District leaders criticise new devolution plan to vastly expand Leicester

Leicester City Council Mayor Peter Soulsby and Melton Borough Council leader Pip Allnatt, who are backing rival plans for local government reorganisationLeicester City Council Mayor Peter Soulsby and Melton Borough Council leader Pip Allnatt, who are backing rival plans for local government reorganisation
Leicester City Council Mayor Peter Soulsby and Melton Borough Council leader Pip Allnatt, who are backing rival plans for local government reorganisation
A new plan for streamlining local government, which would see Leicester’s city boundaries significantly expanded, has been criticised by district councils as self-serving with no regard for the needs of rural residents.

The latest proposal – reacting to the government’s commitment to axe the current two-tier council structure – has been put forward by city Mayor, Peter Soulsby.

He wants to see nearby towns, including Glenfield, Oadby, Wigston, Blaby, Whetstone, Syston, Anstey, Leicester Forest East, Birstall, Kirby Muxloe, Thurmaston and Countesthorpe, become part of a new city council authority, effectively almost doubling Leicester’s population from the current 372,000 to just over 600,000 by 2028.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

The city council say it is necessary to keep the authority financially viable at a challenging time.

The leaders of the seven Leicestershire district councils plus the Rutland Council leader responded with a joint-statement criticising the city plan and pointing out that their own proposal – north and south Leicestershire councils with a city council with existing boundaries – would divide the area up more evenly and ensure there was a local voice for all residents.

Melton Borough Council leader, Councillor Pip Allnatt, speaking on behalf of all the district leaders and Rutland’s leader, commented: “From our initial assessment, the proposed expanded city boundary is focussed purely on what works for the city and leaves an unbalanced county and Rutland doughnut surrounding it, with no sense of place and the challenges it would create operationally over its geography.

“It seems the options being presented by the county and city councils are focussed on serving their own interests, rather than those of their communities, whereas our proposal is the only one which is well balanced and offers a reset, refresh and reinvigoration of local government.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

“We accept there will need to be further conversations about the city boundary but our interim plan is not proposing any boundary changes and we remain clear that the right response is for three balanced and broadly evenly-sized councils which will be big enough to deliver and close enough to respond.”

Leicestershire County Council prefers a different plan – one large Leicestershire council, a city council with expanded boundaries and a separate Rutland council.

Interim plans must be submitted to government by March 21 with a full proposal to be developed in November.

Comment Guidelines

National World encourages reader discussion on our stories. User feedback, insights and back-and-forth exchanges add a rich layer of context to reporting. Please review our Community Guidelines before commenting.

News you can trust since 1859
Follow us
©National World Publishing Ltd. All rights reserved.Cookie SettingsTerms and ConditionsPrivacy notice