Our approach

Since submitting our interim proposal, district and borough councils have worked collaboratively and at considerable pace to develop this full proposal. Focused workstreams were established that brought together officers from across Surrey to refine our interim analysis. This has ensured that our proposal is based on a comprehensive analysis and robust peer assessment of the evidence available.

While we have collaborated extensively across Surrey, views differ on what model for the future of local government best serves Surrey.

However, we all agree that creating financially sustainable unitary authorities is of fundamental importance to the future of local government in Surrey. Indeed, it is only through creating sustainable, resilient and efficient authorities that we will be able to address the challenges we collectively face.

As noted, our modelling shows that both two and three unitary authorities are financially viable and would create significant financial savings compared with the status quo. In reaching this point, the districts and boroughs and the county council have worked from the same base financial data, though have drawn significantly different conclusions on the costs of disaggregating upper-tier services. Further detail on our financial model is set out in a later section.

While there are clear methodological reasons – or choices – for this divergence, all authorities agree that local government is more than just numbers on a balance sheet. It must reflect its distinct local identity of place, and the people, businesses and communities it serves. We believe that local leaders should be empowered to act as the leaders not only of their councils, but of their communities and of the wider system, bringing stakeholders and partners together to create the conditions for growth, and improve outcomes for residents. Any meaningful structure for the future of local government must support and empower this – which we believe three unitaries will.

To support the development of this proposal, leaders across the county have engaged with partners, stakeholders and other local service provides, to understand how LGR could impact them and their priorities and needs from local government in Surrey.

We received 134 responses from stakeholders right across the county to our survey. They told us that:

• Reorganisation offers a significant opportunity to streamline processes, reduce duplication and enhance collaboration across the public and wider voluntary and community sector.
• They are optimistic that reorganisation will lead to improved funding for local services. The consolidation of resources is anticipated to facilitate service and user demands more effectively.
• Reorganisation offers considerable scope to strengthen strategic partnerships and create new collaborative relationships, enabling more effective joint efforts and the pooling of resource and skills. The consolidation of resources is expected to facilitate service demands more effectively, ensuring business continuity and better resource management.
• They expect the simplification of local government structures will lead to more consistent policy making and improved service delivery. Stakeholders believe that a unitary structure can simplify the local government framework, reducing the number of councils and creating a single point of contact. This can lead to more efficient communication and quicker decision-making processes, benefiting both organisations and residents. They felt that unified strategic planning for economic development, education, and community services can foster stronger partnerships and align goals with broader regional objectives.
• They were concerned of the potential loss of local expertise and knowledge during the reorganisation process. Many respondents expressed concern that local knowledge and community connections may be lost as larger unitary authorities are formed, resulting in decision-makers being distanced from the specific needs and priorities of local communities and leading to less-informed and less-effective decisions. They felt the voices and distinct needs of communities may be overlooked, and there is a concern that the approach will become more centralised and less detailed.
• They were concerned that the reorganisation process will lead to a potential loss of local representation and a democratic deficit during the transition period. They felt the usual channels of accountability may be suspended, reducing transparency and accountability in local government. Stakeholders are also worried that the reorganisation will centralise decision-making and reduce the ability of local communities to influence policies and services.
• The dilution of local identity and community engagement is a risk. The potential loss of cultural and historical characteristics could lead to a feeling of disenfranchisement among residents. Stakeholders are worried that the reorganisation will create rigid boundaries and unfair competitive advantages in certain localities, reducing the sense of belonging and community. There is also concern that the reorganisation will lead to a loss of direct contact with constituents and a de-prioritisation of local needs.
• Despite these concerns, improving engagement with residents is a significant opportunity, as is the increased scope for local government to work more closely with local groups to advocate for an area and drive improvements. It was noted that this will be vital to ensure that the needs of Surrey’s diverse communities are met.
• The impact on service delivery during the transition must be well-managed to avoid placing vulnerable residents at risk.
• Reorganisation presents opportunities for economic and social benefits, enhancing community support and reducing social isolation. Organisations hope that a more focused Surrey with a Mayoral role will take the visitor economy more seriously, aligning with place-making, inward investment, business retention, and ultimately economic growth.

Our residents are at the heart of what we do, and so any credible proposal for the future of local government in Surrey must reflect their views, priorities and aspirations for their lives and local areas. To understand this, we carried out an engagement exercise with residents from across Surrey via the Commonplace engagement platform.

Of the circa 3,300 responses received, a clear majority of 63% supported the creation of three new unitary authorities. In contrast, just 17% favoured an alternative two-unitary model, whilst a further 20% expressed no preference.

The reasoning behind this clear preference from Surrey residents in favour of three unitary authorities can be seen in the response to the question: “What should be the top priorities when deciding how many new councils Surrey should have?”. Residents were asked to rank them in order of importance from one to eight. The overall level of importance for each priority was ranked by what percentage of respondents placed the priority in their top three:

The full spread of responses follows, which shows resident preferences (by rank) for local government in Surrey as set out in the resident engagement.

Respondents were clearly overwhelmingly concerned that the new Unitary Councils and members have good local knowledge (83.2% selecting this in their top 3) with residents also strongly prioritising locally made decisions (75.1%).  This aligns closely with the White Paper’s objective of reorganisation and devolution seeking to have local champions who understand their local places, their identities and strengths, and how to harness them.

Residents were also aligned with the government’s bold ambition for economic growth with ‘supporting local business ‘and ‘creating jobs and economic growth’ also featured in their top 5 top priorities. This is a particular strength of the three-unitary model, which has been designed on functional economic geographies of the three respective areas.

Resident engagement makes clear that residents have a strong preference for a three-unitary model, and also that residents’ desires align with the objectives of this particular model proposed. It is clear from the scoring above that as well as this being the strongest scoring model overall, this proposed three-unitary model scores particularly strongly in the areas that the residents have prioritised most in their survey responses. 

This proposal is the sum of our robust work. By bringing together comprehensive modelling and analysis of the costs and benefits of reorganisation, together with the views of stakeholders and residents our plan for three unitary councils for Surrey ensures that the county is best placed to realise the opportunities of devolution and unlock economic growth for our residents and businesses.