Options for delivering upper-tier services

Summary

This section outlines options for delivering upper-tier services across the new three unitary authorities in Surrey. It emphasises maintaining continuity and coherence in services such as adults’ and children’s social care, education, and public health, while enabling future transformation. The proposed models include developing the current hub and spoke model, shared services, lead authority models, and strategic partnerships or external vehicles. Each option aims to balance service quality, cost efficiency, and local accountability. Building on best practices and case studies, we demonstrate how these models can ensure safe and legal service delivery from day one, support long-term sustainability, and foster innovation in public service delivery.

Surrey County Council (SCC) currently holds responsibility for the delivery of critical upper-tier services across Surrey. Chief among these are adults’ and children’s social care, education, and Public Health. These services are highly integrated with regional partners, complex in nature and central to the wellbeing and life chances of residents. Any reform arising from local government reorganisation must ensure their continuity, safety and potential for future improvement.

This section outlines a range of options for delivering upper-tier services across the new three unitary authorities. For the avoidance of doubt, all options assume the creation of three new sovereign unitary authorities and are designed to avoid disaggregation where doing so would compromise service quality or coherence in the immediate years after Vesting Day.

While we advocate for models that minimise the risk of disaggregation for high-risk services at Vesting Day, this should not be interpreted as counter to the core ambition of our proposal for the three-unitary model – bringing services closer to residents. On the contrary, our proposed delivery approaches are designed to retain system-wide safety and coherence, while enabling the development of place-based service models over time.

These approaches strike a balance: ensuring continuity in the early years, while preserving the flexibility and sovereignty of new authorities to localise delivery where it adds value and improves outcomes. To be clear, this does not prevent later moves for the reconfiguration and/or transformation of upper-tier services in alignment with the new unitary authority geography. Rather, it is reflective of the fact that the delivery of reorganisation at speed will create risks in the short term, and these risks must be adequately managed and vulnerable residents safeguarded.

It should be noted that the options presented are not mutually exclusive – we anticipate that different services may follow different models based on risk, readiness and the opportunity to improve outcomes.

Importantly, while service continuity and quality are the primary drivers of these models, there are also significant relative cost advantages to avoiding disaggregation. Shared or federated arrangements – such as joint directorates, lead authority models, or place-based delivery hubs – can preserve economies of scale, reduce duplication of specialist functions and tiers of management, and avoid the substantial transitional costs associated with breaking up complex systems. These costs include parallel staffing structures, duplicated infrastructure, fragmented commissioning, and contractual unwinding, all of which can create both financial drag and service disruption.

While much of the case against disaggregation is framed in terms of cost avoidance and risk management, we also recognise that structural change, if well designed, can create new opportunities. These include the chance to embed fresh thinking, improve local accountability, and better align services with the needs of distinct communities. The creation of new councils opens space for innovation, which can include targeted redesign of specific service areas to improve effectiveness, responsiveness, and community impact.

We also acknowledge that the current delivery of ASC, CFE, and SEND is not without challenge. Systemic pressures, demand volatility, and workforce constraints mean that transformation is not only necessary – it is a significant opportunity. The creation of three new authorities provides a rare moment to reassess and redesign these services with a focus on outcomes, rather than simply preserving the status quo.

Our proposed models of service delivery - whether through shared governance, lead authorities, or place-based integration - have been designed to enable fundamental reform. In particular, the transition will prioritise early intervention, prevention, and multi-agency collaboration, addressing systemic shortcomings and unlocking better outcomes for children, families, and vulnerable adults. Acknowledging these challenges transparently allows the new authorities to begin their life with a clear mandate to deliver change, backed by resident and partner expectations for safer, more responsive, and equitable services. Our approach thus avoids fragmentation in the short term while enabling a platform for deeper service improvement and reform in the medium term.

In any case, it is important to be clear that decisions about the long-term structure and delivery model for upper-tier services will rest with the new unitary authorities. At present, our role is to ensure that all viable options are well scoped, opportunities and risks are identified and implementation plans enable safe and legal service continuity.

This submission reflects those preparatory responsibilities and draws on the experience of reorganisation from other areas – such as Buckinghamshire, Dorset and North Yorkshire – where shared delivery models were used effectively as transitional or permanent arrangements.

Options

Option 1 – develop the as-is model

Surrey County Council currently employs a ‘hub and spoke’ model. This is where the hub serves as the central point for assessments, while the spokes are the smaller, local teams that deliver services within individual districts.  

Building on this current delivery model, aligned with the principles of integrated care systems and family resilience networks, this option involves  multi-agency delivery teams embedded within the existing localities operated by the upper-tier, co-located and delivering services at community level. While the service would remain a countywide function in terms of governance and workforce coordination, delivery would be tailored and operationalised within each locality’s geography.

Who delivers the service?

Services such as early help, reablement, housing support, and other wraparound support would be delivered  by jointly managed place-based teams, comprised of professionals from ASC, CFE, Housing, Health, and VCS organisations. Delivery would be governed and resource managed by a single framework delivered via either a shared service or trust, ensuring consistency in standards, safeguarding, and reporting.

This model enables continuity from Day One, while creating a clear platform for transformation that aligns with local community needs. Expanding this approach to include district-level services—such as housing—creates a comprehensive “one stop shop” for residents.

Option 2 – shared service or joint delivery model

Under this option the new unitary authorities would jointly commission and deliver upper-tier services through formal partnership arrangements. These could include:

• Joint Directorates or delivery arms hosted by one authority
• Shared commissioning infrastructure (e.g., placements, reablement)
• Shared quality and safeguarding functions

Who delivers the service?

A shared service would be legally owned by all three new unitary authorities and operated by a jointly-governed delivery body, with staffing and infrastructure pooled or seconded. Delivery teams would work across the unitary boundaries but report to a joint committee or governance board representing all three councils.

This model is particularly well-suited to services that require specialist expertise, consistent thresholds, or high-cost interventions. It maintains coherence while providing space for each authority to influence design and delivery.

Option 3: Lead authority model

This option proposes a distributed model of accountability, with each unitary taking the lead for a particular upper-tier service on behalf of the others:

One unitary might lead on children’s services, while another might lead on adult social care.

Who delivers the service?

The lead authority would assume day-to-day delivery responsibility for its designated service across the three unitaries, while all three retain shared strategic oversight. This allows for clarity in operational accountability while spreading risk and workload. It is most appropriate where a particular authority already has strong performance or infrastructure in an area.

Careful design would be required to avoid perceptions of power imbalance or resource centralisation.

Emergency planning, resilience and fire governance

The reorganisation process must also preserve the resilience of local communities and the effectiveness of Surrey’s collective emergency response system. While the headline focus of LGR is on service transformation and efficiency, it is vital that the planning and transition phases fully consider the implications for emergency planning, business continuity, and community safety – areas where local authorities are statutory Category 1 responders under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004.

Fire and Rescue Governance: a transition pathway

Surrey Fire and Rescue Service (SFRS) is currently integrated within Surrey County Council, benefiting from close operational alignment with services such as Emergency Planning, Trading Standards, Public Health, and Safer Communities. Under a reorganisation scenario where Surrey County Council is dissolved before a new Strategic Authority is formally established, a transitional governance model will be required.

The default expectation is that fire governance will ultimately pass to the Strategic Authority or Mayor. However, if a governance gap arises, there will be a statutory requirement to create an Independent Fire Authority (IFA) to act as the fire and rescue authority during the interim. Early work is underway to assess the legal, financial, and operational implications of this arrangement. This includes understanding disaggregation costs from SCC and establishing contingency governance frameworks to ensure continuous service oversight.

Maintaining resilience across the transition

In parallel, planning is underway to ensure that emergency planning and business-continuity responsibilities continue seamlessly through the transition phases. Local authorities play a critical role in Local Resilience Forums (LRFs), emergency multi-agency response planning, and the coordination of community risk registers.

During the pre-planning and planning phases, a key task will be the mapping of existing resilience structures and identifying where these are dependent on SCC’s current footprint. Decisions will need to be made about:

• Which authority hosts the Resilience Secretariat (currently within SCC)
• How responsibilities for Local Resilience Forum engagement are maintained across new unitary boundaries
• Where shared or hosted services are most appropriately located for operational efficiency and partner coordination

In the shadow and post-Vesting Day periods, we anticipate a phased handover of responsibilities, ensuring:

• Continuity in senior officer representation within the Surrey LRF and sub-groups.
• Retention of existing Emergency Planning Officers with clear lines of accountability.
• Embedding of business continuity plans in each new unitary authority.
• Shared training and exercising regimes across all new authorities to maintain a joined-up response capability.

The decision about where the Resilience Secretariat should sit – whether with the Strategic Authority, the Mayor, or another agreed body – will be informed by national best practice and local system readiness.

Environmental Health, Trading Standards and Safer Communities

In addition to emergency planning, the reorganisation presents opportunities and challenges for services that support public protection and community wellbeing, such as:

• Trading Standards – currently led within SCC and working closely with Environmental Health in districts/boroughs. Disaggregation will require careful planning to avoid regulatory gaps and to maintain links with national enforcement networks.
• Environmental Health – presently delivered by lower-tier councils but integral to public protection (e.g. food safety, infectious disease control, noise and pollution).
• Safer Communities – a portfolio that brings together community safety partnerships, domestic abuse prevention, anti-social behaviour, and crime reduction.

There is a natural synergy between these services, and LGR offers an opportunity to rethink their alignment. A new structure that brings together Housing, Safer Communities, Public Health, Environmental Health and Trading Standards under a single leadership portfolio could improve coordination and strengthen preventative approaches to community risk.

A shared, phased approach to resilience

• Given the cross-boundary nature of risk – from flooding and industrial accidents to cyber-attacks and public health incidents – it is essential that the new unitary authorities adopt a shared resilience approach. This may include:
• A joint Emergency Planning Service delivered via a shared team or hosted model
• Shared data platforms for risk mapping, vulnerability tracking, and resource deployment
• A common training and exercising programme for Gold/Silver/Bronze responders
• Integrated community resilience planning and volunteer coordination
• Collective investment in early-warning technologies and interoperable communications

Such an approach would ensure operational consistency, enable rapid mutual aid, and preserve Surrey’s strong reputation for emergency readiness.

Governance and assurance

During the Shadow Phase, a dedicated Resilience and Public Protection Working Group will be established under the programme governance framework. This group will:

• Liaise with the LRF and emergency services partners
• Develop options for post-Vesting governance and service delivery
• Prepare legal and financial frameworks for any necessary interim structures (e.g. Independent Fire Authority)
• Lead on transition planning for Emergency Planning, Trading Standards, and Safer Communities

Robust assurance mechanisms will be embedded into the implementation programme, with emergency planning and business continuity treated as critical path items for safe and legal delivery.

Public protection and emergency response cannot be compromised by structural reform. Our approach ensures stability from Day One through continuity of core functions, investment in staff and systems, and clear governance lines. By treating resilience as a whole-system priority, rather than a standalone technical function, we will support safer communities and stronger partnerships. This foundation lays the groundwork for a more integrated and resilient system over time, where emergency planning, public protection, and community safety are delivered in a way that is responsive to local needs but robust enough to manage countywide and regional risks.

Options summary: building services around people for long-term success

As noted in an earlier section of this proposal, regardless of the model adopted, all options emphasise early intervention and prevention as the cornerstone for long-term transformation. Local government reorganisation presents an opportunity to rebuild services around people rather than structures, utilising joint intelligence, integrated pathways, and upstream investment to reduce reliance on crisis services and improve outcomes.

A common thread across all options is the recognition that, in the short term, disaggregating services like children’s and adults’ social care, or Public Health, without sufficient planning would introduce significant risks to safety, performance, and cost.  

We propose for any disaggregation of adults and children, families, and education (CFE) services. Initially, these services will continue to operate 'as is,' with plans to review and integrate them over time. This approach aims to determine what is best delivered on a countywide basis and what will benefit from local integration, ensuring a safe and stable transition while maximising the benefits of unitarisation, such as improved coordination with housing. This will ensure compliance with statutory duties from day one, minimises disruption to service users and staff, supports stable relationships with partners including the NHS and schools, and retains critical mass in areas of specialist workforce and commissioning.

These models also offer scalable platforms for future transformation, allowing each unitary authority to shape its local priorities over time without sacrificing consistency or continuity. All decisions on future service delivery models will be made through the shared governance structures outlined earlier in this submission. During the shadow period, thematic working groups and joint political oversight structures will undertake detailed option appraisals for each upper-tier service, engage with residents, service users, and staff to understand impacts, and agree on interim and future operating models with clear accountabilities and implementation plans.

Final decisions will rest with the shadow authorities and, post-Vesting Day, with the three new authorities, informed by risk assessments, financial analysis, and system-wide engagement. Continuing with the current (pre-LGR) model for upper-tier services is a safe and credible option in the short term. Equally, opportunities exist for more innovative or shared models to emerge that reflect the diversity of the new councils and deliver improved outcomes over time.

Our commitment is therefore to avoid disaggregation where it undermines safety, continuity, or effectiveness, and to ensure that all models deliver safe and legal services from day one, embed early intervention and prevention at their core, support long-term sustainability and value for money, and maintain flexibility to evolve in response to local ambition and need. By taking a phased, evidence-based approach, we will ensure that the three new unitary authorities inherit not only stable services but a strong foundation for meaningful transformation in the years ahead.

Continuing authority

As our proposal has set out, the ability to respond to local needs, tailored to local circumstances, is a function of how close decision makers are to those who feel the impact of those decisions.

Ensuring our residents, businesses and partners have a local connection to ensure their voice is heard is a core value held by district and borough councils. We want to retain that culture of accessibility and local accountability.

The future sees the demise of Surrey County Council and their assumption is the disaggregation of their services. The districts and boroughs conversely are coming together and wish to retain that spirit to embed localism by nominating a district or borough in each of the new unitaries as a continuing authority.

The new unitaries being district or borough councils exercising upper-tier powers has practical benefits in financial, commercial, and workforce arrangements. The continuing authorities will need the ability to influence financial decisions now to assure the future; as such we are asking the Secretary of State to issue Direction under the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 (the Section 24 Direction) empowering the nominated District or Borough Council as continuing authority in a two- or three-unitary model for Surrey.