The Forest of Dean has unanimously opposed all proposed options for the Gloucestershire council reorganization, expressing strong concerns about the erosion of local democracy. Civic leaders have criticized the Government’s plans as a threat to community representation under the guise of empowering local leaders.
The Government intends to replace the current two-tier system with unitary councils across England, aiming to save money that could be redirected into public services. In Gloucestershire, this would mean merging district authorities like the Forest of Dean District Council with Gloucestershire County Council to create either one or two unitary authorities.
In response, the seven local authorities collaborated to propose two main options: a single unitary council composed of all six districts plus Shire Hall, or a dual authority model dividing the county into East and West regions. A separate “Greater Gloucester” proposal by Gloucester City Council suggests an expanded unitary around Gloucester with a second authority covering the remaining areas.
READ MORE: Shirlie Kemp Credits Son Roman for Saving Family from 2004 Tsunami Disaster
READ MORE: Police Search Underway at Gloucester Docks After Man Missing in River
However, at a council meeting on November 19, the Forest of Dean councillors voted unanimously to reject all proposals. Forest MP Matt Bishop observed firsthand the strong opposition from the local representatives.
Council leader Adrian Birch (Green Party) highlighted the lack of public consultation and the perception that the changes are predetermined. He warned that while services might centralize into a “one-stop shop,” democratic representation would dramatically decrease—from 295 councillors to just 80 over time. Birch criticized the absence of genuine community empowerment in the Government’s plans and voiced concerns about the introduction of elected mayors who would be insulated from local voices and beholden to central government rather than residents.
Independent Councillor John Francis echoed these fears, describing the proposals as diminishing democracy and turning local governance into a cost-saving exercise rather than genuine devolution. Former council leader Tim Gwilliam called the process penny-pinching that undermines the community’s needs, and warned decisions would be made by distant ministers with no direct experience of the Forest’s unique challenges.
Other councillors emphasized the risk of services becoming uneven across the county, with Conservative Councillor Nick Evans calling the East-West split likely to create a “postcode lottery” of public services. Reform UK councillors decried the lack of a democratic mandate, and Green Party representatives pressed for meaningful devolution instead of superficial restructuring.
While some, like Labour Councillor Patrick Kyne, supported the two-unitary option as a way to preserve the Forest’s identity within a larger structure, the majority insisted that local voices would be lost. Councillors from various political backgrounds united in opposing the shake-up, emphasizing that the Forest’s unique needs and community spirit would suffer under the new proposals.
The full council’s rejection is set to be endorsed by the cabinet, signaling strong local resistance to the Government’s plans. Ultimately, ministers will make the final decision, with new councils expected to be elected in May 2027 and operational from April 2028.