Agenda item

Local Government Reorganisation Proposal - Full Proposal for Local Government reorganisation (LGR) in Gloucestershire

Purpose:

To note the two proposals for local government reorganisation in Gloucestershire that have been developed collaboratively with all seven Gloucestershire councils for consideration by the Overview & Scrutiny Committee on 17 November 2025, Council on 26 November 2025 and Cabinet on 26 November 2025.

The options are:

a) creating a single unitary authority for the whole county and

b) creating two unitary authorities, based on an East / West division of existing district and city councils. The proposal for East Gloucestershire Council comprises Tewksbury Borough Council, Cheltenham Borough Council and Cotswold District Council and the associated proportion of Gloucestershire County Council. The proposal for West Gloucestershire Council comprises Gloucester City Council, Forest of Dean District Council and Stroud District Council and the associated proportion of Gloucestershire County Council.

Following engagement with the Overview & Scrutiny Committee and Council, Cabinet will decide which, if any proposal should be formally submitted to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government in response to his invitation dated 5 February 2025.

Recommendation:

1. That the Overview & Scrutiny Committee and Council consider the following two proposals for local government reorganisation in Gloucestershire and make any recommendations they wish to Cabinet for their decision.

2. That Cabinet considers which, if any, of the proposals it wishes to submit to Government regarding the future of local government in Gloucestershire

3. That Cabinet resolves to treat the decision as urgent under Part D6, paragraph 4.14 of the Constitution, and therefore disapplies the call-in procedure, on the grounds that any delay likely to be caused by the call-in process would prejudice the Council’s and the public’s interests.

Minutes:

The purpose of this report was to note the two proposals for local government reorganisation in Gloucestershire that had been developed collaboratively with all seven Gloucestershire councils for consideration by the Overview & Scrutiny Committee on 17 November 2025, Council on 26 November 2025 and Cabinet on 26 November 2025.

The options proposed were:

a) creating a single unitary authority for the whole county and

b) creating two unitary authorities, based on an East / West division of existing district and city councils. The proposal for East Gloucestershire Council comprised Tewksbury Borough Council, Cheltenham Borough Council and Cotswold District Council and the associated proportion of Gloucestershire County Council. The proposal for West Gloucestershire Council comprised Gloucester City Council, Forest of Dean District Council and Stroud District Council and the associated proportion of Gloucestershire County Council.

Following engagement with the Overview and Scrutiny Committee and Council, Cabinet would determine which, if any, proposal should be formally submitted to the Minister for Housing, Communities and Local Government in response to his invitation of 5 February 2025.

The item was introduced by the Leader, Councillor Mike Evemy, who gave some background and explained that the process had been lengthy, beginning with a ministerial letter sent to the former Leader in February 2025. Work had continued since then, leading to that afternoon’s meeting, where Cotswold District Council’s Cabinet—last among the seven principal authorities—would formally make its decision. It was emphasised that the ultimate choice rested with the government, which intended to replace existing county, district, and borough councils with unitary authorities and would select from the submitted proposals. It was further noted that the extensive documents reviewed by members, including the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, would be sent to the government. Of the six councils that had already decided, three preferred a single Gloucestershire unitary, one supported a two-unitary east–west model, one backed the Greater Gloucestershire proposal, and one expressed no preference and opposed reorganisation.

The Leader then spoke to the proposed resolution to Council around Local Government Reorganisation, which had been made available to Councillors as a printed document. (Item 13 - Annex A).

Councillor Evemy noted that the process had been a long journey. Some had initially feared that a single Gloucestershire unitary would be too large and might weaken local representation, but the Council had avoided prejudgment and worked through the evidence. He explained that many involved had gradually concluded that a single unitary would offer stronger, less disruptive service delivery and greater financial resilience than an east–west split, while acknowledging that both proposals were viable and that the government could choose either option. The Council was asked to support recommending the single unitary in a joint letter from six of the seven councils confirming which of the options were preferred. The letter would be submitted before Friday’s deadline, alongside an explanatory letter from the Leader. It was noted that work would continue after submission, with leaders and chief executives preparing for the next stage while the government assessed options, planned consultation from January to April, and aimed to communicate its decision by summer 2026.

The Chair welcomed any questions for clarity.

Councillor Fowles queried whether, if support for the resolution was unanimous would it be reflected in the letter to the Minister? Councillor Evemy confirmed that if all members supported the proposal, it would be stated in the letter, as it would demonstrate careful consideration and a shared view that the option best served the Cotswolds.

It was further clarified that the same report had already been considered by Overview and Scrutiny and the proposed resolution effectively replaced Recommendation 1 for Cabinet to act upon. Overview & Scrutiny had already met, and any comments from Councillors would be considered before voting.

Councillor Gina Blomefield, Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee explained that the tight timetable; moving from Overview & Scrutiny to Full Council to Cabinet before submission to government, left no practical time for call-in of the Cabinet decision. The Overview and Scrutiny Committee believed a call-in was highly unlikely and had therefore recommended to Cabinet that it be disapplied.

Councillor Tom Stowe, Leader of the Conservative Group, seconded the resolution, noting that it superseded the recommendations in the original report. Members acknowledged the challenge of reviewing over 600 pages of material, condensed into a 30-page options appraisal, and agreed the resolution effectively focused attention on the task, its context, and next steps. The significant effort by councillors and officers across Gloucestershire councils in evaluating all options to secure the best future for local government and residents was recognised. It was emphasised that the reorganisation decision was initiated by government and required constructive engagement. While both the single unitary and East–West proposals were credible, the evaluation identified the single unitary council as the stronger option for long-term resilience, financial viability, sustainability, and service delivery. Councillors noted that the ultimate decision rested with government and that further effort, careful planning, and support for staff would be required. Councillor Stowe confirmed that supporting the resolution would send a clear and reasoned message to government about what was believed to best serve Cotswolds residents.

The Chair then moved to the debate first enquiring if anyone held a contrary view to the proposed resolution.

During the extensive debate the following points were made:

1. Services and Scrutiny:

· Splitting essential county services (public health, trading standards, coroner, fire and rescue) would be difficult, supporting a single unitary council.

· Scrutiny of county-wide services, including health, would be more effective under a single unitary.

· Maintaining high-quality, safe social care services was a priority.

2. Local Engagement and Devolution

· The need to decentralise powers to town and parish councils to maintain local engagement was stressed.

· Councillors highlighted the importance of town and parish councils stepping up to fill gaps caused by a reduction in the overall number of elected members.

· Clear information should be provided to support effective neighbourhood governance.

· Neighbourhood models and inter-council collaboration were emphasised as critical.

3. Financial Considerations

· Concern was raised that the cost of reorganisation would be borne by councils, potentially reducing funds for essential services.

· It was noted that financial analyses were estimates and actual outcomes could vary.

· Once implemented, a single unitary council was expected to generate financial savings and collaborative benefits.

· Advantages for digital services and networks were also recognised.

· Speakers warned that funding crises for key services would not be resolved by reorganisation alone.

4. Governance, Oversight, and Support

· The role of Overview & Scrutiny in monitoring the transition to a unitary authority was highlighted.

· The importance of ensuring that staff and town/parish councils were adequately supported during the transition was emphasised.

· Regular reporting to Overview and Scrutiny was noted as a mechanism to keep the Council informed.

5. Representation and Resident Focus

· Concerns were raised about reduced councillor numbers limiting local representation.

· Clarity and simplicity for residents were seen as important benefits of a single unitary.

· The importance of neighbourhood partnerships and addressing democratic deficits was emphasised.

· The need to focus on both residents and businesses was highlighted.

Overall, the single unitary authority option was preferred for prioritising service continuity, financial efficiency, and ensuring local voices were heard across the county.

Speakers consistently stressed supporting parish and town councils, learning from other regions, maintaining financial sustainability, protecting essential services, and ensuring continued local engagement under a single unitary council.

Councillor Evemy summed up, thanking members for their contributions and acknowledging the wide-ranging debate. It was noted that, while some councils, such as the Forest of Dean, had already made their own decisions, the role of Council was to express a preference. It appeared that, on balance members had concluded that a single unitary authority would be preferable to an East–West split, particularly to maintain continuity of essential services, including social care, public health, and other county-wide functions. It was recognised that reorganisation would not resolve broader funding challenges, though it offered some financial savings. The importance of establishing effective neighbourhood partnerships to address potential democratic deficits and support large rural areas was acknowledged, alongside the need to engage and inform town and parish councils. Councillor Evemy highlighted the value of lessons from other councils, the role of Overview & Scrutiny in monitoring the transition, and the need to keep MPs informed of the Council’s decision. Councillors were encouraged to support the resolution to express the Council’s preference for a single unitary authority.

The Chair moved to the vote on the resolution proposed by Councillor Evemy seconded by Councillor Stowe.

Voting record:

29 For, 0 Against, 0 Abstentions

Did not vote: Councillor Andrew Maclean having left the meeting

Supporting documents:

Agenda item

Local Government Reorganisation Proposal - Full Proposal for Local Government reorganisation (LGR) in Gloucestershire

Related Pages