Epsom and Ewell Times

Current

ISSN 2753-2771

Epsom and Ewell Borough Council Faces Scrutiny Over Constitutional Reforms

The Standards and Constitution Committee meeting of Epsom and Ewell Borough Council on 16th April was marked by heated exchanges and concerns over transparency, democratic participation, and officer-councillor relations.

The meeting, chaired by Councillor Hannah Dalton (RA Stoneleigh), dealt with contentious proposals affecting the structure of council committees, rules on public participation, and the delegation of powers to council officers. In the words of Councillor Chris Ames, (Labour Court) “There hasn’t been a meeting of the Constitution Working Group for seven months,” raising the stakes and intensity of the evening’s debate.

A Push for Plurality Rejected

A major flashpoint was the proposal to increase the number of councillors on the influential Strategy and Resources (S&R) Committee from eight to ten. Liberal Democrat Councillor James Lawrence (LibDem College) introduced the motion, arguing that the change would reflect “the plurality on the council” following the expansion to five political groups. “Strategy and Resources is, of course, our most important committee… and particularly so with unitarisation occurring and property decisions,” he said, asserting the need for broader representation.

Independent Councillor Alex Coley (Ruxley) added, “We should attempt to achieve the best plurality so that voices of smaller groups can also be heard and we can undertake proper, robust scrutiny.”

Despite the support, the motion fell. Councillor Robert Leach (RA Nonsuch)) dismissed it as a matter of “adiaphora — decisions that don’t really matter,” and declared, “The RA group can put through anything it likes… so I don’t think this would make much difference.”

Others expressed scepticism over inclusivity. Councillor John Beckett (RA Auriol) questioned the logic of the expansion: “We’re only going to give a voice to four [groups] if we go with this enlargement, so not everybody’s voice will be heard.”

Clashes Over Public Participation Rules

The committee also reviewed proposed changes to public participation rules, particularly Standing Order 3.1.3, which would allow officers to reword public questions for clarity. Councillor Bernie Muir (Conservative Horton) condemned the change as “seriously open to abuse,” warning it could “deny transparency, public accountability… and result in many issues and decisions being conducted without appropriate discussion.”

Councillor Lawrence suggested a compromise, proposing that officers “may suggest rewording” questions, rather than having an absolute right to do so. This amendment was accepted.

More fiercely contested was Standing Order 3.1.4, which sought to restrict questions relating to past legal cases or complaints. Councillor Ames described it as “having a chilling effect on public participation,” and stated bluntly, “We should not be trying to exclude members of the public… from participating at this meeting.”

In the end, the committee voted unanimously to refer the contentious clause back to the Constitution Working Group (CWG), along with concerns about the reduced five-to-three day notice period for residents’ questions.

Officer-Member Protocol Sparks Sharp Exchange

Perhaps the most contentious moment came with the debate on proposed additions to the officer-member protocol. Redrafted clauses sought to clarify officers’ expectations of councillors’ conduct.

Councillor Leach objected to the tone of the changes, declaring, “The council comprises councillors… not its officers… Officers are staff who are employed to do what we tell them to do.” This drew a stern rebuke from the Monitoring Officer, who warned that such language failed to acknowledge officers’ statutory duties: “If, in their professional opinion, something is unlawful or unconscionable, they have obligations.”

Councillor Lawrence defended the need for balance: “I don’t mind there being a look at the update of the officer-member protocol… but I would like it to be balanced.”

Ultimately, the committee agreed to refer the proposed changes to CWG, with a review of the Surrey County Council protocol as a potential model for achieving parity between officers’ and councillors’ expectations.

Delegated Powers Under the Microscope

Another area of concern was the list of proposed delegations to officers. Councillor Lawrence warned that not all proposals were “minor service changes,” pointing to one that would authorise officers to purchase properties for temporary accommodation.

“We should not delegate such significant capital decisions,” he argued. The committee eventually agreed to amend the wording, allowing officers to “identify and negotiate” but not to “purchase” without committee approval.

A Question of Process

Underlying the evening was a shared frustration with procedural breakdowns. Several members criticised the administration for sidelining the Constitution Working Group. “This administration, under your leadership, has twice postponed or cancelled the CWG,” Councillor Ames alleged, adding, “It would appear the CWG was not giving the answers that the administration wanted, so it’s been done away with.”

Chair Hannah Dalton acknowledged the delay, attributing it partly to the “devolution white paper” and pressures of local government reorganisation. However, she also committed to convening a new CWG to consider unresolved matters, stating, “You’ll probably need an extraordinary SNC and then bring it to the July meeting.”

As public trust and democratic scrutiny hang in the balance, the committee’s decisions to refer key changes back to the CWG suggest a desire to tread carefully. Whether this marks a course correction or a temporary pause in constitutional reform remains to be seen.

Image: The meeting from Epsom and Ewell Borough Council YouTube channel

The cost of saving the cost of local government

As of April 2025, Epsom and Ewell is actively engaged in Surrey’s significant local government reorganisation, aiming to transition from the existing two-tier system to a unitary authority model.

The UK government initiated a directive for Surrey to be part of the first wave of local government reorganisation, inviting all 12 councils in the county to submit proposals for restructuring. The current two-tier system, comprising Surrey County Council and 11 district and borough councils, including Epsom and Ewell Borough Council, is set to be replaced by unitary authorities responsible for all local services.

Epsom and Ewell Borough Council, led by the Residents Associations of Epsom and Ewell, has expressed a preference for establishing three unitary councils within Surrey. This stance aims to balance efficiency with maintaining strong local connections. Councillor Hannah Dalton, Chair of the Surrey Leaders Group and leader of the Residents’ Association, has emphasized the importance of serving communities effectively and preserving local democracy.

Surrey County Council Leader Tim Oliver advocates for the creation of ‘community-level boards’ to ensure local voices are heard within the new governance structure. These boards would include representatives from various sectors, such as health, police, voluntary groups, and local councils, facilitating tailored public services and stronger community engagement.

While proponents of the reorganisation, such as Surrey County Council, argue that a streamlined unitary model will lead to long-term savings through the reduction of duplicated services and administrative overheads, there are also significant upfront costs involved. These include expenses related to restructuring staff, merging IT systems, rebranding, and establishing new governance frameworks. Early estimates suggest the transition could cost tens of millions of pounds, with potential savings only materialising over several years. Critics warn that these financial pressures could strain local services during the transition period and reduce the funds available for frontline delivery.

The Local Government Information Unit states: “A range of options for potential new unitaries were included from 27 to 67 different unitaries. And, across 18 regions (with the information publicly available), the average population size of options was 544,837. Across the 27 proposals analysed, £38.4m has been set aside for preparing LGR proposals. And, current financial analysis averages the estimated transition cost for each region’s reorganisation as £31.1m.”

A public consultation has been launched to gather feedback from residents and businesses on the proposed reorganisation. This initiative seeks to involve the community in shaping the future governance of Surrey, ensuring that the new structures reflect the needs and preferences of local populations.

Final Proposal Submission: The final proposals for the new unitary structures are to be submitted to the government by 9 May 2025.
Government Decision: A decision from the government is expected in the autumn of 2025.
Elections: Local elections, initially scheduled for May 2025, have been postponed to May 2026 to accommodate the reorganisation process.

Surrey’s BIG debt question in local government reorganisation

Local Government Reorganisation in Surrey: Key Proposals

What might local government reorganisation mean for Epsom and Ewell?

Local government reorganisation: What will it mean for Epsom and Ewell?

RA councillor replaces Independent member as scrutiny row erupts at Epsom Town Hall

A stormy Audit and Scrutiny Committee meeting at Epsom and Ewell Borough Council on Thursday 27 March has ignited a political row, as Councillor Robert Leach (RA Nonsuch) controversially replaced Councillor Alex Coley (Independent Ruxley) on the committee. The change, made by the ruling Residents Association group, prompted accusations of “gerrymandering” and “Trumpian politics” from opposition members, particularly Labour Councillor Chris Ames (Labour).

The chair of the committee, Cllr Steven McCormick (RA Woodocte and Langley), presided over what quickly became a fractious meeting, with procedural disputes dominating its early minutes. The substitution of Cllr Coley – a former Residents Association member who resigned from the group and now sits as part of a two-member independent group – triggered a fierce exchange over the legality and transparency of the move.

“Nonsense on stilts”: Labour mounts strong objection

Rising on a point of order almost immediately, Cllr Chris Ames condemned the replacement as illegitimate:

“A member of the committee who was appointed by full council last year… has been excluded from attendance by diktat from the Residents Association… It’s a gross example of gerrymandering by the administration, by a Residents Association clique that will sink to any depths to gain revenge on the former member.”

Cllr Ames declared that no constitutional rule allowed for such a substitution, emphasising that committee membership was determined by full council, not party whips. He went on to challenge the very presence of Cllr Leach at the meeting, describing it as: “The worst kind of gerrymandering… resorting to Trumpian politics… shocking, absolutely shocking.”

Chair defends decision with constitutional reference

Cllr McCormick responded by reading from Appendix 5 of the Council Procedure Rules (CPR 15.4), arguing that: “A member of a committee… may designate as their substitute another councillor… The substitution happened by the leader of the RA group earlier today.” He added: “This is not to be debated… If you want to take it up with the monitoring officer, then please do.”

Despite Cllr Ames’s repeated interventions, the chair refused further discussion, insisting that proper constitutional advice had been followed.

Legal officer backs the administration

Cllr James Lawrence (Lib Dem College) attempted to elicit further legal clarity, but the deputy monitoring officer succinctly backed the chair: “I’ve got nothing further to add to what the monitoring officer has provided today.”

That led Cllr Ames to vent: “You have no explanation as to why a member of this committee who was appointed by council has been excluded from this committee.” He warned that the substitution would “nullify the whole proceedings”

Despite the protest, the meeting proceeded with Cllr Leach continuing in place.

Epsom and Ewell Times contacted Cllr Coley after the meeting and he said: “I did not request a substitute for either the meeting of S&R [strategy and resources committee] on the 25th March or A&S [Audit and Scrutiny committee] on the 27th March. Neither was I told that I would be substituted. I was however provided with a legal steer by the Council’s Monitoring Officer in which it was anticipated that the RA Group Leader might substitute me as the seat was allocated to that political group.”

“My reflection is that there seems to be a fear of robust scrutiny happening in committee meetings. Training on committee procedure is almost non-existent, with a lack of confidence and understanding creating a fait accompli when reports are brought to committee. It is my understanding that smaller opposition groups will be blocked from oversight of strategic financial decisions in the near future.” He added: “This bodes very poorly for the governance of the Council at such a critical time, with Local Government Reorganisation, a multi-million pound Town Hall move and an expected deficit in the Council’s finances in 2026.”

The relevant words of the rule are: “A member of a committee may……… designate as their substitute another councillor. …….. The nominating member, Leader / Chair of their Group, or Deputy Leader / Chair of their Group, shall inform the Democratic Services Manager of the substitute in writing prior to the meeting in question.”

There appears to be no rule allowing for any person other than the councillor himself or herself to designate a substitute.

Cllr Alex Coley and recently resigned group leader of the Liberal Democrats, Cllr Julie Morris (College), have formed a new 2 member Independent Group. The new Group pledges to allow its members freedom to vote and speak at Council independently from any “group position”.

Complaints report:

Following the dramatic opening, the committee did manage to turn to the rest of its business, including a review of council complaints between April and December 2024.

Members noted the learning from complaints data. Operational Services were responsible for 57% of complaints, mainly about refuse collection, although this was a 19.5% decrease compared to the previous year.

Treasury and transparency

The committee also received the Financial Strategy Advisory Group’s report on treasury management. There were no contentious issues here, and the recommendation to note the annual report passed unanimously.

But concerns over transparency re-emerged during discussion of previous minutes, particularly relating to responses to the external audit. Lib Dem Cllr James Lawrence criticised omissions in how verbal statements were recorded:

“If I’m looking at the minutes and I didn’t sit at the committee… that doesn’t tell me anything that adds to the debate.”

He also challenged the failure to record examples he had raised regarding “a failure to be transparent” in council decisions.

Cllr Ames returned to the theme, questioning why statements by officers in a previous meeting were vague or misrepresented. He called for: “An accurate description of what was said last time… because that is quite an important thing.”

Director of Corporate Services acknowledged this and promised to amend the minutes for accuracy.

RIPA and policy clarity

In the RIPA (Regulatory and Investigatory Powers Act) annual report the officer was candid:

“This is a report we’re obliged to bring to you every year to tell you about any covert surveillance… and we haven’t done any.”

The Council had nonetheless updated its surveillance policy after external inspection. The chair added that the report would be shared with community safety stakeholders to ensure open oversight.

Cllr Lawrence pointed out that a senior officer’s name in the report was “to be confirmed,” and officers clarified it was awaiting the arrival of a successor to Mr Sebastian.

Closing with caution

The meeting concluded with a subdued atmosphere after its turbulent beginning. No public questions had been submitted, and most agenda items passed without dissent.

But the confrontation over Cllr Coley’s removal – and the unresolved questions about process, transparency, and political fairness – are unlikely to fade quietly.

Commentary

The drama surrounding Cllr Coley’s substitution is more than a procedural quibble. It raises fundamental concerns about how power is exercised by the ruling RA group. When committee appointments, made by full council, are seemingly overridden without transparent explanation, the spectre of executive overreach looms.

Cllr McCormick’s constitutional cover seemed dubious at best and the tone and timing of the move – coming after Coley’s defection from the RA – understandably fuel suspicions of retaliation. The refusal to debate or justify the decision in open session further deepens the sense of opacity.

This episode may yet prompt a broader review of how Epsom and Ewell’s committees are constituted, and how scrutiny can be safeguarded from political manipulation.

Until then, the Audit and Scrutiny Committee risks becoming the subject of its own audit.

Image: Audit and Scrutiny Committee – Epsom and Ewell Borough Council YouTube channel.

Surrey Councils launch Local Government Reorganisation engagement

Surrey residents can have their say on the future of local government in the county, in a new survey launched by eight of Surrey’s district and borough councils.

An initial proposal for Local Government Reorganisation, which would see the county divided into two or three unitary councils, was published by district and borough councils last week, and they are now asking for the initial views of residents and local businesses.

Given that the current system of local government has been in place for the last 50 years, this is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to change things for the better. Eight district and borough councils are therefore offering local people the opportunity to give their feedback on plans for the future governance of the county, to influence the next phase of the process.

Most district and borough leaders in Surrey support a move to three unitary authorities. They believe this would strike the best balance between efficiency and maintaining genuine local accountability, as well as maximising opportunities to support economic growth by ensuring that unitary authorities reflect the economic geography of the county. But regardless of any stated preferences, all district and borough leaders are keen that local people should have the opportunity to contribute to the debate.

The new unitary authorities would assume responsibility for the services currently delivered by Surrey County Council and the 11 district and boroughs. This transition would pave the way for the creation of a new strategic authority covering the county.

Councillor Hannah Dalton, Chair of the Epsom & Ewell Borough Council Residents’ Association (Majority Group) and co-chair of the Surrey Leaders Group, said:

“This is a pivotal moment for local government in Surrey. There are a number of compelling advantages to unitary councils – and cost savings is only one of them. We also need to ensure we create new organisations that can manage economic growth more effectively, and which recognise the importance of community, identity, and local democracy.

“Local Government Reorganisation provides us with an important opportunity to secure Surrey’s future prosperity, safeguard high-quality public services and ensure that decisions continue to be made close to the people they impact.

“The voice of our residents is what really matters. We want to hear what you think about the future of your local councils. Please get involved in the survey and give us your views.”

The survey is open for comments until Sunday 20 April.

Epsom and Ewell Borough Council has no choice but to vote for its own demise

Who will be saddled with Spelthorne’s and Woking’s £3 billion debts?

Local Government Reorganisation in Surrey: Key Proposals

An independent view on Epsom and Ewell Council’s future

Local Labour view on Epsom and Ewell Council’s future

Local LibDem view on Epsom and Ewell Council’s future

Surrey’s BIG debt question in local government reorganisation

Plans for what Surrey could look like in local government reorganisation have been agreed but questions remain over looming debt. Councillors demanded to know how debt would be managed before the county is divided up.

The government outlined plans for a major reorganisation of local government in December. Two tier councils will be dissolved into unitary authorities which will carry out all local government functions like planning, bin collections as well as education and social care.

Members of the County Council have agreed on March 18 two proposals for how Surrey could be carved up in the most dramatic reorganisation of local services in 50 years. Serving 1.2m people, Surrey’s current matrix – consisting of 12 borough and district councils and one county council – could be split into two or three new local authorities.

Leader of Surrey County Council, Tim Oliver, said he believes reorganisation is the “opportunity to turbo charge localism”. He said: “Single councils are clearer for residents, have greater accountability, are more efficient and effective for delivery and strip out unnecessary bureaucracy and duplication.”

Option 1, and the Conservative-run cabinet’s preference, is to cut Surrey in half to create an east and west, or north and south. Exactly which councils will be included in the new authority are still yet to be determined, for instance whether Spelthorne borough is either on the east or west side.

Option 2, put forward by the majority of district and borough councils, consists of three new local authorities in the form of north-west, south-west and south-east Surrey. Again, full details of which councils would be included is still in the draft stages.

The two outline plans will be submitted to the central government on Friday March 21, who will ultimately have the deciding power on the new face of Surrey. Meanwhile, the local authorities will keep working to produce a final proposal by May 9.

With over £5.5bn worth of crushing debt across the county, members publicly urged the government to solve Surrey’s financial issues before reorganisation. Cllr Catherine Powell said there needs to be “a clear path on the £5.5bn of debt” as it could create “significant imbalances” leading one council “more likely to fail”. The Residents’ Association and Independent Group Leader said she does not feel Surrey can propose new authorities without a solution.

Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group, Cllr Paul Follows, said the councils’ debt is “so toxic it will pollute the rest of this county”. He lamented that reorganisation will not be about what is best for residents but about how money will be spent.

Speaking to the council, the leader said the government has “made it clear it does not intend to write off all of Woking’s debt”. Cllr Oliver said he will be having detailed conversations and Surrey will “have to come up with plan B”.

Creating two councils in Surrey could save £27m after five years but three authorities could potentially make a loss of £8m, according to the county council’s report. But the district and borough councils argue three unitary authorities would only save slightly less money than two and not be in a deficit.

However, Cllr Oliver said they have not taken into account the cost of reorganising services, such as adult social care, which could add substantial added costs. The leader claimed splitting into two is the best value for money for residents.

“There is no desire for Ashford to sink in with Godstone should the boundaries be cut [one] way,” said Cllr Robert Evans OBE. He explained slicing Surrey into two would only reveal some towns would have little in common with villages they may have not even heard of.

Creating two unitary councils with a population of around 600,000 each, opponents slammed the proposal as bad for local democracy and eroding distinctive community identities. Members also flagged there would be significantly less councillors looking after greater areas.

But those batting for a dual council-led Surrey said few residents even identify with the council and local identity would be strengthened by working with community groups and local healthcare networks.

Questions about services like adult social care as well as children and education services were raised as major issues. Cllr Sinead Mooney said splitting the adult social care beyond two units would complicate the service and people could “fall through the gaps”. Cllr Clare Curran highlighted the potential difficulties in retaining and splitting staff to more than two councils, meaning experienced teams could leave.

Cllr Fiona Davidson called for a need to assess how many children homes, specialist school places and demand for foster children to ensure Surrey is covered with the right services. Members agreed it was not just about making services cheaper and simpler- they had to be run better than currently.

Could Woking’s debt be shared by you after reorganisation?

What Epsom could do with Woking’s £75 million bail out?

Ex-Council Officers under investigation for Woking’s £2 billion debt

Will Epsom and Ewell be bailing out Woking?

No wonder Woking went bankrupt. Scandal of private school loans

PM confident of success in Woking

Woking’s whopping bail out and tax rise

Epsom and Ewell Borough Council has no choice but to vote for its own demise

Epsom and Ewell Borough Council Divided Over Local Government Reorganisation

An extraordinary meeting of Epsom and Ewell Borough Council was held on 18th March 2025, where councillors engaged in an extensive and, at times, heated debate over the future structure of local government in Surrey. The meeting, convened in response to the Government’s English Devolution White Paper, saw councillors grapple with the contentious question of whether Surrey should be reorganised into two or three unitary authorities.

Abolition of Epsom and Ewell Borough Council Inevitable

Councillor Hannah Dalton, (RA Stoneleigh) Chair of the Standards and Constitution Committee and ruling Residents Association leader, acknowledging the gravity of the decision before the Council. “Tonight, colleagues, you have before you a report which will undo 50 years of local government,” she said. She stressed that while she would not have chosen this path, reorganisation was now unavoidable due to central government’s ambitions for devolution.

Dalton proposed a motion advocating for the creation of three unitary authorities in Surrey, arguing that this model would better maintain local democracy and ensure decision-making remained close to residents. She cited concerns that larger unitary councils could become remote and unresponsive, particularly to distinct local needs such as those of urban Epsom versus rural areas further south.

The Case for Two Unitaries

However, opposition to the three-unitary model came swiftly. Councillor Bernie Muir (Conservative Horton) raised concerns that splitting Surrey into three could strain service delivery, particularly for essential areas like adult social care and children’s services. “It’s not just about population size, but the nature and needs of our communities,” she stated, highlighting the complexities of recruiting skilled staff across multiple authorities and the risks of disrupting services that are already under strain.

Echoing these concerns, Councillor Julian Freeman (Liberal Democrat College), who served Sutton Council for several years, warned against prioritising political considerations over operational efficiency. “Dividing an already overstretched county into three is not going to fix its problems,” he said. Freeman pointed to Surrey County Council’s existing financial difficulties, suggesting that smaller councils might lack the resources to deliver critical services effectively.

Democracy and Accountability at Stake

Others, including Councillor James Lawrence (LibDem College), pushed back, advocating for three unitaries as a way to preserve local democratic accountability. He cautioned against forming excessively large authorities, citing the example of North Yorkshire’s unitary council, which has struggled to maintain strong community ties. “If we follow Surrey County’s preference for two unitaries, we risk creating councils that are simply too large for residents to engage with effectively,” he argued.

Meanwhile, Councillor Alan Williamson (RA West Ewell) expressed frustration with the process, describing the reorganisation as being “railroaded through” by the Government. “This is not about efficiency or saving money; it’s about centralising power,” he said. Nevertheless, he reluctantly backed the three-unitary model as the closest approximation to Epsom and Ewell’s current system.

Cllr John Beckett (RA Auriol) said “Money is driving this. You look at all of the reports that support whether it’s a two unitary or a three unitary. It’s down to pounds, Shilling and pence. I personally feel that our residents will lose out it.”

Cllr Christine Cleveland (RA Ewell Village) said “We’re Residents Association. I’m proud to be a residents association councillor, because I think that brings me right smack back into the local people where we live, and that’s who I care about, and that’s who I’m hoping to represent. I think the bigger you do these authorities, the less that voice is heard.”

Cllr Clive Woodbridge (RA Ewell Village) said “I am sceptical that local government reorganisation will bring many benefits for our residents. The savings won’t be as much as predicted, the costs will be far higher, and we will end up with a local government structure that is far less local than before. What is being proposed is not devolution, but to a large extent the reverse, taking many decisions about the services that local government delivers further away from residents and more towards the centre”.

Labour councillors also contributed to the debate, with Councillor Chris Ames (Court) raising concerns about transparency and the accessibility of council discussions. “This is a public meeting. We shouldn’t be putting things in code that are baffling to the public, that we’re asking to engage in our democracy,” he said, urging fellow councillors to ensure their discussions remained comprehensible to residents.

Councillor Kate Chinn (Labour Court) added that while the reorganisation was inevitable, it was vital to ensure that it worked for all residents. “The Labour Party tried to make the districts and boroughs fit better, and it’s quite difficult because of the different socio-economic differences in different boroughs and districts,” she remarked. She praised the efforts made in the proposal, stating, “They’ve done the best we can do, and I don’t see why we’re noting it and not voting to approve it”

What Happens Next?

With emotions running high, the meeting, following an amendment of Cllr Alex Coley (RA Ruxley) to approve not merely note, ultimately saw councillors vote to approve the submission of the interim proposal to Government, with a majority supporting the three-unitary preference. This recommendation will now be submitted as part of Surrey’s interim plan for reorganisation, though the final decision will rest with the Government.

Local residents are encouraged to follow developments closely, as the reorganisation will have a profound impact on how services are delivered in Epsom and Ewell in the years to come. The debate may be over in the council chamber, but the future of local government in Surrey remains uncertain.

Local Government Reorganisation in Surrey: Key Proposals

An independent view on Epsom and Ewell Council’s future

Local Labour view on Epsom and Ewell Council’s future

Local LibDem view on Epsom and Ewell Council’s future

Local Government Reorganisation in Surrey: Key Proposals

The leaders of all 12 Surrey councils have reached an agreement on the fundamental principles for an interim proposal concerning local government reorganisation (LGR) within the county. The proposal, which follows a government directive issued in February, outlines the potential restructuring of Surrey’s local government into either two or three unitary authorities.

Dividing Surrey: Two or Three Unitaries?

While Surrey County Council has advocated for the creation of two unitary councils, the majority of the district and borough councils favour a three-unitary model. The proposal has now been submitted to the government, which will decide whether to pursue one of these options further before a final business case is due in May. A government decision on the restructuring is anticipated in the autumn.

Tim Oliver, Leader of Surrey County Council, expressed his confidence in the two-unitary approach, stating:

“I am clear that two unitary councils would bring the most benefits for Surrey’s residents. It would create a simpler model of local government that is more efficient, offers better value for money and improved outcomes for all.”

He also highlighted the potential for devolution under this model, allowing for the election of a mayor who could secure additional powers and funding for Surrey.

However, the vast majority of district and borough councils, including Epsom and Ewell Borough Council, have shown strong support for a three-unitary model. Hannah Dalton, Chair of Surrey Leaders Group and Leader of the Residents Association ruling group in Epsom and Ewell Borough Council, remarked:

“The leaders of Surrey’s councils have been meeting weekly to discuss how local government will be structured here in Surrey. Later today, district and borough councils will publish a report outlining potential options on what form local government reorganisation may take, which will include scenarios for two and three unitary councils. The vast majority of the 11 districts and boroughs are supporting three unitaries.”

Dalton emphasised the importance of securing the best possible outcome for Surrey’s residents, reaffirming the commitment of local councils to work collaboratively in developing the final proposal.

Financial and Structural Implications

The recently released Interim Plan – Part B provides a high-level analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of each proposal.

Two Unitary Councils:

Would create larger, more financially sustainable authorities (populations between 500,000 and 600,000 each).
Would align with government criteria for devolution and financial sustainability.
Risks include potential disruption in service delivery and the challenge of balancing financial stability between the two authorities.

Three Unitary Councils:

Would offer more localised governance, aligning with existing borough and district identities.
Could weaken financial resilience due to smaller council tax bases and greater complexity in disaggregating existing services.
Risks include higher long-term costs and potential for economic disparity between wealthier and less affluent areas.

According to the financial appraisal, the three-unitary option is expected to be the most expensive to implement and least likely to meet government criteria for financial sustainability.

Next Steps and Government Decision

The submission of the interim proposals on 21st March marks the first step in the government’s review process. Local councils across Surrey are set to hold Extraordinary Council Meetings in the coming weeks to discuss and note the submission.

A full business case is required by 9th May, and consultations with residents, businesses, and stakeholders will continue in the interim period. Surrey’s final decision will ultimately rest with central government, which is expected to announce its verdict in the autumn.

The coming months will determine whether the vision of two or three unitary authorities prevails and what the reorganisation will mean for local governance, service delivery, and financial sustainability across Surrey.

Stay updated with the Epsom and Ewell Times for ongoing coverage of the local government reorganisation process.

An independent view on Epsom and Ewell Council’s future

Local Labour view on Epsom and Ewell Council’s future

Local LibDem view on Epsom and Ewell Council’s future

An independent view on Epsom and Ewell Council’s future

Epsom and Ewell Times has invited representatives of The Residents Association, Liberal Democrats, Labour and Conservative Party to share their policies on local government reorganisation. But today we publish newly independent Councillor Alex Coley’s viewpoint.

Devolution to the middle

Just before Christmas the government in Westminster announced it would be reorganising local government by abolishing the lower tier of councils like Epsom & Ewell, in the name of devolution. From Whitehall’s perspective, power will be devolved down to new, larger unitary councils across much bigger geographic areas. From the perspective of residents power is going up, up and away. For balance, let’s call it devolution to the middle.

Dissolution from the Ministry

There exists a patchwork quilt of small councils dotted across England like needlework, playing a unique role that dilutes and moderates the big, concentrated politics of national government. They represent the interests of local residents while collecting the bins, planning for housing and keeping the streets clean and tidy.

These councils and their councillors represent a range of political control that serves as the final layer of pluralist democracy with the greatest proximity to reality. The English don’t like being ‘done to’ and the lower tier of councils which are closest to residents operate like a kind of natural filter against the sometimes harmful UV rays of Whitehall bright ideas. It’s a kind of self-regulating eco-system that looks messy and manic under the microscope but serves an important purpose in the good governance and democratic health of the nation.

Duopoly

The higher up you go with government the more it becomes a two party system. At the lower level, where residents experience local government most acutely, there’s a huge range of political views openly held and discussed. Councillors are local people who live in the neighbourhood and know it really well and they know the local people really well too. Those local relationships are more important than the party flag.

That will be lost as the whole sector gets shrunk to a handful of people operating across much larger areas at a much higher level; as the obedient servants of one of two political parties. Soon, whole swathes of the country will be concentrated for or against the government of the day. There will be very visible winners and losers at each general election and no patchwork quilt to dilute and moderate the bright ideas which make for good headlines but poor outcomes.

Bigger is not always better

Are we heading for an American style two-party state with no spectrum of voices or views? Or will it be more like King John and the barons across 12 mayoralty strategic authorities; a conspiracy against the public?

I believe that three unitaries in Surrey could work. A lot will depend on retaining some plurality of political groups and an affinity between voters and their elected representatives that goes beyond a party flag. I welcome reformation, and change is a constant, but we must keep democracy close to the people at a local level. Bigger is not always better.

I’ve done considerable research on the options in THIS REPORT, which I hope your readers will take the opportunity to read.

Cllr Alex Coley

Epsom & Ewell Borough Council

Ruxley Ward Councillor

Local LibDem view on Epsom and Ewell Council’s future

Epsom and Ewell Times has invited representatives of The Residents Association, Liberal Democrats, Labour and Conservative Party to share their policies on local government reorganisation. Here is the second from Cllr Julie Morris (College Ward) of the Liberal Democrat Party.

Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) is a recurring theme in British politics. Government which is fit-for-purpose contributes to overall efficiency. Proportional Representation would be by far the best change central government could make toward this. However, the removal of two tier authorities is what we have to deal with and there are undoubtedly economies of scale to be had from the edict that Surrey should become two or possibly three unitary bodies, instead of one county council and eleven districts/boroughs.

It is really important to create new unitaries using current boundaries as far as possible. The logistics and costs of any other scenario are complex and could lengthen the process by years. Debt needs to be spread so that no new authority is immediately bankrupt (as some existing councils are heavily in debt) and, ideally, areas of wealth and deprivation should also be fairly distributed so that each new unitary begins life as both fair and financially viable. Amalgamating services such as refusal collection, recycling and disposal makes sense as for small boroughs the costs of energy-efficient collection vehicles are prohibitive and it’s worth remembering that some councils already share staff such as legal, chief executive, IT, etc. Working in partnership is not an entirely new thing, so amalgamation might be relatively straightforward in some areas. Redistributing services covered entirely by the existing county council could be the key to success in the eyes of local residents, and there are some sensitive areas here e.g. social services and education, to say nothing of potholes.

We do not as yet know the preference of Epsom & Ewell Borough Council, and the Liberal Democrats in Surrey as far as I am aware have not yet come out in favour of any particular scenario. I personally favour three new unitaries over two, but I’m sure there is room for manoeuvre once the fuller picture is known. For Epsom, a new Town Council would probably find favour with local people. Even though it has limited power particularly when it comes to planning applications, it can do a good job of keeping residents informed and, most importantly, involved. This does nicely lead onto the tricky bit which is how to make sure residents themselves are not further disengaged from local politics (and politicians) and feel they have no say or contribution to make. Decisions taken many miles away and a local councillor who represents a much wider area could impact voter turnout (and apathy) even more. Only around 40% of the electorate currently vote in local elections anyway.

Cllr Julie Morris

Leader of the Liberal Democrat group

Epsom & Ewell Borough Council

Epsom and Ewell Times has invited representatives of The Residents Association, Liberal Democrats, Labour and Conservative Party to share their policies on local government reorganisation. Here is the first from Cllr Kate Chinn (Court Ward) of the Labour Party.

The government has directed a total reorganisation for two-tier local authority areas across the whole country. This was planned by the previous government and outlined in the Labour manifesto. Surrey County Council will cease to exist and will be divided up into, what Surrey Labour Party hopes, will be three unitary authorities.

Labour in Surrey has long argued that twelve councils, twelve civic centres or town halls, with twelve chief executives and a top-heavy administration is not the most economical way to deliver essential services. Small boroughs all with their own legal teams, revenue teams, housing teams, procurement staff—all duplicating roles unnecessarily. On completing the process, unitary authorities will soon start making efficiency savings.

Surrey Labour has been discussing for years how unitary authorities could be most effectively organised to best serve the residents of Surrey. Unlike the Liberal Democrats, who are hardly engaging, or the independents, burying their heads in the sand and calling for elections to be held in 2025, as did some council ruling groups. How they can claim good financial management whilst wanting an unnecessary election to go ahead makes no sense. Wasting taxpayers’ money on a soon-to-be irrelevance would be unforgivable.

Surrey Labour has embraced the process, made a case for three unitary authorities, and carefully examined how they could be organised, taking into account the guidance from the white paper:

Sensible economic geographies
Travel to work areas
The ability for local residents to engage and hold their devolved institutions to account

The Case for Three Unitary Authorities

We believe that there is an overwhelming case for three councils based on existing geography, taking into account expected population growth and recognising the political, economic, and social challenges faced by the county.

Surrey is to be divided into unitary authorities (UAs), with the government suggesting a population of 500,000 or more as ideal but recognising that there may be exceptions to ensure new structures make sense for an area. The population of Surrey is 1.25 million, which implies two or three authorities.

Dividing Surrey into two UAs would mean both would be oversized and geographically challenged in an area of anticipated population growth, whereas three would be initially undersized. The likely divisions would be:

Two UAs – (East/West) – as proposed by the Conservatives
Three UAs – (North/South-West/South-East) – as proposed by Labour and supported by all the boroughs and districts

Proposed Unitary Authorities

With service delivery to residents being the most important issue, we suggest the following councils:

Middlesex-Surrey Borders

Elmbridge, Spelthorne & Runnymede
Population: 334,000

Surrey Hills

Guildford, Surrey Heath, Woking & Waverley
Population: 478,000

North Downs

Epsom & Ewell, Mole Valley, Reigate & Banstead, and Tandridge
Population: 416,000

These names and details are provisional and will be decided later. However, they best fit geographically and population-wise.

All these areas would have much stronger geographical links and community ties than the larger, two-unitary authority model. While all three are under the government’s ideal 500,000 population threshold, Surrey Hills is closer to that figure, and all are areas of population growth.

These three UAs could provide a more local and focused delivery of key services, ensuring better support for adult social care and SEND needs, both priorities for Surrey. It would give greater clarity for residents, with one authority being responsible for all local services. Service delivery would be more efficient, more accountable, and free from disputes over which council has responsibility in an area.

Local Voices Must Be Heard

It is essential to establish a close relationship between Surrey County and district councillors in shaping their new unitary authorities as they are formulated. The reorganisation process must not descend into factional disagreements but remain focused on communities and democratic engagement at a local level.

Other unitary councils, such as London boroughs, often have local committees to represent community views. Boroughs and districts in Surrey should now begin engaging residents, examining the options, and organising forums to ensure local voices are represented in the new UAs.

Conclusion

The devolution offer in the white paper suggests a Surrey Mayor, offering priorities for funding that suit their areas and providing strategic leadership. This could positively impact key Surrey priorities, including:

Skills and employment
More housing
Increased local investment
Making Britain a clean energy superpower

Surrey’s approaches to neighbouring areas for a joint strategic mayor have not been successful.

A Surrey Mayor would automatically represent an area that aligns with the current police and crime commissioner and the Surrey Fire and Rescue Service boundaries, as envisaged by the white paper’s goal of “reforming and joining up public services”.

Overall, we believe that our three-unitary authority model will best serve the needs of Surrey residents going forward.

Much of this is based on previous contributions by Robert Evans & Arran Neathey (2019), Cllr Catherine Powell (2025), Tony Rooth & Michael Moriarty, with additional input from Cllr Robert King, but it does not necessarily represent all of their individual views.

Cllr Kate Chinn
Leader of the Labour Group
February 2025

Page 1

Registered office: Upper Chambers, 7 Waterloo Road, Epsom KT19 8AY