Update from your Tandridge District Councillor – April 2025
THE JURY IS OUT: 1, 2, OR 3 NEW UNITARY AUTHORITIES FOR SURREY
Local Government Reorganisation
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.
1, 2, or 3 new Unitary Authorities? Smoke and Mirrors to Obfuscate the Simple Truth?
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