Agenda item

Council is asked to note that on 7 May the Cabinet will make a decision on whether the Leader of the County Council should submit the Final Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) Plan to government ahead of the deadline on 9 May.  

 

(Note: report TO FOLLOW)

 

The Leader introduced the report and noted that the most extensive powers and funding would be granted to Mayoral Strategic Authorities. Reorganisation was required, consolidating the twelve councils in Surrey into unitary councils. Whilst one unitary authority was the most financially sustainable, devolution could not be unlocked solely on a Surrey footprint. The evidence showed that a West/East two unitary councils option was best for residents, the three unitary councils option offered less financial resilience when managing key areas of demand such as social care, less agility to redeploy resources and higher costs for disaggregating services. The two unitary councils option was supported by the Chief Constable, the Police and Crime Commissioner for Surrey, Surrey Heartlands Integrated Care System, Mole Valley District Council, Elmbridge Borough Council and other key partners. The community boards would provide real local engagement led by councillors, bringing together residents and partners; and would drive forward the early intervention and prevention agenda, key to delivering the 2030 Community Vision for Surrey, and the Health and Wellbeing Strategy.

 

The Leader noted that either of the West/East options would deliver a strong correlation between Adult Social Care and Children’s Social Services budgets and key funding sources, and comparable levels across a range of areas. The Council would continue to lobby the Government to write off Woking Borough Council’s unserviceable debt. The final plan is evidence-led and sets out a transformative vision for the future, streamlined operations, enhanced service delivery and unlocks financial efficiencies; setting out a modern, more sustainable and resilient future at a cost that is affordable and fair.

 

Members made the following comments:

 

·         Noted the Cabinet’s preferred two unitary councils option which was option 2.1 West/East with Spelthorne in the west, yet the appendices showed that option 2.2 West/East was more balanced with Spelthorne in the east.

·         Noted that the Equality Impact Assessment was half based on West/East options 2.1 and 2.2.

·         Noted the omission of vital information such as the split in Council Tax bands across the new unitary councils, option 3 regarding three unitary councils was the most balanced regarding Council Tax, option 2.1 West/East was the least.

·         Noted that Spelthorne has the highest percentage of children in need, with social workers, and with Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs), followed by Runnymede and Woking, option 2.1 West/East puts all three boroughs together; those three councils had the highest debt levels.

·         Referred to a Member’s incorrect and flawed analysis of the final plan, noting that the number of Council Tax bands was set by the Government, councils could not introduce a Band I for example.

·         Explained that using the number of Band D equivalent properties or the Council Tax Base, the process equals out the differential in the tax base and future increases use that; calculating increases based on individual bands was wrong.

·         Noted that for option 2.1 West/East the tax base difference - the data was publicly available - was marginally more equal than option 2.2 West/East.

·         Noted that regarding the Fair Funding Review, the Government would allocate grants using needs-based formulas, through Council Tax equalisation Surrey councils would likely lose Government funding; it was not the case that areas with a higher ability to raise Council Tax would result in additional funding.

·         Noted that equalising to the highest Council Tax level - Woking - could not be done as that would breach the referendum level, the submissions outline the harmonising to the weighted average in year one so as not to breach that level.

·         Commended the Leader and officers for their work in producing the final plan.

·         Noted that the final plan divides Surrey into two unitary councils, meaning that both would be oversized and geographically challenged.

·         Highlighted that two unitary councils with fewer councillors over large areas would not align with the English Devolution White Paper for devolution to cover ‘sensible economic geographies’ and ‘travel to work areas’, or the ‘ability for local residents to engage with and hold their devolved institutions to account’.

·         Noted that having spoken to many councillors and residents, not one apart from a few Members, supported two unitary councils.

·         Noted that an online panel of residents was not needed to conclude the need for better value for money, accountability and greater financial resilience.

·         Disagreed that two unitary councils would simplify and strengthen local democracy.

·         Noted that the final plan did not reflect the opposition to two unitary councils, the administration could have started from the premise showing that three unitary councils could work.

·         Noted that it was Members’ duty to improve residents’ daily lives, identifying the local government model that would simplify their experience, save money and strengthen the connection between residents and services.

·         Stressed that the analysis was thorough and had been endorsed by key partners.

·         Noted that collaboration with partners via the community boards would drive prevention and early intervention, local influence, accountability, and direct action.

·         Queried the figures in the final plan, the analysis that two unitary councils would be better was based on flawed assumptions.

·         Highlighted that the district and borough councils had benchmarked against other unitary councils to take an evidence-based approach, the Council’s final plan made figures fit the conclusions with minimal analysis, ignoring devolution criteria.

·         Noted that any new structures such as community boards would be decided by the elected members of the unitary councils, it was not the Leader’s decision.

·         Noted that it was a once in a generation decision, yet Members do not get a say as the Cabinet would make the decision.

·         Had voted for three unitary councils at a Waverley Borough Council meeting, as outlined in the district and borough councils’ submission which was created through cross-party collaboration; that was not included alongside the Council’s final plan to compare.

·         Noted the huge disparity between the submissions regarding the predicted implementation costs and the pay-back periods.

·         Noted that the process represented the drawbacks of centralising power to a few councillors, councillor numbers to be cut from 534 to 162.

·         Congratulated a Member’s analysis of the final plan, the two unitary councils option benefits the administration’s political party and its support for ‘bigger is better’, which does not bring local government closer to residents.

·         Referred to the survey by district and borough councils where of the 3,300 resident responses, 63% supported three unitary councils and 17% supported two.

·         Had been contacted by several Spelthorne residents and organisations concerned about option 2.1 West/East to place the borough in the west.

·         Highlighted that if Spelthorne was placed instead in the east - option 2.2 West/East - there would be no additional strain on Adult Social Care or Children’s Services unlike in three unitary councils, its placement would not disrupt partners significantly.

·         Noted that positives of placing Spelthorne in the east, with strong business ties in the technology sector, good transport connectivity which would increase through Heathrow Airport expansion, the vital asset of the River Thames Scheme, the M25 runs through the east, bordering with London provides opportunities, and a strong local identity with the east; encouraged open discussions on its placement.

·         Urged the Government to write off Woking Borough Council’s and others’ unserviceable debt in full.

·         Noted that the three unitary councils option with population growth was close to the average of 500,000 population in the devolution criteria, with better natural, social and economic geographies.

·         Welcomed Adult Social Care and Children’s Services being shared services rather than split, with place-based aspects such as sufficiency, fostering, and Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) to be provided at a unitary council level; there would be a smaller financial difference in such a three unitary council option compared to two.

·         Requested that the responses to the online panel of residents be published before the Cabinet’s decision and to be addressed as part of that.

·         Noted that the community boards would be about engagement and less so about decision-making, the trial in Horley on community-led improvements had failed expectations; it was unclear how the boards would work in unparished areas.

·         Supported three councillors per division for better resident representation.

·         Noted that residents are interested in the reduction of the level of administration across Surrey, and crucially they want bins emptied and roads repaired.

·         Noted the valuation of properties as set out by the Valuation Office Agency and supported the Government in driving a transformational change in the way local government runs; hoped that it would revalue properties to their true value.

·         Stressed the need to focus on how residents would be affected, noted the scaremongering through leaflets to residents; increased communication with residents was needed setting out the facts in an apolitical way.

·         Noted that Children’s Services needed to be broken up, it was too large to be responsive to those it serves, with little accountability to Members, it was more interested in maintaining its position than in children’s wellbeing.

·         Noted that the SEND cost met by Council Tax was higher in the west even without Spelthorne, the Council had not undertaken any analysis of SEND school places despite the Government highlighting that in its feedback on the interim plan; the Council assumed that new Government policies would solve the issues.

·         Highlighted that while in the grand scheme of Local Government Reorganisation SEND provision may not be financially material to the Council, it is very material to the families and children with SEND in Surrey.

·         Noted that Mole Valley District Council voted to support the Council’s preferred 2.1 West/East option, the addition of Elmbridge made a significant difference; supported that model in it being financially viable, able to sustain economic growth and protect the environment, and balance urban and rural communities.

·         Noted that councillors at Mole Valley District Council supported having three councillors per division, were concerned that: all authorities should be included in determining the transitioning arrangements in nominating the lead authority and the senior responsible officers, the establishment of town and parish councils with precepting powers was preferred over establishing community boards; welcomed the trial of the boards and would undertake a community governance review, noted the need to safeguard community assets and discretionary spending.

·         Noted that the detailed final plan answered the Minister of State for Local Government and English Devolution’s questions and provided a detailed analysis of the costs, the focus was on how to best deliver services across Surrey at scale and that could only be done via two unitary councils.

·         Noted that the district and borough councils’ submission of having three unitary councils was based on the Local Strategic Statement which was eight years old and was based on four economic areas.

·         Noted that the district and borough councils’ submission assumed that care services were configured locally, that was incorrect as large parts of the service were county-wide; and not much detail was included on Adult Social Care and Children’s Services.

·         Noted that three unitary councils would increase the costs for charities and agencies that provide vital services and the £0.5 million to take account of that was unrealistic, the charity and faith bodies support having two unitary councils.

·         Noted disappointment in the comments criticising Children’s Services, it did the best it could and did so successfully in most cases.

·         Noted that if the Council with stakeholder support could produce viable community boards, hoped that the new unitary councils would implement those.

·         Welcomed that Elmbridge would be a trial area for the community boards, however noted that it was critical to get councillors involved as soon as possible before the autumn in the consultation and establishment of the boards.

·         Referred to the ‘Guidance from the Secretary of State for proposals for unitary local government’ whereby one criteria was that proposals should ‘not create an undue advantage or disadvantage for one part of the area’, a Member’s analysis of the 2.1 West/East option showed that it was unfair and unbalanced.

·         Urged the Cabinet to support the more balanced 2.2 West/East option instead.

·         Congratulated the newly elected Member for Nork and Tattenhams, Peter Harp.

·         Noted that residents were deeply concerned about debt and SEND, and the imbalance between the east and west.

·         Noted the importance of not leaving behind any town, village, community or neighbourhood, Surrey has a rich civic life and active groups and organisations, and neighbourhood forums such as in Runnymede; it was vital for those to be represented on the community boards.

·         Noted the importance of all Surrey’s town and parish councils continuing to be empowered to deliver vital services; thanked a representative from the Surrey Association of Local Councils for discussing their concerns about their future role in reorganisation.

·         Noted that in unparished areas, neighbourhood forums - not included in the report - play a vital role in neighbourhood planning and local development.

·         Noted that residents queried why they were denied a vote and referred to the comments made at the Extraordinary meeting of the Council in January.

·         Noted that the Council had no mandate to establish unitary councils and an elected mayor, there were no elections to test public opinion, the power to determine the submission was in the hands of the Leader, and the submission was rushed and subject to no scrutiny.

·         Noted that such reorganisation did not need to happen so quickly, it was because of the Leader’s decision for Surrey to be included in the first tranche; more time was needed to consider the proposals and gather evidence, and stressed that residents must be consulted.

·         Noted the need to maintain the Nolan Principles in all cases.  

·         Noted that overall most Members and residents think that unitary councils would be more efficient, provide better services, and cost less. In line with the Government’s request, the Council was reviewing the options, had benchmarked against one unitary council and looked at how to improve community engagement.

·         Noted the important work undertaken by parish councils and welcomed the pilot of community boards in Mole Valley, understanding service provision and delivery was essential to improve those services.

·         Noted that the Select Committee Chairs and Vice-Chairs Group met several times to be briefed on the proposals and the Cabinet would consider its report which set out eight recommendations as published in the Extraordinary Cabinet agenda.

·         Noted that reorganisation was needed to unlock devolution, one of the restrictions was that no district or borough should be divided, the resulting authorities should be geographically in a single unit; the analysis showed that two unitary councils was advantageous and the 2.1 West/East option supports that.

·         Noted that the Government rushed the process, Members must step up to protect Surrey and the focus of reorganisation should be about opportunity, yet the focus was on debt and without a write off the new unitary councils would fail.

·         Queried the low number of residents consulted, 3,000 residents in Spelthorne were asked but what about the other 100,000 residents.

·         Noted that the local elections should have taken place in May 2025 and the ballot paper should have included an option asking what residents wanted regarding devolution, the final plan would destroy local democracy and services.

 

The Leader thanked the select committee chairs and vice-chairs for their engagement in the process. Accepted all eight recommendations from the Select Committee Chairs and Vice-Chairs Group and confirmed that work was underway regarding SEND with the Sufficiency Strategy being updated. Referring to a Member’s analysis, clarified that increasing the number of Council Tax bands would be a government decision, regarding the Fair Funding Review there would be formulas for Adult Social Care and Children’s Services, councils have two ways of raising money: through Council Tax and through government grants, raising Council Tax more in one area would mean less government grant. Noted that in the three unitary councils option proposed by the district and borough councils, two of the councils in debt would be in one unitary council and some of the numbers were incorrect. Thanked all district and borough councils’ leaders and chief executives for their input in regular meetings. Stressed that a huge amount of work had gone into producing the final plan. Welcomed Member input into establishing the community boards.

 

Under Standing Order 28.1, ten Members demanded a recorded vote, the recommendation was put to the vote with 36 Members voting For, 20 voting Against and 2 Abstentions.

 

The following Members voted For it:

 

Maureen Attewell, Ayesha Azad, Steve Bax, Luke Bennett, Liz Bowes, Natalie Bramhall, Helyn Clack, Stephen Cooksey, Clare Curran, Kevin Deanus, Tim Hall, David Harmer, Edward Hawkins, Marisa Heath, Trefor Hogg, Robert Hughes, Jonathan Hulley, Saj Hussain, Rebecca Jennings-Evans, Riasat Khan, Rachael Lake BEM, Victor Lewanski, David Lewis (Cobham), Ernest Mallett MBE, Sinead Mooney, Bernie Muir, Mark Nuti, John O’Reilly, Tim Oliver OBE, Lesley Steeds, Richard Tear, Denise Turner-Stewart, Hazel Watson, Jeremy Webster, Buddhi Weerasinghe, Keith Witham.

 

The following Members voted Against it:

 

Catherine Baart, Amanda Boote, Dennis Booth, Harry Boparai, Fiona Davidson, Jonathan Essex, Robert Evans OBE, Angela Goodwin, Jeffrey Gray, Peter Harp, Eber Kington, Andy MacLeod, Jan Mason, Carla Morson, George Potter, Catherine Powell, Ashley Tilling, Chris Townsend, Liz Townsend, Fiona White.

 

The following Members Abstained:

 

Scott Lewis, Steven McCormick.

 

Therefore the recommendation was carried, it was RESOLVED that:

 

The Council noted that on 7 May the Cabinet will make a decision on whether the Leader of the County Council should submit the Final LGR Plan to government ahead of the deadline on 9 May.