Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
 Share
davieG

City of Leicester & Leicestershire - The Good and Historical Stuff

By davieG, in General Chat

Recommended Posts

PAULCFC

PAULCFC

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 05/01/2025 at 11:43, davieG said:

May be an image of the Queensboro Bridge and text

The Entrance to Kirby and West on the Western Boulevard Leicester . ( Unknown Year )

Used to walk by that every time i went to Filbert St from Tudor Road.

Edited by PAULCFC
sp
  • Like 1
PAULCFC

PAULCFC

Posted
Posted

Didn't the Kirby and West place have White tiles on it,which i allways thought were good.......then on Braunstone gate was a joke shop with loads of Masks...........showing my age now!

  • Like 1
Electric Yetis

Electric Yetis

Posted
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, WarehamFox said:

I remember that building so well. I just need to get my head around what is there now.

I worked in the building that's there now from 2008-2022. When was the Kirby & West building knocked down? Vague memories of it from my childhood.

 

Edit: just read the link above. 1997.

 

Screenshot_20250107_224827_Maps.jpg

Edited by Electric Yetis
  • Thanks 2
davieG

davieG

Posted
  • Author
Posted

https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/leicester-news/leicesters-borders-could-expand-county-9850887

 

Leicester’s borders could expand as county requests elections be postponed

ByHannah RichardsonLocal Democracy Reporter
17:48, 9 JAN 2025


Leicester’s borders could be expanded into the county. Local leaders have said they intend to put forward proposals that would see city boundaries extended into Leicestershire off the back of the Government’s plans to reorganise local government structures.

The English Devolution White Paper, published last month, set out the Government’s intention to merge two tier councils, such as Leicestershire, into a single organisation, with preferably with an elected mayor to lead them. That would mean the county losing its districts and boroughs. Previous talks around devolution have also included debates over including Leicester under the umbrella of a single county authority, with city mayor Sir Peter Soulsby previously receiving backlash when he refused to agree to this.

However, local council leaders have now said their preferred option would be to have two separate unitary authorities locally, keeping the city, which is currently run solely by Leicester City Council, and the county distinct. To do this, however, they believe Leicester’s boundaries would have to be expanded for the city council to remain “economically sustainable” and for housing targets to be met. These proposals would have to be put to the Government for consideration by May.

 

While these proposals are ironed out, Leicestershire County Council is seeking permission from the Government to postpone this year’s local elections. If approval is given for the move, the vote to decide who runs the county authority would be pushed back to May 2026.

When the White Paper was released, the Government said it would be willing to consider the postponement of local elections this year for some councils. It said there would be two scenarios where it would be willing to do this: one is related to a priority programme for devolution and the second is related to areas where reorganisation of local government is needed to unlock or enable devolution. The county council’s request has been made in respect of the second scenario.

Announcing its decision, Leicestershire County Council said it has “long regretted that it has not been possible for any devolution of powers, responsibilities and additional funding to Leicestershire” The authority was one of the first areas to be offered the opportunity to form a devolution agreement with the previous Conservative Government – then called a County Deal.


This would have given greater decision-making power placed in the hands of local leader, and if a deal had been struck, it was expected to be backed by around £1 billion in additional funding for the area. However, negotiations hit a snag when it came to light that the highest level of funding could only be unlocked if Leicestershire county joined with the city and Rutland as a combined authority – and if the three areas accepted one mayor be elected for all of them.

City mayor Sir Peter Soulsby faced backlash from some in the county after he refused to agree to this. At the time he also branded the £1 billion figure from the local deal a "pure illusion", saying the Government "hasn’t promised a single penny". He also questioned the value of having another tier of local government created.

The county council is heralding the Devolution White Paper a “new opportunity” for Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland to bid for devolution – but in this case retaining their separate political identities. The Government has said it wishes all two-tier local authorities to be merged by the end of this parliament.

Deborah Taylor, acting leader of Leicestershire County Council, said: “This is about reorganising local government. It offers an opportunity to save money, simplify a confusing system and protect front-line services and has been a goal for a number of years. I want to be clear that this is a fresh bid in response to Government proposals and not a county council takeover.

“We are in regular contact with the city council, Rutland County Council, district councils, partners and staff to ensure they are aware of, and involved in, shaping plans and wait to hear from Government on next steps.”

adam1

adam1

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, davieG said:

https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/leicester-news/leicesters-borders-could-expand-county-9850887

 

Leicester’s borders could expand as county requests elections be postponed

ByHannah RichardsonLocal Democracy Reporter
17:48, 9 JAN 2025


Leicester’s borders could be expanded into the county. Local leaders have said they intend to put forward proposals that would see city boundaries extended into Leicestershire off the back of the Government’s plans to reorganise local government structures.

The English Devolution White Paper, published last month, set out the Government’s intention to merge two tier councils, such as Leicestershire, into a single organisation, with preferably with an elected mayor to lead them. That would mean the county losing its districts and boroughs. Previous talks around devolution have also included debates over including Leicester under the umbrella of a single county authority, with city mayor Sir Peter Soulsby previously receiving backlash when he refused to agree to this.

However, local council leaders have now said their preferred option would be to have two separate unitary authorities locally, keeping the city, which is currently run solely by Leicester City Council, and the county distinct. To do this, however, they believe Leicester’s boundaries would have to be expanded for the city council to remain “economically sustainable” and for housing targets to be met. These proposals would have to be put to the Government for consideration by May.

 

While these proposals are ironed out, Leicestershire County Council is seeking permission from the Government to postpone this year’s local elections. If approval is given for the move, the vote to decide who runs the county authority would be pushed back to May 2026.

When the White Paper was released, the Government said it would be willing to consider the postponement of local elections this year for some councils. It said there would be two scenarios where it would be willing to do this: one is related to a priority programme for devolution and the second is related to areas where reorganisation of local government is needed to unlock or enable devolution. The county council’s request has been made in respect of the second scenario.

Announcing its decision, Leicestershire County Council said it has “long regretted that it has not been possible for any devolution of powers, responsibilities and additional funding to Leicestershire” The authority was one of the first areas to be offered the opportunity to form a devolution agreement with the previous Conservative Government – then called a County Deal.


This would have given greater decision-making power placed in the hands of local leader, and if a deal had been struck, it was expected to be backed by around £1 billion in additional funding for the area. However, negotiations hit a snag when it came to light that the highest level of funding could only be unlocked if Leicestershire county joined with the city and Rutland as a combined authority – and if the three areas accepted one mayor be elected for all of them.

City mayor Sir Peter Soulsby faced backlash from some in the county after he refused to agree to this. At the time he also branded the £1 billion figure from the local deal a "pure illusion", saying the Government "hasn’t promised a single penny". He also questioned the value of having another tier of local government created.

The county council is heralding the Devolution White Paper a “new opportunity” for Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland to bid for devolution – but in this case retaining their separate political identities. The Government has said it wishes all two-tier local authorities to be merged by the end of this parliament.

Deborah Taylor, acting leader of Leicestershire County Council, said: “This is about reorganising local government. It offers an opportunity to save money, simplify a confusing system and protect front-line services and has been a goal for a number of years. I want to be clear that this is a fresh bid in response to Government proposals and not a county council takeover.

“We are in regular contact with the city council, Rutland County Council, district councils, partners and staff to ensure they are aware of, and involved in, shaping plans and wait to hear from Government on next steps.”

 

You'd think that the likes of the A46 and M1 are being considered as boundaries.

 

Glenfield most likely to move into the City 

 

Braunstone Town and Thorpe Astley - must have been considered.

 

Birstall is city side of the A46 and is a contender as well.

 

davieG

davieG

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Just now, adam1 said:

 

You'd think that the likes of the A46 and M1 are being considered as boundaries.

 

Glenfield most likely to move into the City 

 

Braunstone Town and Thorpe Astley - must have been considered.

 

Birstall is city side of the A46 and is a contender as well.

 

Soulsby would love a bit of empire building as long as he ends up in charge.

  • Like 2
Parafox

Parafox

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, adam1 said:

 

You'd think that the likes of the A46 and M1 are being considered as boundaries.

 

Glenfield most likely to move into the City 

 

Braunstone Town and Thorpe Astley - must have been considered.

 

Birstall is city side of the A46 and is a contender as well.

 

 

I get this and it seems to make sense to me as someone who lives in Hinckley and is therefore County with local Borough . However I do get a bit concerned when this type of proposal seems to be political. I'm a natural cynic, though. Nothing like this is straightforward and simple without gain for someone somewhere or other.

  • Like 1
adam1

adam1

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, davieG said:

Soulsby would love a bit of empire building as long as he ends up in charge.

You are right. I don't think the role of mayor at his level works. Would they have proposed it if they knew he wouldn't be elected? No.

 

Areas where a mayor would work:

 

London. Yes.

Greater Manchester. Yes

West Midlands. Yes

Leicester. No.

 

 

Paninistickers

Paninistickers

Posted
Posted
21 hours ago, adam1 said:

You are right. I don't think the role of mayor at his level works. Would they have proposed it if they knew he wouldn't be elected? No.

 

Areas where a mayor would work:

 

London. Yes.

Greater Manchester. Yes

West Midlands. Yes

Leicester. No.

 

 

Well you are comparing apples and pears. The are all metropolitan areas and Leicester has suffered for decades by not functioning as a cohesive smaller metropolitan area. 

 

Just as an example, Blaby council with Fosse Park and Meridian actively works to damage the city. They compete. Whereas a unified authority would try to make the areas sync (compel/negotiate a developer's fosse park expansion application to invest in a city centre public space for example) 

 

 

  • Like 1
adam1

adam1

Posted
Posted
On 10/01/2025 at 20:11, Paninistickers said:

Well you are comparing apples and pears. The are all metropolitan areas and Leicester has suffered for decades by not functioning as a cohesive smaller metropolitan area. 

 

Just as an example, Blaby council with Fosse Park and Meridian actively works to damage the city. They compete. Whereas a unified authority would try to make the areas sync (compel/negotiate a developer's fosse park expansion application to invest in a city centre public space for example) 

 

 

You are agreeing with my point then.

 

Your point made about Fosse Park is spot on, this has been an underlying issue for a long time.

MattFox

MattFox

Posted
Posted
On 09/01/2025 at 19:28, adam1 said:

 

You'd think that the likes of the A46 and M1 are being considered as boundaries.

 

Glenfield most likely to move into the City 

 

Braunstone Town and Thorpe Astley - must have been considered.

 

Birstall is city side of the A46 and is a contender as well.

 

Birstall, Syston, Thurmaston, Glenfield, Braunstone Town, Thorpe Astley, Oadby, Wigston, South Wigston and maybe Blaby/Narborough at a push are all functionally and geographically part of the city.

 

Current council boundaries harm development and lead to poor decision making.

 

 

davieG

davieG

Posted
  • Author
Posted
22 minutes ago, MattFox said:

Birstall, Syston, Thurmaston, Glenfield, Braunstone Town, Thorpe Astley, Oadby, Wigston, South Wigston and maybe Blaby/Narborough at a push are all functionally and geographically part of the city.

 

Current council boundaries harm development and lead to poor decision making.

 

 

If you’re going that far you may as well go to a single authority which we had in the not too distant past 

Stadt

Stadt

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, MattFox said:

Birstall, Syston, Thurmaston, Glenfield, Braunstone Town, Thorpe Astley, Oadby, Wigston, South Wigston and maybe Blaby/Narborough at a push are all functionally and geographically part of the city.

 

Current council boundaries harm development and lead to poor decision making.

 

 

Leicester try and push housing development onto district councils anyway. https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/leicester-news/leicester-cannot-meet-housing-targets-7092437

 

The city council also think anything above 9 storeys is really tall lol 

MattFox

MattFox

Posted
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, Stadt said:

Leicester try and push housing development onto district councils anyway. https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/leicester-news/leicester-cannot-meet-housing-targets-7092437

 

The city council also think anything above 9 storeys is really tall lol 

Soulsby treats the city like it’s a slightly bigger version of Northampton or Rugby not one of the biggest cities in the country


If you restrict/don’t promote development in the city core then it’s hardly surprising business/ retail prefer to be based out of town

 

Edited by MattFox
  • Like 2
Stadt

Stadt

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, MattFox said:

Soulsby treats the city like it’s a slightly bigger version of Northampton or Rugby not one of the biggest cities in the country

 

 

Yep, the waterside development was completely lacking in scale. The area is completely underutilised and Keepmoat built the 90s estate in Birstall on it.

davieG

davieG

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Leicester Memories

Julia Mason  · 17m  · 

Leicester Town Hall

If you ever have the time to get up close and really look at the Leicester Town Hall, you’ll see the date ‘1876’ on its drainpipes. As far as I know this is the date the building was completed, having been built to replace the old Guildhall.

The Town Hall was built on the site of the old Leicester cattle market which had moved out of town to Freeman’s Common where the Odeon Luxe cinema and Morrisons Supermarket are now.

In 2003 I began working at the Leicester Town Hall and spent many hours (of my own time) and with the permission of the friendly security men, exploring the building from end to end. Our department overlooked the Town Hall Square, and my window was directly above the main doors, 2nd floor up.

The building itself is built in a quadrangle with a central courtyard. Looking at the building from the front, in the lower righthand corner where the bike park is now, was the entrance to a former police station. If you look carefully you can see that the entrance is extra wide and this, I was informed, was so any pedlars entering the Police section of the building would be able to take their handcart and wares in too.

Going up the main steps of the Town Hall and in through the doors, to your right is the relatively new registry office, modified from one of two court rooms. The second, and in my view the most interesting courtroom, is situated to the left when entering through the doors. Enter this courtroom and it’s like taking a step back in time! Nothing has changed since the building was built and if you’re lucky enough to go on one of the free guided tours (held the first Wednesday afternoon of the month) you’ll be able to walk in the steps of previously tried criminals and go down to the cells below. It may be worth putting this in your diary and taking the kids/ grandkids during the school holidays!

Across the corridor and opposite the entrance to this court room is a conference room which overlooks the Town Hall Square. The large oval table contained within, which I hope is still there, hides a secret very few know about. Covering the table is a heavy cloth which on lifting reveals an oval section of wood that can be removed. I was told that this table had been specially built so Daniel Lambert, Leicester’s most famous gaoler, could comfortably attend meetings. Presumably these would have been at the old Guildhall as he died before the Town Hall was built.

At looking at the Town Hall from Bowling Green Street at the rear, towards the right of the building are double gates which, when opened, give access to the inner courtyard. This was the entrance for the vehicles used by the Fire Brigade which also operated from the building. (and for me when I cadged a parking space at the weekends)

You only have to check the internet to see what the public rooms inside the Town Hall look like now but what you won’t see is the inside of the clock tower which opens up onto a small balcony. I was lucky enough to have a private tour of the tower when I worked at the Town Hall and took my then 14 year old daughter and her friend too. I feel very privileged to have seen a part of the building very few people get to see nowadays.

Our department (Child Protection & Independent Reviewing Service) was eventually relocated to offices opposite the Guildhall & Cathedral, next door to the Radio Leicester offices and studio, but that's something for another post.

We were all very sad to leave the Town Hall but the City Councillors had decided the Town Hall was more befitting their status - they'd previously been housed in offices at the top of the New Walk Centre offices.......and we know what happened to those two buildings!!

After working in Guildhall Lane for a couple of years we eventually moved to New Walk Centre, and I have photos of those days too. I must hunt them all out!

If you take a close look, in one of these photos you can see the Town Hall star that was always positioned outside our window at Christmas! Such very happy days with wonderful colleagues, some of whom are sadly no longer with us! I'll always remember my good friends! though!!

Please feel free to add anything you know about the Town Hall or correct anything I’ve got wrong!

Wymsey

Wymsey

Posted
Posted (edited)

Regarding the Lee Circle car park, presume that as it's a protected building due to its past history that it can't be knocked down?..

Edited by Wymsey
RoboFox

RoboFox

Posted
Posted
37 minutes ago, Wymsey said:

Regarding the Lee Circle car park, presume that as it's a protected building due to its past history that it can't be knocked down?..

I don't think the car park itself is listed, but the old former trade union building off the circle is. 

 

It's absolutely horrendous and basically epitomises everything that was wrong with 1960s city planning IMO. It's not like it's particularly striking brutalist architecture of the time. 

 

Depressingly, the city allows the demolition of much older, far more historically important buildings without batting an eyelid every year... Look at pretty much every street in the city centre compared to how it was half a century ago. 

 

Fvcking bulldoze it. 

  • Like 1

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...