Forest of Dean opposes all council-shake up options
The Forest of Dean opposes all options of the proposed council shake-up in Gloucestershire and civic chiefs have blasted what many see as a Government attack on local democracy.
Ministers want to do away with two-tier authority areas across England as part of a Government drive which they claim will empower local leaders.
They believe unitary councils can lead to saving money which can be reinvested in public services.
In Gloucestershire, that would mean district authorities such as the Forest of Dean would merge with Gloucestershire County Council for one or two unitaries to be created in their place.
The seven authorities have worked together in recent months to come up with two proposals.
A single unitary council made up of the six districts and Shire Hall or two authorities, one in the East covering Cheltenham, Cotswold and Tewkesbury with another in the West composed of Gloucester, the Forest of Dean and Stroud.
Another option being developed by Gloucester City Council, known as the Greater Gloucester proposal, aims to create an expanded unitary around the city with another authority made up of the rest of the county.
However, the view in Coleford was clear last night (November 19) as councillors voted to reject all of the above.
Forest MP Matt Bishop was in the public gallery to hear first-hand just how unpopular his Labour Party Government’s devolution plans are among councillors.
Council leader Adrian Birch (G, Tidenham) said the public have had little say on the proposals and residents see it as a fait accompli for a project which was not in Labour’s manifesto.
“The only visible change for most people will be a one-stop shop for council services which many council taxpayers do not require,” the Green Party councillor said.
“In return they can expect to have less democratic representation as 240 ward councillors and 55 county councillors will be replaced by 110 unitary councillors who will reduce to 80 over time.
“The community empowerment component of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill seems to be missing, as does English devolution as a new two tier arrangement will be put in place.
“Unitarised councils will be required to merge to form a combined mayoral authority which will be more remote from the community and which will receive its orders from Government not the other way around.
“On current evidence an elected mayor will have an unelected retinue of cronies funded savings made by the dissolution of district councils and be more remote from the people they proprt to serve.”
He felt that the case for unitarisation not been made despite the best endeavours from council officers of each of the authorities.
Independent Councillor John Francis (Longhope and Huntley) said the reorganisation was going to take democracy away from local people.
“The democratic deficit to our residents is going to be vast,” he said. “That is not good for democracy.”
He said you could look at advantages and disadvantages in the three options.
“Whichever way we go, the majority of savings are going to be through the lack of representation by councillors to the populace and the savings of the higher earners within each council,” he said.
“Really, devolution it is not, democracy it is not.”
Former council leader Tim Gwilliam (Progressive Independents, Berry Hill) said the Forest of Dean District Council has done a good job in its 50 years of existence.
“If there has been a level of governance that has let the people down it has not been the district council,” he said.
“This isn’t about local government reorganisation or devolution. It’s penny pinching, pure and simple.
“It’s a money saving exercise at the very place where it should be saved from.
“It’s happening more and more with this Government and I fear it will happen more and more.
“We’ve already heard about how democracy is going to be taken away, but we hear that people want to know who’s going to be collecting their bins, people want to know who’s doing it, they don’t, they just want it done and they want it done properly.”
He said the decision will probably be made by a minister who has never been to the Forest of Dean.
“That decision will be made not on what’s best for the Forest of Dean, not what’s best for Mrs Jones getting her bins collected or the highways done.
“It’ll be what’s best for the Chancellor and the purse. And that’s really sad.”
Independent Councillor Ian Whitburn (Coleford) said he too could not support the proposals and would also vote for none of the above.
“This is not giving power to the people, this is taking power from the people,” he said.
“This is not devolution at all. We already know what it’s like living in the Forest of Dean.
“You’ve only got to look at the buses which are seven years older than the ones floating around in Cheltenham.
“The only organisation in the Forest that shouts for the Forest of Dean is the District Council.”
And Reform UK councillor Alan Preest (Lydney East) said he was fundamentally opposed to the whole process.
He said there was no democratic mandate for the changes and it was not in the Labour Party manifesto.
Cllr Preest said the “Gloucester Doughnut” option was “just the City Council sticking two fingers up to the rest of Gloucestershire”.
“Of the options we’ve got, united we stand but divided we fall,” he said.
Fellow Reform Councillor Stuart Graham (Cinderford East) said his position would be for no change and would vote for none of the above.
“I have real concerns about the Forest of Dean losing its unique political status,” he said.
Councillor Jamie Elsmore (Progressive Independents, Berry Hill) said his biggest fear was how Foresters would be treated under the new arrangement.
“I don’t believe their voices will be heard with the three options,” he said.
“I believe the Forest of Dean is a very unique place and we have a responsibility to represent the voice of the people.
“We need to make a stand and lead the way in saying no to the three options.
“If we look around the table, we might have all different political views but I’d ratehr have a constructive debate with everybody here rather than letting somebody in Gloucester decide the future of our district.”
Conservative Councillor Nick Evans (Tidenham) said the East-West option risked creating a “postcode lottery of services”.
He said rather than an East and West Gloucestershire it would lead to a “rich and poor Gloucestershire” and he would support a single unitary council.
But Labour Councillor Patrick Kyne (Coleford) said the status quo was not an option and change is going to happen.
He proposed going for the two unitary council option as it would help the Forest keep its identity.
“The Forest would not be diluted in a massive unitary council,” he said.
“It feels the best fit for the future. I think this is the right decision.”
Councillor Gill Moseley (LD, Newent and Taynton) said an East-West split would not work for the whole county but she could see the merits of unitaries being closer to their residents.
But Green Party Councillor Richard Burton (Newnham) said the Forest should oppose the proposals.
“We should send the Government a message that we want real devolution and not this fake,” he said.
And Councillor Trevor Roach (G, Mitcheldean, Ruardean and Drybrook) said the Forest of Dean has been the poor relation in the county over the last century.
He said transport, education and job creation has not been as good as other parts in the county.
“The logic of one authority escapes me,” he said.
“I’m not going to vote on any of the options. The Forest needs to say let’s not do this.”
Vice-chairman Simon Phelps (I, Westbury-on-Severn) said he felt if local government reorganisation had to proceed that Gloucestershire should remain intact as one authority.
But he did not like to see the demise of the Forest of Dean District Council.
A total 21 councillors voted for none of the options, seven voted in favour of the single unitary proposal.
Four supported the East-West option and none voted for the Greater Gloucester scheme.
The cabinet today (November 20) is expected to take onboard the decision of the full council and vote to say it is not supportive of Local Government Reorganisation.
Ministers will decide the outcome of local government reorganisation and elections to the new council or councils are expected to be in May 2027 with the new authority taking over from the current seven councils from April 2028.
The full proposals for the county can be found on Future Gloucestershire : Devolution and Local Government Reorganisation in Gloucestershire.