Let’s Get Real – Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) in Surrey by Jon Davies

Surrey is facing the biggest shake-up to its local government in generations. Borough and district councils will disappear, to be replaced by larger “unitary” authorities, and it will also have an elected Mayor by 2029 at the latest.

These are seismic changes, yet they’re being railroaded through with barely a whisper of genuine public engagement or democratic legitimacy.

Surrey County Council (SCC), along with Elmbridge Borough Council and Mole Valley District Council, has proposed creating two new unitary authorities (East and West), while 9 out of the 11 borough and district councils – including Guildford and Waverley – prefer a three-unitary model (North, East and West).

Both sides argue their model will improve efficiency, save money, and make services easier to access.

But, there’s one glaring omission in all of this: you, the resident of Surrey.

“Devolution” That Moves Power Further Away

These reforms are being framed as part of a broader “devolution” agenda. But don’t be fooled – this is not about bringing power closer to the People, it’s about consolidating control into fewer hands, increasing distance between decision-makers and the communities they serve.

Why Were Our Elections Cancelled?

With support growing for both the Liberal Democrats and Reform UK, the Conservatives who controlled SCC faced a real risk of defeat at the local elections that were due to be held back in May. So, they took a calculated step: they asked the current Labour-led government to include Surrey in the first wave of Local Government Reorganisation (LGR). And Westminster agreed.

That wasn’t something that was done to the Conservatives on SCC – it was driven by them. They were aiming, in effect, to cling onto power just long enough to lock in their preferred model of governance.

The people making these decisions 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?

The Financial Reality: Who Will Foot the Bill?

SCC claims that LGR will deliver “efficiencies.” But the financial state of Surrey’s councils reveals a much darker reality. Several boroughs have taken on massive debt through risky commercial property schemes. Some are now on the brink of financial collapse.

Borough	Total Debt	Debt per Resident	Annual Repayments
Woking	~£1.95bn	~£19,000	~£60 million
Spelthorne	~£1.1bn	~£10,400	~£25 million
Runnymede	~£643m	~£7,270	~£17 million

Woking has already declared effective bankruptcy (under a Section 114 notice), and Spelthorne and Runnymede may not be far behind.

And what about our local boroughs here in Godalming and Ash: Guildford and Waverley? Guildford’s debt has reportedly increased sharply over the last few years, to around £300m. Waverley’s remains just under £160m (on 31st March 2023), comparable with most of the other Surrey councils.

Yet the reorganisation could force residents across all of Surrey – including those in financially stable councils like Mole Valley, Tandridge and Waverley – to share the burden of others’ debts.

As Cllr Catherine Sayer of Tandridge District rightly said: “It would be totally unjust for residents in the Tandridge District to inherit any of the debt, especially given the tremendous efforts our council has made to successfully achieve a financially stable position.”

So, it is madness to go ahead with a reorganisation – or even to consult on one – without a transparent breakdown of who will pay what. Surrey residents deserve financial clarity, not hidden liabilities.

The Two-Unitary Option – a bad deal for Waverley and Guildford residents

The two-unitary model proposed by SCC brackets Guildford, Waverley and Surrey Heath in with all three of the councils with big financial difficulties – Woking, Runnymede and Spelthorne.

Not only that, but the area proposed for their “West Surrey” makes no sense from a service delivery point of view. To travel between Guildford or Waverley and Runnymede, you need either to drive through the centre of Woking, or to use the M25. And Spelthorne is even further away – on the opposite bank of the Thames!

The Three-Unitary Option – still not democratic

The three-unitary model, proposed by a group of mostly Liberal Democrat-led 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.

From the point of view of residents of Guildford and Waverley, this offers some surface appeal:

• Smaller, more responsive governance.
• Better alignment with natural communities.
• Reduced risk of Woking-style debt contagion.

But it, too, is being advanced without any kind of public vote. It could also cost even more to implement, with three leadership teams and systems to fund instead of two.

Let’s get real: neither plan has public consent. And other models, such as a North/South split or even keeping the current system, have been excluded from consideration entirely.

A Consultation Without Real Choice

A public consultation is currently underway (until 5th August). You can find it here: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/local-government-reorganisation-in-surrey/proposals-for-local-government-reorganisation-in-surrey.

But it only presents two options: the SCC-backed two-unitary model and the boroughs’ three-unitary alternative. There is no option to reject both, and/or to propose an alternative. More disturbingly, there is no question at all about whether residents support this reorganisation in the first place.

And, based on past experience, we know how these consultations often go: the decision(s) have already been made, results are cherry-picked, and public feedback quietly brushed aside.

Meanwhile, SCC has made it clear that it is committed to the two-unitary model, no matter what. Even if the consultation delivers an overwhelming rejection, they may (and likely will!) press ahead anyway.

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 being imposed on you without your consent. And this role will come with enormous power:

• Control over transport planning and funding.
• Power in some circumstances to override local councils’ decisions.
• Influence that local MPs and councillors may be unable to challenge.
• Potential to enforce schemes like ULEZ-style emissions zones across the county.

Mayoral areas are vast (often 15 constituencies or more), making them less accountable, not more. And because unitary authorities cannot challenge the mayor’s Transport Plan, local control is set to diminish even further.

This Goes Far Beyond Local Government

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

The system we live under is being redesigned without consent, and this should concern every Surrey resident, regardless of party politics – I think we can all agree that a democratic decision should never be made without public consent.

What Needs to Happen Now

Here’s what I believe must happen before any further steps are taken:

1. Immediate pause on all LGR activity until the financial implications are clear and residents have had their say.
2. Reinstatement of local elections as soon as practicable. Those cancelled in May should now go ahead.
3. A county-wide referendum, offering Surrey residents a meaningful, binding choice, whereby the options should include:

○     Two-unitary model

○     Three-unitary model

○     North/South split

○     Retaining the current structure

4. Full financial disclosure of each model, including who pays what, and how much debt will be transferred.

Let’s not sleepwalk into a future we didn’t choose. It’s time to stand up for accountability, democracy and transparency.

Let’s get real – this is our Surrey, and we should get to decide its future.

Jon Davies is interim Secretary of Reform UK Godalming and Ash branch.