Leicester and Leicestershire bosses are once more at odds over a proposed city expansion.  

The heads of the city and county councils jointly commissioned financial modelling into the potential impacts of a larger Leicester, but they now disagree on what the completed work actually reveals. 

Reform UK leader of Leicestershire County Council Dan Harrison claimed the modelling showed any new Leicestershire authority would not be "able to survive" if Leicester is allowed to take ground from the county.  

He told the LDRS accepting any such expansion would, as a result, be "unforgivable" from a Leicestershire perspective and vowed to "fight" against this. 

Mayor of Leicester City Sir Peter Soulsby speaks in favour of city expansion (Photo: Leicester City Council)

However, city mayor Sir Peter Soulsby claimed the figures actually show "completely the opposite" – that an expanded city, providing "balanced population levels" for both Leicester and Leicestershire, would be "in everybody's interest". He said he believed Cllr Harrison was now opposing the proposed new borders because he was "under enormous political pressure" from opposition groups on the county council to do so. 

The fresh disagreement comes as the November deadline for councils to submit their plans for local government restructure to Westminster looms ever closer. 

The Government has called on two-tier areas like Leicestershire, where the county council shared responsibilities with the districts and boroughs, to simplify these into a single-tier of governance. 

As part of the proposed restructure, Leicester City Council is seeking to extend its borders into the county, with Sir Peter having previously said this is needed for Leicester to be able to balance its books and meet its housing targets. 

Among the areas being eyed up to join the city are Glenfield, Oadby, Wigston, Blaby, Whetstone, Syston, Anstey, Leicester Forest East, Birstall, Kirby Muxloe, Thurmaston and Countesthorpe. 

Previously, Dan Harrison and other Leicestershire County Councillors protested expansion, calling it 'Labour's Land Grab' (Photo: LDRS)

Cllr Harrison had told the LDRS in July that he believed negotiations had "got to" be had over Leicester City Council's ambitions for a larger city boundary or he feared Leicester would end up taking "more" land from the county than he "would like".  

However, he has now said he would "not be happy to cede land" to the city. The county council is now proposing one council to serve the Leicestershire 'doughnut' and Rutland, with a separate city council, all of which would operate on existing footprints. 

The county leader told the LDRS the results of the modelling are the reason for his U-turn. He said: "Now I understand the numbers, and this is what it's all about, the numbers, I believe that we (the county) would be so badly positioned, it wouldn't be appropriate. 

"It would be wrong as leader of Leicestershire County Council to agree to something that would put it more in jeopardy. I couldn't accept that." 

He added: "[We] provide our services across the entirety of Leicestershire in health and education, in a whole range of things. To put ourselves deliberately into a weaker position would be unforgivable and unprofessional. 

"You just couldn't consider it. But we didn't know until we got to the bones of it and understood what it was all about." 

Cllr Harrison has now pledged to do his "absolute best" to stop the expansion. The LDRS asked him what practical steps he would be now taking to oppose the city's plan. 

He said: "We're going to submit our proposal with great detail and support documentation and I believe that, as a Shire, we have a very good case […] 

"We're very proud of what we've got [in Leicestershire] and to put it in potential risk is something that I could not condone. I have to fight, now I know numbers. 

"I was trying to be a peacemaker and see whether we (the city and county councils) could work together, but ultimately it does come down to money, it comes down to the modelling that clearly indicates where we are and what we can do and what we shouldn't do." 

He added: "This is clearly the modelling saying we wouldn't be able to survive if we allowed anything to happen like [the proposed expansion]. So, I'm standing up for and square behind Leicestershire." 

The LDRS asked city mayor Sir Peter Soulsby whether he recognised Cllr Harrison's narrative that the county would not be able to survive if it cedes ground to the city. He said: "No. The modelling shows entirely the opposite. 

"The modelling shows that an expanded city boundary is in everybody's interest, including those in the wider county area […] It shows that balanced population levels in the city and in the surrounding county makes good financial sense. 

"I think it does quite clearly show the greatest benefit for all is a widened city boundary and a significant sized county around it." City leaders are proposing the areas of Leicestershire which are not taken into the city's borders and Rutland form a single separate council. 

Sir Peter added: "I can well understand the enormous political pressure that Dan's coming under from the other political parties in the county and, indeed, from within his own group, but I think he well knows that the case for expansion is absolutely overwhelming […] I'm always happy to talk with the county and with Dan personally, but I think he's in a political trap from which he just can't possibly escape." 

The city mayor claimed both the leaders of the county council and the district and borough councils – which have put forward a two-council model for Leicestershire and Rutland and a separate city, again opposing a Leicester expansion – have "privately" acknowledged that "the only sensible model is one that extends the boundaries".  

He said he was "very disappointed" that they were not "prepared to acknowledge [this] publicly". 

Final plans for local government reorganisation need to be submitted to Westminster by the end of November.