Agenda item

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 look like.

AGREED:

          That the presentation be noted.

The Chair accepted the following questions to be asked to the City Mayor:

Councillor March also asked:

Am I right in my understanding that we've brought in an external organisation to support with council tax bands for individuals/collection?

Conscious that we are moving to a new system, and I've had a few people who have been put unexpectedly onto the wrong bills?

In response to this it was clarified that annual billing had not been moved to an external organisation, however, an external support service was used when needed, although not for annual billing.  If there were individual cases, it could be useful to find out where there were exceptional cases and look into these.  It was further noted that a third-party organisation was involved with debt collection.

Councillor Rae Bhatia asked:

What are the latest timelines for Leys building demolition and its redevelopment? Can this be speeded up?

In response to this the City Mayor reported that there had been different ownerships, but things were finally amalgamated, and the building would be demolished by the end of October this year.

In response to a further question from Cllr Rae Bhatia regarding the potential to tax hotels, it was noted that some cities, such as Edinburgh, had such a tax, and some tourist areas could benefit from it.  However, whilst a local tax could be useful, local government was, in general, funded from property tax and business rated.

Councillor March asked with regard to city catering, whether the new supplier was a real living wage employer.

In response to this, it was stated that it was not a single caterer taking over and it was up to schools and colleges to procure their caterers, and it could not be certain that all of them would be real living wage employers and some paid better than others. 

In response to a question from Cllr Porter regarding the Museum Service Vision and Priorities 2025-29 and the reduction of opening hours for some museums and whether the plans could be put on hold to allow for a public consultation, it was explained that opening hours could be changed at any time and there was no need to put a hold on the plan. The plans would be considered by scrutiny and points made would be taken on board.  The changes were to a limited number of venues.  Decisions made on opening hours could be reversed at any time if deemed necessary.  The focus was on sites such as Leicester Museum and Art Gallery, where large numbers of people visited.

In response to a questions from the Youth Representative regarding how much of the UK Shared Prosperity Fund (UKSPF) was allocated to Leicester, and whether money from the government to empower communities could be used to fund adventure playgrounds, is was clarified that the funding from the UKSPF had been allocated in three tranches totalling £9.1m.  This was profiled across Skills, Business Support and Communities & Place, and the funding needed to be used in these profiles.  The UKSPF had been considered by the Economic Development, Transport and Climate Emergency (EDTCE) Scrutiny Commission.

With regards to the query on adventure playgrounds, it was noted that their future was in the hands of the playgrounds themselves and the Council were keen to work with them.  It would be necessary to take opportunities during the year to look at this to consider the extent to which the Council were helping them.