Agenda item

Report of the Leader, Councillor Rowena Hay

The Leader introduced the report, which she said had been an absolute Herculean effort over the past few months, to provide the information and detail requested by the government.  Although the borough does not welcome local government reorganisation, it is not in our control, and ironically the government will decide what shape local government in Gloucestershire will take, while badging the initiative as giving people greater powers.   She has fought for what she believes is the best option and in the best interests for Cheltenham’s residents and businesses, and tried to ensure that Cheltenham’s voice is heard. 

Whatever the outcome, the council will continue to work in a collaborative way and in partnership to deliver the best for our town, but working in collaboration requires compromise, so rather than try to highlight the key points of many hundreds of pages of business cases today, she would explain from the heart why her core liberal values make her believe that two unitaries – East and West Gloucestershire - is the best option for Cheltenham and the county:

-       business cases are not statements of fact – they are opinions, underpinned by financial assumptions, and the same data can be used as the basis of very different proposals;

-       there is no doubt that one big council can try to ensure that local residents’ forums and parish networks go some way towards mitigating the loss of local councils, but why take risk?  A fundamental Liberal belief is to always aim for the most power at lowest level and on this measure, two unitaries are the only choice for Gloucestershire;

-       the maths is simple – in a future East Gloucestershire Council, almost 50% of the councillors will represent Cheltenham; in a single unitary, it will be only 25% who are able to speak for our town.  This will result in a dilution of our power and influence – over Cheltenham’s culture, festivals, investment, sense of place – and cannot be supported;

-       we currently have an urban-centred, rural-blind government, hostile to town and parish councils,  which wants to reduce power to neighbourhood talking shops with no power to create change. This is a top-down, civil servant-led artificial construct,  based on population size and service delivery assumptions, trying to boil down the creation of new councils to some sort of technical procurement exercise. We have played our part and worked hard to make our case, but no civil servant can override our knowledge of our wards over the decades;

-       the current two-tier system has its faults, but recognises the diversity of place across the county, and can flex to the vast differences, delivering local politicians with the power to shape place.  Whatever option is chosen, the result will be a council many times bigger than what we have now, and faced with that choice, we must choose the smallest viable option to ensure that decision-making and power remain as close to residents as it can.

She ended by saying this is a once-in-a-generation opportunity for residents to make changes which will last for 50 years.  All the options presented for Gloucestershire are as imperfect as the business cases that describe them, which is why she remains  of strongest belief that we must choose power and influence at the most local level and support an east and a west unitary for Gloucestershire. 

The Deputy Mayor thanked the Leader and explained the process and how the vote would work, reminding Members that the chosen option would be submitted as an advisory to the government, who will make the ultimate decision on Gloucestershire’s future.

There were no questions.

In debate, the overwhelming majority of those who spoke agreed with the Leader’s comments and proposal for two unitaries, and praised the Leader, Cabinet and officers for the huge amount of work involved in bringing the report and the business cases to Council today.  They made the following comments, points and observations in support of two unitaries:

-       the one-size-fits-all approach doesn’t work, especially in large rural areas with multiple urban centres and many local identities.  Possible financial savings should not be the only driver to determine the most appropriate long-term system, and the Local Residents Survey proves that over 80% of Cheltenham residents feel it is important to be represented by a local council and councillors. In hard times, statutory services are always cut first – in a single unitary council, six areas will be prioritising their own needs, fighting for one pot of money to fund services to improve their own community’s wellbeing, economy and environment.   Reducing councillor representation per division from five to two raises huge concerns, not only because the significance of local knowledge and local accountability is enormous, but also because it will create a significant barrier to anyone of working age being able to commit the required hours to deliver on behalf of the communities they serve, and although inclusive representation will be harder in a two-unitary authority scenario, it will be impossible in a single unitary.  The Greater Gloucestershire proposal recognises many benefits of smaller population sizes but doesn’t equally address the huge population size on the outer edge of the donut, or acknowledge that Gloucester is not the only large urban area in the county;

-       local government reorganisation will remove a layer of democracy and autonomy from our residents, and we must fight for the best solution for them.  CBC officers and councillors care deeply and work hard to deliver an amazing number of statutory and discretionary services on a small budget, and it is a fallacy – not practical or logical – to suggest that an authority responsible for 650k people, spanning multiple urban areas as well as rural ones with distinct identities and economies, can do the same.  The argument against splitting highways and other county-wide services is weak when the residents’ survey suggests that those services aren’t working for us now, but cross-boundary services like Ubico and the Local Visitor Economy Partnership prove that they can work successfully. South Gloucestershire Council, with 300k people, already exists on our doorstep, and three authorities of roughly equal numbers serving the county of Gloucestershire will result in better representation and equity.  No solution is perfect, including the current set-up of councils, but two unitary councils will better protect our town, our residents’ interests and futures, and provide something for them more than just cost savings.

One Member felt a single unitary authority to be the only option that sticks to government’s request that the new council should represent over 500k residents, and said that the Greater Gloucestershire model would result in a very small unitary of 180k.  The benefits of two unitaries should be more councillors per resident, but  in fact both the two-unitary and one-unitary option will result in just 110 councillors across the county, many less than the current representation.  The east-west split is an improvement in terms of percentage of Cheltenham’s representation but doesn’t change each councillor’s workload or the ability of a resident to contact their local representative.  The east-west split model also talks extensively about the individual identities of different areas of Gloucestershire, but neither a single nor a split unitary can change that; our regional identities sit in our people and will be maintained.  Also, there are already regional differences across Cheltenham, between the different wards and areas.  Pooling together all our resources in a single unitary will allow us to deliver services centrally, with all our expertise in one place and networked across all the districts and boroughs.

Members in support of two unitaries continued to explain their reasons:

-       local government reorganisation is a blatant power-grab by the Labour government, and a huge waste of officer time and tax payers’ money.  It wipes out the vital layer of democracy that is closest to the citizen, taking their elected representatives further away in a large unitary authority.  Larger does not necessarily mean better or more efficient, and there are many examples across the country where smaller can be successful.  Cheltenham has 150 years of strong local democracy, and the best option is the most local – the two-unitary option.  This can deliver better services to the communities it serves, including licensing, planning, and tackling the climate emergency; district councils are already leading bold, community-driven innovation and this must not be lost.  Two strong, focussed councils will champion local priorities, and also provide real opportunities for the important involvement of the youth voice and youth representation.  Our hands are tied and the final decision will be made by the government minister, but whatever the outcome, Members will work hard to make it work for our residents; two distinct authorities will provide balance, scale and localism, with decisions made as close to citizens as possible;

-       No Child Left Behind was sparked by a statistic showing that the youngest child to be excluded from school in Gloucestershire lived in Cheltenham – and from that initial spark, 113 organisations now work with NCLB and 7,000 children have been helped with school uniform, computers and much more.   The county was too far removed from the local area and community to recognise these problems and act on them. A two-unitary authority gives local people a local voice, and local councillors the opportunity to work with them and drive forward the things that matter.  CBC already works successfully with Tewkesbury, and together they can continue to do the best they can for their towns and residents;

-       the representation constraint from five to two councillors is really concerning – the increased workload will mean the loss of some good councillors, with full-time jobs and/or caring responsibilities, who do not have capacity to carry out the role.  The government should be condemned for putting us in this position;

-       CBC has survived many years of austerity and Conservative funding cuts, only for the current Labour government to take our representation away as well.  Liberal values are for maximum representation at the lowest level; dilution of democracy will mean a dilution of Cheltenham, but as reorganisation is inevitable, two unitaries is the least worst option.  The Deputy Chief Executive always said that bigger isn’t necessarily better, and the fact that the failing services – highways, transport, social services - are all at county level while the wonderful things that we all love about Cheltenham are at borough level is proof of that;

-       there are many arguments pulling us both ways, but the issue of representation is a clincher, at two levels: firstly, 54% of councillors will represent Cheltenham in a two-unitary council as opposed to 25% in a single unitary, and secondly, at the other level, there will be two Gloucestershire councils bidding for funding, striving to get their voices heard in Parliament, working with partners locally and nationally.  Both are very persuasive arguments;

-       the most important issue is the local councillor’s relationship with the people they represent  – understanding their problems and feeling they can actually do something to help.  That connection and identity is needed to feed into decisions and actions, and needs to be as close to home as possible.  Gloucestershire is a huge county with very different needs – all important, but requiring different solutions.  The two-centre model is the only one which will work in the long term;

-       in response to the Member who spoke in support of a single unitary, the figures that suggest representation in both a single unitary and two unitary councils will be the same are temporary.  A boundary review will bring the number of councillors in a single unitary down to 60-70 rather than 110 – so ultimately providing less representation than 52 councillors in each of the two unitary councils.  Regarding the size of unitary councils, there is no proof that over 500k residents offers any particular value:  the District Councils Association found a negative correlation with outcomes as authorities became larger, and 350k in each of two unitary councils feels like a good size.  Regarding representation, this also applies to officers:  pooling experts in one centre of excellence is put forward as a reason to support a single unitary, but two unitaries of 350k residents provides enough capacity to have experts in both, and a single expert in one large unitary would only be able to give half the time and attention to very serious cases before them;

-       it is striking to note how few residents understand this most significant decision, and notable that central government wants to introduce sweeping reforms with little evidence that they are wanted or even understood by the electorate.  Local people value local government because it is local with decisions and advice rooted in local knowledge from people who understand the neighbourhood and share a sense of  place, familiarity and community.  The government’s focus is on efficiency savings but efficiency is not a mandate for better service, and not a reason to reduce democratic representation or weaken local connection.  One unitary authority or a centralised model will not improve outcomes for Cheltenham people, and could be  underpinning a broader, unspoken national agenda around automation and AI. Although this can offer many capabilities, streamline processes and improve efficiency, it cannot and must never be allowed to replace the value of people; people need purpose and connection, and no algorithm can replicate the reassurance of speaking with a human who belongs to the community.  The two-unitary model is not perfect but is the closest option to preserving the high degree of local representation and knowledge that the current system has.  We must choose not just a structure but a philosophy of local government, that values people over systems, community over consolidation, and representation over remote efficiency;

-       a two-unitary model is the only way forward, to prevent Cheltenham councillors from becoming disconnected with the people they represent.  We need to look after our residents’ best interests, not other people’s – this is all that matters;

-       local government is the best form of government, providing deep human connections, the ability to step into people’s lives and take the weight from their shoulders, have real conversations with residents – and for many councillors, trying to maintain this connection in a ward twice as big would be almost impossible, making the role of councillor the exclusive purview of the retired and the wealthy. People need a sense of connection, especially in times of crisis, and they cannot be reduced to a number on a list too long to get round to.  The government is hacking away at connections that keep the county moving and drive local investment, such as Golden Valley and all the new jobs and opportunities it is providing -  it will kill local growth, local connection, and local government in any sense of word.  The whole LGR process is a pantomime, involving hours of everyone’s time; it takes years to deliver real change for real people, and the government should be concentrating on more important issues;

-       the report talks about the ‘right size’ of local government, and Price Waterhouse Cooper proposed as 650k as the best option for a single unitary, with two smaller unitaries of 350k given the amber light.  When unitary authorities were originally introduced many years ago, 250k was considered an appropriate number, and in view of population growth, 350k seems a sensible figure for now; 650k is just too large.  The Deputy Chief Executive made a strong financial case to prove that two unitary authorities will be stronger than one, and it is worth noting that when health authorities were similarly merged in the past, with one of the strong drivers being the efficiency and financial gains, the reality was the exact opposite, and economies of scale were not delivered;

-       a single unitary authority model appears to be the most financially driven and focussed on efficiencies, but local representatives care more about their residents and giving them a voice.  The best way to do this is two unitary authorities – those voices will make up a higher percentage of the authority and therefore be louder;

-       a particular concern about a unitary authority centred on Gloucester is planning, which is such an essential part of what people feel about a town, how it grows and develops, and how that is supported by the local planning authority.  One single planning authority for the whole of Gloucestershire would be detrimental, and we would lose commitment and connection; two unitary authorities will help retain control;

-       with two unitary councils, not only will Cheltenham have a bigger representation and louder voice in a smaller authority but so will every community across Gloucestershire – this is one of the reasons why so many county councils who have been down this path before us have opted for more than one unitary authority in their area.  In all cases, they have started with an unequal balance of need and finances, but very few are likely to have been as close as the projection of £20m surplus or deficit in east and west Gloucestershire that would represent only 2% of overall turnover of two unitary authorities, and is probably within the margin of error on the consultants’ spreadsheets;

-       finally, to quote from E F Schumacher’s inspirational 1974 book Small is Beautiful, ‘we are generally told that gigantic organisations are inescapably necessary but there is a tremendous longing and striving to profit if at all possible from the convenience, humanity and manageability of smallness.  Bigger is not always better’.

Invited by the Deputy Mayor to sum up, the Leader thanked Members for their comments and support.  She responded to some of the points made:

-       the original threshold of 500k residents for a single unitary authority was set by the government in November 2024, but the goal posts have moved since and they have said they will look at proposals for 350k or less.  On that basis, both the single unitary and two-unitary proposals meet the threshold;

-       although 110 councillors would initially serve on a unitary authority, this would be reduced to 90 following a referendum, further reducing representation with that model as opposed to the two-unitary model;

-       it is important to make clear to the government that we are not against change –  CBC can see the advantages of a unitary council and some degree of reorganisation – but it is against the idea of such vast numbers and the notion of sacrificing long-term sustainability for short-term financial gain.  We just want to be involved in the changes, and to ensure that decisions are based on people not numbers;

-       with reference to the £20m margin mentioned by a Member, CBC’s council tax collection rate is extremely high but there is massive potential for this to drop with a unitary council, as has happened elsewhere .  This could result in millions of pounds’ worth of loss, which closes the gap on that £20m.

She ended by thanking officers, starting with the Deputy Chief Executive, amazing S151 Officer and finance lead, who challenged the process and took on the might of Price Waterhouse Cooper, disagreeing with their figures – and reducing them by £16m.  Officers and councillors have spent huge amount of time throughout this process while still delivering on their day jobs, and she thanked officers across the county, but in particular at CBC:  Paul Jones, Gareth Edmundson, Claire Hughes and Ann Wolstencroft.  

The Deputy Mayor reminded Members that the votes being taken were not decisions but advisory votes which will be taken into consideration by the Cabinet when they make the decision on CBC’s submission  at their meeting on Tuesday 18 November.

The voting was as follows:

RESOLVED THAT:

1.    The following completed final business cases and supporting documentation are noted:

a.    a single unitary for Gloucestershire, appendix 3

b.    a two unitary East and West Gloucestershire appendix 4

c.    a two unitary Greater Gloucester/Gloucestershire appendix 5

d.    stronger places, stronger Gloucestershire – the case for East and West Gloucestershire, appendix 6

Three advisory votes were then taken as set out in Recommendation 2 of the report, one for each of the three options as follows :

VOTE 1 : A single unitary for Gloucestershire, as detailed in the business case in Appendix 3

3 for, 29 against, 2 abstentions

VOTE 2 : A two unitary, East and West Gloucestershire, as detailed in the business case in appendix 4

30 for, 2 against, 2 abstentions

VOTE 3 : A two unitary, Greater Gloucester and Gloucestershire, as detailed in the business case in appendix 5

31 against, 3 abstentions

RESOLVED THAT:

2.    the preferred option is a two-unitary, East and West Gloucestershire, as detailed in appendix 4.

RESOLVED THAT:

3.     The advisory votes (as minuted above) on the business cases for LGR be taken to Cabinet for consideration as part of their decision making on which LGR option to support in the joint submission to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. 

The Deputy Leader said he had attended many debates in many different chambers, and commended Members for a remarkably well-informed and reasonable debate, expressing different opinions with passion and incisive knowledge