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 Cllr Dave, Cllr Cassidy and Cllr Cutkelvin.

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

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 Culture and Neighbourhoods Scrutiny Commission held on Thursday 5^th March have been circulated, and Members will be asked to confirm them as a correct record.

With regard to an action raised at the previous meeting, it was noted that Newarke Houses Museum had not opened over the Easter Holidays.  It would be reviewed as to whether they could open for October half-term and the 2027 Easter Holiday.

AGREED:

That the minutes of the meeting of the Culture and Neighbourhoods Scrutiny Commission held on 5 March 2026 be confirmed as a correct record.

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

The Chair noted that the meeting of the task group on Community Asset Transfer (CAT) scheduled for 14 April had been cancelled due to unforeseen issues with officer availability.  Business due to be considered at this meeting would now be considered at the meeting on 7^th May, where it was also hoped to meet with groups who had gone through the CAT process.  It was requested that it would be useful if questions for these groups could be sent to Governance Services in advance.

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.

The Director of Neighbourhood and Environmental Services provides a verbal update on PSPO 2.

The Director of Neighbourhood and Environmental Services provided a verbal update on PSPO 2.  Slides were presented (attached), and additional key points to note included:

·       Draft documentation had received legal sign-off and the scheme was ready to go to consultation.

·       The approach protocol illustrated how PSPO2 would be managed and enforced.

·       Feedback was welcome to see how the PSPO was perceived by communities.

In response to member discussion and questions, the following was noted: 

• One warden would be starting this week, three more on 5^th May, and two others would join later in May.
• With regard to a query about money form selective licensing schemes, it was explained that selective licensing teams were being actively worked with on management. 
• In response to points made about bikes, e-bikes and e-scooters, it was explained that this was dealt with by the Police, and in terms of funding, it was specifically in relation to the public spaces team.
• The new team consisted of six uniformed officers, four support officers and one apprentice.
• Information on how the team was funded could be shared with the Committee.
• In terms of the difference between the new officers and existing City Wardens, it was explained that the work of the City Wardens was focussed on environmental issues, whereas the new officers looked at Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) and crime in terms of prevention, detection and enforcement.
• In terms of the wider picture on how individuals were managed, officers would be data-led.  The more reports received, the better the data would be, so officers could target patrols where they were most needed.  Work would take place 7am-7pm Monday-Saturday, but here was flexibility to do targeted work in the evenings.
• The PSPO had police support and there was an agreement for them to support the restrictions within it.
• The powers of the police and of the new officers both came under the Crime and Policing Act.
• In terms of cyclists not adhering to lanes, it was explained that by-laws were managed by different teams.
• Officers worked in pairs for safety, and had safety equipment such as vests, radios and panic alarms.  The Police were worked with, so there was a lot of information available for dynamic risk assessments so that operations could be pre-planned and people weren’t put into high-risk situations.
• In response to concerns raised that ASB might move into different areas, it was explained that data was constantly being assessed and reviewed, and if ASB appeared to be arising in pockets, another PSPO could potentially be considered.

AGREED: 

1)    That information be provided on funding.

2)    That information be provided on pavement cycling.

3)    That the report be noted. 

4)    That comments made by members of this commission to be taken into account by the lead officers.

The Director of Neighbourhood and Environmental Services submits a report providing an update on Leicester’s involvement in Sport England’s Place Expansion programme and sets out details of a Full Award bid that has been submitted to Sport England on 27 March 2026.

The Director of Neighbourhood and Environmental Services submitted a report providing an update on Leicester’s involvement in Sport England’s Place Expansion programme and set out details of a Full Award bid that had been submitted to Sport England on 27 March 2026.

The Head of Sport Services introduced the item noting that in 2017 Sport England had selected 10 areas across the country for a pilot scheme, looking at how to address physical inactivity. A second phase was introduced in 80 areas, including Leicester.

The Project Manager for Sports and Leisure provided an overview of the report together with a slide presentation attached to the minutes. Key points to note, not included on the slides, were as follows:

• Adequate physical activity required certain social conditions which were not prevalent in Leicester. Political alignment around decisions was vital.
• There was a focus on connecting systems together.
• Sport England were committed to ending the postcode lottery so that the area a person resided in did not dictate their longevity.
• Work was ongoing to expand the evidence base and turn knowledge into action. Relationships were being built with the Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise (VCSE) to find new ways of working.
• The Moving Conversations report had seen responses from over 700 participants highlighting barriers to activity including; people feeling unsafe when exercising in the community, expenses, quality of the urban environment, the need to improve parks, anti-social behaviour and current health conditions impacting activity.
• The Photo Voice project had seen a positive response with an exhibition delivered.
•  A bid had been submitted to Sport England for £1.8m. This would be for 18 months work with the VCSE partners to recruit Active Neighbourhood Champions, aligned with social prescribing and Health budgets.
• The key was to create equity of access.
• A peer review was likely around the 30^th April.
• This was a long-term strategy with a whole systems approach. Working with senior leaders to help them realise their place in the mission.
• The 2-year plan included the Launch of Community of Change Practitioners which members were welcomed to join. This would launch on the 14^th May.

In response to member questions and discussion, the following was noted:

• The outcome of the £1.8m bid should be known in June. The money would be revenue, and a large amount would go towards the VCSE sectors ways of working. There would also be a budget for community activities.
• Areas were selected based on deprivation data from the 2018 Health and Wellbeing Survey. Members queried whether council funding could be directed to areas not selected. It was explained that a focus on leisure centres and initiatives could reach wider parts of the city. Approximately 70% of the Council’s budget was allocated to statutory services, limiting flexibility. It was noted that the areas not included would be given consideration within future projects.
• Both mental and physical health were incorporated into the project, with work already being delivered through community initiatives such as Jamila’s Legacy.
• Active Together had good  ...  view the full minutes text for item 203.

The Director of Tourism Culture and Economy submits a report providing  Members with an overview of Leicester Riverside Festival, including its history, location, activities, partnerships, and recent development. The report also outlines how the festival has evolved and its current strategic relevance to the city.

The Director of Tourism Culture and Economy submitted a report providing  Members with an overview of Leicester Riverside Festival, including its history,

location, activities, partnerships, and recent development. The report also outlined how the festival has evolved and its current strategic relevance to the

city. Key points to note were as follows:

• The festival was a large, free, family-friendly outdoor event around the River Soar.
• It had grown from a small event to an event that now attracted over 60,000 people.
• The economic impact of the festival was estimated at £3.1m.
• The festival had initially taken place across Bede Park, Western Boulevard, Castle Gardens and the River Soar, but had now expanded on to the De Montfort University (DMU) campus.
• The festival had over 80 performers and over 100 traders.
• The live music stage would now be moving on to Bede Park, featuring local artists and providing a platform for a larger audience.
• The festival included free arts and heritage experiences.
• The festival was inclusive and multi-generational, and reflected the city’s diverse communities.  It was led by the Festivals and Events team and supported by partnerships.
• DMU provided space and venues and an events team.  Students were also becoming involved in programmes and using it as a showcase.
• Leicester Music Board was a new partner.
• There was a wellbeing-focussed arts programme called ‘Bloom’ in collaboration with Bright Spark Arts.
• Heritage Bus tours would be available.
• Outdoor film screenings would take place using DMU screens.
• £30k funding had been received from Arts Council England.  Arts Council funding also provided free outreach workshops which included storytelling events that signposted to the festival.  There was also Arts Council funding for people who wished to be involved in the festival and work with the Festivals and Events team in production.
• Families with complex needs could use quiet/safe spaces.
• The festival was of strategic importance as it was a platform for community engagement, including the Family Hub.
• The festival was important for economic activity as it was a chance for businesses to make money and a chance to promote tourism.  It had enhanced city centre vitality and activity beyond the site, in the city centre could benefit.
• Of the £147k budget, the Council contributed around 24%, the other 76% came from vendors, PRS sponsorship, Arts Council funding and DMU funding.
• The festival brought societal, cultural and economic value to the city, and had the potential to become a significant regional or national festival.

In response to member discussion, the following was noted:

• With regard to issues raised around crowd density, it was noted that there was lots of space on the DMU campus and around the Newarke to expand.  Ambition was subject to resource, but it was hoped to move activity to other areas to help the flow of audiences.  The peak attendance was around 3-5pm, to people could avoid peak times if they wished to avoid crowds.  Hotspots were traditionally where the arts and crafts markets were and around the music stage, the music  ...  view the full minutes text for item 204.

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 18:55