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 Cllr Osman – Cllr Westley substituted.

It was noted that Cllr Dawood had joined the executive and Cllr Mohammed would substitute for him until the end of the municipal year.

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

Members were asked to disclose any pecuniary or other interests they may have in the business on the agenda.

Councillor March made a declaration with regard to the item Capital Budget Monitoring April-December 2024/25, the report mentioned Ellesmere College, at which she was a governor.

The minutes of the meeting of the Overview Select Committee held on  30^th January 2025 have been circulated, and Members will be asked to confirm them as a correct record.

It was noted that Cllr Batool was present at the previous meeting but had not been recorded as such.

It was suggested that whilst the working group on adventure playgrounds had met, it would be useful for it to continue to look and how playgrounds could be helped.

AGREED:

That the minutes of the meeting held on 30 January 2025 be confirmed as a correct record subject to corrections as detailed above.

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

The Chair announced that the second session of informal scrutiny on workforce representation that was due to take place the previous week had been postponed and a new date was currently being established.

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

To note progress on actions agreed at the previous meeting and not reported elsewhere on the agenda (if any).

The Chair noted that updates on actions were noted on the workplan.

The Monitoring Officer to report on the receipt of any questions, representations and statements of case submitted in accordance with the Council’s procedures.

The Monitoring Officer reported that no questions, representations and statements of case had been submitted in accordance with the Council’s procedures.

The Monitoring Officer to report on any petitions received.

The Monitoring Officer reported that no petitions had been received.

The Monitoring Officer submits a report that updates Members on the monitoring of outstanding petitions. The Committee is asked to note the current outstanding petitions and agree to remove those petitions marked ‘Petitions Process Complete’ from the report.

The Monitoring Officer submitted a report which provided an update on the status of outstanding petitions against the Council’s target of providing a formal response within three months of being referred to the Divisional Director.

It was noted that two were marked as red.  Updates were provided and it was noted that:

Regarding the Peebles Way petition:

The City Transport Director had to take over due to staff leaving partway through and a lack of resource in the team.

Currently, he had:

• Arranged for a member of the road safety team to attend Peebles Way to review traffic operations next week. 
• Requested data from the police.
• Started analysis of traffic data.
• Drafted correspondence to the lead petitioner/supporting ward member.

Regarding the Oakland Avenue petition, there was currently a draft pro-forma that was written following a meeting with the petitioner and councillors in December. This was held until a response from the executive on a relevant policy area came forward as it would have materially changed our response.

That had concluded, and it had been signed off on a design that would alleviate the issue and was discussed in that meeting. The proforma would be completed as soon as possible.

AGREED:

That the status of the outstanding petitions be noted, and to remove those petitions marked ‘Petition Complete’ Ref: from the report.

An Executive decision taken by the City Mayor on 3 March 2025 relating to the proposed purchase of the YoHo building 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).

The Monitoring Officer submitted a report informing the Commission that the Executive decision taken by the City Mayor on 3 March 2025 relating to the proposed purchase of the YoHo building has been the subject of a 7-member call-in under the procedures at Rule 12 of Part 4D, City Mayor and Executive Procedure Rules, of the Council’s Constitution.

The Chair clearly outlined the process that he 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 was noted the process continues and the call-in will be considered at Council on Full Council or

b) Comment on the specific issues raised by the call-in. (If comments were made the process continues and the comments and call-in would be considered at Full Council); or

c) Resolve that the call-in be withdrawn (If the committee wished for there to be no further action on the call-in, then they must actively withdraw it. If withdrawal was agreed the call-in process stops, the call-in would not be considered at Full Council and the original decision takes immediate effect without amendment).

The Director of Housing gave a presentation outlining the issue using the slides attached.  Key points (other than those on the slides) included:

• The council continued to face financial pressures in this area, with £11m added to the homelessness budget for the last two years, and an overspend of £6m expected this year.
• Despite the law limiting the length of stay in Bed and Breakfast to six weeks, the average length of stay in Leicester was currently 97 days, leading to criticism and financial penalties from the Social Care Ombudsman.
• There were 1966 individuals on the housing register in need of one-bed properties, with an average wait time of up to 6 months.
• The council was on track to deliver 1600 new homes, with 1100 delivered in the last 4 years.
• YoHo was a fairly new 134-unit building, exclusively self-contained and with modern facilities. It could help meet the demand for temporary accommodation.
• Acquiring the building would:
  • a. enable the council to move all those currently in bed and breakfast.
  • b. reduce the council’s spend by £2.8m a year and;
  • c. provide clients with more independence including cooking and laundry facilities.
• The council planned to work with a specialist housing provider with extensive experience managing such buildings.
•  Different levels of support would be provided to the clients depending on where they are on their journey.
• The building would not serve as another Dawn Centre but would provide accommodation to those on a positive trajectory toward independent living.
• The plan was to reconfigure the building from 134 to 118 units, to enable the council to accommodate areas for support services and engagement; and communal use.
• The YMCA for single people has a similar set up to the one proposed for YoHo, has been run successfully for many years and did not cause issues for the local community.
• Watford,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 110.

The City Mayor will answer questions raised by members of the Overview Select Committee on issues not covered elsewhere on the agenda.

Prior to receiving questions, the City Mayor gave a presentation on the interim submission regarding Local Government Reorganisation.

Slides were presented (attached), other points included:

• This was not the final position, but an interim submission needed to be submitted to the government.
• In January, the district councils in Leicestershire acknowledged that it would be necessary to make significant adjustments with regard to devolution in the region, although there had been objections form Oadby and Wigston Borough Council (OWBC).
• Leicestershire County Council had acknowledged the need for changes in boundaries.
• Central Government wanted to achieve combined mayoral authorities across the whole of England.
• The government wanted unitary councils and where the size and/or boundaries of an authority hindered the delivery of services, proposals were would be expected to address this.
• The full proposal was to be submitted on 8 November 2025.
• With regard to the populations of the Mayoral Strategic Authority, it was thought that a population of 1.2m would be accepted despite being short of the 1.5m target.
• The City of Leicester had a uniquely tight boundary.  This was due to the fact that whilst many urban areas had become metropolitan districts and had their boundaries extended in the 1970s, Leicester had not.
• Discussions would be needed with district councils regarding housing.
• The Leicester Built Up Area as defined by the Office of National Statistics went beyond the city boundaries, as did the principle urban area, the bus catchment area, the travel to work area and the Coronavirus Lockdown area.
• The County Council were now suggesting freezing the Leicester City Boundary and having a single unitary boundary around it.
• The proposal from Leicester City Council (LCC) allowed room for discussion with the county and district councils.
• The final proposal would come to Full Council and OSC prior to that.

Questions were invited from members and the following responses were given:

• The proposal would be the subject of proper discussion in Council and would require the agreement of the Council.
• Discussion had taken place between the leaders of Leicestershire County Council, Rutland County Council.  Ultimately democratic approval would be needed.
• Leicester City Council had been a mayoral system for 14 years, this might want to be reviewed if changes were made.  Whether the mayoral system was retained or not would not make any immediate difference.  Some areas had two mayors, and the example of Salford City Council was given, whereby the city council had a mayor, and they were also under the Greater Manchester Combined Authority, which also had a metropolitan mayor.
• The government had the primary legislation that can allow Local Government Reorganisation to be delivered and established. However, it had indicated that there was an intention of having a bill which had the power to impose solutions and dissolve previous established authorities. It was desired to get a firm view from the Council as to what it thought ought to happen.
• Discussion with the County Council may help to understand what a sensible extension of the city boundary might  ...  view the full minutes text for item 111.

The Director of Finance submits the third report in the monitoring cycle for 2024/25 to the end of December 2024.

The Director of Finance presented the third report in the monitoring cycle for 2024/25 to the end of December 2024.

The Committee was recommended to consider the overall position presented within the report and make any observations it saw fit.

In response to questions, it was noted that:

• The Director of Education was developing a plan to reduce DSG spending to manage the rising deficit. However, if the statutory override was not extended or the government did not find a solution, it could create a significant budget issue for the council because it may need to be financed from the general fund.
• SEND education was under pressure, as EHCPs had strict criteria for determining eligibility for SEN support.
• The council was creating more of its provisions to reduce costs and was collaborating with special schools in the city to enhance the impact of these provisions.
• The council was constantly exploring opportunities to reduce cost, e.g. the transformation fund set aside for areas where technology can be used differently. The Revenue Monitoring Report period 3 highlighted ongoing transformation work in social care.
• The government had increased the tonnage charges, and there was ongoing work to change some of the council’s waste practices.
• The pandemic and shift to work-from-home have slightly increased the tonnage profile.
• Questions were asked about the pressures in homelessness and recovering the costs from housing benefits.   It was noted the housing benefit system was complex and largely depended on individual circumstances. 
• The council could recover some of the cost through the housing benefits from tenants, particularly those in supported living. However, there was a strict criteria around what counted as supported living.
•  There was an agreement to sell Greyfriars, which would generate capital receipts for the council.
• The Workforce was an essential element to delivering good services and Social Care had done a lot of work around trying to fill the vacant positions.
• There was a request for the £6.8m underspend for adult social care to be ringfenced and utilised for this service alone.

AGREED

1) That the report be noted.

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

The Director of Finance submits the third capital monitoring report of the financial year. The purpose of this report is to provide the position of the capital programme at the end of December 2024 (Period 9).  

The Director of Finance submitted the third capital monitoring report of the financial year. The purpose of this report is to provide the position of the capital programme at the end of December 2024 (Period 9).

It was recommended that the Committee consider the overall position of this report and make any observations it saw fit.

Comments and questions were invited from members, and the following were stated:

• When allocating the UK Shared Prosperity Fund (UKSPF)  the council had to ensure that its outcomes align with the objectives of the fund as part of their submission and this was monitored.
• The capital investment in Haymarket was focused on the dance academy and its positive impact on the students that go there, the economic benefits across the city and income to the council.
• Regarding De Montfort Hall, the goal was for the site to generate revenue to become self-sustaining and bring independent shows into the city. Other economic benefits included support for temporary work and student-based work.
• The council was about to launch a neighbourhood needs assessment, which would focus on the needs and services available to specific neighbourhoods.
• The council was reviewing how the assets and buildings were utilised and working on the capital investment going into those areas.
• The reallocation of funds from Pioneer Park to Pilot House was because the objectives for Pioneer Park had been delivered under the allocated budget.   Pilot house required additional funds to ensure its completely.  These programmes, both part of the Government’s Levelling Up initiatives, had prescribed uses and would not involve public engagement.
• The council anticipated a revenue pressure of around £1.3m because of the surge in RTB applications in the 2025/26 HRA budget. However, in the long term, the removal of discount would benefit the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) because it would help with sustainability once the surge was over.
• Maintenance costs could either go through the revenue or capital accounts depending on their scale. There were significant rules around what qualified as capital expenditure including minimum spending thresholds, length of the project etc.
• The £3.2m spend allocated for the railway station was a combination of the demolition costs, design and planning, negotiations and other structural elements.
• The Jewry Wall Museum was scheduled for completion in June 2025, barring any further issues on the site. Some of the factors that had led to the project being protracted were two contractors working on the project went into liquidation, unforeseen delays as a result of other issues on site etc. However, the main risks had now been discharged.
• Regarding St Paul’s Church and its deteriorating state, progress had been hindered because of difficulties with the owners of the building. Officers intended to serve a full repair notice, which would trigger a compulsory purchase order.

AGREED

1) That the report be noted.

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

The Chair submits a report providing members of the Committee with a proposed scope for the review of the Council Tax Support Scheme and the opportunity to comment on the scope for the review, suggest issues to include and consider joining the group.

The Chair submitted a report providing members of the Committee with a proposed scope for the review of the Council Tax Support Scheme and the opportunity to comment on the scope for the review, suggest issues to include and consider joining the group.

Comments and questions were invited from members, the following were stated:

• It was requested that the task group look at how the discretionary scheme is monitored.
• In response to requests that members other than those on the Committee be invited to present evidence, it was suggested that the committee could invite other members as part of their evidence gathering.  

AGREED:

1)    That the report be noted.

2)    That a working group be convened on the issue.

3)    That comments made by members of this committee to be taken into account.

4)    That members to be kept informed of any key issues related to this topic.

5)    That the task group look at how the discretionary scheme is monitored.

The current work programme for the Committee is attached.  The Committee is asked to consider this and make comments and/or amendments as it considers necessary.

The Committee was asked to consider the current work programme and to make comments and/or amendments as it considered necessary.

It was noted that the next meeting would be 1 May 2025.

AGREED:

That the current work programme be noted.

There being no other items of urgent business, the meeting closed at 20:48.