Agenda item
Public Questions
To deal with questions from the public within the open forum question and answer session of fifteen minutes in total. Questions from each member of the public should be no longer than one minute each and relate to issues under the Council’s remit. At any one meeting no person may submit more than two questions and no more than two such questions may be asked on behalf of one organisation.
The Chair will ask whether any members of the public present at the meeting wish to ask a question and will decide on the order of questioners.
The response may take the form of:
a) a direct oral answer;
b) where the desired information is in a publication of the Council or other published work, a reference to that publication; or
c) where the reply cannot conveniently be given orally, a written answer circulated later to the questioner.
Minutes:
One public question had been received in advance from Mr David Redgewell. The question concerned Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) and was directed at the Leader of the Council Councillor Mike Evemy.
The questioner referred to the 1974 local government reorganisation. They expressed concern that the proposed Cheltenham and Cotswold Borough Council two unitary option appeared Cheltenham-centric and asked how essential services—fire, police, NHS provision, bus services, social services, planning, and highways—would be maintained under such a split. They highlighted potential duplication of key roles and noted that the police were planned to align with Avon and Somerset.
Mr Redgewell asked whether the Council wished to become part of a smaller body, or to remain part of a unitary Gloucestershire structure.
Councillor Evemy responded that the matter was under consideration as part of agenda item 13 on the Full Council agenda. Two proposals were being reviewed: a single unitary council for Gloucestershire and an East–West split. It was noted that Council would form a collective view during the forthcoming debate and that Cabinet would subsequently make formal representations to the government. It was clarified that the ultimate decision rested with a government minister once the government had considered and consulted on the options proposed to it. The points raised by the questioner were acknowledged as being reflected in the papers and would be considered during the government’s review and public consultation of all supported options.
Mr Redgewell then asked a supplementary question, seeking clarification as to whether, if the Council supported a single unitary Gloucestershire, it would ensure that the views of Cotswolds residents were clearly communicated to the government. He emphasised the importance of local input into the decision-making process to ensure that any government decision reflected the wishes of the community.
Councillor Evemy confirmed that, once Cabinet had made its decision, he intended to write to the government explaining the Council’s preferred option and encouraging its adoption. He noted that the government would conduct a public consultation, likely on at least two of the three options, and confirmed that the Council would encourage Cotswolds residents to participate. It was confirmed that the Council would communicate its decision publicly, including through the media, to explain which option it considered best for the district.
Mr Redgewell then proceeded to ask his second question regarding the potential benefits of a unitary authority, noting that a combined mayoral authority could provide funding to improve public transport highlighting recent NHS integration with Bristol, South Gloucestershire, and North Somerset. Assurances were asked for that, as police and potentially fire services joined combined authorities, the Cotswolds would be represented in a Gloucestershire-focused authority rather than one oriented towards Worcester or Birmingham. It was requested that the Council work with Gloucestershire County Council and the Mayor of the West of England to explore joining a mayoral combined authority before 2032 to secure benefits for public transport, housing, and regional planning in the Cotswolds.
Councillor Evemy responded that the matter of mayoral and strategic combined authorities had been discussed at leader level. The Council had considered how each proposed option might work with a mayoral combined authority as part of its review, but had not made any determination. It was acknowledged that combined authorities currently operated above unitary or county councils, and that the arguments raised regarding Gloucestershire-wide representation and local links were recognised as strong points for future discussion.
Mr Redgewell then asked a final supplementary question seeking clarification as to whether consideration would be given to the geography of the public transport network when reviewing mayoral combined authorities.
Councillor Mike Evemy responded that the geography of the public transport network would be considered, along with the economic footprint and historic links between Gloucestershire and potential partner areas, in assessing mayoral combined authority options.
The Chair invited the second public speaker to put their question.
Mr Robert Miller, a retired civil engineer, addressed the Council regarding the safety of residents using private hire vehicles and taxis. He noted that Uber vehicles operating in the Cotswolds did not hold a Cotswolds District Council (CDC) licence and were therefore operating outside of local regulations. He emphasised that local authorities were responsible for safeguarding passengers through statutory licensing standards, with the primary objective of protecting the public. Mr Miller cited the Department for Transport guidance from 2006 and past enforcement actions, including a 2018 Gloucestershire Police sting operation at Cheltenham races, to illustrate the importance of regulation. He reported that, during the summer, an estimated 10 to 15 out-of-area private hire vehicles from locations such as South Gloucestershire, Wolverhampton, Swindon, and Dudley had been operating in the North Cotswolds without licences. He asked how the Council was fulfilling its duty of care under these circumstances and requested that the Council consider directing licensing to implement a geo-fence to prevent unlicensed app-based services, such as Uber, from operating in the district.
Councillor Andrea Pellegram, Cabinet Member for Environment and Regulatory Services, confirmed that a consultation would be undertaken and outlined that the Council carried out regular licensing checks, including monthly checks of licensed drivers. While noting the concerns raised regarding out-of-area app-based services such as Uber, the Cabinet Member indicated that the Council may not have the ability to block such apps. They offered to meet with Mr Miller and colleagues to discuss the issues, explore possible actions, and explain any limitations in what the Council could do.
Mr Miller thanked the portfolio holder and further noted that a report was being prepared by the Mayor of Greater Manchester addressing the issue of out-of-area vehicles operating locally. They confirmed that a copy of the report and relevant links would be provided to the Cabinet Member.
A further public question was received from Peggy Tout and Bob Irving, who could not attend due to ill health. They asked:
“We understand that bus transport is the responsibility of Gloucestershire County Council. But as Cotswold District Council considers future government reorganisation, can you share how CDC intends to ensure that passengers’ experiences and accessibility needs — particularly of young people, older residents and those without cars — are clearly represented within any discussions about transport governance or structures? (Whatever form the governmental organisation may take, given that a mayoral authority has greater commissioning powers for bus services.)
Would CDC consider ways of strengthening communication between district-level services (planning, local information, health, community groups) and the transport authority so that local passenger impacts can be fed in more effectively at an earlier stage?
“We’re not asking CDC to run transport — but there are many local impacts (access to care, education, employment) and people feel there isn’t currently a clear way to feed those into the transport authority before decisions are made.”
It was agreed that a written response would be published with the minutes of the meeting.
The response reads:
Local Government Reorganisation is a valuable opportunity to
join up services currently split between District and County
Authorities, and that is already starting through the collaborative
work to define shared ambitions. Cotswold District Council, and the
other Gloucestershire Authorities, are concerned about rural
isolation and transport related social exclusion, and this is
reflected in each of the proposals being submitted to Government.
For example reference is made to “giving residents a
stronger role in shaping services, with tools and partnerships that
make delivery more responsive to local needs” and to
“using data to transform transport and public services:
creating trusted, joined-up intelligence to improve safeguarding,
support early and anticipatory intervention, and deliver more
effective integrated transport”.
As Local Government Reorganisation progresses we can expect there to be more coordination towards delivering on the ambitions and opportunities arising through this transformational change. CDC’s input on this topic of effective participation on public transport issues is being taken up by our Sustainable Transport Lead. In the meantime, we will highlight the concerns you raise and continue publicising any opportunities for engagement that we are made aware of by the County Council.
The County Council is already working closely with us on the supporting evidence for the Local Plan update, in which accessibility by public transport and by walking, wheeling and cycling are important topics. As highlighted, special attention is needed to understand and plan for the needs of different public transport users, and this is focus for both CDC and the County Council.
The Chair thanked members of the public present for attending and engaging with the Council.