I enjoyed your write-up of the latest meeting of Epsom and Ewell Borough Council, where you asked “Will the doomed Epsom and Ewell Borough Council rise from the ashes in other forms?” I would however suggest that the intention of the Residents Association (RA) clique that runs the council is to seek to continue its own existence as a relevant political force.

The RA has run the council since its creation and as Cllr Robert Leach (now the mayor) recently observed, feels that its dominant position means that it can do as it likes. Epsom and Ewell Borough Council Faces Scrutiny Over Constitutional Reforms › Epsom & Ewell Times

With the anticipated abolition of Epsom and Ewell as a borough council and effective merger with three or more neighbouring boroughs, the RA can see that its stranglehold will be broken. Its representatives may well be elected to a new unitary council, but they will likely be in a minority.

The paper at last week’s meeting that proposed what is called a Community Governance Review noted that “Epsom & Ewell Borough Council is one of the few District Councils within Surrey that is unparished”, meaning that there are no civil parishes or parish or other community councils.

Having been in charge for all these decades, the RA may wish to explain why this is the case. The answer to the why now question is obvious – to give the RA another host body to move to when its current host expires. Not that the RA clique doesn’t already have its fingers in a lot of pies locally.

There is also the why not now question, which the administration has skipped past. The report from last week notes that statutory guidance advises councils like Epsom and Ewell to avoid starting a community governance review if a review of local electoral arrangements is being, or is about to be, undertaken – i.e. the current situation.

Your article cites me as one of the councillors at the meeting who expressed doubts about whether information being given to residents will allow them to make an informed decision. I was specifically concerned that residents will only be consulted on the RA’s preference for new councils, despite recognition in the report that the government recently expressed a preference for the establishment of Neighbourhood Area Committees, which would operate within the auspices of a new authority.

Clearly these have been rejected as not suiting the RA’s purposes. For now we have to accept that the RA clique that runs the council can do what it likes, including spending £300,000 of desperately short funds on a process framed around its need to perpetuate its own relevance.

Cllr Chris Ames (Labour Court Ward)

Epsom and Ewell Borough Council (EEBC) will meet Thursday, 26 June for an extraordinary session to decide whether to launch a formal Community Governance Review (CGR)—a move that could lead to the creation of one or more Community Councils across the borough.

The proposal comes in direct response to the Government’s initiative to abolish all 11 borough and district councils in Surrey, along with Surrey County Council, and replace them with fewer, larger unitary authorities. The Government is currently considering submissions for either two, or three new unitary councils for the county. The Government may still impose a single authority for the whole County. A decision is expected in autumn 2025.

If the borough and county councils are dissolved—as is widely anticipated in April 2027—Epsom and Ewell would be left as one of the few areas in Surrey without a “lower-tier” of local government unless it acts now to establish one. Unlike many other parts of the county, Epsom and Ewell is currently “unparished”, meaning it has no town or parish councils. The proposed Community Councils would fill that void.

What is a Community Council?

Community Councils are parish councils in all but name, capable of levying their own precept (a share of Council Tax) and taking on responsibilities such as managing parks, allotments, bus shelters, community centres, and street lighting. They may also act as local voices on planning applications and community development.

The proposal is for either:

• One Community Council to cover the whole borough, or
• Two Community Councils dividing the borough between East and West, with four different boundary configurations under consideration.

Maps, population data, and details of council assets in each option form part of the public consultation package.

Consultation and Timeline

If Full Council agrees to proceed, the CGR would begin in July 2025 with a twelve-week public consultation. The review process must be completed within 12 months if it is to inform the April 2027 reorganisation.

A second round of consultation will follow in early 2026, with a final decision due by June 2026. If approved, elections to the new Community Councils would be held in May 2027.

A £300,000 budget has been allocated to fund the consultation and planning stages, to be drawn from EEBC’s strategic priorities reserve.

What Would These Councils Do?

Community Councils could inherit some of the Borough Council’s functions and assets. However, this would depend on detailed financial and legal planning. Transfers of property and responsibilities would need to comply with any restrictions imposed under a potential Section 24 Direction—special powers the Secretary of State may use to restrict councils from disposing of assets in the run-up to local government reorganisation.

Significantly, the new councils would be able to raise funds independently through a local precept. While this could enable more responsive services, it also raises concerns about an increased financial burden on residents—particularly if a higher precept replaces services that were formerly funded by EEBC without any direct local taxation.

Too Many Layers?

One of the central arguments for creating large unitary authorities is to streamline governance, eliminate duplication, and reduce the cost of running multiple layers of local government.

But the creation of Community Councils risks reintroducing those layers, potentially replacing one borough council with both a unitary authority and one or more new Community Councils beneath it. Some have questioned whether such a system would actually reduce costs at all—especially if a new strategic authority is also established to coordinate policy between two or more unitary areas of Surrey.

Critics warn of a complex and potentially costly patchwork: unitary authority, strategic body, and newly-formed parish councils—all with their own budgets, meetings, officers, and elections.

EEBC, however, is keen to preserve a strong local voice. In a statement, Council Leader Cllr Hannah Dalton said:

“We’re navigating the biggest change in local democracy for more than 50 years. We want to make sure that, whatever the outcome of local government reorganisation, the voices of our residents and local communities continue to be heard in years to come – this is a vital element of local democracy.” Epsom and Ewell Times 28/05/2025.

What Happens Next?

Should the Council vote to proceed on Thursday, residents will be invited to participate in shaping the future of their local governance. A dedicated consultation website will go live in early July, with drop-in events, online surveys, and stakeholder workshops planned through to September.

Further updates will be provided via the Council’s social media and through local publications, including the Epsom and Ewell Times.

Have Your Say

Residents will be asked:

• Whether Community Councils should be created
• Whether there should be one or two (or more) such councils
• What functions they should perform
• How they should be funded
• What boundaries make the most sense

More information is available at www.epsom-ewell.gov.uk and by emailing: cgr@epsom-ewell.gov.uk

Related reports:

Epsom and Ewell Borough Council out – Community Council’s in?

Surrey’s partner organisations support county council plans for local government reorganisation

Surrey Councils launch Local Government Reorganisation engagement

Surrey’s BIG debt question in local government reorganisation

Local Government Reorganisation in Surrey: Key Proposals

Merging Reigate and Banstead Borough Council with its neighbour Crawley has been ruled out – in a decision that has left drivers behind the move “disappointed” with the Government. This week leaders from the 11 boroughs and districts, together with the county council, were told the Government planned to survey residents over merging into either two or three mega councils.

The council was told it would not be allowed to move forward with its preferred option because it had also backed the creation of three unitaries – and the rules stated councils could only support one idea, and they had to cover all of Surrey. The government also said the plan lacked enough detail on cost savings. They had wanted to form, at £13 billion plus, the largest economy in the sub-region, and to be conjoined by the world’s busiest single runway airport in Gatwick.

The news was relayed to the councils by the Minister of State for Local Government and English Devolution, Jim McMahon. He said: “I understand this will be disappointing; however, this consultation process allows for consultees to comment on whether the Secretary of State should implement one or other of the two proposals received, including the proposal co-signed by Reigate and Banstead Borough Council. If, in the future, there remains an interest in changing the boundary between Surrey and West Sussex, there are other mechanisms for doing so and this process does not prevent that. I also note your desire for the Gatwick Diamond economic area to be within the area of one Strategic Authority so as to best provide for economic growth. I want to make clear that the decision not to include your proposal in the consultation does not preempt devolution options for the wider area, including establishing or expanding a Strategic Authority that includes all councils making up the Gatwick Diamond.”

Leader of Reigate and Banstead Borough Council, Councillor Richard Biggs said: “We are disappointed that the Government will not be including our joint proposal with Crawley within the consultation. I am pleased that we took the opportunity to highlight to Government the important contribution that our combined area makes to the national economy, as well as its economic growth potential. While we accept the Government’s decision, we will continue to advocate for joined up economic and infrastructure planning and investment across both authorities. In terms of local government reorganisation, we are now focused on trying to secure the best available model of local government in Surrey – which we continue to strongly believe is three unitary councils. A three unitary model in Surrey will achieve the best balance of delivering value for money for our residents whilst maintaining strong local connections and identities and delivering high-quality service.”

Chris Caulfield

Epsom and Ewell Times adds:

The Gatwick Diamond is a term used to describe a key economic area in the South East of England, centred around Gatwick Airport. It includes parts of Surrey and West Sussex, notably towns such as Crawley, Reigate, Redhill, Horsham, and Haywards Heath.

Key features of the Gatwick Diamond:

• Economic significance: It is one of the UK’s most dynamic business regions, home to over 45,000 businesses and supporting around 500,000 jobs.
• Transport hub: Gatwick Airport, one of the UK’s busiest international airports, makes the area a major transport and logistics hub.
• Sectors: It hosts a mix of industries, including aviation, engineering, financial services, professional services, and advanced manufacturing.
• Strategic location: Situated between London and the South Coast, with excellent rail, road, and air links.

Purpose of the name:

The term is used by local authorities, business partnerships, and regional planners to promote regional cooperation, attract investment, and plan infrastructure in a way that supports sustainable economic growth. The Gatwick Diamond Initiative is a public-private partnership that actively markets the region for inward investment.

So, when Reigate and Banstead refer to the “Gatwick Diamond economic area”, they are aligning with this identity and economic cluster, arguing that the area’s interests may be best served by a unified strategic authority.

Additional reporting – Sam Jones.

Gatwick Airport (Credit Gatwick Airport)

Residents across Surrey are being asked to help shape the future of local government in what is being described as the most significant shake-up in over half a century. A government consultation launched this week invites public views on two competing proposals to reorganise Surrey’s local councils into unitary authorities.

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) is offering two options for reorganisation:

• A two-unitary model (East and West Surrey), proposed by Surrey County Council and supported by Elmbridge and Mole Valley.
• A three-unitary model (East, West and North Surrey), backed by a majority of Surrey’s borough and district councils, including Epsom & Ewell.

Councillor Hannah Dalton, Leader of Epsom & Ewell Borough Council and Chair of the Surrey Leaders Group, is urging residents to take part:

“Residents have consistently told us that they want decisions made by people who know and understand their communities,” she said. “Over 60% of respondents to our April survey preferred a three-unitary model. We believe it delivers better services, stronger accountability, and a future that works for every part of Surrey.”

The government consultation runs until 5 August, and is the only opportunity for the public to influence which of the two options is pursued. Dalton emphasised the importance of local voices in the process:

“We’ve been assured by the government that every response will be treated equally. This is your only chance to shape how your area is governed for future decades.”

The consultation follows the rejection of a third submission from Reigate & Banstead and Crawley Boroughs, which will not proceed.

Financial Concerns and Woking’s Shadow

Both proposals are said to be financially viable, according to Councillor Dalton, but depend on government action to address what she described as “unrecoverable debt”—most notably in Woking.

“We welcome the Government’s recognition that this debt cannot be managed locally. But we await details on what support will follow after 2026/27,” she said.

The issue of Woking’s financial crisis looms large in the background, with some viewing reorganisation as an opportunity to draw a line under past mismanagement—but others fear it could result in spreading liabilities more broadly across the county.

Streamlining—or Complicating?

While the proposals are framed as streamlining governance—abolishing the two-tier system of borough/district and county councils—there is growing concern that new layers may be introduced in their place.

The two-unitary model envisages an elected Mayor and a Strategic Authority overseeing countywide functions. At the same time, Neighbourhood Area Committees (formerly “Community Boards”) are being piloted to handle hyper-local matters. In towns like Epsom, where no town council currently exists, discussions have begun around establishing new local councils to fill the vacuum left by a dissolved borough council.

Some commentators have questioned whether the term “unitary” has become misleading in this context—raising the possibility that what was intended as simplification may, in practice, become a reconfiguration of complexity.

Clash of Visions

Surrey County Council’s Leader, Cllr Tim Oliver, argues the two-unitary model provides the best platform for efficient services and future prosperity:

“Two unitary councils will simplify services, save money and strengthen communities.”

In contrast, EEBC and its allies believe three smaller authorities would be more responsive and rooted in local identity. They also point to stronger alignment with community geography, opportunities for targeted infrastructure growth, and better democratic accountability.

How to Take Part

The government consultation is open until Tuesday 5 August 2025. Residents, businesses, community organisations, and parish councils are all invited to contribute their views.

Ways to respond:

• Online: surrey-local-government-reorganisation
• Email: lgreorganisation@communities.gov.uk
• Post: LGR Consultation, Fry Building 2NE, MHCLG, 2 Marsham Street, London SW1P 4DF
• Paper forms: Available at all 52 libraries across Surrey

Further details and background on each proposal can be found at the Surrey Local Government Reorganisation Hub: www.surreylgr.co.uk

Related reports:

Surrey’s partner organisations support county council plans for local government reorganisation

Surrey Councils launch Local Government Reorganisation engagement

Surrey’s BIG debt question in local government reorganisation

Local Government Reorganisation in Surrey: Key Proposals

Cllr Robert Leach (RA Nonsuch) was elected Mayor of the Borough of Epsom and Ewell at the Council meeting on 13th May 2025. The Epsom and Ewell Times put some questions to the new Mayor about his plans, priorities, and personal reflections as he embarks on his year of office.

EET: You are championing three charities during your Mayoral year. Could you tell us why you chose these particular charities?

Mayor Robert Leach: As my role relates solely to the borough of Epsom and Ewell, I focused on charities that primarily operate here. I was looking for organisations with the capacity to actively participate in fundraising, and which support those less fortunate in our community.

I’ve chosen:

• Good Company, which runs the foodbank, Epsom Pantry and other services that provide basic food provisions.
• Citizens Advice Bureau, which offers vital help with financial, legal, family and administrative issues—often stepping in when people have no one else to turn to.
• PHAB, which promotes physical and mental activity for all ages and abilities.

I believe three is the maximum I can support properly, though I recognise that there are many other excellent charities locally. I hope to support them in other ways, such as by attending their fundraising events.

EET: What are your priorities for the year ahead?

Mayor Robert Leach: My main priority is to build a stronger sense of cohesion across the borough and foster a feeling of self-worth among its residents. I’m the Mayor for all—regardless of politics, religion or beliefs.

I’m also launching a “Friend of the Mayor” scheme, aimed primarily at children (though adults are welcome too). The idea is simple: a Friend of the Mayor promises not to hate anyone—or at least to try not to. Disagreement is fine, disapproval too, but hatred fuels everything from petty disputes to international conflict. This is just a small, local step to push back against that.

EET: What do you think could be improved about the Borough?

Mayor Robert Leach: Overall, I believe the borough is well run and well-resourced. There are, of course, a few minor housekeeping matters that could be improved. And I do miss the old Rolls-Royce mayoral car with the crest!

EET: What are you most looking forward to in your new role?

Mayor Robert Leach: Meeting people. I hope I can encourage and thank the vast army of volunteers who work so hard for their neighbours. I’m especially keen to spend time with children and young people. Encouraging and engaging with the next generation will be a special part of this year.

EET: What hobbies might have to take a back seat during your Mayoral year?

Mayor Robert Leach: Music is my main hobby. I play in a 15-piece dance band and often deputise in another. I’ve already had to excuse myself from at least one gig, but I’ve promised the bandleaders it’s only for a year!

As a pensioner with diabetes, I’ve also been working to get match fit for the job. I’ve lost over three stone and am trying to reduce my intake of cake and wine!

EET: Any final message for our readers?

Mayor Robert Leach: I want to be a residents’ Mayor. I encourage all local organisations to consider inviting me to their events—there is no charge. You might even like to host a “Meet the Mayor” evening.

Becoming Mayor is a great honour, and I look forward to carrying out my duties with enthusiasm and commitment.

Image credit: Epsom and Ewell Borough Council.

Earlier this month, at a meeting of the full Council, Epsom & Ewell Borough Council (EEBC) agreed new strategic priorities for 2025-2027, with the number one priority being to explore future local governance in Epsom & Ewell. This week, Councillors will attend a briefing on Community Governance Review (CGR) and will, with the Mayor’s agreement, schedule an extraordinary full Council meeting on Thursday 26 June 2025. At the extraordinary Council meeting, Councillors would agree whether to commence with a CGR in Epsom & Ewell, that could eventually lead to the creation of new community councils.

Community councils provide a vital link between residents and larger unitary authorities, which will be critical as a result of imminent local government reorganisation in Surrey. They aim to enhance local representation by providing a direct route for the essential voices of residents and local communities, ensuring that residents are aware of local issues, and are involved in decision-making they are affected by.

Councillor Hannah Dalton, Leader of Epsom & Ewell Borough Council, said “We are navigating the biggest change in local democracy for more than 50 years. As a priority we are working to ensure that, whatever the outcome of local government reorganisation, the voices of our residents and local communities continue to be heard in years to come – this is a vital element of local democracy. We will keep residents informed and updated throughout this process.”

In the coming days, Councillors will be briefed on the CGR process and possible geographies for establishing community councils in Epsom & Ewell:

Should full Council decide to commence with the CGR, the process will include a public consultation which would take place summer 2025, with any final proposal being consulted on in early 2026.

EEBC council meetings, including extraordinary full Council meetings, are open to the public to observe and are also live streamed: details on how to watch meetings can be found on the council’s website: Epsom and Ewell Democracy

In light of the plans for local government reorganisation, which will see the formation of new unitary councils and the dissolution of all current district, borough and county councils in Surrey; EEBC approved an amendment to the Council’s Four-Year Plan earlier this month, replacing it with strategic priorities for 2025-2027. Prior to the 9 May final submission deadline, Epsom & Ewell with nine of the eleven Surrey district and borough councils submitted a proposal to government to create three unitary councils in north, east and west Surrey. The county council and two other district and borough councils favour a two unitary model. Council leaders ruled out the creation of one unitary council for Surrey in February this year.

Surrey district and borough councils submit proposal to government outlining vision for future governance in the county

Today, district and borough councils in Surrey have submitted proposals to government outlining their vision for the future of local government in Surrey.

Nine district and borough councils support the formation of three unitary councils (Epsom & Ewell, Guildford, Reigate & Banstead, Runnymede, Spelthorne, Surrey Heath, Tandridge, Waverley and Woking) while two district and borough councils (Elmbridge and Mole Valley) and the county council favour two. Both proposals are published on council websites.

The proposal submitted by district and borough councils supporting three unitary councils is underpinned by the following priorities:

• supporting economic growth
• housing and infrastructure delivery
• unlocking devolution
• valuing and advocating for Surrey’s unique local identities and places
• providing strong democratic accountability, representation and community empowerment
• securing financial efficiency, resilience and the ability to withstand financial shocks
• delivering high-quality, innovative and sustainable public services that are responsive to local need and that enable wider public sector reform. 

Speaking about the proposal for three unitaries, Councillor Hannah Dalton, Chair of the Surrey Leaders Group and Leader of Epsom & Ewell Borough Council, said: “Today, district and borough councils have submitted a proposal for local government reorganisation in Surrey, a proposal rooted in what local government is all about: local identity, representation and economic alignment.

This is a once in a generation opportunity to shape Surrey’s future, to improve outcomes and opportunities for our residents, businesses and people across the county who rely on us most. We look forward to the government’s response to our proposal.

The government set out proposals for local government reform in the English Devolution White Paper. This outlines their plans to move away from the current two-tier system of district and county councils.

Residents can keep up-to-date with plans for local government reorganisation on the Surrey Local Government Hub.

Proposals can be read here: Epsom and Ewell Democracy and on all Surrey council websites.

Epsom and Ewell Times is bringing you all positions being taken on local government reorganisation. We believe in providing you as much information as possible, even if statements are repeated across the stream of reports and press releases.

Today, district and borough councils in Surrey have submitted proposals to government outlining their vision for the future of local government in Surrey.

Nine district and borough councils support the formation of three unitary councils (Epsom & Ewell, Guildford, Reigate & Banstead, Runnymede, Spelthorne, Surrey Heath, Tandridge, Waverley and Woking) while two district and borough councils (Elmbridge and Mole Valley) and the county council favour two. Both proposals are published on council websites.

The proposal submitted by district and borough councils supporting three unitary councils is underpinned by the following priorities:

• supporting economic growth
• housing and infrastructure delivery
• unlocking devolution
• valuing and advocating for Surrey’s unique local identities and places
• providing strong democratic accountability, representation and community empowerment
• securing financial efficiency, resilience and the ability to withstand financial shocks
• delivering high-quality, innovative and sustainable public services that are responsive to local need and that enable wider public sector reform.

Speaking about the proposal for three unitaries, Councillor Hannah Dalton, Chair of the Surrey Leaders Group and Leader of Epsom & Ewell Borough Council, said: “Today, district and borough councils have submitted a proposal for local government reorganisation in Surrey, a proposal rooted in what local government is all about: local identity, representation and economic alignment.

This is a once in a generation opportunity to shape Surrey’s future, to improve outcomes and opportunities for our residents, businesses and people across the county who rely us most. We look forward to the government’s response to our proposal.”

Epsom and Ewell Times is bringing you all positions being taken on local government reorganisation. We believe in providing you as much information as possible, even if statements are repeated across the stream of reports and press releases. Here is the latest unedited press release from Surrey County Council that favours two unitary authorities to replace itself.

Yesterday, Surrey County Council’s Cabinet approved a plan for local government reorganisation in the county. The plan will be sent to government on 9 May, and proposes two councils, East and West Surrey, to replace the existing 12 councils. The creation of the two councils will unlock further devolution through the election of a Mayor for Surrey.   

The plan will be jointly submitted with Elmbridge Borough Council and Mole Valley District Council, and includes letters of support from key local partners, including health, police, fire, business and community leaders.  

Ian Smith, Chair of NHS Surrey Heartlands ICB said: “As a key partner, NHS Surrey Heartlands is supportive of Surrey County Council’s proposal to move to two unitary authorities for Surrey. Recognising the value and importance of strong community engagement – particularly as the NHS looks to focus more on neighbourhood health with local partners – we very much support the proposed creation of community-level boards across Surrey to help strengthen engagement at local level.” 

Police and Crime Commissioner Lisa Townsend said: “I believe a two unitary structure is the right model for Surrey that will unlock the exciting opportunities that exist through devolution. 

“The most important part of my role is to represent our residents and ensure we provide value for money and the very best policing service to keep our communities safe. In any future model of governance, it is crucial that links to the Surrey public at a very local level are retained.  

“By getting this right, we can ensure that we continue to deliver an effective and resilient service that will fight crime and protect our county for the next decade.”  

Dan Quin, Chief Fire Officer, said: “I am pleased that the proposal to move Surrey Fire and Rescue Service to the Mayoral Strategic Authority aligns to the national Fire Reform White Paper in terms of governance for our service. However, in addition to this, this could also allow better collaboration, greater control over funding and regulatory requirements and closer integration with local health and safety initiatives – ensuring a holistic approach to community safety.” 

The Chair to the Board of Trustees at Surrey Minority Ethnic Forum said: “We fully support the proposed local government reorganisation in Surrey, specifically the recommendation consisting of two unitary authorities. This proposal provides the best opportunity for greater efficiencies in the delivery of services, with reduced duplication and clearer accountability as well as improved financial sustainability. It would allow for more coherent planning and integrated service delivery while preserving the distinctiveness of Surrey’s diverse communities. This is a once in lifetime opportunity to strengthen and align public services in the county and we welcome the inclusion of police and health partners in developing this proposal. The inclusion of community boards in the proposal will help to strengthen connectivity with local communities, and SMEF can play a vital role in connecting local diverse communities into these boards.” 

Councillor Stephen Cooksey, Leader of Mole Valley District Council (MVDC) said: ‘Making the right decision is not always easy, but as elected representatives, our responsibility is to act in the best interests of our residents and businesses. This is especially important during a process as significant as local government reorganisation. 

“Initially, we felt that more time and information were needed to determine whether two or three unitary authorities would best serve Mole Valley. However, following a thorough review of both proposals and a full Council debate, we have voted to support the proposal for two unitary authorities and look forward to having further detailed discussions with our partners, Ministers and others regarding how this can best be implemented. 

“We believe this approach offers the best opportunity to establish a new authority that is financially sustainable, supports economic growth, protects our environment, and meets the needs of both our rural and urban communities.’ 

Cllr Mike Rollings, Leader of Elmbridge Borough Council, believes that financial stability and protecting the interests of residents are best achieved by a 2 unitary approach.  

 “Although we didn’t ask for government to reorganise the structure of councils in Surrey, we are none-the-less committed to ensuring long-term financial sustainability and delivering value for our residents. I believe these priorities can be achieved through the establishment of two unitary authorities, one for East Surrey and one for West Surrey. Throughout this process we will maintain accountability and actively engage with our residents to ensure successful local government reorganisation in Surrey.”  

Tim Oliver, Leader of Surrey County Council said: “Our analysis shows that two unitary councils would bring the greatest benefit to Surrey’s residents, and we’ve received significant backing from key partners to support this. Two councils, in partnership with a Mayor for Surrey, would save money, strengthen and simplify local government and with an East and West arrangement both councils would be in a strong position to continue to deliver high quality services to all Surrey residents. Of course, consideration must be given to the differing levels of debt that the authorities would potentially inherit, and we’re in talks with government about our request that the stranded debt be written off as well as providing financial support to those borough councils that need it.   

“Most importantly, this proposal strengthens local community engagement. We know that residents want high quality services that are easy to access, and they want a real say in services and decisions that affect them. That’s why we’re proposing the creation of community-level boards across Surrey.   

“These community boards will be locally determined but we would expect them to include representation from health partners, Surrey Police, voluntary groups, councillors, council staff, local Town and Parish Councils and Residents Associations. We plan to pilot these boards over the coming months, and residents will have a say in how they are set up and delivered.   

“We’re in a strong position as a county council, with good quality services and an excellent track record of stable finances after years of successful transformation. And working together with our residents and partners, we are well placed to deliver this important reorganisation. Ultimately, this work will unlock further devolution, meaning Surrey can elect a mayor which will bring more power, flexibility and funding closer to communities.”  

The county council plan was also discussed with all county councillors at a Full Council meeting and a majority were in favour of submitting the final LGR plan. 

Plans for Surrey’s various district and borough councils to be devolved have been finalised. Surrey county councillors voted on how all 648 square miles of Surrey should be carved into two during a cabinet meeting on Wednesday, May 7.

Surrey County Council’s plans, supported by Elmbridge Borough Council and Mole Valley District Council, propose two new councils are created, splitting Surrey into East and West. But devolutions plans supported by the majority of the borough and district councils support splitting Surrey into three.

The Labour government outlined colossal structural changes to councils in December, aiming to give local authorities more power. Surrey’s 12 unitary authorities- district and borough councils- were told to submit their proposals for one a single-tier council would like across Surrey.

At rapid speed, the county council has drawn up plans for Surrey to be split in two: making up West Surrey would be Woking, Spelthorne, Runnymede, Surrey Heath, Guildford and Waverley; on the East would be Elmbridge, Epsom and Ewell, Reigate and Banstead, Mole Valley and Tandridge.

Leader of the county council, Tim OIiver said: “The decision was always going to be based on the evidence, not on political lines or emotional lines.

“This is about what is in the best interest for residents… how can we establish unitaries that are going to be financially secure going forward.”

The leader emphasised the “evidence” only supports a two unitary authority is fair, even and best value for residents.

Cllr Catherine Powell, leader of the Residents’ Association and Independents Group, said having three councils is the “most balanced option” and claimed the East and West division is “financially unsustainable”.

“It will include all three areas with the highest need for children’s services and the three areas with the lowest council tax band base, which also happen to be the same three areas with the highest levels of debt,” she said.

She claimed that SCC’s own analysis showed it would be better for Spelthorne to join the East Surrey side, both in terms of financial and service distribution.

Cllr Powell urged the potentially crippling debt from the councils needs to be solved before any final decision is made. Conversations continue between the government and Woking on how to manage their debt, while Runnymede’s financial situation is still struggling and Spelthorne now has government commissioners in to manage the debt.

The three-council plan would put Epsom & Ewell, Mole Valley, Reigate & Banstead and Tandridge into East Surrey. Elmbridge, Runnymede and Spelthorne would become North Surrey, and Guildford, Surrey Heath, Waverley and Woking in West Surrey.

But Cllr Oliver slammed the arguments as “weaponising” the debt across Surrey. He labelled the claim as “inconsistent”, as those in favour of three unitaries would lump struggling councils Spelthorne and Runnymede together with Elmbridge. He said: “How can it possibly be better than splitting them across two unitaries?”

Cllr George Potter slammed the Conservative councillors for supporting the idea of two mega councils based on their report. He said the council was merely “making the figures fit the pre-determined conclusions”.

However, Cllr Edward Hawkins said residents he has spoken to are “not bothered about changes but want the reduction of administration”. He said people just “want the bins emptied and the roads repaired”.

Despite the mudslinging, none of the councillors will decide what ultimately Surrey will look like in years to come. Timelines show the government will consult and interrogate the various proposals put forward, and decide how Surrey shall be carved up in the autumn.

Options for Surrey to be split into two and three unitaries will both be put on the table and submitted to government ministers on May 9.