whether there are resources currently allocated to deliver the plan, the Director responded that there are currently no additional national resources allocated specifically to deliver the full ambition of the plan, the plan is intended to provide a framework to support investment decisions and existing resources across partners are being aligned more effectively.
• A key funded element is the Connect to Work programme where £17.2m over five years funding from DWP would support economically inactive residents into work. Further resources from government would be required to full realise the long-term ambition.
• The Director responded to a question on the impact of Local Government Reorganisation on the plan, by informing the commission that despite potential changes in organisational structures the plan is designed to be flexible, adaptive and will evolve alongside governance changes as the core labour market challenges and partnership principles will remain relevant.
• The Director was asked about support for individuals intending to enter into local government employment and responded that Leicester City Council actively promotes apprenticeships and graduate routes across services. The Director informed that the City Council utilises the apprenticeship  ...  view the full minutes text for item 198.

An Executive Response will be provided to the recommendations made by the Task Group on Worker Exploitation.

The Director of Tourism, Culture and Economy gave a verbal update on the task group on worker exploitation. It was noted that:

·       The Director thanked commission members as well as the University of Leicester for their work on the task force, and noting the proactive approach taken by the City Council to address labour market exploitation in recent years, particularly in the garment sector, while recognising that exploitation was not unique to Leicester.

·       Members were reminded that local authorities do not have formal labour market enforcement powers and that many drivers of exploitation sit at national level.

·       The Commission was informed of ongoing national developments including the proposed Employment Rights Bill and the establishment of the Fair Work Agency expected to launch in 2026. 

·       Reference was made to the Council’s Social Value Charter, which underpins procurement and commissioning processes and reflects aspect of the Task Force’s recommendations.

·       Reference was made to the role of the Local Government Association (LGA) in lobbying government for additional resources to support delivery.  

·       The Task Force’s emphasis on partnership working was acknowledged and identified the ‘Get LLR Working’ programme as a key partnership framework through which labour market exploitation issues could be addressed including prevention, raising awareness and supporting individuals into work.

·       The importance of trusted community and voluntary sector organisations in supporting vulnerable workers was emphasised.

The Deputy City Mayor for Housing, Economy and Neighbourhoods provided some comments:

·       Commented on whether the City Council has sufficient resources to replicate the in-depth approach previously taken with the textiles industry across other sectors, including social care and the gig economy and whether Leicester faces challenges different to those experienced nationally.

·       Noted engagements with the local Government Association (LGA), including the recent national work and evidence on workforce exploitation and its overlap with modern slavery particularly within licensed migration and social care settings.

·       The role of LGA in promoting the introduction of funded modern slavery coordinators within local authorities was outlined, as pilot schemes elsewhere had demonstrated positive outcomes and this was an area that would require further government support.

·       The Deputy City Mayor praised previous work undertaken on the textiles industry work and stressed the importance of continuing to challenge negative narratives while promoting fair working practices.

·       Concerns were raised about the allegations of exploitation within social care linked to work visas, and the potential impacts of national policy changes,

·       The Deputy City Mayor emphasised the importance of continued lobbying through the LGA, and monitoring developments such as the Fair Work agency to progress the agenda.

AGREED:

1.    A meeting to be arranged with respect to a task group in a meeting to be arranged to discuss the issues raised.   

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

The Chair referred to the local transport affordability topic which had been previously raised in the Overview Select Committee. The Committee agreed to hold one meeting where concerns raised by the Youth Representatives could be addressed in one sitting rather than commissioning a task group.

There being no further items of urgent business, the meeting finished at 20:16.