Green councillors have repeated their concerns that Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) is a ‘threat to local democracy’ after Stroud District Council agreed to the single unitary authority option, writes Susan Fenton.
A single unitary council for the county was one of three possible options put forward for consideration. The overall vote was 27 in favour of the single unitary option, while 15 were in favour of a two-unitary model, which would see the County split into West (Forest of Dean, Gloucester and Stroud) and East (Cheltenham, Cotswold and Tewkesbury). There were no votes for the Greater Gloucester model, often referred to as the ‘doughnut’.
Many councillors mentioned the huge decrease in democratic representation for communities, their concern at the rushed process and the lack of consultation from the government. None abstained or voted for ‘none of the above’, feeling they had to choose one of the two main options, though many said they were doing so reluctantly.
Cllr Chloe Turner (Minchinhampton), leader of the Green Group, said afterwards: “We had no choice but to take part in the vote on these proposals but we were in the invidious position of having to vote on something we fundamentally disagree with. Greens have always argued that LGR is unnecessary, costly, wasn’t asked for and won’t benefit residents. All the options offered pose a threat to local democracy by moving decision-making powers away from local people.”
She pointed out that the move to unitary authorities will reduce by two-thirds the number of councillors across the county from 295 to 110.
“Gloucestershire already has one of the highest ratios of residents to elective representatives in Europe. Reducing this further is undemocratic,” said Cllr Turner. “The creation of larger, more centralised unitary authorities goes against the fundamental principle that decisions should be made as close as possible to the people they affect.”
Cllr Gary Luff (Painswick) said the whole LGR project was “bonkers” and hadn’t even been mentioned in Labour’s manifesto. “It’s shameful that this has been foisted on us without consultation. The timeline for the councils to decide on their preferred unitary option meant that there was no opportunity for meaningful consultation with residents.”
Cllr Sarah Canning (Amberley & Woodchester) said. “I had a letter today from a resident about council reorganisation. He should have had time to make his views known through consultation. This is a stripping away of local democracy.”
Cllr Carol Kambites (Stonehouse) agreed, saying: “I have grave concerns about the whole LGR process.”
The 24-strong Green group, though not whipped, all voted for the one-unitary option, seeing it as the least-worst option in what they believe is an unnecessary reorganisation being forced through by the Labour government with little consultation.
Almost all the Labour councillors voted to split the county into two, despite overwhelming evidence that the disruption to services would harm local people and that a West Gloucestershire Council would be financially unviable.
Cllr Catherine Braun (Wotton) said the proposal to split county services would cause “confusion, disruption, and chaos”, and would be “irresponsible and reckless”. With the weaker financial position for a West Gloucestershire Council it would lead to “damaging cuts in services that would particularly affect the most vulnerable residents”.
Cllr Martin Brown (Bisley) noted that all Gloucestershire’s stakeholder groups – teachers, GPs, colleges, police, voluntary, faith and business sector leaders – were clear in their preference for a single unitary council for the county. “It’s hard to find anyone outside politics who favours splitting the county in two. It would have a disproportionately negative impact on service users.”
Cllr Pete Kennedy (Painswick) said a two-council split would be a “reckless gamble” that would create a “rich Gloucestershire, poor Gloucestershire” scenario and lead to “huge” cuts to fill a £23million black hole in West Gloucestershire, with the costs of adult social care more than 50% higher than in the East of the county. Leisure centres, free parking and council tax reductions for the poorest could all be lost.
Cllr Natalie Rothwell-Warn (Stroud Slade) said the two-council option would lead to fragmentation of services and instability and insecurity for families. “I wish the time and money spent on these proposals had been spent on the major crises some people face, especially education, Special Educational Needs and disabilities.”
Cllr Gill Thomas (Minchinhampton) added: “The two-council option risks fragmentation and weakening the vital local non-statutory partnerships that are critical to delivering services.”
Cllr Cate James-Hodges (Stroud Central) said any distant supercouncil could reduce local connection and representation for residents and that there was no evidence of any benefits from the two-unitary council option, in particular.
Cllr Lucas Schoemaker (Stroud Trinity) called the East/West option “a potential economic disaster”, while Cllr Martin Pearcy (Coaley & Uley) said it would damage the engagement with other councils that is key to delivering ambitious climate and nature action.
SDC will now submit the outcome of the vote to central government, which will then conduct its own consultation before making the final decision in mid-2026. The Green Group strongly encourages all residents to have their say when the public consultation on Gloucestershire’s future is launched next year, as this decision will fundamentally reshape local governance.
Cllr Turner concluded: “Whatever the outcome, Green councillors will continue to ensure that the needs of local residents are heard and prioritised, both during the transition phase and in the new council structure.”
