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. No apologies for absence were made.

Members are 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 at this stage; however, during the Housing Revenue Account Budget item, Cllr Kitterick declared an interest in relation to discussion of the St Peter’s Boiler House.

The minutes of the meetings of the Overview Select Committee held on  1^st December 2025 and 3^rd December 2025 have been circulated, and Members will be asked to confirm them as a correct record.

·      It was requested that the recording of the meeting of the 1^st December be checked regarding discussion on value of land per square metre.  Following the meeting the recording was checked, and the minutes are correct, as it was stated at the meeting that land value had been said to vary throughout the city.

·      A recommendation was queried from the meeting of the 1^st December for members to receive the customer satisfaction report. It was confirmed that this was awaited for the following year.

AGREED:

1)    That the minutes of the meeting held on 1 December 2025 and the be confirmed as a correct record.

2)    That the minutes of the special meeting held on 3 December 2025 and the be confirmed as a correct record.

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

The Chair reminded members in relation to the role of scrutiny being a place of challenge, with respect.

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

The Chair noted that members had been updated via email on progress on previous actions from the meetings on 1st and 3rd December.

No queries were made in respect of progress on actions agreed at the previous meeting.

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 the receipt of any petitions.

The Monitoring Officer informs that a petition has been received as follows:

“We, the residents of Arbour Road, are facing ongoing and increasing difficulties with parking on our street. Day by day, it has become harder for households to find safe and convenient parking near their homes.

Many nearby streets in our area already operate under a Resident Parking Permit scheme. Because of this, a large number of non-residents are choosing to park on Arbour Road instead, creating significant congestion and leaving local residents without available parking spaces.

This situation is causing daily stress and inconvenience for families, elderly residents, carers, and working people who depend on accessible parking close to their homes.

Therefore, we the undersigned respectfully request that the Council introduce a Household Resident Parking Permit Scheme for Arbour Road.

This will help to:

-         Ensure residents can park safely near their homes

-         Reduce congestion caused by non-resident long-stay parking

-         Bring fairness and consistency with neighbouring streets

-         Improve overall traffic management and community wellbeing

We kindly ask the Council to review this matter urgently and take action to support the residents of Arbour Road.”

Cllr Dave presented the below petition on behalf of Cllr Singh Patel:

“We, the residents of Arbour Road, are facing ongoing and increasing difficulties with parking on our street. Day by day, it has become harder for households to find safe and convenient parking near their homes.

Many nearby streets in our area already operate under a Resident Parking Permit scheme. Because of this, a large number of non-residents are choosing to park on Arbour Road instead, creating significant congestion and leaving local residents without available parking spaces.

This situation is causing daily stress and inconvenience for families, elderly residents, carers, and working people who depend on accessible parking close to their homes.

Therefore, we the undersigned respectfully request that the Council introduce a Household Resident Parking Permit Scheme for Arbour Road.

This will help to:

- Ensure residents can park safely near their homes

- Reduce congestion caused by non-resident long-stay parking

- Bring fairness and consistency with neighbouring streets

- Improve overall traffic management and community wellbeing

We kindly ask the Council to review this matter urgently and take action to support the residents of Arbour Road.”

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.

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.

• One petition was highlighted as red.
• It was noted that with the sad passing of Cllr Sood, Assistant City Mayor - Community Cohesion, the petition she had been working on would be reallocated to councillors.
• Members sought clarification on completed petitions such as Spinney Hill and Troon, and the Assistant City Mayor for Environment and Transport explained that for completed petitions, while officers had given their consideration and responded to the submitters with recommended actions, the associated works might still be outstanding. Ward Councillors were notified on the petition status. Ward Councillor Cllr Batool gave members an update on works for the petitions mentioned. Work was due to be carried out and residents were noted to be satisfied.
• Cllr CllrDave had raised a question about works on Oakland Avenue at the last meeting. The Assistant City Mayor for Environment and Transport agreed to come back to him with an update.
• Members requested further clarification on the petitions procedure.

AGREED:

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

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

The Chair invited members to raise questions for The City Mayor.

The Chair accepted questions to be asked to the City Mayor.

1)    Cllr Pickering had submitted a detailed question on maintenance works at the Haymarket. The following shortened version was asked at the meeting:

The Haymarket Theatre is a one of the most visible points in Leicester city centre. The prolonged disrepair of the escalators has caused ongoing accessibility issues for shoppers. Long waits for the lift could deter shoppers from going upstairs.

Can the City Mayor set tell me why they have not been repaired and if there are plans for repairs. This looks bad for our city as the Haymarket is one of our longest standing shopping centres.

The City Mayor replied that:

·       The works were scheduled to commence next month and would take around a month to complete.

·       Asset managements were in place for the wide range of council buildings.

·       The Haymarket was part of the Corporate Estate and investment would continue.

2)    Cllr Porter asked a question relating to a Freedom of Information request on the X Ltd case. It was confirmed that the outcome of the request would be relayed to him.

AGREED:

1)    That the responses to the questions raised be noted.

2)    The outcome of the Freedom Of Information request be relayed to Cllr Porter.

An Executive decision taken by the Deputy City Mayor for Housing on 9 January 2026 relating to a LGSCO Maladministration report 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 Deputy City Mayor for Housing on the 9th January 2026 relating to a LGSCO Maladministration report had 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 was recommended to either:

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

b)    Comment on the specific issues raised by the call-in. (If comments were made the process would continue and the comments and call in would be considered at a future meeting of 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 have actively withdrawn it. If withdrawal was agreed the call-in process would stop, the call-in would not be considered at a future meeting of Full Council and the original decision would take immediate affect without amendment).

The Chair clearly outlined the process that she would follow in determining how to resolve the call-in.

The Chair invited the proposer, Councillor Porter to present the call-in. The following points were given:

• The ombudsman reviewed cases individually and there was no evidence that this case could set a precedent for escalating other cases.
• In terms of cost, the £3,525 was relatively small compared with amounts spent on other cases.
• The council had a responsibility to rectify any mistakes it made.
• A homeless family with children could not afford legal representation, making the Ombudsman their only option. Under the Equality Act, the council was obliged to protect vulnerable individuals.
• Not acting on the Ombudsman’s recommendations could send a strong message and risk negative perception of The Council.
• A further ombudsman report would likely ensue with a recommendation to take the matter to Full Council.

The Chair invited the seconder Cllr Rae Bhatia to add comment. Key points made were as follows:

• Members were urged to support the call-in.
• It was imperative to maintain the reputation of the council.

The Chair invited the Deputy City Mayor for Housing, Economy and Neighbourhoods, The Director of Housing and the Head of Service for Housing to respond. A presentation was given (slides attached) and the following additional points raised:

• It was not uncommon for both central government and councils to decline ombudsman recommendations.
• The council recognised the effects that limited access to suitable housing on individuals and families.
• It was essential for the Commission to consider the complaints within the context of the national housing crisis.
• Wider socio-economic factors had influenced matters for the family.
• At the outset of the case, use of bed and breakfasts / hotels was an emerging trend for temporary accommodation, pressures and demands on the local authority were changing.    
• Comparisons were being made with the case  ...  view the full minutes text for item 203.

The Director of Corporate Services submits a report to provide a broad outline of the workforce challenges that Local Authorities, including Leicester, are facing.

The Director of Corporate Services submitted a report to provide a broad outline of the workforce challenges that Local Authorities, including Leicester Face. The item had come to OSC following previous discussion at scrutiny. The report provided context, offered a deeper dive into the challenges of recruiting to social care, and explained changes to People Services, it was taken as read.

In response to member discussion, the following was noted:

• A number of member questions had been submitted which were awaiting a formal response. 
• It was noted that vacancy rates across the whole workforce would be refined and more effectively reported under the new structure.
• In term of staff wellbeing, it was noted that exit interviews were optional, a more granular understanding of workforce wellbeing would come from the Healthy Workplace Survey. Members requested that the survey results be known.
• Benchmarking data was included in the report, and HR work was ongoing to identify areas of success and areas for improvement in staff satisfaction.
• Questions raised relating to social work caseloads could come back to scrutiny.
• Umbrella rates work had examined agency staff costing and overall benefits were shown. Further global analysis could be useful.
• Regarding the Social Work Academy, it was explained that a single, city-wide career pathway from education to leadership had been created. Apprenticeship pathways showed stronger retention than university entrants.
• Multi-disciplinary work was in place within Children In Need services. A new system to allow for more controlled cased loads was being piloted.

AGREED:

1)    That the report be noted.

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

3)    Written responses would be provided to member questions.

4)    The findings of Healthy Workplace Survey would be considered by the Committee once the timeframe was known.

5)    The impact of recruitment work would be brought to ASC and CYPE, including caseloads for social workers.

6)    Benchmarking information would be included in next report.

Cllr Osman left during consideration of item.

The Director of Housing Submits a report setting out the City Mayor’s proposed Housing Revenue Account (HRA) budget for 2025/26 prior to it being considered at Full Council on 19th February 2025. A minute extract from the meeting of the Housing Scrutiny Commission on 13^th January 2026 is appended at Appendix H.

The Director of Housing submitted a report setting out the City Mayor’s proposed Housing Revenue Account (HRA) budget for 2025/26 prior to it being considered at Full Council on 19th February 2025. An overview of the report was given.

In response to member discussion, the following was noted:

• The report set out climate commitments and outlined actions. The most recent tranche of new builds were A-rated. Funding was subject to match-funding requirements.
• It was confirmed that in relation to Recommendation vi, the City Mayor had the authority to decrease service charges, proposals to increase the charges were referred to Full Council.
• The St Peter’s Boiler House chimney was confirmed to be structurally sound.
• District heating schemes would be subject to applicable Ofgem regulatory arrangements.
• Cost modelling for Climate Ready Leicester was beyond the scope of the report and could be discussed separately.
• The consultation on proposed rent increases highlighted concerns about the wider cost of living.
• The Tenants Scrutiny Panel had scrutinised service charges, and there was a commitment to agree a programme of items for review over the next 12 months, with regular feedback to the Panel.
• Members could refer individual casework to the Director of Housing.

AGREED

1)    That the report be noted.

2)    That the recommendations for Full Council be noted by the committee.

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

4)    For recommendation vi to be amended to state that the City Mayor had authority to decrease charges only, and for this to be noted.

Cllr Kitterick declared an interest during the item regarding the St Peter’s Boiler House.

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

The draft minute extracts detailing the respective Scrutiny Commissions’ discussion on the Draft Revenue and Capital Budget reports are attached:

Housing – 13^th January 2026

Economic Development, Transport and Climate Emergency – 14^th January 2026

Adult Social Care – 15^th January 2026

Children Young People and Education – 20^th January 2026

Culture and Neighbourhoods – 22^nd January 2026

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

It was noted that cost mitigating work had been undertaken in social care, and it was suggested to roll this into a third year as it had been very successful.

Members were invited to ask questions and make comments, the following was noted:

• With regard to queries about the recommendations made by the Adult Social Care Scrutiny Commission, it was noted that comments from the commissions were collated, and it was up to the City Mayor if they were incorporated in the budget.
• In response to queries about figures that were not yet available, it was noted that these figures would be updated and members would be made aware of their implications.  It was further clarified that with relation to Core Spending Power, this included Council Tax rises, and did not take inflation or cost pressures into account.  It was noted that government money would help, but it would not prevent the Council from going into reserves over the next four years and spending more than its income.
• It was further added that Core Spending Power increases quoted by Government were based on the 2024/25 financial year, and some of these increases had already been built into the strategy.  It was also noted that some of the increase was due to the recognition of the deprivation in the City, deprivation also links to additional costs.  
• With regard to Local Government Reorganisation (LGR), it was acknowledged that there would be initial costs, but these would be off-set by savings and the payback was quick.  It was added that the government had confirmed that they expected existing council budgets to fund LGR.
• With regard to underspend in Adult Social Care (ASC), it was explained that this was often in relation to vacancies, and income came from the NHS for package costs.
• It was further noted with regard to ASC that contracts with providers had an annual increase to take account in rises in the national living wage.  Significant improvements had been made in 2025/26, and package costs had been brought down.
• In response to points made about providing resources for Adventure Playgrounds, it was noted that the City Mayor had been meeting with five of them and the issues they faced included issues around tenure and land and they were looking for ways to be more sustainable.
• In response to points made on the reliance on reserves, it was explained that it was necessary to work to a balanced income and expenditure budget, and this was always the target.  The Council had a budget strategy that did not need capital receipts or a capitalisation directive.  There had been lower use of reserves than last year, so the approach was working.
• In response to points made on the ASC precept, it was explained that the ASC precept this year had been £3.5m, but growth had been £13m, so the increase had not  ...  view the full minutes text for item 206.

The Director of Finance submits a report setting out the City Mayor’s proposed Draft Three Year Capital Programme 2026/27.

The Director of Finance submitted a report setting out the City Mayor’s proposed Draft Three-Year Capital Programme 2026/27.

The report was taken as read.

Members were invited to ask questions and make comments. The following was noted:

• The introduction of Council Tax for empty but furnished properties was welcomed.
• In response to a query surrounding the borrowing of money for capital projects and using revenue costs for debt, it was clarified that capital receipts were not needed for capitalisation and could therefore be used for reducing borrowing costs.  Capital financing within the revenue budget includes borrowing costs.
• Money had been set aside for the demolition of Rally House.
• £50m had been set aside with a focus on family accommodation based on the modelling projection for growth.  It was noted that Leicester City Council were ahead of other authorities on this.  Officers were praised for the work done to drive down the need for temporary accommodation.
• With regard to a query on savings on hotel costs, this was difficult to quantify, however, the £45m programme had saved £47m over three years and it was expected for a similar outcome from the £50m programme.
• The importance of spending money on essential services first was raised.

AGREED:

1) That the report be noted.

2) That the recommendations for Full Council be noted by the committee.

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

Councillors Porter and Waddington left the meeting during the consideration of this item.

The Director of Finance submits a report outlining the Treasury & Investment Strategies for 2026/27.

The Director of Finance submitted a report outlining the Treasury & Investment

Strategies for 2026/27.

It was explained that this report set out how money was managed over the year.

AGREED:

1) That the report be noted.

2) That the recommendations for Full Council be noted by the committee; and

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

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.

AGREED:

That the current work programme be noted.

The Chair thanked the Director of Finance and other officers.

There being no other items of urgent business, the meeting closed at 9.15pm