Special council meeting called to debate Leicester’s potential expansion

The Conservative group on Reform UK-led Leicestershire County Council has called an ‘extraordinary’ meeting of the authority following claims by city mayor Sir Peter Soulsby that Leicestershire county, district and borough leaders had ‘acknowledged’ that the case for revising Leicester’s boundary was ‘unarguable’.

Sir Peter further claimed at a Leicester City Council meeting this month that the change was now ‘widely accepted’ – despite previous strong opposition to it from all county authorities – and added that the expansion of the city’s boundary ‘now seems likely’.

District leaders have hit back at the city mayor’s claims, saying they still believe their plan for the future of Leicestershire – namely two Leicestershire councils and a separate city on existing boundaries - ‘offers the best outcome’ for residents.

The county council’s Conservatives have now said they will be putting forward a motion at the extraordinary – meaning unexpected and previously unscheduled – meeting on Wednesday, July 30, to ‘protect residents of Leicestershire from being dragged into the city against their will’.

At the meeting, they will call on the wider authority to ‘confirm that Leicestershire County Council is opposed to any expansion of the city’s boundaries’.

Swathes of the county would become part of Leicester under the proposal, put forward by the city council in response to government calls to streamline and simplify council structures.

Leicestershire Conservatives’ group leader Deborah Taylor said: “Residents in Anstey, Syston, Thurmaston, Birstall, Glenfield and all the other areas of the county threatened to be swallowed up by the city of Leicester are strongly against Sir Peter Soulsby’s expansion plan.

"Services in the city are poorer, council tax is higher, and people are angry that their place in the county is under threat, without being given any say on their own future.”

The Conservative group will also ask that, when final reorganisation proposals for local councils are put to the government in November, the county’s proposal is first agreed by all members of the council rather than just the council’s Reform UK-led cabinet.

New leader of the county council, Dan Harrison, previously said his party would not be ‘ceding territory to the city at a blink’.

However, he told the Local Democracy Reporting Service, following Sir Peter’s comments, that his party was ‘“having constructive discussions with the city council’.

He added: “What’s important is that both authorities must be financially sustainable and able to make strategic use of land across city and county, providing the best possible structure for devolution of powers and funding.”

Sir Peter has long argued that the expansion is needed for the city council’s ‘financial sustainability’ and its ability to deliver the ‘desperately needed housing’ required locally.

Coun Harrison’s seeming – though unconfirmed – support for the expansion has also prompted backlash from the county’s Conservatives.

Coun Taylor added: “Reform UK’s county leader Dan Harrison might be content to give away towns and villages to the city, but Conservative county councillors are not.

“We will be the voice of residents who are deeply concerned about these plans."