Reform UK Godalming and Ash – Response to consultation on Local Government Re-organization in Surrey

July 17, 2025

Contact: Alex Roebuck, Chair, Reform UK Godalming and Ash

We are the Godalming and Ash branch of Reform UK. Our constituency is divided between Waverley and Guildford boroughs, with the majority of residents living in Waverley. We note, and concur with, the excellent response which has been submitted to this consultation by our colleagues in Guildford. Our response will, therefore, concentrate on the matter from the point of view of our members and supporters in Waverley, and the wider issues raised by the way in which this re-organization is being carried out.

First Thoughts

We are told this is about devolution. That is, bringing power closer to home for everyone in Surrey. But what the proposals do is merge councils into fewer, larger authorities. That is exactly the opposite of devolution. Is it not dishonest to claim one thing, and do its opposite?

Reform UK stands for real local control, real accountability and real choice for local residents. In Godalming and Ash, in Surrey as a whole, and throughout the UK.

Background

Local council finances

In the last few years, Surrey local councils’ finances have been dire. According to the BBC, in early 2025 the total of the debts was about £5.5bn – approximately £4,500 for every man, woman and child in Surrey. Of this, about £2bn lay with Woking Borough Council, and more than £1bn with Spelthorne. Runnymede council, too, has very significant debts.

There have been discussions within government on how to deal with the debt problems. As a result, Woking now receives exceptional financial assistance from central government. Yet there does not seem to be any agreed plan on how to fix these issues, or who will be expected to pay.

Devolution

A framework for devolution of powers from central government to local authorities was introduced by the Conservative government in 2022. It came into effect in 2023. “Level 2” powers could be devolved to a non-mayoral county council or other unitary council; “Level 3” powers required a single institution, with a directly elected mayor. This change seems to have begged the question of whether or not a mayoral system would be acceptable to the people outside big cities, and particularly in rural areas.

In March 2024, Surrey County Council (SCC) signed a Level 2 devolution deal with the then Conservative government. It did not envisage any changes to the political map within Surrey, and indeed involved SCC taking on new functions from 2025 onwards. It explicitly stated: “Surrey County Council elections will continue to take place on the same cycle, with the next scheduled elections due in May 2025.”

Labour’s devolution strategy

The Labour manifesto for the 2024 election laid out Labour’s preferred model for local government. They wanted towns and cities “to come together and take on new powers.” They saw a future of Mayoral Combined Authorities. But there was no suggestion that such an authority would be forced on the people in areas, such as Waverley, which are mainly rural.

When the Devolution White Paper was published in December, it said: “The benefits of devolution are best achieved through the establishment of combined institutions with a directly elected mayor.” It proposed “Universal coverage in England of Strategic Authorities – which should be a number of councils working together, covering areas that people recognise and work in.” And there will be “unprecedented powers and budgets for Mayors.”

The powers to be delegated to all Strategic Authorities, with or without a mayor, are: Transport and local infrastructure. Skills and employment support. Housing and strategic planning. Economic development and regeneration. Environment and climate change, including green energy roll-out and “local nature recovery.” Health, wellbeing and public service reform. And public safety (police and fire).

They call this “devolution”. But it means stripping power from local communities, and centralizing it in the hands of a single mayor.

Surrey County Council’s response

On the same day the white paper was released, the minister for local government had written to the leaders of two-tier councils, including SCC, warning that all such councils would be required to supply proposals very soon for re-organization into unitary authorities. Yet also ordering that “reorganisation should not delay devolution,” and aiming where possible for mayoral elections in May 2026. The letter also offered to postpone local council elections from May 2025 to May 2026 for those areas where re-organization was necessary before devolution could be undertaken.

The eagerness with which Conservative-controlled Surrey County Council fell over themselves to get on board with this, and to delay the May elections, would have been comical, if there hadn’t been so much at stake for everyone in Surrey.

The two proposals

In May 2025, two proposals were published. Both envisaged the abolition of all the existing borough and district councils, and their replacement by larger unitary councils.

The two-unitary model proposed by SCC, Elmbridge Borough Council and Mole Valley District Council brackets Guildford, Waverley and Surrey Heath in with all three of the councils with big financial difficulties – Woking, Runnymede and Spelthorne. It proposes either 162 or 243 councillors for the 81 Surrey electoral districts.

The three-unitary model, proposed by the remaining nine councils, brackets Guildford and Waverley with Surrey Heath and Woking to form West Surrey; while Spelthorne and Runnymede are both bracketed with Elmbridge to form North Surrey. This proposal retains the existing 81 Surrey electoral districts, with three councillors for each, totalling 243.

Answers to the Consultation Questions

We will now give our answers to the specific questions raised by the consultation documents, expressing our views on the two options which are on the table. Following this, we will raise some more general issues about how the process has been, and is being, conducted.

We feel that the consultation has been directed mainly to large organizations, which are already involved in the delivery of functions for local government. The invitation to the general public, and to organizations like ourselves, to respond looks almost like an afterthought. This is not democracy. It looks more like a box-ticking consultation designed to rubber-stamp a pre-decided plan.

We would also point out that we cannot respond to many of the questions in as much detail as we would ideally like to, since we do not have access to all the information we would require.

Question 1. Does the proposal suggest sensible economic areas and geographies which will achieve a single tier of local government for the whole of Surrey?

Two-unitary option: No. The area proposed for their “West Surrey” makes no sense from a commuting or service delivery point of view. To travel between Waverley and Runnymede, you need either to drive through the centre of Woking, or use the M25, or at least two changes by train. We in Waverley should not be forced into an artificial unit with a borough we can only reach using the M25.

Spelthorne is even further away – on the opposite bank of the Thames! Residents in Waverley have nothing in common with boroughs north of the Thames. They are outer London; we are south-west Surrey. The two-unitary model ignores these realities.

Three-unitary option: Compared to the two-unitary option, for residents of Waverley, this is much preferable. It aligns far better with natural communities and travel patterns. And, as a smaller unit than the two-unitary, it should offer smaller government, more responsive to local needs and tastes. But even the three-unitary option is not something that we would wish to commit to, until the issue with Woking’s debt has been resolved. It would be unjust for Waverley residents to be expected to pay for the failings of those in another borough.

As to the single-tier structure of local government, this is an approach which has historically been favoured by Labour. Whereas the Conservatives have tended to favour a two-tier approach. If we were free to make the choice, we as residents of Waverley would prefer the existing structure over both of the options offered, since it allows more flexibility for areas with different needs – e.g. rural versus urban.

Question 2. Will the local government structures being put forward, if implemented, achieve the outcomes described?

Already answered under question 1. Any system abolishing borough councils to form giant new units is the very opposite of bringing government closer to the people.

Question 3. Is the councils’ proposal for unitary local government of the right size to achieve efficiencies, improve capacity and withstand financial shocks and is this supported by a rationale for the population size proposed?

Two-unitary option: The supporting documentation has used unrealistic population projections for the future. The population projection for Waverley (and for Surrey as a whole) for 2040 is lower than the actual population in 2023!

Three-unitary option: The population calculations have been made using the ONS’s latest projections, which assume a continuation of the current 1% population growth per year, fuelled mainly by inward migration. Population targets and housebuilding plans suggest Surrey’s growth will easily break these thresholds. It is a little surprising that the two-unitary camp did not take account of policies, to which they have already signed up.

Unless immigration policies change radically, both West and East Surrey will surpass the (rather arbitrary) 500,000 population threshold in just a few years. North Surrey is somewhat smaller, but even there, if the new structure lasts 50 years as the old one has, the area’s population will be well above 500,000 before the end. So, in our opinion, the three-unitary option cannot be disqualified on population-size grounds.

As to efficiencies, in theory a larger organization can achieve economies of scale in service delivery, relative to a smaller one. But this may well be offset by the tendency of larger organizations, particularly government ones, to grow fat, and to waste more of the money of the people they are tasked to serve. For achieving efficiencies, in our view, establishing and maintaining a culture of honest service to the people is more important than size of unit.

Question 4. As an area covering councils in Best Value intervention and in receipt of Exceptional Financial Support, do you agree the proposal will put local government in the area as a whole on a firmer footing?

Without knowing the detail of the negotiations over the debts of Woking, Spelthorne and Runnymede, and the stage they have reached, we cannot answer this question Yes or No. But any fix must deal with these debts first.

That said, from the point of view of Waverley residents, the three-unitary proposal is clearly the superior of the two, even though its West Surrey area does include Woking.

Question 5. Will the proposal prioritise the delivery of high quality and sustainable public services to citizens, improve local government and service delivery, avoid unnecessary fragmentation of services and lead to better value for money in the delivery of these services?

We do not have the information to answer this question in more detail, beyond what we said in reply to question 3. And let’s be honest – there is no evidence either option will truly fix the mess Surrey’s councils are in.

Question 6. Has the proposal been informed by local views, and does it consider issues of local identity and cultural and historic importance?

We understand that a survey was done of about 3,000 people, which came out with strong support for the three-unitary option over the two. But we have not been able to examine the detailed results of this survey.

In any case, surveying less than a quarter of a per cent of Surrey’s residents, in our view, is not sufficient to count as being “informed by local views.” Perhaps this consultation may result in an improvement in this aspect, even though it only addresses the two-unitary approach versus the three, and ignores the wider issues.

As to the people in Waverley borough, we feel a strong link with Guildford, but not necessarily so much with the boroughs further afield.

Question 7. Does the councils’ proposal support devolution arrangements?

That depends what you mean by devolution. The technical definition is “the transfer or delegation of power to a lower level.” But what Labour mean by “devolution” is not at all what most voters would expect it to mean.

Far from bringing government closer to the people, Labour are seeking to concentrate local government power throughout England in a smaller number of larger units. Ultimately, they want to see this power in the hands of a small number of mayors, whose powers will be both strong and wide-ranging. That is quite the opposite of devolution, as the man in the street (and that includes ourselves) would see it. If this is “devolution,” it’s Orwellian.

Question 8. Will the councils’ proposal enable stronger community engagement and deliver genuine opportunity for neighbourhood empowerment?

This question seems to be referring to “neighbourhood area committees.” This appears to be a pilot scheme, being trialled in three locations in Surrey.

There is no mention of these at all in SCC’s written proposal for the two-unitary option; only a request from the minister for “detail on your plans for neighbourhood-based governance.”

The proposal for the three-unitary option sees the prototypes of these committees, which have been tried in places like Wiltshire and Somerset, as “a top-down and ineffective imposition that are too static and transactional.” They suggest, instead, that existing town and parish councils should play a larger role; but even this vision is, as yet, incomplete.

Frankly, the best answer might be to stop the whole caboodle, and to keep the current system, at least until Surrey’s finances are honestly sorted out. But that option isn’t even on the table.

So, at this point, given the limited documentation available to us, the proposals are insufficiently developed for us to answer this question at all. This lack of development also raises concerns about whether the proposed timescales for the re-organization are feasible.

Question 9. Do you have any other comments with regards to the proposed local government reorganisation in Surrey?

Oh, yes!

Surrey is facing the biggest shake-up to its local government in generations. These are seismic changes, yet they are being railroaded through with barely a whisper of genuine public engagement or democratic legitimacy.

With regard to the debt of the existing councils, it is all but madness to go ahead with a re-organization – or even to consult on one – without a transparent breakdown of who will pay what. Surrey residents deserve financial clarity, not hidden liabilities.

These reforms are being framed as part of a broader “devolution” agenda. But this is not about bringing power closer to the people. Instead, it will have the effect of consolidating control into fewer hands, and increasing the distance between decision-makers and the communities they serve.

The Conservative councillors who decided to ask for postponement of the elections in Surrey might not have survived a vote back in May. So, they no longer have a democratic mandate, and are no longer democratically accountable. But somehow, despite this, they get to reshape the very structure of local government – how on earth can that be fair?

Moreover, this consultation itself concentrates on a narrow choice between two- and three-unitary options, while ignoring possibilities that many people might find more attractive. Other proposals, such as a North/South split or even keeping the current system, have been excluded from consideration.

Further, this “choice” is a bit like cheering on one of two fighting gnats, while ignoring that there’s a polar bear in the room – the mayoral system, that both Labour and Conservatives seem to want to force on us, whether we like it or not.

A New Mayor with Unprecedented Powers

One major part of this reform has been under-reported: the plan is that Surrey will have an elected Mayor by 2028 or 2029. This is not a maybe – it’s a condition of “devolution deals” being agreed with central government.

When the introduction of mayors outside London was first put forward in 2012, most areas introducing mayors held local referendums. And in some places, like Nottingham, the mayoral idea was rejected. (But they now find themselves subject to the mayor of the East Midlands Combined County Authority; so, the referendum result wasn’t really honoured).

A mayor for Surrey is to be imposed on the people without our consent. Mayoral areas are vast (often 15 constituencies or more), making them less accountable, not more. And this role will come with enormous powers. Such as: Control over transport planning and funding. Power in some circumstances to override local councils’ decisions. And influence that local MPs and councillors may be unable to challenge.

Moreover, because unitary authorities cannot challenge the mayor’s Transport Plan, there will be potential for an activist mayor to enforce schemes like ULEZ-style emissions zones across the county. Even in places like rural Waverley, where a car is all but an essential.

Do you really want ULEZ in Puttenham or Peaslake? How many people, particularly older and poorer people, would lose their mobility entirely?

From the published documents, we could not find any clear and detailed statement of how the mayoral county authority is planned to work in practice. In particular, it is not clear how, or how well, unitary authority councillors would be able to represent the people who elected them.

In summary, local control and responsiveness to local conditions are set to diminish even further.

This Goes Far Beyond Local Government

What is at stake here isn’t just council structure – it’s democracy itself.

The system we live under is being redesigned without our consent. This should concern every Surrey resident, regardless of party politics. Should we not all be able to agree that in a democracy, decisions should never be made without public consultation and consent?

How much more, then, is it necessary fully to consult the public at large on all the issues, before making a fundamental change to the structure of local democracy? This is not being done.

If We Ruled the World…

If we had the power to guide the resolution of these issues, our preferred way forward would be along the following lines:

A pause on all LGR activity until Surrey residents have had a full say, and the financial issues have been resolved.
Local elections to SCC as soon as practical, replacing the elections which were postponed in May.
Detailed proposals on the options for the future structure of local government in Surrey. To include two and three unitary authority options, mayoral and non-mayoral systems, and the option of taking no action.
A full financial breakdown of each proposed LGR model, including who will be responsible for paying what debt(s).
A county-wide referendum on the proposals.
The implementation of the option(s) selected by the people of Surrey.

In this way, the people of Surrey would truly be able to “unlock the benefits of devolution.”