Agenda item

The Monitoring Officer submits a report informing the Committee that the Executive Decision taken by the City Mayor on 21 December 2023 relating to therelease of £1.6m from the policy provision in Highways & Infrastructure to the Connecting Leicester capital programme for the delivery of the final phase of the St Martins street improvement schemehas been the subject of a five 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c) Resolve that the call-in be withdrawn (If the committee wish for there to be no further action on the call-in, then they must actively withdraw it.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 original decision takes immediate affect without amendment).

A report was submitted informing the Committee that the Executive decision taken by the City Mayor on 21 December 2023 relating to the release of £1.6m from the policy provision in Highways & Infrastructure to the Connecting Leicester capital programme for the delivery of the final phase of the St Martins street improvement scheme had been the subject of a six-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 again 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 is noted the process continues and the call in would be considered at 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 would be considered at Full Council) or

c) Resolve that the call-in be withdrawn

The Chair invited the proposer and seconder of the call-in, Councillor Bajaj and Councillor Porter to address the committee.  The following points were raised:

• The proposal and level of investment did not represent the priorities of the people of the city.
• Given recent events, increased funding was required for flood prevention measures and the money earmarked for this scheme should be diverted to deal with flood prevention.
• The funding could also be diverted to increase the level of investment into road resurfacing across the city.  
• The scheme was described as a ‘vanity project’ that provided little public benefit. 

The Chair invited the City Mayor and the Director of Planning, Development and Transportation to respond to the call-in.  The following points were put forward:

. 

·         This scheme represented a further continuation of the Connecting Leicester programme, and the completion of previous strands of the programme had led to significant investment into the city centre.

·         This scheme would provide a significant number of job opportunities.

·         The scheme would greatly improve accessibility within an area of the city centre that experienced a high level of footfall. 

·         Once the work had been undertaken, this scheme would complete Leicester’s pedestrian zone, providing safe cycling and walking links.

·         National figures indicated that every £1 invested in city centres by local authorities was likely to return £13 in private sector investment.

·         City Centre businesses had been very supportive of this proposal. 

·         The Director of Planning, Development and Transportation further described the detail and benefits of the scheme via a series of presentation slides. 

Councillor Cassidy moved that, following the points raised during the meeting, the call-in be withdrawn. This was seconded by Cllr March.

It was agreed that a recorded vote be carried out.  Councillors Cassidy, Dawood, March, Waddington and Whittle voted in favour of the motion.  Councillors Bajaj and Porter voted against the motion. 

Upon being put to the vote, the motion was carried.

RESOLVED:

That the call-in be withdrawn and that the Committee supports the implementation of the Executive decision.