Principle 6 – Delivers high-quality, innovative and sustainable public services that are responsive to local need and enable wider public sector reform

In the same way that Surrey’s local authorities are already cooperating and collaborating across boundaries it is vital that the new councils work as part of the wider system, working with public, private and third sector partners to deliver upon their strategic priorities, achieve the best outcomes for residents, and help foster economic growth. Such a system-wide approach should be focused delivering prevention and early intervention services that achieve the best outcomes for local residents whilst reducing the cost on the public purse in the longer term.

As we have set out within Principle 3 above, this is best achieved by creating councils that align with the county’s already existing and recognised economic and social boundaries, as we propose to do.

Building upon this in Principle 4, we set out our intended outcomes and objectives for community empowerment. We will use this opportunity to ensure the new councils are well placed to build relationships and mobilise resources within their area, convening local partners and stakeholders from across the system to deliver system-wide collaboration and reform. Central to this will be the opportunity provided to the new councils to align strategy, services and resource allocation to public sector partners: the police, fire service, ICBs in Frimley and Surrey Heartlands, and the wider health sector.

The evidence shows us that the co-commissioning of services with key partners such as health, is more effective when all partners have a close connection with, and understanding of, local, recognised communities.  Our proposal for three unitary authorities will enable continued close working relationships in a way that doesn’t feel ‘remote’ for key partners, making system collaboration at a local level easier and more productive. This will facilitate local partnership working more readily in a way that will benefit both the public purse and the community, and will support the successful continuation of local collaboration, existing partnerships and approaches.

In North Surrey, for example the pre-existing consistency of delivery, and associated relationships, will support the ongoing - and improved - delivery of discretionary services that divert higher upstream system costs otherwise required in the discharge of statutory duties across the health and social care systems.  These partnership arrangements in North Surrey provide a platform from which to work with communities and system partners, to develop voluntary and community sector led services to support local resilience and the delivery of statutory services.

In East Surrey, the proposed geography brings together NHS East Surrey Place and the majority of NHS Surrey Downs Place. Robust collaboration already exists between both current tiers of local government, NHS commissioners and providers, other public sector partners (such as the Police) and the voluntary sector (including charities, housing associations, amongst others).

Also operating in this area is the Prevention and Communities Board for Tandridge and Reigate and Banstead, which brings together both those councils with Surrey County Council, NHS providers and commissioners, housing providers, leisure organisations, and the voluntary and community sector; this board highlights the power of system-wide thinking, that focusses our collective finite resources in preventative interventions to deliver the best outcomes and services for residents.

Such systems thinking is replicated elsewhere in the county, in a way that is complemented by the unitary boundaries we are proposing. Local government reorganisation provides us with a unique opportunity to turbocharge system-wide working and reform across all of Surrey’s communities and places, placing prevention and early intervention at the heart of service delivery.

Whilst a two unitary proposal would remove the duplication that exists within the current two-tier system, such an approach would reduce the potential benefits available to local communities, creating a democratic deficit that no amount of top-down imposed structures like area boards can adequately offset. Two unitaries would be spread across less cohesive areas, diminishing the capacity to act effectively both at scale and more locally.

As an example, NHS Integrated Neighbourhood Teams seek to serve populations of 30-50,000 people. These are best able to support the health of local populations through working together with local authority services, such as social care, housing, community safety, public health, and support for those with multiple disadvantages. If two unitaries were to be created in Surrey, the disparity in scale between these services and the NHS approach would risk increasing gaps in the ability to cooperate fully effectively. Our proposal for three local authorities would better balance strategic unitary approaches with maintaining local knowledge and connections to support these teams and many other such local providers.