Reform-UK Guildford’s Response to Local Government Reorganisation in Surrey

June 19, 2025

Reform UK Guildford welcomes the opportunity to contribute to the government’s public consultation on proposed local government reorganisation and devolution in Surrey. This is a moment of considerable constitutional significance for our county, with long-term implications for democratic accountability, public service delivery, and local identity.

At the heart of the consultation lies a fundamental question: how do we modernise local government structures in a way that delivers efficiency and resilience without sacrificing local representation or diluting the democratic voice of our communities? While the aims of simplification and cost-effectiveness are understandable, Reform-UK believes these must not come at the expense of responsiveness, transparency, and civic engagement. This is meant to be about devolution — bringing decision-making closer to residents — yet proposals to consolidate councils into fewer, larger authorities risk doing the opposite, distancing governance from the very communities it is meant to serve.

In this context, we strongly question whether the proposed 2 unitary model, merging twelve existing councils into just 2 authorities, can deliver on these aspirations. Reform-UK favours an approach rooted in the government’s own white paper guidance, which delivers the lowest, locally representative level of accountability, which would be a 3 unitary model; reflecting Surrey’s complex social geography, respecting the principle of subsidiarity and building in greater resilience for the decades ahead.

We hope that this consultation will provide sufficient grounds for government to pause and reflect on the limitations of the current proposal, and to reconsider in favour of a more locally attuned, democratic and future-proof model for Surrey’s governance.

Consultation on the Proposal from Elmbridge Borough Council, Mole Valley District Council and Surrey County Council. Consultation for 2 unitary councils:
1. East Surrey (Elmbridge, Epsom and Ewell, Mole Valley, Reigate and Banstead, Tandridge)
2. West Surrey (Guildford, Runnymede, Spelthorne, Surrey Heath, Waverley, Woking)

Question 1: Please explain your answer, including any comments on whether this proposal suggests sensible economic areas (for example reflect economic geography/travel to work areas/functioning economies) for councils with an appropriate tax base that does not create an undue advantage or disadvantage for one part of the area, and a sensible geography that will help to increase housing supply and meet local needs.

The proposed 2 unitary model does not reflect a natural or coherent division of economic geography. It groups together disparate communities with varied priorities, levels of affluence & infrastructure challenges. In particular, the “West Surrey” configuration brackets together several councils with markedly different financial profiles — notably pairing more stable boroughs like Guildford with high-risk authorities such as Woking and Spelthorne. This introduces unnecessary complexity and risk into service delivery and undermines the case for a unified and functional economic geography.

Question 2: Will the local government structures being put forward, if implemented, achieve the outcomes described?

If the outcomes sought to include improved local accountability, better service delivery & enhanced community engagement, the answer is no. The 2 unitary proposal may offer administrative convenience at scale, but this comes at the cost of weakened democratic representation. Decision-making will be further removed from residents, reducing the responsiveness of government to local needs. In essence, this is centralisation under the guise of reform, but it is unlikely to deliver the community connection or service improvement promised.

Question 3: Please explain your answer, including any specific comments on the efficiencies identified to help improve the councils’ finances, how it will manage transition costs and any future service transformation opportunities identified.

The 2 unitary model exceeds the government’s own population guidance for unitary authorities, which suggests a population of around 500,000 per unitary. With Surrey’s population already exceeding 1.3 million, the proposal risks overcentralisation. A 3 unitary structure would distribute governance more appropriately, build in resilience and offer a better balance between operational scale & local responsiveness. Any modest savings promised under the two-unitary structure would be outweighed by the democratic deficit and potential governance challenges caused by overlarge, remote institutions.

Question 4: As an area covering councils in Best Value intervention and in receipt of Exceptional Financial Support, do you agree the proposal will put local government in the area as a whole on a firmer footing?

The proposed structure risks compounding rather than resolving existing financial fragilities. Grouping more solvent boroughs with councils in deep financial distress without a clear recovery strategy risks contagion, not consolidation. Furthermore, the absence of a clear financial baseline or transparent plan for addressing inherited debt undermines confidence in the model. Far from putting the region on a firmer footing, the 2 unitary proposal could saddle more stable authorities with unsustainable liabilities and weaken overall governance.

Question 5: Will the proposal prioritise the delivery of high quality and sustainable public services to citizens, improve local government and service delivery, avoid unnecessary fragmentation of services and lead to better value for money in the delivery of these services?

The 2 unitary proposal is unlikely to deliver the high-quality, sustainable public services it claims to prioritise. While larger structures can in theory offer economies of scale, the practical risk here is over-centralisation, which often leads to generic service delivery that fails to reflect local needs or context. Grouping together boroughs with vastly different financial, social and geographic profiles (as in the West Surrey proposal) may create internal tensions, dilute service responsiveness and impede targeted investment.
Furthermore, the claim that this model avoids fragmentation is undermined by the artificial division of historic, economic and transport-linked communities. True service integration and cohesion depend less on structure and more on meaningful local accountability & intelligent place-based governance — qualities more achievable under a 3 unitary model. Without a detailed service transition plan or clarity on how delivery will improve under this new configuration, the proposal does not convincingly promise better value for money, nor sustainable service outcomes. In short, the proposal risks replacing fragmentation with remoteness, losing local insight without gaining real operational efficiency.

Question 6: Has the proposal been informed by local views, and does it consider issues of local identity and cultural and historic importance?

The proposal lacks sufficient grounding in local sentiment and fails to engage meaningfully with Surrey’s diverse identities and historically distinct communities. Residents have not been formally consulted on the proposal, despite previous govt’s commitments to public involvement and the precedent set in 2012 when local referenda were held on mayoral governance. This is particularly concerning given that the proposal itself strongly implies a shift toward a mayoral system for Surrey in the near future — a significant change that has not been openly addressed in the consultation questions. Such a move demands clear, direct engagement with the public, not assumption by omission. Moreover, Guildford, Waverley and other boroughs share long-standing economic, civic and geographic ties that are not adequately reflected in the proposed West Surrey grouping, where they are clustered with financially unstable councils. The model feels administratively & politically convenient rather than culturally sensitive.

Question 7: Does the proposal support devolution arrangements?

Superficially, yes but substantively, no. Though framed as “devolution,” the plan represents centralisation in all but name. Power would be consolidated from 12 councils into 2 large unitary authorities, which may streamline some decision-making but at the cost of local responsiveness and democratic closeness. The proposal does not reflect the government’s own white paper guidance on devolution, which promotes subsidiarity and governance at the most local practical level. A more appropriate expression of devolution would be the 3 unitary model, which allows for greater local accountability, autonomy and resilience.

Question 8: Will the proposal enable stronger community engagement and deliver genuine opportunity for neighbourhood empowerment?

Unlikely. The larger the administrative unit, the further governance moves from the communities it is meant to serve. The 2 unitary model risks alienating residents by aggregating governance to a scale where local voices are diluted and engagement becomes more performative than practical. By contrast, smaller unitary authorities, as proposed in the 3 unitary alternative, are more likely to facilitate authentic community interaction, build trust and empower local problem-solving, precisely because their scale allows residents to see the impact of their involvement. In fact, it may be that retaining the current structure — with targeted improvements rather than wholesale reorganisation — would serve residents better in the near term, but disappointingly, this option has not been offered for consideration.

Question 9: Do you have any other comments on the proposed local government reorganisation in Surrey?

The proposed reorganisation lacks both democratic legitimacy & financial transparency.
No detailed cost-benefit analysis has been shared publicly, nor have residents been given the opportunity to shape or scrutinise the changes.
The 2 unitary model exceeds recommended population thresholds and, by attempting to consolidate struggling councils with more stable ones, risks importing financial instability rather than solving it.
Moreover, the postponement of Surrey County Council elections until 2026, over the objections of all 11 borough and district councils, casts further doubt on the integrity of the process.
True reform must prioritise legitimacy, resilience and public confidence; this proposal, as it stands, does not.

Consultation on the Proposal from Borough Councils of Epsom and Ewell, Guildford, Reigate and Banstead, Runnymede, Spelthorne, Surrey Heath, Waverley, and Woking, and Tandridge District Council. Consultation for 3 unitary councils:
1. East Surrey (Epsom and Ewell, Mole Valley, Reigate and Banstead, and Tandridge)
2. North Surrey (Elmbridge, Runnymede, and Spelthorne)
3. West Surrey (Guildford, Surrey Heath, Waverly, and Woking)

Question 1: Does the proposal suggest sensible economic areas and geographies which will achieve a single tier of local government for the whole of Surrey?

The 3-unitary model demonstrates a far more nuanced alignment with established economic geographies, travel-to-work areas, and community identities than the alternative 2-unitary structure. The proposed configuration reflects natural social and economic boundaries — supported by the layout of transport networks such as roads and railways — while ensuring equitable access to tax bases across all units. This approach minimises disparities between areas and supports balanced development, particularly in housing supply and infrastructure planning. It also respects the practical realities of connectivity and shared identity; by contrast, the two-unitary model would see areas like Guildford and Waverley grouped with boroughs such as Spelthorne and Runnymede, despite minimal shared context and poor direct transport links — in some cases requiring travel via the M25 just to connect. This kind of consolidation risks masking real local differences and over-centralising decision-making.

Question 2: Will the local government structures being put forward, if implemented, achieve the outcomes described?

Yes, with appropriate support. The 3 unitary proposal offers the necessary balance between scale and responsiveness. It enables improved coordination and service integration while preserving the ability to respond meaningfully to local needs. The structural change has the potential to enhance strategic capacity, service quality and administrative coherence, but only if accompanied by a well-resourced and carefully managed transition. The model is more likely than a 2 unitary arrangement to deliver on objectives such as local accountability, cost-efficiency and enhanced public engagement.

Question 3: Is the proposal for unitary local government of the right size to achieve efficiencies, improve capacity and withstand financial shocks and is this supported by a rationale for the population size proposed?

The government’s own guidance indicates that unitary authorities should ideally serve around 500,000 residents. With a population of 1.3 million and rising rapidly, Surrey is demonstrably too large for a 2-unitary model without breaching that threshold—raising long-term viability concerns. The 3-unitary configuration builds resilience into the system from the outset, allowing for economies of scale without sacrificing manageability. The model also distributes leadership responsibility and service pressure more sustainably across the county. Any marginal financial savings from a 2-unitary model are outweighed by the democratic and operational gains from a more proportionate structure.

The 3-unitary model represents a more stable platform for financial recovery and good governance, especially for councils in distress such as Woking and Spelthorne; though whether it can deliver the necessary stability in practice remains uncertain. By distributing governance responsibilities more evenly and avoiding overcentralisation, the model offers a clearer pathway for restoring public trust and ensuring robust oversight. Concentrating financial and operational risk within just two units, as in the alternative proposal, could amplify vulnerability and limit the space for local innovation or reform.

The 3-unitary model supports cohesive, citizen-centred service delivery while avoiding the monolithic complexity of fewer, larger authorities. It offers sufficient scale to enable reform in key service areas, social care, children’s services, SEND, homelessness & others, without creating barriers to community-based provision. The model improves proximity between service design and service users, which is essential for tailoring solutions to need and avoiding one-size-fits-all failures that can emerge in more centralised structures.

Question 6: Has the proposal been informed by local views, and does it consider issues of local identity and cultural and historic importance?

This proposal better reflects the distinct identities and historic relationships that define communities within Surrey — at least in areas like Guildford and West Surrey, where such ties are well established. It is sensitive to the diversity of the county and avoids the blunt redrawing of boundaries seen in the 2-unitary proposal, which risks disenfranchising residents and eroding trust. However, in parts of the proposed North Surrey unit — where, for example, Elmbridge and Spelthorne are connected by little more than a single bridge — the rationale feels less grounded in community coherence. By proposing units that respect established patterns of civic life, the 3-unitary model broadly acknowledges the importance of place in effective governance, though this may not hold true across all areas.

Question 7: Does the proposal support devolution arrangements?

The proposal aligns with the spirit of devolution by favouring proximity of decision-making, local accountability, and subsidiarity. While both the 2 and 3-unitary models are single-tier in form, only the latter delivers on the substance of devolution by keeping power closer to the communities affected by it. The 3-unitary model creates meaningful opportunities for local leaders to shape place-based strategies across planning, growth, and public services.

Question 8: Will the proposal enable stronger community engagement and deliver genuine opportunity for neighbourhood empowerment?

The 3-unitary structure enables a more authentic dialogue between councils and communities. Smaller, more focused units of governance are naturally more conducive to participatory models, where neighbourhood concerns are heard and acted upon. It allows for the development of genuine empowerment strategies, such as participatory budgeting, hyperlocal planning consultations, and community-run initiatives, without those being lost in bureaucratic scale.

Question 9: Do you have any other comments on the proposed local government reorganisation in Surrey?

While the headline aim of this reorganisation is simplification and efficiency, we must remain alert to the dangers of replacing one inefficient model with another that is equally flawed but less accountable. A 2-unitary model for Surrey may be more politically convenient for some, but it is structurally weaker in democratic terms, harder to manage responsibly over time and risks delivering a more centralised and less engaged form of governance. The 3-unitary proposal represents a better balance: more grounded in realism, responsive to the diversity of Surrey’s communities and robust enough to weather economic and social challenges in the decades ahead. It is, by a considerable margin, the better option. And if these reforms are a stepping stone to a future Mayoral Combined Authority for Surrey, then surely residents deserve a direct say in that decision — through a clear and specific referendum.

Reform-UK Guildford’s Response to Local Government Reorganisation in Surrey

Categories