Councils in disagreement over local authority shake-up plans

By Carmelo Garcia – Local Democracy Reporter

There is a strong disagreement over how local government should be reorganised in Gloucestershire.

The Government unveiled plans in December to shake-up councils across England.

Ministers say the English Devolution White Paper aims to give more powers to local governments.

But it also proposes creating more unitary councils of around 500,000 which, in Gloucestershire, would mean district councils would be merged together with the county council.

Gloucestershire, with a population of around 660,000, is currently a two-tier area where local government responsibilities are split between the County Council and district councils.

Shire Hall leaders along with Tewkesbury Borough chiefs prefer the unitary council option for the whole of Gloucestershire along with two of the county’s MPs.

And more than 1,800 people have signed a petition to stop the break up of the county.

However, five of the county’s seven MPs signed a joint letter earlier this year outlining their vision for the county to be split into east and west.

And Cheltenham Borough and Cotswold District chiefs said this week they are supporting the proposal for two councils with a population of more than 300,000 each.

Their plan proposes two authorities, one named Gloucester, Forest and the Stroud Valleys Council in the west based on the current footprint of Gloucester City and the district councils of the Forest of Dean and Stroud.

And another called Cheltenham and Cotswolds Council in the east, comprising the current footprints of the boroughs of Cheltenham and Tewkesbury and the Cotswold district.

Their proposals would see Gloucestershire County Council dissolved and the services currently delivered by them, such as highways, children services and adult social care divided across the two new unitary councils.

Cheltenham Borough Council leader Rowena Hay (LD, Oakley) and Cotswold District Council leader Joe Harris (LD, St Michael’s) said in a joint statement that the councils would be able to better represent each of the communities with decisions being made closer to them and with a better balance of the existing town and parish council network.

“We must not miss this opportunity to make sure local council services are right for local people,” they said.

“We strongly believe that having two councils will ensure we can make taxpayers money go further while delivering services that will meet the needs of our communities and take the pressure off health and care services in the long term.

“Gloucestershire is a collection of unique places and identities that make us who we are. They are vital in driving our economy, creating jobs and prosperity.

“Our plan will allow each council to specialise and focus on developing their own strengths – creating a green energy supercluster in the west around Berkeley and Oldbury and a technology supercluster in the east surrounding GCHQ and the Golden Valley Development.

“We also have rural towns and communities that sit in areas of outstanding natural beauty and who play a vital role in our visitor economy.

“Two councils will be able to better represent these communities with decisions being made closer to them and with a better balance of the existing town and parish council network.

“As a county, we face significant challenges ahead, not least that we have a population that is getting older which will put unsustainable pressure on our already fragile care and health system.

“The days of a county-wide, one size fits all council is outdated and will only result in our residents being shortchanged and feeling like a number in a system.

“What we need are locality-based services that are devised and designed by the people we serve. And if we do that, we can prevent more people needing acute care, saving the NHS millions.”

But County Council Conservative leader Stephen Davies (Hardwicke and Severn) the Cheltenham and Cotswold proposal has “a lot of words but few facts” and he is yet to meet anyone who is not a politician who sees any sense in splitting Gloucestershire.

There has been a process to decide the content of the letter that will be submitted to the Minister responsible for Communities, Housing and Local Government at the end of the week, he added.

And he said this has included all of Gloucestershire’s district authorities along with the County Council

“They agreed the scope and had access to the work submitted for a single unitary,” he said.

“This document identifies £209m of savings for one Unitary over ten years, as opposed to only £65m for two unitaries, and where there is an annual cost of £9m per year additional cost of any two unitary solution.

“The proposal itself has a lot of words but few facts as the financial case for a single unitary is so strong.

“Finally, I have yet to meet anyone who isn’t a politician who sees any sense in splitting Gloucestershire and therefore not reducing the number of politicians.”

And Gloucester City Council leader Jeremy Hilton (LD, Kingsholm and Wotton) said the proposal promoted by Cheltenham Borough is “fundamentally flawed and hasn’t a hope of getting off the starting blocks”.

“It fails to consider the primary city in the county, Gloucester, in a respectful way. It would undermine Gloucester’s long-term future,” he said.

“I have already told the leader of Cheltenham Borough Council that her plan has my opposition. The quality of the proposal is poor and unworkable.

“Any unitary council that might replace Gloucester City Council must include the current city council area and the surrounding parishes, the Greater Gloucester area, within the same unitary council.

“We cannot have a ridiculous outcome that would have Longford and Longlevens in a different unitary council.

“We cannot have the areas to the north and south of the city that will accommodate Gloucester’s future housing needs in separate councils.”

And Tewkesbury Borough Council leader Richard Stanley (LD, Cleeve West) said there are a number of assumptions made in the paper which do not yet have the evidence to support the claims being made.

He said he had three initial concerns regarding the two council plan which need more detail and clarity to be addressed.

“As a foster carer and special guardian for over a decade, I am personally very concerned about the proposals for breaking up children’s fostering services, which has the potential to be incredibly disruptive for our most vulnerable young people and their carers and families,” he said.

“The lack of an immediate boundary review will satisfy Government requirements, but the boundaries proposed do not make sense in the real world. Most of Brockworth has been included in

‘Cheltenham and Cotswolds’, while part of Coopers Edge has been included in ‘Gloucester, Stroud Valleys and Forest’ – both of which are very obvious examples of how this proposal needs a boundary review.

“The east/west split proposal seeks to create two very large unitaries, prioritising two settlements over everyone else in the county.

“If I had been given the opportunity to see the proposals in advance, I would have raised this concern and highlighted that the two names suggested are not very inclusive for the people of Tewkesbury Borough, many of whom would not identify as ‘Cheltenham’ or ‘Cotswolds’.

“I do welcome the opportunity to scrutinise the proposal further, and look forward to working with Cheltenham and Cotswold councils ahead of our final submission.

“Tewkesbury Borough Council will debate the proposal on Tuesday, 18 March and I stand ready to work constructively and openly on all the potential proposals to ensure that whichever is successful is the best option for all of Gloucestershire.”

The district council leaders of Stroud and the Forest of Dean have also been approached for comment.

Each of those authorities are due to discuss the local government reorganisation at meetings later this week.

Gloucester News Centre – http://gloucesternewscentre.co.uk