Agenda item

Report of the Leader – TO FOLLOW

The Leader introduced her report, which proposes the abolition of Cheltenham Borough Council, following the government’s white paper requiring all remaining two-tier local authorities to become unitary councils.

She made the follow points:

-       in many ways, it feels like the wrong time to be embarking on a lengthy and costly distraction for the local government sector, especially for CBC with its ambitious programmes – including Golden Valley, improving housing services, providing more affordable homes, and being a town of sanctuary for refugees, asylum seekers and the homeless – as well as delivering excellent services day in day out;

-       CBC has a clear choice, however - to step aside and wait for reorganisation to happen or to take a proactive role and make a clear statement about what we believe is best for Cheltenham – and has opted for the latter, this being so important for the future of the borough;

-        together with a joint cover letter from all Gloucestershire councils, three interim proposals will be submitted to government:  a single county-wide unitary; CBC’s preferred option for two unitaries – one in the east and one in the west; and a ‘greater Gloucester’ model;

-        the two unitaries proposed (Gloucester City, the Forest of Dean and Stroud in the east, Cheltenham, Tewkesbury and the Cotswolds in the west) are the right shape and size to meet the government’s assessment tests but still be connected to residents, and this is the preference of five Gloucestershire MPs, including Max Wilkinson.  This plan is ambitious, progressive and promotes innovative potential solutions to the significant problems that threaten to outstrip and overwhelm local government if we continue on the same path;

-        the government believes growth and productivity are the way to solve the country’s problems, and CBC’s plan will do that and more, using technology to enhance our clusters in cyber security, and green energy to make residents more prosperous and healthy and less reliant on expensive care services;

-        the proposal is ambitious for the future, keeping devolution front and centre, and in addition boldly calls for Gloucestershire to become part of the West of England Combined Authority (WECA), to help create a bigger strategic authority with a strong regional voice at the heart of government.  We need to engage with existing WECA authorities on this plan to make sure it works for all; if we hesitate, the government may step in and place us in a strategic authority that isn’t right for Cheltenham or the county;

-        the main message to convey is that achieving management efficiencies through rationalising councils is ultimately a dead end  - we need real, positive change, to push the boundaries on what is possible. 

She concluded by saying that although she and the Cabinet have approved the decision, she was keen to bring the matter to Council to enable Members to have their say.

Questions

In response to a Member’s question, the Chief Executive confirmed that:

-       to clarify what is meant by shadow authorities, and based on what has been implemented in other local government reorganisations - in particular in Cumbria as part of the last round of local government reorganisation – there would be a shadow election in May 2027, with the vesting date and creation of the new authority from April 2028, an election four years after that point, and a four-year election cycle thereafter;

-       the shadow authority and existing local authority would run side by side for a 12-month period, the main responsibilities of the shadow authority being to oversee the implementation of the new authority, appointing the chief executive and senior officers, and getting the building blocks of decision-making in place.  To ensure alignment during the 12-month period, the shadow authority would also be given district and county powers, and none of the three bodies – shadow authority, district council, county council – can make significant decisions without the agreement of the others .

In response to further questions from Members, the Leader confirmed that:

-       there will be more consultation in the next phase of the process, including engagement with schools and education providers;

-       the company commissioned to write the report is Plexal, CBC’s partner for the MX project.  They have provided a very full report in just four weeks; the cost was £34k;

-       a cabinet working group has been set up, headed by the Leader, as the first step of a governance review to consider what will happen to residents who do not live in one of Cheltenham’s five parishes. A meeting is scheduled for later this week, focussing first on existing parishes and what they want - to expand and be strengthened or to be absorbed into a single town council.  Area forums have been set up in some parts of the country; Cheltenham must decide collectively on what is best for us, and this work will run alongside the devolution programme, involving a lot of consultation.  There are also some very active residents’ associations in Cheltenham, who will be part of this process; 

-       regarding the possibility of tweaking some boundaries to make them more logical and practical and based on the River Severn, the white paper is not entirely clear about this,  and it is not part of this submission.  If our submission is recognised, however, proposals will be worked up between now and November, including consideration of boundaries.

Debate

In debate, Members made the following comments:

-       the report and conclusion to address three levels of local government are strongly supported.  At the top strategic level, it is right that we aim to be part of the existing WECA with Bristol and South Gloucestershire, to create a logical whole which rather than splitting up the area in fact reunites historic Gloucestershire, and at unitary level, two authorities will keep power as close to the people as possible;

-       a smaller local unitary authority ensures a greater chance of supporting culture and the arts, so important to the people of Cheltenham, in the face of discretionary spending against big ticket items such as statutory adult social care and children’s services;  we also need the strongest representation on unitary committees and decision-making bodies when it comes to the critical planning decisions to be made in the next few years, such as the Municipal Offices and Cavendish House;

-       regarding population, the unitary councils of Bath and North East Somerset (BANES), South Gloucestershire, and North Somerset are smaller than the proposed unitaries, but exercise control over children’s services, education and more with no worse a record than Gloucestershire County Council’s – bigger is not always better;

-       regarding parish and town councils, this is a real opportunity to look at more devolution and local-based neighbourhood decision making, to reinvent and bring that level of government even closer to local people;

-       the government has given us a great opportunity to be radical and innovative about how to provide services to residents in local communities.  Gloucestershire is a huge land mass, with many local identities, and the report highlights areas of excellence in both sides and across the county; there would be concerns about one unitary delivering the services people need, and although the government has recommended 500k as a minimum population size, it is good that it is open to proposals which do not fit to this;

-       we know that the two-tier model doesn’t always work, and are aware of the desperate need to invest more in highways, housing and schools across the county; how do we ensure that residents’ voices are heard and the services they need are available to allow communities to prosper and grow?  Trying to achieve this on such a huge scale can’t give them want they need;

-       there is a question around the number of councillors who will represent each division, each county division (made up of two wards) currently being represented by five councillors: a reduction from five to two councillors would represent the loss of 110 councillors across the county and a saving of £490k.  There is a potential negative impact to be considered here, taking into account the need for representation across all areas and the challenge for councillors of working age or with full-time carer responsibilities of having time for all their residents;

-       there are areas of Cheltenham borough which fall outside the Cheltenham constituency, and local government reform provides the perfect opportunity to address that, taking account of place-based identity;

-       there are two main reasons why a two-unitary model suits us best:  localism - Gloucestershire is a huge county and people want their services delivered in an efficient, effective and easy-to-access way – and identity - Cheltenham and Gloucester are both great urban centres but deliver very different things, which should not be diluted in any way; Cheltenham has many links and history with Tewkesbury and the Cotswolds, making them more natural bedfellows;

-       devolution doesn’t feel like the right way forward for local government, making it less accessible at a time when people already feel disengaged, but opting out is clearly not an option.  CBC’s leadership have drafted proposals to the very short government deadline, which may be ignoring other pressing national problems in order to crowd out smaller parties from participation in democratic decision making.  This has resulted in no cohesive plan between the areas and districts of Gloucestershire, and it is important that we are all on the same page when going forward.   It would be a fantastic chance for proportional representation, to create a more accurate representation of what residents actually want – this was supported by Liberal Democrats in 2022.  Wards such as St Paul’s are likely to be neglected in a larger unitary authority and accounting for nuanced local needs should be a priority.  To reflect Cheltenham Green Group’s disapproval of the seismic management changes being introduced too rapidly for a proper response, and their desire to find longer-term mechanisms for effective democratic representation, they will abstain from supporting devolution, acknowledging that we must move forward but concerned by the lack of knowledge about what is best for our communities;

-       those responsible for bringing this report forward are our engineers, taking something which they feel won’t work – a single unitary authority where local voices will not be heard – and breaking it into two parts which are both functional and workable in our communities.  They are engineering a new future for our county and our town, and hope that everyone will engage to ensure residents across the county have a voice;

-       although local government reorganisation is not welcome, removing accessibility and adding hurdles, the council is ready to fight for the right result for Cheltenham residents.  The two-unitary model is right for many reasons, not least  keeping decision-making as close to residents as possible, with local knowledge to understand the impact of those decisions, whether positive or negative. The government has stated that unitary authorities should be the right size to achieve efficiencies, meet local needs, and be informed by local views, but a whole-county unitary authority would not achieve those goals. The two-unitary proposal allows for meaningful reorganisation, and innovative ways of working and finding local solutions, without excluding current cross-council ways of working, such as Ubico.  This can continue across two unitary authorities, collaborating and sharing workstreams while focussing locally on meeting the day-to-day needs of residents;

-       the smaller areas also allow greater focus on economic growth, with the two-unitary proposal clearly setting out its plans for cyber and green energy, and the opportunity to look at new ways to address issues faced by public services.  This interim proposal sets out clear and achievable gains and provides a brighter future;

-       in addition, joining WECA is the right way forward, in view of Cheltenham’s strong cultural and working links with Bristol, Bath and South Gloucestershire;

-       the two unitary proposal neatly parcels the county into two homogenous groups, but Gloucestershire is a lot more diverse than this suggests – there are at least six different county regions, each including diverse and unequal districts.  Maybe having a single combined authority would be a chance to level up the inequalities and heal divisions, in addition to the obvious financial and administrative benefits;

-       it was unrealistic to be sent a 92-page paper on Friday afternoon and be expected to full digest this by Monday.  The Leader is to be thanked for bringing the report to Full Council, but the short notice seems undemocratic, regardless of what other councils have done;

-       a reluctance to embrace unitary councils comes from CBC’s record for balancing its books every single year, keeping non-mandatory operations going, rarely losing any front-line services and still managing to invest.  This cannot be said of other councils, including to county which has balanced its budget by selling off its rural estate.  There is a concern that a single unitary council might start selling off Cheltenham’s much-prized investments and assets; a smaller authority, with Tewkesbury and the Cotswolds, would have a bigger say in the running of its local finances;

-       county councillors are particularly aware of the size and differences across the country, and if all power were to be centralised in Gloucester, Cheltenham may be left playing second fiddle, with other large conurbations of Cirencester, Tewkesbury and Stroud all left out, as well as the Forest of Dean. Two unitaries is better in general for all the people of Gloucestershire, though not without challenges, with areas of severe deprivation across the county, and even areas of the Cotswolds deprived through lack of access to services;

-       putting too much power into the hands of one person – such as the Mayor of Bristol and the Police and Crime Commissioner – can have catastrophic consequences, but we should definitely look to join WECA and fight for the best we can get for the people of Cheltenham and Gloucestershire;

-       there is a lot to be gained if both parties at CBC acknowledge their commonalities and work together, recognising the different regional identities and districts and looking to find the pragmatic in the policy.  In view of the levels of deprivation in the county, the economic arguments for two unitaries cannot be stressed enough, and there is a great case to be made for managing efficiencies and costs and at the same having parity between the two areas.  Supporters of a single authority suggest that the two-unitary situation will create economic inequality, but reference to the report shows that this is likely to be relatively minimal, with deprived areas in Cheltenham and Gloucester, and also the ageing population that will come with an East Gloucestershire unitary, bringing its own problems around employment and resourcing;

-       there is a strong case for working towards something that identifies districts and a common sense of purpose, at the end of the day recognising that all districts are constructions – different areas with different identities which have formed one identity – and a Cheltenham and Cotswolds authority can be based on a shared common identity that may have different parts but at the same time coheres into one.  Ultimately, we are trying to build something that works for the broadest range of people and identities without stretching to the limits where it becomes untenable.  It would be good if the Green Group can join the Liberal Democrats to work on this deal.

The Leader thanked Members for their excellent contributions, and addressed some of the points made: 

-       in an ideal world, we would have much smaller districts, but this is no longer a reality; the population target of under 500k is addressed in this interim proposal, and as a Member said, we want proportionality and balance, with none more powerful than the other;

-       there is no need to abandon the Teckal companies already in existence and working well across all the Gloucestershire authorities, such as adult health and social care – we have locality-based services which won’t need massive desegregation;

-       there is a good argument for boundary changes and this will need further discussion between now and November;

-       the county council’ report was only published last week, and it was only when CBC knew what the county was proposing and who was writing its report that it was clear that this would not provide the answers CBC was looking for - much more than a straight comparison between district councils and a single unitary model;

-       it has been said that the isn’t enough clarity in the white paper, but this is being taken as an opportunity to tell the government what we want for our residents, focussing on the art of the possible.  We are not embracing CBC’s abolition, but must do all in our power to safeguard and protect as much as possible, such as carrying on with the Golden Valley Development and all the cultural, leisure and community services delivered by districts across Gloucestershire;

-       it is clear that the county council is being dissolved and its services redistributed, so there is no reason why the centre of power should have to be Shire Hall, which may not be fit for purpose any more than the Municipal Offices are;

-       we will have no choice about having a Mayor, but should look at this as an opportunity – it comes with a big price ticket which can be used collectively across the region;

-       it is true to say that the report has been put together in a short timeline, but CBC’s proposal has been shared with other districts.  The main issue is that we cannot passively wait for something to be done to us; the government has not provided very much clarity, but the report shows them what could be done.  Other councils around the country have simply expressed a simple preference for reorganisation in their areas, but the government wants a proper assessment that covers the priorities set out in the white paper – we have had the boldness to do that and can feel proud;

-       it is unfortunate that Members only received the report on Friday, but unreasonable to say the process has been undemocratic.  Many conversations have taken place, councillors have been briefed, and this is a good proposal which covers a lot.  Stroud leaders prefer this direction of travel and all but one of the district councils have signed the letter to the minister confirming WECA as the preferred option.  It is disappointing that the Green Group do not feel able to support the submission but their decision is respected. 

RESOLVED THAT:

1.            following Cabinet approval of the following recommendations (below), the content of this report and the council’s preference for two unitary councils for Gloucestershire and the submission included at Appendix 5 are noted.

RECOMMENDATIONS approved by Cabinet:

RESOLVED THAT:

1.    the joint letter to be submitted to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government found at Appendix 4 is approved;

2.    a preference is expressed for two unitary councils to be created in Gloucestershire and the interim submission included at Appendix 5 is approved, setting out an outline case to be appended separately to the joint letter alongside other interim proposals submitted by respective Gloucestershire councils;

3.    authority is delegated to the Chief Executive in consultation with the Leader to work with the other six Gloucestershire councils to submit the joint letter and any associated separate appendices submitted by councils individually;

4.    that there is not alignment on the shape of local government in Gloucestershire is recognised by Cabinet, but a commitment to ongoing collaboration with other Gloucestershire Councils, stakeholders and MHCLG as the devolution and reorganisation process progresses is agreed, to ensure that we deliver the best outcomes for residents and businesses.