Agenda item

Local Government Reorganisation - Gloucestershire Structural Changes Order

Purpose

To outline the governance, legal framework, and key arrangements for the Gloucestershire Structural Changes Order, and to seek Cabinet’s agreement to submit representations to Government on behalf of Cotswold District Council.

The Government has invited Gloucestershire councils to make representations, which the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government will consider when deciding the final content of the Order.

Recommendations

That Cabinet resolves to:

1. Consider representations to the questions set out by the ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) regarding Gloucestershire’s Structural Changes Order;

2. Delegate authority to the Leader of the Council to submit formal representations to MHCLG by their deadline of 16 June 2026.

Decision:

The purpose of the item was to outline the governance, legal framework, and key arrangements for the Gloucestershire Structural Changes Order, and to seek Cabinet’s agreement to submit representations to Government on behalf of Cotswold District Council.

The Leader of the Council, Councillor Mike Evemy, introduced the report and advised that the Government had invited Gloucestershire councils to make representations in response to a consultation on the proposed Structural Changes Order for local government reorganisation. These representations would be considered by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government when determining the final content of the Order.

Cabinet was informed that the consultation followed correspondence from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and sought views from Gloucestershire councils on a range of governance and implementation matters associated with the unitary authority proposals currently under consideration. It was noted that the Government would ultimately decide the future structure of local government in Gloucestershire, and that the Council’s submission would set out its formal views on the options presented.

It was further noted that the report set out the key milestones, timelines and governance requirements associated with the development of the Gloucestershire Structural Changes Order following consultation on Local Government Reorganisation proposals. The report outlined the matters expected to be included within the Order, including arrangements for governance, elections, transition planning, implementation structures, electoral and warding arrangements, naming conventions, and the establishment of new authority structures.

The Leader outlined the proposed response, including comments on transitional governance arrangements, implementation structures, electoral and warding arrangements, naming conventions, and the operation of joint committees and shadow authorities. Particular reference was made to the Council’s support for the use of a “preparing authority” model should a single unitary authority be adopted, while recognising the importance of establishing a distinct culture and identity for any new council.

Cabinet noted that the Overview and Scrutiny Committee had considered the matter and that its comments had informed the proposed response. It was also noted that all the Gloucestershire councils were working within their existing published meeting schedules to consider the consultation questions from MHCLG on local government reorganisation. The Overview and Scrutiny Panel at Cotswold District Council had been the first group of members to publicly consider the issues, with other councils due to follow shortly.

It was explained that representations from all seven councils would be collated into a single submission. Where there was agreement, a unified position would be reflected; where differences existed across the proposals, these would be clearly identified along with the underlying rationale for differing views. The aim was to achieve as much consistency as possible across the county’s response, which would be submitted to Government by the deadline of 16 June 2026.

An amendment to the first recommendation was noted.

The (amended) recommendations were proposed by Councillor Mike Evemy and seconded by Councillor Tristan Wilkinson.

Cabinet RESOLVED to:

1. Endorse the Cabinet response document as the basis for its response to the questions set out by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) regarding Gloucestershire’s Structural Changes Order

2. Delegate authority to the Leader of the Council to submit formal representations to MHCLG by their deadline of 16 June 2026

Voting record:

7 For, 0 Against, 0 Abstentions.

Councillor Dale, attending virtually, was not eligible to vote.

Minutes:

The Leader of the Council, Councillor Mike Evemy, introduced the report and advised that Gloucestershire councils had received a formal request from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) seeking representations on the proposed Structural Changes Order relating to local government reorganisation in Gloucestershire. These representations would inform the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government in determining the final content of the Order.

Cabinet was advised that the consultation had been issued shortly before the expected decision on the preferred reorganisation model and that responses were required by 16 June 2026, allowing a limited period for consideration. Members noted that the Government’s decision on the preferred model for local government in Gloucestershire was expected later in the summer.

The consultation sought views on a range of implementation matters, including governance arrangements, transitional structures, electoral and warding patterns, naming conventions, and the operation of joint committees and shadow or preparatory authorities.

The report set out the principal options under consideration, including: a single unitary authority for Gloucestershire; an east–west split; and a Greater Gloucester and residual Gloucestershire. It also outlined governance mechanisms, including the choice between a “preparing authority” model (formerly continuing authority) and a shadow authority model.

The Leader explained that, following further consideration since the original business case, the Council’s proposed response supported the “preparing authority” model on the basis that it provided a simpler transitional arrangement, avoided duplication of councillor structures, and reduced estimated additional costs of approximately £600,000–£700,000 compared with a shadow authority approach. It was acknowledged, however, that this model presented challenges in establishing a distinct organisational culture for any new authority, which would need to be addressed as a priority.

Cabinet noted that Overview and Scrutiny had considered the matter and that its comments had been incorporated into the draft response. Gloucestershire councils were working within existing meeting schedules to prepare responses to the consultation and submissions would be collated into a single county-wide representation, with areas of agreement reflected as a shared position and areas of divergence clearly identified with supporting rationale.

It was also noted that, subject to Government approval, joint implementation arrangements would be established in advance of legislation being enacted, including joint committees or implementation executives comprising representatives of county and district councils.

There were no questions for clarity, so the Leader moved to the debate.

Members debated the report and raised the following points:

· The constrained timescale for response and limited opportunity for wider engagement, including with town and parish councils.

· That, while consultative, final decisions rested with central Government, and the importance of ensuring local views were clearly represented.

· Concerns regarding the pace of the process and potential long-term implications for local governance and service delivery.

· The importance of sustainable and effective governance structures, with reference to differing structural options, including Greater Gloucester.

· Support for simplification of local government and the opportunity for wider transformation of service delivery rather than structural merger alone.

· The need to maintain continuity of statutory services during transition, including adult social care, children’s services, housing, and waste services.

The Chief Executive confirmed that senior officers across Gloucestershire were working collaboratively on the programme and that a strong partnership approach was in place. Despite differing political perspectives, there was a shared commitment to producing a coherent county-wide submission. Officers would collate responses into a single document for submission by the deadline, identifying areas of agreement and any differences in approach.

Members supported the approach of a coordinated county response and emphasised the need for clarity, consistency, and timely decision-making given the scale and complexity of the programme.

An amendment to the wording of the first recommendation was noted.