Principle 3 - Values and advocates for Surrey’s unique local identities and places

Summary

This section sets out how our proposal for reorganisation values and advocates for Surrey’s unique local identities and places. By establishing three unitary authorities, we aim to deliver tailored, place-based services that drive community engagement and improve outcomes. In contrast, a two-unitary model would create arbitrary boundaries, disconnecting Surrey’s functional areas and undermining effective local governance.

Place-based service delivery

The concept of ‘place’ is integral to local government. In Surrey, we embrace place in its fullest sense. Place is something that people relate to and identify with, encompassing location, culture, economics, ecology and nature, the built environment, transport infrastructure, housing and much more besides.

We believe that place-based service delivery is a fundamental aspect of good local government, from delivering social care to homelessness support, highways and planning.

The concept of place-based service delivery is centred on tailoring public services to the unique characteristics and needs of specific areas. The approach recognises that each place and community has its own distinct identity, challenges and opportunities. By focusing on the specific characteristics of a place, local authorities can design and implement services that are responsive to local need – ultimately making them more effective and relevant, maximising the health and wellbeing of residents and the vitality of our places.

To deliver effective and efficient place-based services, a keen understanding of the local dimension is key. As set out in the recent Devolution White Paper, efficient and accountable local government and the devolution of power locally is best achieved with local champions who understand their local places, their identities and strengths and how to harness them.

We share the government’s ambition to align local government structures with functional geographies that people understand and identify with. Put simply, we believe that the closer decisions can be made to the communities they affect, and the more those communities can be involved in the framing and taking of decisions, the more effective they will be.

Our proposal to establish three unitary authorities in Surrey is therefore rooted in our commitment to effective place-based service delivery. By creating new unitary authorities around Surrey’s three distinct functional geographies and local identities, we will create the conditions for providing services in a locally tailored and personalised way. This will drive community engagement and empowerment and, ultimately, improve outcomes through facilitating a transformation of wider public sector service delivery.

It is in this way that this principle is best thought of as a fundamental enabler of those that follow.

Three unitary authorities: a place-based approach to LGR in Surrey

Surrey is a large and diverse county. We have noted in an earlier section that Surrey has three distinct local identities and places that cover coherent, functional geographies that residents recognise and identify with.

As set out above, these are:

As noted in an earlier section, our proposed three-unitary model is supported by evidence produced collaboratively by all Surrey local authorities in the Interim Local Strategic Statement for Surrey (2016-2031). The Strategic Statement provides a unified vision for spatial planning across Surrey, establishing common objectives among local authorities to manage growth sustainably, support economic development, improve infrastructure, and protect the environment.

The conclusions drawn in this document concerning the natural grouping of authorities in Surrey continues to remain valid, logical, and appropriate. The model avoids several pitfalls by representing distinct and well-established functional areas that follow clear and sustainable patterns of where people live and work. These areas are recognisable and relatable to residents and the proposed new councils' system partners.

These themes were evident in the outcomes of the engagement activities carried out by Surrey’s district and boroughs and which have influenced this final proposal.

Over 3,000 residents from across Surrey participated in our initial engagement survey. They demonstrated a clear preference for three unitary authorities (63%) over a two-unitary configuration (17%). Additionally, residents emphasised that their top priorities regarding local government reorganisation are predominantly local, underscoring the importance of maintaining a close connection to decision-making and ensuring that new unitary councils reflect local priorities.

As a result, we believe that the proposed three unitary authorities covering Surrey’s three functional areas represents the best way for effective and efficient place-based services to be delivered in Surrey, tailored to the specific challenges and issues faced in local areas. These include adapting and responding to climate change, local plan making, housing and infrastructure delivery, economic growth and development, community engagement, reducing inequalities and improving health and wellbeing outcomes, among many others.

Appropriately sized and more focused unitary councils would drive greater collaboration, supporting joint ventures and ensuring meaningful and effective relationships with local partners. Engaging communities at an appropriate scale helps identify effective local solutions while reducing the impact on the public purse. The geography of this model will provide for council areas with common issues conducive to local decision-making and collaborative working, minimising the risks of divisions due to competing issues and visions resulting from large geographies and significantly different identities within unitary groupings. Surrey’s places are far from homogeneous, and local government in Surrey must have the capability to respond meaningfully to the uniqueness of its different communities.

When considering scale, it becomes clear that a single county unitary authority would be too large and too detached to effectively respond to and engage with local communities.  It would be unable to deliver appropriately tailored structures to decision making and service delivery, to authentically demonstrate genuine connection with and understanding of matters that are important to local people. This is critical in resident facing services and for decisions that shape communities and the places they live. Such a model would lack the agility to deliver bespoke place-based services that residents recognise and engage with.

Further, no two-unitary model in Surrey has been identified that would avoid creating arbitrary boundaries that disconnect Surrey’s functional geographical areas and communities.

It is recognised, however, that our proposed three-unitary authority configuration does not meet the 500k population threshold set by government as a guide to local government reorganisation.

We do not believe that this population level makes sense for Surrey. This is because it is not possible to achieve it without separating Surrey’s functional communities by new arbitrary, population driven boundaries.

Our proposed unitary structure therefore represents an appropriate balance, well-tailored to local circumstance. It has been selected because there is clear and compelling evidence for why this geography makes sense for Surrey’s places, rather than the arbitrary drawing of boundaries to meet population-based targets.

The themes introduced in this section are explored in greater detail in the sections that follow.

However, at this point it is imperative to recognise that creating a structure of local government that is built around Surrey’s distinct places is integral to realising the benefits of local government reorganisation.  By forming new authorities on the basis of Surrey’s distinct human and economic geography and local identities, we will aim to drive community engagement and empowerment, transforming public sector service delivery and improving outcomes in our communities.

Crucially, this conclusion is supported by the recent experience of local government reorganisation elsewhere in England.

We have these case studies below and which have directly influenced the shaping of our proposal:

Key lessons from recent local government reorganisation

Dorset – Disconnected Economies, Diluted Growth

Context

In 2019, Dorset underwent local government reorganisation (LGR), creating two unitaries: the rural Dorset Council, and the more urban Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole (BCP) Council. The intention was to deliver efficiencies and strategic alignment, but key challenges quickly emerged.

Key Insights

• Fragmented Economic Strategy: The split between rural Dorset and the BCP urban conurbation left both authorities managing disconnected economies. While BCP focused on regeneration, digital and tourism, Dorset struggled to establish a growth narrative outside its rural economy and ageing population needs.
• Reduced Regional Influence: Stakeholders, including the Local Enterprise Partnership and investors, found it harder to engage with consistent economic leadership. There was no clear regional anchor, leading to weakened influence at national level and fewer major funding wins compared to other reorganised counties.
• Strategic Drift: Efforts to coordinate housing, employment land and infrastructure planning across council boundaries stalled, as each authority adopted different timelines, visions, and spatial priorities.

Conclusion

Dorset’s model shows the risk of over-separating interdependent economic areas. It illustrates how reorganisation without deep alignment to economic geography can slow momentum, fragment leadership, and reduce regional clout.

Buckinghamshire – Cohesive Identity, Aligned Growth

Context

Buckinghamshire became a single unitary authority in 2020, combining its county and four districts. It is a smaller and more integrated geography than Dorset, with a population just over 500,000 and a strong economic identity centred around high-tech, logistics, and London commuter growth.

Key Insights

• Strategic Coherence: With clear alignment between governance structures, transport corridors (M40, M25), and housing growth zones, the new council has maintained a consistent spatial and economic strategy.
• Stronger Investor Confidence: Simplified governance has made it easier to engage developers and strategic investors, supported by a unified Local Plan framework and joint ventures with Homes England.
• Local Engagement Sustained: Town and Parish Councils were empowered through a new devolved model, maintaining community engagement while still benefiting from strategic oversight.

Conclusion

uckinghamshire’s success underscores how unitary reorganisation can work when geography, identity, and economy align. It highlights the pitfalls Dorset faced and reinforces that strategic alignment is non-negotiable for successful reform.

Cheshire East – Friction in Strategic Housing Planning

Context

Formed in 2009, Cheshire East Council became one of England’s largest unitary authorities by population and geography, combining the former boroughs of Crewe & Nantwich, Congleton, and Macclesfield. Despite early ambitions for streamlined service delivery, Cheshire East has faced longstanding housing policy and plan-making challenges.

Key Insights

• Divergent Housing Needs: The authority encompasses highly urbanised areas like Crewe alongside rural villages in the east and affluent commuter belts in the north. These sub-areas represent distinct housing markets with different supply pressures, land availability, and community attitudes to growth.
• Local Plan Tensions: Delays in adopting the Local Plan (adopted only in 2017) were caused in part by disagreements over housing targets, strategic sites, and land release, with councillors and communities arguing that one-size-fits-all planning undermined local character and infrastructure resilience.
• Loss of Local Voice: Rural communities felt disconnected from decision-making, with concerns that “Crewe’s needs dominate the plan.” Meanwhile, developers expressed frustration with an inconsistent planning approach.

Conclusion

Cheshire East shows how size and diversity of need can inhibit housing strategy in large unitary councils. The three-unitary model in Surrey avoids these tensions by enabling tailored Local Plans, rooted in functional housing market areas (e.g. East Surrey’s Gatwick-influenced market vs Guildford-Woking tech corridor).

Wiltshire – Area Boards and the Rural-Urban Divide

Context

Wiltshire Council became a unitary authority in 2009, replacing four district councils. It introduced Area Boards to maintain local engagement and accountability across a large, mostly rural area.

Key Insights

• Housing Disconnection: Despite the Boards, housing delivery and development planning remained centralised. Town and rural communities struggled to influence spatial strategies, and decisions around site allocations and infrastructure were seen as remote.
• Peer Review Feedback: A 2022 LGA Peer Review found the Area Boards needed to be “reviewed for effectiveness and clarity of purpose” and that they were not successfully connecting planning policies to lived local experience.
• Urban Dominance: Swindon’s proximity and growth trajectory influenced county-wide decisions, often to the frustration of communities in rural villages, who reported difficulty influencing planning frameworks or prioritisation of affordable housing delivery.

Conclusion

iltshire’s experience underscores that community engagement structures alone cannot fix strategic disconnects caused by oversized authorities. Surrey’s proposed unitaries, being appropriately scaled and economically aligned, are better suited to bridge town-rural divides and deliver housing that fits place-based need.

North Yorkshire – The Challenge of Scale and Community Disconnection

Context

North Yorkshire became England’s geographically largest unitary authority in 2023, covering 3,100 square miles and serving over 600,000 residents. While the reorganisation promised streamlined services and cost savings, early indications suggest a more complex picture:

Key Insights:

• Community Detachment: Residents in smaller rural communities reported feeling “invisible” in the new structure. The abolition of district councils created a vacuum in local representation, with residents unclear where decisions were made or how to influence them.
• Slow Local Decision-Making: The size of the authority has introduced delays in planning and service responsiveness. Parish and town councils report having to “shout louder” to be heard.
• Infrastructure Imbalance: Strategic investment has skewed toward York-adjacent areas, while parts of the Yorkshire Dales and coastal communities struggle to get projects prioritised. Competing infrastructure needs across disconnected geographies dilute leadership attention and investment.
• National Learning: Early reviews from Local Government Association (LGA) peers and local MPs point to a need to “review governance arrangements” to reintroduce more locally accountable structures.

Conclusion
While North Yorkshire may realise long-term savings, the short-term experience demonstrates how governance remoteness can erode trust, reduce responsiveness, and impede effective infrastructure planning. A three-unitary model in Surrey avoids these pitfalls by aligning governance with real places and real communities.

Somerset – Fragmentation and Leadership Dilution

Context

In 2023, Somerset transitioned into a single unitary authority serving over 570,000 people across a largely rural and coastal area. The aim was to unify leadership and streamline services.

Key Insights

• Leadership Fragmentation: Post-reorganisation, there has been tension between regional leadership priorities — urban Bridgwater regeneration vs rural service delivery. Leaders struggle to deliver consistent messages across economic zones with little in common.
• Infrastructure Gridlock: Multiple major infrastructure projects — from road upgrades in Taunton to flood defences in the Levels — compete for attention and resources. With only one Cabinet infrastructure lead, capacity has become a bottleneck.
• Loss of Local Identity: Local engagement forums (Local Community Networks) have failed to gain traction, perceived as tokenistic by community groups. A 2024 LGA Peer Review noted concerns that “residents and partners remain to be convinced about the added value” of these structures.
• Savings Under Scrutiny: While back-office functions have merged, the cost of organisational redesign and democratic dilution is raising serious questions about value for money.

Conclusion

Somerset’s experience shows that size does not equal efficiency. The complexity of managing divergent geographies within a single council leads to weaker outcomes, slower progress, and fragile community trust. In contrast, Surrey’s three-unitary model maintains focus and preserves agility, while empowering local leaders to lead from a place of relevance.