Agenda item

Cabinet is asked to approve the Council’s Final Plan for Local Government Reorganisation in Surrey and agree for the Leader of Surrey County Council to submit the Final Plan to government for the 9 May deadline.

The following reports are included:

·       Cabinet Report - Devolution and Local Government Reorganisation

·       Annex 1 – Surrey County Council’s Final Plan for LGR, May 2025

·       Annex 2 – Surrey County Council’s Final Plan for LGR – Appendix

·       Annex 3 – Equality Impact Assessment

(Note: Annexes 1 and 2 have been updated).

RESOLVED:

1.    That Cabinet approves the Council’s Final Plan for Local Government Reorganisation in Surrey.

2.    That Cabinet agrees that the Leader of Surrey County Council submits the Final Plan to government for the 9 May deadline.

3.    That Cabinet delegates authority to make any final amendments to the Final Plan (and other associated information) for Local Government Reorganisation in Surrey to the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Leader of the Council, before submission within the deadline given by the Secretary of State.

Reasons for Decisions:

On 18 March 2025 Surrey County Council submitted an Interim Plan for LGR, which set out the council’s preferred option to reorganise the existing 12 councils into two new unitary authorities. A shortlist of four potential geographical configurations was included. 

Following submission of the Interim Plan, extensive work has taken place to develop a robust evidence base and clear vision for strengthened, simpler and more cost-effective local government in Surrey. This Final Plan (Annex 1), due to be submitted to government on 9 May 2025, proposes an East and a West unitary council, working in conjunction with a Surrey Mayoral Strategic Authority.

Reorganising to East and West Surrey will unlock devolution on a Surrey footprint whilst creating two new unitaries that are large enough to deliver effectively the full range of services currently offered by councils. Two councils will also deliver higher ongoing net annual benefits when compared to three unitaries.

Our analysis shows this geography creates councils with equitable starting points across population, land area, flooding risk, educational responsibility, total miles of public highways and number of birth and death registrations. It also shows a strong correlation between the Adult Social Care and Children’s Social Services budgets and key funding sources, better enabling both East and West Surrey to continue to deliver high quality social care.

This is an historic moment for Surrey. Our vision is a future where East and West Surrey unitary authorities deliver quality, cost effective public services to residents. The Mayoral Strategic Authority will work closely with local and regional partners to deliver strategic priorities, and communities will thrive with an engagement model that strengthens preventative activity. Local neighbourhoods will remain at the core of public services, empowered and informed within this new, enhanced structure.

The report was introduced by the Leader who explained that earlier in the day there had been a lengthy debate on the final plan for LGR at Full Council. The Council’s final plan for LGR in Surrey would need to be submitted to government by 9 May. At the Full Council meeting there was a significant majority in favour of the County Councils proposal for the county to be divided into east and west unitaries. The recommendation was put to the vote at the Full Council meeting with 36 Members voting For, 20 voting Against and 2 Abstentions. The Leader explained that an alternative submission for three unitaries had been submitted by some of the district and boroughs. Based on the evidence, the County Council supported a two unitary proposal.

The Leader spoke about key issues that had been raised at the Full Council meeting held earlier in the day. The first was debt. There had been mention of significant debt held by some of the district and boroughs. Conversations would be taking place with the government as to how it intends to deal with that debt. There was general recognition and acceptance that the debt was so large that it simply could not be dealt with or accommodated locally. The conversation around writing off that debt would continue. The position for Spelthorne and Runnymede was more difficult than Woking’s as they could not crystalise their debt and their respective Chief Executives and Leaders did not believe that they were in the same position as Woking. There had been an argument that Spelthorne should be positioned in the unitary to the east but this ultimately would be a decision for government to take. Option 2.1 had been evidenced as being fair and had support from Elmbridge and Mole Valley. The Leader reiterated the importance of members reviewing the proposals as what works best for residents rather than what works best for political purposes. A key focus for the council would be around the disaggregation of key services.

The Leader thanked officers for the pace at which this work had been undertaken stating that the report was outstanding. It was important that the council involved key partners with the work being undertaken. A number of letters of support had been received on the county councils proposals. The Leader stated that there had been some misleading comments around the role of Community Boards. Town and parish councils would be valued members of these boards and would play a significant role in how they operated. The plan would be for Unitary Councillors to chair these boards which would bring together a number of key agencies. These would be piloted in the north, east, south and west of the county. The Leader welcomed views on how these should operate going forwards.

The executive summary to the final LGR proposals, appendices and letters of support would be shared on social media and the councils website. The final plan would be submitted to government by 9 May and the expectation would be for a response to be received in the next few weeks. The expectation would be for government to consult on proposals during the summer with the council to be served with a structural change order in autumn. Elections would then be held in May 2026 and an elected Mayor to be elected in May 2027. Work would now begin around the various workstreams to support the LGR implementation plan with involvement from the Select Committees.

The Cabinet Member for Health and Wellbeing and Public Health commented that the Equality Impact Assessment included with the plan had gone into great detail and covered the impacts for all Surrey residents. The Community Boards were an exciting opportunity to bring together partners and solve problems on a local level. This would be an exciting opportunity for Surrey. The Cabinet Member for Environment thanked the Leader and officers for their hard work in getting the final proposals together. She recognised that the deadlines for drafting and submitting the plan had been set by the government and not the council. When speaking to residents there was support for efficiency and better service delivery. LGR would be taken forward and not only would this be an opportunity to improve local democracy but would be an opportunity to improve standards including the quality of Councillors. There was support for having further discussions with government around the debt issue which Surrey residents should not be burdened with. The Deputy Leader commended the report not just for the sheer amount of effort and energy that had gone into producing it, but also because it gave a clear picture of Surrey as a county. The Deputy Leader hoped the report would give the government the confidence to make the right decision moving forward. The Leader explained that the decisions were made based on evidence rather that political or emotional lines.

RESOLVED:

1.    That Cabinet approves the Council’s Final Plan for Local Government Reorganisation in Surrey.

2.    That Cabinet agrees that the Leader of Surrey County Council submits the Final Plan to government for the 9 May deadline.

3.    That Cabinet delegates authority to make any final amendments to the Final Plan (and other associated information) for Local Government Reorganisation in Surrey to the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Leader of the Council, before submission within the deadline given by the Secretary of State.

Reasons for Decisions:

On 18 March 2025 Surrey County Council submitted an Interim Plan for LGR, which set out the council’s preferred option to reorganise the existing 12 councils into two new unitary authorities. A shortlist of four potential geographical configurations was included. 

Following submission of the Interim Plan, extensive work has taken place to develop a robust evidence base and clear vision for strengthened, simpler and more cost-effective local government in Surrey. This Final Plan (Annex 1), due to be submitted to government on 9 May 2025, proposes an East and a West unitary council, working in conjunction with a Surrey Mayoral Strategic Authority.

Reorganising to East and West Surrey will unlock devolution on a Surrey footprint whilst creating two new unitaries that are large enough to deliver effectively the full range of services currently offered by councils. Two councils will also deliver higher ongoing net annual benefits when compared to three unitaries.

Our analysis shows this geography creates councils with equitable starting points across population, land area, flooding risk, educational responsibility, total miles of public highways and number of birth and death registrations. It also shows a strong correlation between the Adult Social Care and Children’s Social Services budgets and key funding sources, better enabling both East and West Surrey to continue to deliver high quality social care.

This is an historic moment for Surrey. Our vision is a future where East and West Surrey unitary authorities deliver quality, cost effective public services to residents. The Mayoral Strategic Authority will work closely with local and regional partners to deliver strategic priorities, and communities will thrive with an engagement model that strengthens preventative activity. Local neighbourhoods will remain at the core of public services, empowered and informed within this new, enhanced structure.