The Trustees of The Glebe are delighted to host the Woldingham Parish Council and Woodlea Primary School Summer Fete event:
Fun Dog Show
Giant Games
Mad Hatter’s Tea Party
Village Tug of War
Pimms Tent
Bars & Food
BBQ
DJ & Live Music
And much more
I have written a lot in these pages about the impending Local Government Reorganisation. If you have missed previous articles, I can send you them all. If you are new to the topic, in a nutshell, the 12 local councils in Surrey (Surrey County Council and the 11 District and Borough Councils) are being restructured into one, two or three “Unitary Authorities” across Surrey that encompass all the powers that were previously split between the two levels of government. The changes are probably long needed, but the big debate has been over whether Surrey should be one large entity (so your lowest level of government aside from the Parish Councils governing 1.2million people) or two (600k population per Council) or three (400k population per Council). In other areas around the country that are reorganising, the same debate rages.
High level draft proposals were submitted on the 21st of March and final proposals were submitted on the 9th of May. The County Council submitted a proposal for a structure encompassing 2 Unitary Authorities and modelled savings based on 2 Councillors per division. Notably, the 81 political divisions in Surrey County Council today are not being changed, so the modelling for savings was done with 162 Councillors. Most District and Borough Councils in Surrey endorsed a submission for 3 Unitary Authorities and 3 Councillors per division, because they felt that democracy, local knowledge, local efficacy and engagement would be too comprised without enough Councillors or with divisions that are too large. Interestingly, the average size population of all Unitary Authorities in England today (71% of the country already are governed under this structure) is 293,000. The Government’s feedback after the first round of submissions was that one Unitary Authority offered the greatest savings and all models should be compared to one Unitary Authority. Clearly, the Government is considering all three scenarios but leaning towards fewer Authorities.
In addition to the submission of the core proposals, Crawley Borough Council and Reigate and Banstead Borough Council submitted a proposal to Government to create a new Authority that would move Crawley into Surrey and include Tandridge as part of the Authority. Tandridge District Council voted to support the submission for 3 Unitary Authorities and 3 Councillors per division and voted against the proposal to merge into an Authority that moved Crawley into Surrey. It submitted a letter to Government to express this dissent.
Finally, the West of Surrey, particularly Woking, has a huge debt problem. Woking alone has over £2.5 bn in debt and over £1.5bn is unrecoverable (bad). Both the County and the District and Borough submissions to Government indicated they expected Government help with the debt (debt that was loaned by the Government!), although the Treasury has so far consistently refused to help. And Tandridge District Council voted to put on record that it considers it is not appropriate to expect the residents of the Tandridge District to contribute to the resolution of the debt problems of other local authorities within Surrey.
So, what will we look like in 2 years’ time? The decision rests entirely with the Government. In its initial directions it had said it would consult publicly in the summer, but it has retracted this position, ostensibly because people are against the change and they believe the consultation would therefore not be valuable as they believe they must press ahead with the criteria they have set. They are only legally obliged to ensure core stakeholders are consulted (and those boxes have been ticked). Election for a “shadow” Unitary Authority are targeted for May 2026 with the target go live date of the new Authority(ies) in April 2027, when the County and Districts/Boroughs cease. The Government intends to select the final structure sometime this autumn (September to December), so now we wait.
Call For Sites Closed
Housing and Economic Land Availability must be periodically assessed, (a process called the “HELAA”) and particularly when, as in Tandridge, a new local plan is being prepared. At such times, a call for sites is advertised and all sites submitted are reviewed for suitability for development. A Call for sites is an information gathering exercise used to identify potential sites for inclusion within the HELAA. The council undertook a call for sites from 5 February 2024 until 17 March 2024. We received around 268 site submissions along with supporting data for the site maps. The work to assess the sites is progressing as Tandridge District Council ensures it can deliver housing towards its targets.
New Policy for Gypsy and Traveller Sites
All Planning Authorities are required to provide sites for Gypsy and Traveller and Travelling Showpeople (GTTS sites). Having a policy and a plan that demonstrates you can meet the required need is vital, or applications that might otherwise contravene policy, for example Green Belt policy, will be overridden in favour of the accommodation need.
Our District Council, in order to determine the level of need and supply of GTTS pitches/plots, has carried out a Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment, which highlights a significant need for this type of development and a lack of supply to meet this need. A Pitch Delivery Assessment has been produced to review potential supply to meet the identified need. The District, in the absence of a new Development Plan, has set out an Interim Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Policy. The new policy was adopted on the 2nd of April and it sets out a criteria-based approach to assessing applications for GTTS accommodation, in order to increase needed accommodation in a controlled and proportionate manner. The new policy will allow the Council to meet the obligations set out in the National Planning Policy Framework and the national Planning Policy for Traveller Sites. The new policy will also support the emerging local plan, which is currently in progress.
As ever, if you have questions or would like more detail on any topic, please be in touch at cllr.deborah.sherry@tandridge.gov.uk or 07779134797.
Deborah Sherry, Tandridge District Councillor for Woldingham Ward
Last month we commemorated the 80th anniversary of VE Day, marking the end of conflict in Europe in 1945 after six gruelling years. We remember how Winston Churchill told jubilant crowds that “VE Day marks what is not a victory of a party or of any class, but a victory of the great British nation as a whole”. A huge well done to all the volunteers who helped to organise the many fantastic events across East Surrey – from our parish councils to the Royal British Legion, to community groups and everyone in between.
Elsewhere, Marden Lodge School in Caterham unveiled a wonderful new library and sensory room. Creating a space where children can foster a love of reading has been a real passion project for the dedicated teachers. Over 1,000 books now line the shelves, from Harry Potter to The Very Hungry Caterpillar – all chosen by the pupils and generously donated by the Shanly Foundation and The Siobhan Dowd Trust. The Caterham, Oxted and Godstone Lions Club and Surrey County Council also funded the nature-themed decor. Alongside the library, the sensory room – nicknamed The Cosy Cave by the pupils and proposed by the school’s Special Educational Needs teachers – offers a calm, relaxing space for children who feel overstimulated during the school day. This was a huge project, so well done to all the staff at Marden Lodge for bringing their vision to life.
In support of East Surrey’s hardworking farmers, Alexia Lescure’s first farmers’ market was held in the glorious sunshine a few weeks ago to great acclaim. Local farmers will be selling cheese, flowers and crafts at Lingfield Primary School from 9am-1pm on Sunday, 8th June – so please pop by if you get the chance.
In December, Claire visited the Caterham Delivery Office after residents raised concerns about poor mail delivery, especially vital NHS letters. We returned last month and spoke with the Regional Operations Lead, who assured us that changes in management and a streamlined sorting process are improving delivery times. It is also positive that, following a public consultation, Ofcom – Royal Mail’s regulator – confirmed a new NHS-specific barcode will be introduced to help make sure NHS letters arrive on time. As this was a key concern raised by Caterham residents, so it is encouraging to see action being taken.
In Claire’s rail survey many residents called for the return of the direct Caterham to London Victoria service. This has been a key request in our discussions with Govia Thameslink Railway. A key factor is the planned onward transfer from GTR’s upgraded Great Northern fleet to Southern and Southeastern. Once additional carriages become available – expected from May 2026 – one option is to bring back direct peak time services between Caterham and Victoria. While GTR have highlighted other potential uses for the extra carriages, we have made it clear, thanks to feedback from the rail survey, that East Surrey residents see this service as a priority. GTR has agreed to include the rail survey findings in discussions with the Department for Transport. We will keep up the pressure to bring this important service back.
Finally, a huge well done to everyone involved in AFC Whyteleafe’s journey to Wembley. They put up a great fight, and though Whitstable Town edged a goal in extra time to win 2-1, it was an incredible achievement to make it all the way to the final.
As always, we are here to help while Claire is on maternity leave. If you are having trouble with anything and you could use our help, please don’t hesitate to get in touch on Claire.coutinho.mp@parliament.uk.
-Team Claire
9am- Flag-raising & Woodlea School, Year 6 singing on the Village Green
5pm – Bar open and BBQ available at the Village Club
6.30pm – St Paul’s Church bells to ring
9.15pm – Residents to arrive on the Village Green
9.30pm – Beacon lighting, reading of Tribute by Reverend Catherine Dowland-Pillinger, and Woldingham School Choir singing I Vow To Thee My Country
Special thanks to Derek Harris for raising the flag, WA for purchasing the flag, Woodlea and Woldingham Schools, the Village Club for providing the bar and BBQ, Rev Catherine Dowland-Pillinger and the St Paul’s bell ringers & Woldingham PC for organising the celebrations
You may sometimes hear the changes being worked on in local government referred to as Local
Government Reorganisation or LGR, and sometimes as Devolution. For clarity, these are two
separate processes. Devolution is when you create a large strategic authority, governed by a directly
elected mayor, such as in London. The intention is that Surrey will ultimately form part of such a
strategic authority. But in order to create a strategic authority, the local authorities it governs must
have already gone through local government reorganisation. This means that where the powers of
local government are split between County and District and Borough councils, those powers have
already been combined, the County and District and Borough Councils dissolved, and a new Unitary
Authority or Authorities, possessing all powers, should be in place. Only then is an area ready to be
governed by a Strategic Authority with an elected Mayor.
In Surrey, we are in the midst of a high-speed local government reorganisation. The reorganisation
itself makes sense, as some of the powers that have been split between District and County
overcomplicate strategic planning and decision-making. Thus, Local Government Reorganisation has
been initiated across the country and is planned to complete everywhere by 2029.
In Surrey, the first high level proposals have been published, as local councils must review and vote
on them before they are submitted on the 21st of March. Then the Government Minister reviews
the plans, with feedback, while the local and County councils work on their final submission, which is
due May 9th. The Government will select the proposal it wishes to pursue by autumn, with a view to
elections in May 2026 for the members of the new Unitary Authority (UA) or Authorities in Surrey.
The new UA(s) then shadows the County and District and Borough Councils as it creates its
operations, with the new UA(s) going live April 2027 and the County and District and Borough
Councils ceasing on the date of its go-live.
In February, the District and Borough Councils leaders and the County Council leader agreed to rule
out proposing to create one new Unitary Authority, with a population of 1.2million people on the
same footprint as Surrey County Council.
That said, despite this vote, in many of Surrey County Council’s (SCC) briefing presentations to
partners, the leader and executive officers of SCC note that splitting some services among more than
one authority is in their view difficult, so perhaps by stealth they raise the spectre of our lowest level
of local government being only one Unitary Authority of 1.2million people across all of Surrey.
And SCC also raise the possibility of having one Unitary Authority across the County in their models
that they have submitted with their initial proposal for Government. The Districts and Boroughs
voted to support the creation of three new Unitary Authorities because they believe it will be more
effective and serve people better than any larger units, which will just be too far from the people
and less engaged with them. Community engagement is a vital part of a vibrant democracy. SCC
have stated they prefer two authorities, although it does, as noted above, still include data and
arguments for one overall UA in its government submission.
SCC have not publicly shared any of its data so it is hard to analyse the figures shared in its
proposals. But there are some certain truths. The benefits of cost savings in the model erode over time.
Two Unitary Authorities take longer to get to net positive benefits than one Unitary Authority.
But they get there. SCC’s proposal stops the model before three Unitary Authorities get to the net
positive restructuring benefits. But it will eventually. And this is not a short-term change. This will be
your government for the next 50 to 100 years. And of course, SCC’s modelling does not show the
bigger picture of total costs today across all 12 Councils vs 2 or 3 Unitary Authorities in the future.
So obviously, the fewer the levels of Government, the less the cost. But also, the less the local
engagement, knowledge and impact. And no matter how you slice the county – into one, two or
three Unitary Authorities, 3 authorities (or 2 or 1) are certainly cheaper than the 12 we have today!
You do not need more Councillors if you split 1 vs 2 vs 3 Authorities. And the divisions we have today
at the County level are not changing. But you will have many fewer Councillors overall and lots less
administration overall, moving from 12 councils to 2 or 3. In addition, many Districts today have a
shared service model to lower costs. As do many Counties and Districts. And some Unitary
Authorities. SCC effectively deploys a shared services model within the County today as a County
Council. It splits Adult Services into 5 sub-regions, each with their own administration and some
shared services above them all. It splits Children Services into 4 sub-regions, each with their own
teams and administration, with some County-wide shared services above them. Some of the
Districts and Boroughs, despite being separate authorities, operate shared services as well to save
money. This model could continue in a world in which we have three Unitary Authorities, with some
shared services between them. It isn’t rocket science. We do it all around the country today.
Forget about the one-off costs in either model. They are one off, they have to happen whether there
are one two or three authorities and still more is saved in running costs than the one-off costs of the
restructure because you are eliminating at LEAST 9 operating council bodies – or 75% of the
operating cost base of Council departments – and more than 50% of the councillors in running costs.
So, no matter what, it is cheaper. And you have the efficiencies gained by less bureaucracy and time
lost because decision making powers are no longer split between authorities at different levels.
Running one Unitary Authority is clearly cheaper than 2. Running 2 is clearly cheaper than 3. And
running 3 is clearly cheaper than running 12 councils. But remember, the overall percentage of
headcount costs in the face of the total budget of billions in Surrey is a fraction of the budget,
whether we have 3, 2, or 1 Unitary Authorities. Is Surrey County Council creating a storm in a teacup
by spending so much time and energy (and taxpayer money) on trying to prove 3 Unitary Authorities
are not feasible compared to 2 or 1?
Having the lowest level of government at 1.2m or 600k population, as proposed by Surrey County
Councils, is undemocratic. The national Government has begun to acknowledge that people are
upset with them trying to move local government too far from the people and have retrenched from
their minimum size requirements for Unitary Authorities (of 500k, with exceptions).
Just this week, Minister McMahon, the Minister for Local Government and English Devolution, said
he is thinking that 500k is more of an average across the country and the Government is happy with
authorities from 350k to 700k populations. Today, the average population of all existing Unitary
Authorities in England is roughly 273,000 (there are 63 Unitary Authorities in existence today). The
largest has a population of 618,000 and the smallest is 41,000. Splitting our County into three would
yield Unitary Authorities of roughly 400,000 each.
Is bigger always better? At what price democracy? Is it worth losing all local engagement and
effectively having Parliament and another layer so large it feels similar to it?
If you have an opinion, write to Minister Jim McMahon at:
jim.mcmahon.mp@parliament.uk
and Surrey County Council Leader Tim Oliver at:
tim.oliver@surreycc.gov.uk.
As ever, if you have questions or would like more detail, please be in touch at
cllr.deborah.sherry@tandridge.gov.uk or 07779134797.
Deborah Sherry
Tandridge District Councillor for Woldingham Ward
2025 Surrey County Elections are Cancelled. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government announced that 9 County Councils will have their 2025 elections cancelled. Elections are cancelled in Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex, Thurrock, Surrey, East and West Sussex, Hampshire and the Isle of Wight. This is to enable them to engage in local government restructuring with a view to holding elections in 2026 for a completely new entity.
6 of these Counties are engaging in two processes: restructuring the County and District tiers of government into one tier of Unitary Authorities which hold all the powers of the District and the County and then creating a strategic authority with a mayor above them, to which powers from central government are devolved. 3 are simply focussing on restructuring. Surrey is one of those 3.
Why Cancel the Election and does it matter? Reform, Independents and other parties, and many citizens are upset as they believe cancelling the elections has removed the democratic right to voice who the people want to take forward the reorganisation of local government. The Government view is that the restructuring takes time and holding elections for what should, if restructuring is completed timely, be a one-year period, does not make sense and is a waste of money.
What is a Unitary authority? A Unitary Authority is a tier of local government that holds all the powers of the former County and District Councils. For example, in our county, Surrey, street repair is done by the County, street cleaning by our District. The County handles planning for highways and minerals licenses but the Districts and Boroughs handle planning permission for other development on land. This means infrastructure decisions are split between authorities, which can make strategic planning difficult. The government has for decades had a programme enabling local authorities to strategically move these powers into one tier of local government, a “Unitary Authority.”
What is Devolution? Devolution started decades ago. It exists first and foremost at the country level. Parliament devolved powers to Scotland and Wales but not England. England does not have its own house of Parliament. Nevertheless, devolution in England has been slowly rolling out over the last couple of decades, by devolving powers directly to large authorities within the country.
There are many large cities and counties in England which have created a strategic authority with a directly elected mayor over a number of Unitary Authorities. The larger strategic unit is referred to as a Combined Authority. London, Birmingham, Greater Manchester, Cornwall, South Yorkshire, and Cambridge and Peterborough are just some of the Combined Authorities which have a mayor and strategic authority, under which there are divisions that are Unitary Authorities with all the powers of the former district and county councils. Devolved powers from the Government include powers like control over local transport, devolved investment funds to boost growth in the area, and devolved housing and infrastructure funds.
What is the government Devolution priority programme? The priority programme is a programme in which counties judged ready for both restructuring into Unitary Authorities and creating a Combined Authority with a Mayor receiving devolved powers are given a rigorous and short timeline to complete the reorganisation and receive funds to help them do so.
Is Surrey part of the Devolution Priority Programme? No! Because we have a thorny debt problem to solve, MHCLG has determined that we are not yet ready for Devolution – for devolved powers and a Combined Authority with mayor. But we have been told we must solve the Surrey debt problem and reorganise into Unitary Authorities on just as tight a time limit, but with no devolution of powers and no funds to help us. The intention as that at some later point we will address devolution.
What’s the debt problem in Surrey? After being close to bankruptcy in early 2021, Tandridge District Council cut costs and is now in a healthy position. Citizens in Tandridge have lived with less to ensure we have healthy finances. The County and some of the other Districts and Borough in Surrey have not managed their finances well and if their debt is reorganised across all of us, we will pay the price and suffer the pain that funded their gain.
What’s the timeline for Surrey? Surrey, despite its current lack of consensus, must solve its huge debt problem and agree its Unitary Authority Structures with a first draft submitted to the government by the 21st of March and its final proposal by the 9th of May. The Government will review our proposal or proposals (if there are multiple proposals due to lack of consensus) and determine how we will be structured going forward, with a view to holding elections in May 2026 for our new Unitary Authorities.
Why should I care that local government is restructuring? How does it affect me? As citizens, we need a tier of local government that knows and understands our areas. For example, we need Councillors we can reach when there is a social housing, road or planning issue. And we need enough Councillors so that they have the time to work with us. Usually, such momentous changes are democratically consulted. These changes are being done so quickly that effective consultation is impracticable. One must question why the rush. Most restructured Unitary Authorities and Combined Mayoral Authorities took 3+ years to organise and roll out. Local government does not and cannot restructure lightly. We have been working in this structure for over 50 years. Our next iteration must last the next 50 or more. So, we need time to get it right. Many Councils have raised concern about the breakneck speed of the reorganisation.
This question of what is right for Surrey rests on getting the size of the new authorities right so they are effective and thus the right size for the people. Today Surrey is comprised of 1 County Council and 11 District and Borough Councils. Should Surrey be split into 2 or 3 or 4 authorities?
It is also particularly thorny because our County and some District and Borough governments have such huge debt, amounting to billions and billions of pounds of debt across all of us. To date, the Treasury is unwilling to forgive any debt, although our County Council leader Tim Oliver requested debt forgiveness from the Government, as it lent to these Councils. Therefore, all of this debt must somehow be sorted and may be carried within Surrey. Across Surrey, we may then have to fund billions of pounds of debt, which could mean large tax increases for everyone, including those that never benefited from the overspend.
Are we going too fast? Is it unfair to reorganise before other Districts and Boroughs have worked down their debt? Let your Surrey County Council leader Tim Oliver know what you think at tim.oliver@surreycc.gov.uk. And be sure to let your Minister for Local Government and Devolution Jim McMahon know what you think at: jim.mcmahon.mp@parliament.uk.
As ever, if you have questions or would like more detail, please be in touch at cllr.deborah.sherry@tandridge.gov.uk or 07779134797.
Deborah Sherry, Tandridge District Councillor for Woldingham Ward
We are delighted to announce that Claire welcomed her son, Rafael Peter Hawksbee, into the world on 17th January. While she takes some well-deserved rest, Claire’s team is working as normal and we are ready to help you with anything you need. Please feel free to continue to contact us on claire.coutinho.mp@parliament.uk if there is anything we might be able to help with.
While Claire is on maternity leave we still want to provide residents with an update on what we are working on locally and what has been happening in Parliament each month.
The Chancellor’s speech on growth in February contained a commitment to a third runway at Heathrow, but stopped short of giving a firm commitment on potential expansion of Gatwick. The airport is acutely important to the lives and livelihoods of those who rely on Gatwick for their jobs – either directly or indirectly. We have started reaching out to local campaigners to ascertain what mitigating measures they would most like to see introduced if expansion is approved, and how we can work together to find solutions for residents who will be affected by flight path changes, increased capacity and construction disruption in the short to medium term.
We will be pushing for a number of measures including an increase in noise monitors across the constituency to gather accurate, reliable data on how flight paths are affecting residents, better noise mitigation for local residents who will be affected by any construction work and flights, improvements to sewage treatment works, better car parking on-site and better traffic monitoring.
The Government has also decided to cancel this year’s local elections. This is being done to pave the way for the abolition of district and county councils, which will be replaced with larger, single-tier ‘unitary’ local authorities. Councils are currently drafting their proposals for an interim plan, which is due by 21st March, with the Secretary of State Angela Rayner then making a decision after the submission of a full proposal by 9th May. There is no national public consultation, but our local District and Borough Councils will be looking to run consultations between 21st March and 9th May.
In the House of Commons, the Opposition has forced a vote in both Houses on cancelling the elections – something that the Chief Executive of the Electoral Commission has raised concerns about. We are clear that local government restructuring should not be imposed by top-down Whitehall diktat – the Government have been rushing this decision, and there has been a severe lack of effort to gather consensus within two-tier areas across the country.
We believe that more time should be taken to understand how these changes will affect the structure of local government, and to give residents an opportunity to share their views. In East Surrey, representatives of the district and borough councils and Surrey County Council are meeting regularly to discuss the proposal that will be submitted to the Secretary of State by 21st March, and particularly what should happen with the significant debts accrued by Woking Borough Council. We will keep residents updated as developments take place.
It is disappointing that Lloyds Bank has confirmed the closure of their branch in Caterham. Cash Access, who have confirmed they will be opening a Banking Hub in Caterham to maintain services for residents, and in a meeting they confirmed that Lloyds will not be able to close until the Banking Hub is open. An out-of-hours cash point has also been recommended. For more information on the services they will be providing, please visit www.clairecoutinho.com/news or send an email to claire.coutinho.mp@parliament.uk.
Finally, as Network Rail and GTR were considering changes to the next rail timetable, we created an East Surrey Rail Survey to offer residents a platform to share their ideas. Over 500 people got in touch to share their views, which, at the time of writing, we are currently processing. We will be meeting with Network Rail and GTR in the next few weeks to go through residents’ feedback, with the aim of reviewing and adjusting the timetable to better suit the needs of local residents.
-Team Claire
What is Changing? Local government is changing. In December, the government issued a new white paper on Local Government. All over the country, local government will be changing, creating large Unitary Authorities. They are called Unitary Authorities because they unite the District or Borough and the County Levels of government. And they will be united under one Strategic Mayoral Authority. The process is called Devolution.
You may have read about Devolution. Local government is on track to be restructured so that it is more uniform and has fewer levels of government. In Surrey, this means that in practice, all District and Borough Councils and the County Council will be abolished and Surrey will be structured into one, two or three Unitary Authorities, with one elected Mayor – the Strategic Authority – above them. The Unitary Authorities would be in charge of service delivery. The Mayoral (Strategic) Authority would be in charge of strategy.
Why is it called Devolution? Devolution means that decision making moves closer to the citizen and is more democratic. Devolution is not new. Moving some powers from the UK government to the national governments in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales are examples of Devolution. London as a city has long had many devolved powers (since 1999). In more recent years, other cities followed.
Devolution deals for Counties, Districts and Boroughs are focussed on creating authorities that can operate strategically and financially to drive local economic growth, run policy for developing skills and for managing transport (with some input on rail), and look to create and manage a ‘single pot’ to support local investment as well to deliver the ability to raise additional revenue through financial instruments such as a Mayoral precept.
Who decided to do this with the Counties, Districts and Boroughs? This is a process that started in 2014, under the previous national government. The current government is pressing ahead as rapidly as it can and would like the country to uniformly adopt a political structure of Mayors and Unitary Authorities below them. Some areas are putting themselves forward to be in the first, fast-track wave of restructuring into Unitary Authorities and Mayors.
What about Surrey County Council? Surrey County Council is putting our County forward for the fast-track, and in a few months, we will know if it is to be fast tracked.
Today the County is comprised of 11 Districts and Boroughs with 453 elected District/Borough Councillors across their wards. The County Council itself is comprised of 81 divisions, with 81 elected County Councillors. So, in the County of Surrey, 534 Councillors look after the needs of the roughly 1.2 million residents.
The County Council is responsible for education (schools and youth services), social services, highways management, fire and rescue services, libraries and waste disposal.
The District/Borough Councils are responsible for housing, planning, waste collection and street cleaning, leisure, environmental health, and revenue collection.
As one, two or three Unitary Authorities, each Authority in Surrey will look after the merged responsibilities of the County and District/Borough Councils. The total number of Councillors being mooted is something like 162 across the Authorities, but this is very much subject to determination in the process. Either way, it will be far fewer than the 534 (largely unpaid) Councillors that serve the citizens of Surrey today. It is as yet unclear if there will be any knock-on effects on our Town and Parish Councils. In some reorganisations there has been an impact.
Pros and Cons of Unitary Authorities. It is hard to really call this devolution at the County level, as more is centralised up to County / Unitary Authority and less is devolved down from central government. Setting aside the term devolution, which is something of a misnomer at the County level, there are pros and cons to the Unitary Authority structure.
The Pros include:
– Decreased risk: larger authorities are larger in scale. Scale generally decreases financial risk and enables more efficient borrowing. In the long run, this saves the taxpayer money.
– Strategic Alignment. It is easier to achieve strategic alignment across the county by governing in one larger area. A larger authority (without fragmented districts and boroughs) would mean strategic decisions on how to spur economic growth, and on infrastructure, planning and housing needs, could be taken holistically and potentially more rapidly.
– Some powers held at national level can be devolved to Mayoral Authorities (And their Unitary delivery arm), as has happened in some cities.
The Cons include:
– Government would effectively be largely in two layers – very rare for a western democracy – with no real engagement at very local levels. The country is only one-third parished and Parish Councils have few statutory powers that would enable meaningful engagement with a Unitary Authority and Mayor.
– Democracy and democratic mechanism would therefore be much more remote, with the minimum population level for an area Authority set at 500,000 and the number of Councillors serving people dramatically reduced. Individuals will not be as engaged nor be able to reach their Councillors as easily. Some areas will simply get far less attention and help than they do today. And given the remoteness of the enlarged area (relative to a District or Borough) from many of its citizens, democracy will be less well served.
– Outside urban areas, which by definition face similar issues within their geography, such large minimum population requirements mean very disparate areas with little in common will be pushed into one Authority (e.g. large towns, rural villages and farms and semi-rural villages will all be in one huge Authority). On the 80/20 rule (80% of outcomes results from 20% of causes), the big issues will be dealt, with leaving many needs and issues unaddressed across such a broad geography. Some areas will likely get very little attention.
In short, the principles of governability and democracy that government Divisions must fulfil, as enshrined in the Local Government Act, will be much harder to achieve. But strategic alignment across larger areas and, at least in theory and perhaps practice, financial stability and lower costs may be easier to achieve.
What has been proposed for Surrey? It is not yet known whether Surrey will form one, two or three Unitary Authorities. Guidance from government is that there should be a minimum 500,000 population per Unitary Authority. This would suggest Surrey will most likely be one or two Authorities, however some exceptions to minimum population requirements may be made (and many have been in the past).
It is also unclear if Surrey must merge with other areas outside the County on a strategic basis, as the Mayoral Strategic area has been designated as a minimum population of 1.5 million people and Surrey has 1.2 million people. Again, exceptions can and have been made.
A possible scenario is that Surrey will encompass one strategic Mayoral Authority with two unitary authorities below it. And there are also many proponents for reorganising into three authorities. How Surrey’s Districts and Boroughs are split into Unitary Authorities remains to be seen. A North and South scenario is possible, as is an East and West scenario. And there is much work to be done on the financial structure as some Districts (notably NOT Tandridge) have severe debt problems that may be spread across the new Authorities, borne by all citizens therein.
Surrey is proposing itself to be in the first wave of government restructuring and as such on the 8th of May the leader of Surrey County Council wrote to the Minister (Jim McMahon, Minister for Local Government and English Devolution) to ask him to lay the legislation to cancel the May 2025 Surrey County Council elections with a view to holding elections for the new Unitary Authorities in May 2026. If Surrey is selected for the initial wave of reorganisation, which should be communicated by the end of January, then the initial reorganisation proposals are due in March and the final proposal in May. If Surrey is not selected for the first, fast-tracked wave of reorganisation, then the restructuring will happen at a slower pace, but before 2030.
If you would like to discuss this in more detail or receive a more personal update, please do get in touch on email or by phone. I can be reached at cllr.deborah.sherry@tandridge.gov.uk or 07779134797.
District Councillor Deborah Sherry
Around the Nation. As I am writing this, we are now in the week in which the government was due to reveal its white paper on devolution. It is now due by the end of the year. Also due by the end of the year is the government’s update to the National Planning Policy Framework (“NPPF”). By the time you read this, both these documents should have been published, so please look out for them, and summaries of them.
They matter, because there are changes afoot as to planning policy and building permission which could affect the characters of our areas, as well as potential changes as to how local government is run.
What is Devolution?
The previous national administration was working hard towards devolution of local government, as is the current administration. Devolution is about introducing structural change to local government (everything below Parliament) across England with the aim of simplifying structures, reducing cost, delivering more strategically aligned plans across a wider geography (e.g. infrastructure with housing) and speeding decision making. In theory and hopefully in practice, the goal of simplification is to ensure simpler structures make sense for local areas. We hope so.
Devolution is targeting delivering more joined up local growth plans. To deliver all of this, County and similar authorities need to do Devolution Deals with our national government, which aims to establish “foundational combined authorities” which would progress to becoming large mayoral authorities.
I do note that discussions are being held at the National and County levels, but we are not involved at the District and Parish Council levels. Devolution may well reduce the layers of local government and change the responsibilities and workload of those remaining.
What are the new National Planning Policy Framework (“NPPF”) proposals?
Only publication of the actual new NPPF will answer all our questions, but we have responded, at the District and Parish levels, at the County level and across the nation, to a consultation on proposed changes to the NPPF. Some of the expected and much touted changes follow.
The requirements to deliver housing have already been increased, with a new formula in place. Planning authorities will be required to demonstrate a 5-year housing supply at all times, regardless of the age of their Development Plan.
A new concept has been launched framed as grey belt, which will enable building in Green Belt areas that no longer serve their purpose and we expect (and hope for) clear definition in the revised NPPF to identify such areas. There will be strengthened requirements for cross-border working to ensure housing numbers can be delivered and infrastructure challenges are simultaneously resolved. There will be a host of other changes relating to the strategic delivery of a modern economy and more housing. This is the promise. And we eagerly await the release of the revised NPPF.
Around the District. Meanwhile as we attend to day-to-day business at Tandridge District Council, your District Council is hard at work building a new budget for the coming years. We face a challenging situation as by law we must pass a balanced budget, and as costs have escalated, income has not. So, the District’s Officers and Councillors are working to fund £1million in savings each year for the next four years (cumulatively). We aim to do so with as little impact on frontline services as possible.
The District Council is also working on delivering a new Development Plan as quickly as possible. And the District Council also has been working hard on clearing planning and enforcement backlogs and the situation is considerably improved.
And finally, the District continues to focus on delivering much needed Council housing. Last month the District Council purchased Dormers, a disused former care home in Caterham that Surrey County Council had put up for sale. The site will add roughly 20 new net-zero two and three-bedroom Council rental houses to the District Council’s housing stock.
Have a question? Need help? Ask me and I can help. Email me at: cllr.deborah.sherry@tandridge.gov.uk.
Deborah Sherry, Tandridge District Councillor for Woldingham Ward
A lot has happened in the world of politics this month. We’ve seen the US Presidential Election, the new UK Government’s first budget, and the election of a new Conservative Leader, Kemi Badenoch. I backed her since the start of the campaign because she has the fierce intelligence, political courage, and strong conservative principles that are needed to renew our party.
It was a privilege to not only be reappointed as Shadow Secretary of State for Energy, but also appointed as Shadow Minister for Equalities. I look forward to continuing to put consumers first when scrutinising energy policy, prioritising cheap energy, and bringing a common-sense approach to race, sex, and gender when speaking on equality.
I will continue to hold the Government accountable for their election promise to cut energy bills by £300 by 2030. However, I worry Ed Miliband’s approach, combined with the Government’s £40 billion of tax rises in the Budget will leave the typical family worse off by the end of the Parliament.
Meeting with local farmers in Bletchingley also brought home the stark realities of the Family Farm Tax. I heard about the devastating impact it will have on tenant farmers and large landowners alike. Farmers who have farmed their land for generations should have our gratitude for the food security they provide, not punitive taxes.
I also met with the GPs at Oxted Health Centre, who were worried about the rise in Employer’s National Insurance Contributions which will cost their surgery tens of thousands of pounds per year. Primary care is already under strain and I will be writing to the Secretary of State for Health to ask him to ensure funding is allocated to cover the costs of the Budget so patients don’t lose out.
A highlight this month was my visit to the East Surrey Museum to meet the curator, Peter Connolly, and Ros Rawling, both of whom gave me a fantastic tour. We discussed the fascinating history of Caterham and East Surrey, from William Garland, known as the father of modern Caterham, to the significance of Caterham Station during the Industrial Revolution, to the very different wildlife from Surrey’s past. I knew that woolly mammoths wandered around prehistoric Surrey, but Peter and Ros told me that we used to have hippos as well. If you get the chance, pop down to the Museum, you’ll definitely learn something new.
One of the most poignant parts of the year for me is remembering the fallen on Remembrance Sunday. I was delighted to spend the afternoon selling poppies with the Royal British Legion in Oxted Morrisons. It was heartwarming to see how many residents support our veterans. I’d like to thank Branch Chairman, Rob Cogan, for having me along. The Oxted Branch has a growing community that meets twice a month and is currently developing a permanent Veterans’ Hub. If you’re a veteran and want to get involved or need support, contact – Oxted.Chairman@rbl.community
It was an honour to lay a wreath at Caterham on the Hill war memorial and to attend the service at St Mary’s. Thank you to everyone who took part. As the years go on, we will lose the nation’s living memories of both World Wars, but we will never forget the sacrifices that were made by so many for our freedom.