Harborough District Council accuses Leicester leaders of ‘serving own interests’ amid expansion spat

Their comments come after city mayor Sir Peter Soulsby revealed on Wednesday, March 19, which county areas Leicester City Council wanted to incorporate into the city’s boundary, which included parts of the Harborough district.

The move could see Leicester’s population almost double by 2028, with Glenfield, Oadby, Wigston, Blaby, Whetstone, Syston, Anstey, Leicester Forest East, Birstall, Kirby Muxloe, Thurmaston and Countesthorpe among the areas potentially set to become part of the city instead of the county.

The Harborough district areas affected are around Great Glen, Fleckney and some rural areas south of Countesthorpe (which is in the Blaby district). See map for more details.

The disagreement is the latest in a months-long spat over what the future political make-up of Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland should look like following Government calls to simplify local democracy.

Locally, the restructure could see either one or two authorities set up for the county, with the city to remain separate. While Leicester believes an expansion of its borders is necessary for it to remain financially viable and meet Government-set housing targets, Leicestershire County Council and the districts and borough councils want existing boundaries to remain.

The leaders of the districts and boroughs - including Harborough District Council leader Cllr Phil Knowles - have now responded to the city’s proposed, and highly controversial, expansion plan.

Speaking on behalf of the leaders, Pip Allnatt, head of Melton Borough Council, said: “From our initial assessment, the proposed expanded city boundary is focused 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.”

The districts and borough leaders also disagree with Leicestershire County Council’s approach to the restructure, which would see one ‘doughnut’ authority created for the county, and a separate council for the city. Instead, the districts want two councils to be created for the county, split on a roughly north-south divide, again with a separate council for the city.

Cllr Allnatt said: “It seems the options being presented by the county and city councils are focused 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.”

Cllr Allnatt appeared to accept that “further conversations” would “need” to be had with the city and county authorities over the potential expansion of the city, however, but added: “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.”

Cllr Allnatt said the districts and boroughs, along with Rutland, would be publishing their joint interim plan for Leicestershire’s political future tomorrow (Friday, March 21) ahead of the Government’s deadline. Full proposals then need to be submitted in November.