The meeting began with a discussion of the future of local government in Surrey, with Councillor Tim Oliver, the Leader of the Council, and Councillor Catherine Powell, the Leader of the Opposition, outlining their differing perspectives. Councillor Oliver strongly advocated for the creation of two new Unitary Councils for Surrey, arguing that it would bring greater clarity, efficiency, and financial savings. Councillor Powell favoured three Unitary Councils, believing that it would deliver more localism and better reflect existing collaborations between boroughs. The meeting also touched on the growing debt issues in Woking and Spellthorne, prompting calls for government intervention. The Council then voted to submit its interim proposal on Local Government Reorganisation to the government.

Local Government Reorganisation

The Council discussed the government's plan to reorganise local government in Surrey, with the aim of devolving powers from Westminster and creating a mayoral combined authority. The Council received a letter from the government in February 2025, inviting it to submit an interim plan by 21 March 2025 and a full proposal by 9 May 2025.

Councillor Oliver advocated for the creation of two Unitary Councils, one for each half of the county, arguing that it would deliver clarity for residents, more efficient council services, millions of pounds in reduced costs year on year, and the right economies of scale to deliver services at a lower cost.

Financial analysis clearly shows that the more councils created through reorganisation, the smaller the saving to the public purse , he said.

He also highlighted the perilous financial state of a number of District and Borough Councils in Surrey.

The current model is not sustainable and I think this is something we will all agree on. So we must deliver a new model that is sustainable.

He acknowledged that a three Unitary Council model had also been proposed, but he believed it would not deliver the same level of financial benefits and would create more risk within the system.

It is clear from the transparent analysis carried out, analysis is not skewed in any way that this would deliver no benefit to public finances in the long term and create greater risk in the system, he explained.

Councillor Oliver argued that true localism is about the specific needs and wants of communities in the towns and villages they live and work in. In his view, this could be better achieved through effective local engagement with a mayoral combined authority than with the current two-tier structure.

Let's be honest, in this context, unitary councils, either with 400,000 residents or 600,000 residents, do not alone deliver true localism, he said.

He proposed a model where Unitary Councils drive efficiency and consistency of service across existing county footprints while a local forum brings together local government services, health, community safety and the voluntary sector to work with communities in a truly local way. He suggested this would build on existing partnership work and use the town and villages footprint that has become increasingly embedded in partnership working particularly with the health system and look at a more formalised structure going forward.

Councillor Powell agreed that reorganisation was necessary but argued that the two unitary options put forward in the Surrey Part B papers were not sustainable. She argued that the proposed options ignored existing collaborations such as the one between Waverley and Guildford, which would be split into different unitaries. She also raised concerns about the level of debt within Surrey’s Councils, particularly in Woking, which has unserviceable debts.

Debt is a grave and growing concern. Woking has unserviceable debts, their interest payments alone are simply not affordable , she said.

She called for a transparent and evidence-based approach, urging councillors to respect each other and work together constructively on this issue. She believed that three unitaries would be more local, representing existing economic areas and reflecting the strengths and weaknesses of the county.

Councillor Paul Follows, Leader of Waverley Borough Council, stressed the significance of the debt issue, stating, none of the proposed unitaries being discussed today, or indeed even a single unitary, is viable on day one if the debt matters are unresolved.

He echoed Councillor Powell's call for a civil debate, but argued that the leader of Surrey County Council had taken a reckless decision by choosing to enter the reorganisation process at such a rapid pace. Councillor Follows expressed concern that a focus on debt and the short timeframe was obscuring a more meaningful discussion about the best structure for Surrey's future.

It is not going to be about what's best for residents. It's not going to be about what is sustainable for government going forward. It is going to be about 2025 and its problems, he said.

Councillor Robert Evans OBE echoed the need for a unitary model that works for all residents, questioning whether the two unitary model would be in the best interests of residents in his area of Spelthorne.

He was concerned about the lack of natural ties in a West Surrey authority: A west Surrey authority, as Councillor Follows has referred to, stretching stay from Staines to Farnham or Ashford to Oxford, covers no travel to work areas, is not geographically sensible, nor one with which residents will feel any natural affinity.

He reminded members to vote on what they genuinely believed to be the best option, not according to instructions.

Councillor George Potter raised concerns about the representation of residents in a two unitary model, which would lead to significantly fewer councillors.

There is no way that so few councillors can provide adequate local representation to the huge variety which exists even within existing county divisions. Let alone across our entire county, he said.

Councillor Mary Jordan focussed on the impact of reorganisation on Adult Social Care and highlighted the potential benefits of a two unitary model. Councillor Jordan argued that moving to three unitaries could pose significant challenges and lead to a loss of economies of scale and inconsistencies in the application of the Care Act. She believed that the integration of housing and social care offered by the two unitary model could enhance service delivery.

Councillor David Lewis stressed the need to continue to meet residents' needs and deliver services effectively despite the distractions of local government reorganisation. He also highlighted the importance of the Council's strong financial position, noting that unlike some of our district and borough councils, here at Surrey County Council we've included money in the budget for the LGR process as well as for the elections which are not now taking place in May.

Councillor Jonathan Essex raised concerns about transparency, calling for a shared understanding of data and assumptions between the County Council and district and borough councils. He questioned the county’s assessment of potential savings: Is the county really so confident we can make this much higher level of saving? And what would we do if the result was locked in and government future funding was based on overestimates of such savings?

Councillor Hazel Watson was pleased that both options – two or three unitaries – were included in the report. She noted that it was ultimately up to the government to decide which model to pursue. Whilst initially favouring three unitaries, she was now more inclined to support two, feeling that it would be more financially sustainable, could better spread the existing debt, and would present less risk to services.

Councillor Robert Hughes echoed Councillor Watson’s call for unity and stressed that it would ultimately be the government’s decision, the government will make the decision on the basis of the evidence put forward by the County Council and by at least some of the boroughs and districts when they decide we have to come together to make sure that we do the best for Surrey.

He also agreed that two unitaries was the best option for Surrey.

Councillor Chris Towner, whilst favouring a three unitary model, stated, at the end of the day, it's not our decision. We are putting forward a recommendation, and for the government to decide.

He questioned why the report considered a one unitary model, given that it was not a viable option.

Councillor Edward Heath argued that the final decision rested with the government and that the council should work together to make the best of the chosen model: At the end of the day, it's not our decision. We are putting forward a recommendation, and for the government to decide.

Councillor Liz Townsend argued that a three unitary model was preferable as it would better respect communities and provide greater local accountability. She questioned whether two larger authorities would be better for residents, arguing that they could be more remote.

Being close to the community you serve matters, and a three unitary model acknowledges this reality, she said.

Councillor Sinead Mooney, Cabinet Member for Children and Family, focused on the opportunities that reorganisation presented to deliver more integrated services for children and families. Councillor Mooney was confident that a two unitary model would better support the recruitment and retention of staff and facilitate more effective collaboration between councils.

Councillor Fiona Davidson highlighted the need for greater consideration of children's services and the sustainability of SEND provision, stating that Surrey County Council has an off-balance sheet, £150 million overspend in relation to SEND.

She called for more data and a clearer understanding of how the proposed unitaries would meet the needs of children with SEND.

Councillor Cameron Mackintosh, while supporting the two unitary model, reminded members of the importance of good councillors and local schemes in fostering localism: However, true localism thrives due to good councillors. Local schemes, some delivered by this council, businesses and local community groups.

He believed that a larger number of councillors did not necessarily enhance localism.

Following the debate, the Council voted on each recommendation of the report individually, accepting all of them, including the submission of the interim plans which included two proposed options for two unitary authorities, as well as the districts and boroughs' proposal for three unitaries.

Community Asset Transfer

Councillor Eber Kington proposed a motion calling for Surrey County Council to develop and adopt a Community Asset Transfer (CAT) policy.

Councillor Kington explained the policy was a legal power established by the General Disposal Consent (England) 2003 and would allow the council to set up of the community ownership and management of publicly owned land and buildings at less than full market value.

The motion also called for the council to Actively review its assets for potential Community Asset Transfer arrangements and to Widely publicise the Community Asset Transfer Policy to encourage application from Surrey’s communities.

Councillor Kington argued that with the impending Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) it was vital to protect community assets so they could be preserved for future generations.

Councillor Natalie Bramhall agreed that a CAT policy was needed and that a collaborative approach with town and parish councils would be necessary to ensure the success of such a scheme. However, she pointed out that the council's property portfolio was mostly operational and did not contain many community assets.

Councillor Tim Oliver expressed his support for the motion, saying we should have a policy, absolutely we should publicise it, and indeed implement it. So I will be supporting the motion.

Councillor Paul Follows also expressed his support for the motion and shared his experience with a similar policy he brought in at Waverley. He noted that the capacity to manage land transfers and process them through legal and assets teams could be challenging, and he suggested including clauses to prevent those receiving land from selling it on or building on it without council approval.

Councillor Michaela Martin seconded the motion and spoke of the importance of community asset transfer in securing the future of well-loved community buildings and essential local green spaces.

We only need to look at places such as Chippenham, where tangible benefits can be seen. During the unitary process, Wiltshire Council agreed to a community assets package, empowering the local community and transferring assets, such as the Grade 1 visit at Yeald Hall and the 70-acre Moncton Park to Chippenham Town Council with the benefit of its residents, she said.

The motion was unanimously agreed by the Council.

Local Community Governance

Councillor Catherine Powell introduced a motion concerning the future of local governance, stressing that this motion is not about how many unitaries there are, it is about how the unitaries engage with residents that they exist to serve.

The motion called for the council’s interim plan for Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) to include options for ensuring local engagement and decision making.

This motion requests that the interim plans submitted by this council to government include clear options that must be considered by the new unitary authorities for meaningful local community-based governance decision making that stresses the importance of truly local community engagement.

She argued that there was no one size fits all approach to maintaining local decision-making, as different areas have very different needs. The motion suggested the following options to be included in the interim plan:

• Town and Parish Councils
• New Local Committees
• Community Area Partnerships
• Any structure involving local elected representatives, associated with the current SCC Delivering in Partnership Strategy.

Councillor Chris Townsend seconded the motion, highlighting the need for local engagement: So not setting up as the standard for an idea to go forward, all we're asking for here, this is included in the submission going forward to government, so that the future unitary, whatever form it is in, actually does realise that this is something that's really valuable to our local community.

Councillor Oliver expressed his support for the motion, stating that these options had been included in Part B of the Council’s submission.

The motion was unanimously agreed by the Council.