Council Leader Slams New Local Government Reorganisation Options

Published on: 17 Apr, 2025
Updated on: 17 Apr, 2025

Cllr Mike Rollings as new leader of Elmbridge Council (centre), deputy council leader Cllr Simon Waugh (right) and Cllr Gill Coates (left). Elmbridge Borough Council

By Emily Dalton

local democracy reporter

The leader of one Surrey borough council has said that the devolution process should not “penalise his residents for the decision-making of others” and said that current proposals could see residents in Elmbridge burdened with the crippling debts of others.

The news comes as some district and council leaders in Surrey have agreed on a potential map for three unitary groupings for Surrey- but the leader of Elmbridge Borough Council thinks two may be better for his area.

Driving forward its devolution agenda, the central government is hoping to streamline council services by dissolving local authorities to create two or three new councils.

No decision has been made yet with the county council as well as district and borough councils working on a full proposal to be put forward on May 9.

Under the new map, agreed by some district and borough leaders, the groupings suggest merging Elmbridge with Runnymede and Spelthorne, two councils tackling significant amounts of debt.

A map showing Surrey divided east-west into two unitary authorities with Elmbridge separated from Spelthorne. Elmbridge Borough Council

Councillors in Surrey have repeatedly written to the government, urging them to write off the historical financial debts of Woking and Spelthorne, as well as rescuing Runnymede, before any mergers are made.

Leader of Elmbridge Borough Council, Cllr Mike Rollings, said: “Elmbridge has always been a well-run and financially stable council. Securing financial sustainability and value for money for our residents is essential.

“Of course, the debt challenge facing Surrey needs to be addressed but there is a big role for the government here, and our residents should not be penalised for the decision-making of others”.

A map showing Surrey divided east-west into two unitary authorities with Elmbridge grouped with Spelthorne. Elmbridge Borough Council

Grouped together with Spelthorne and Runnymede – with the former juggling over £1 billion of debt and the latter burdened with risky liabilities – councillors fear Elmbridge’s “well maintained” balance sheet will count for nothing.

If merged with the other two boroughs, green spaces in villages like Oxshott and Stoke D’abernon could also be at risk. Concerns have been raised by the council that the different geographies of the three boroughs could mean development is weighted on Elmbridge’s green belt.

Greater developments densities in towns and villages could be imposed to meet the joint unitary’s housing target, changing the character of the area.

Currently, Elmbridge has not got a Local Plan – making it harder to refuse planning applications for housing projects. But, as one of the most expensive areas to live in the country, it has been encouraged by the Planning Inspectorate to build more affordable homes.

Labelled as a “significant physical barrier”, the council also flagged that the M25 separated Elmbridge borough from the rest of Surrey which could have negative economic and development impact.

Alternatively a two-council approach could “make the most sense for Elmbridge”, according to the local authority. Surrey County Council is gunning for two-unitary authorities, splitting services and finances more or less in two.

Under the dual authority proposal Elmbridge would join Epsom and Ewell, Reigate and Banstead, Mole Valley and Tandridge – as well as potentially Spelthorne to create East Surrey.

A statement issued on Elmbridge council’s website read: “Based on the evidence published so far, the option of two unitary councils appears more financially resilient. This is a significant factor given the combined level of debt held by councils in Surrey.”

Issues of financial viability are not just about keeping the budgets balanced, but whether councils can withstand the demand for critical services like social care and homelessness. The council claimed these are key considerations during this process.

Having a larger geographic area than the other proposed council could carve out more options for meeting housing needs, reducing the impact on the character of Elmbridge, the council statement noted.

Cllr Simon Waugh, deputy leader of Elmbridge Borough Council, said: “We understand how much Elmbridge residents cherish their borough, and we are committed to preserving its unique character and much-loved community assets.

“We have concerns that the three unitary cluster proposed by some of the district and borough councils is not the right one for Elmbridge. We are committed to finding the right solution for our community”.

A map showing how Surrey could be divided into three unitary authorities. A majority of the boroughs and districts favour the three-unitary option while two unitaries are preferred by SCC and three of the 11 boroughs and districts. Elmbridge Borough Council

Surrey County Council continues to explore a two-unitary approach while a majority of the district and borough councils work towards a three-unitary model. Both the two and three-unitary options will be included in the final report, which will be submitted to the government in due course.

Cllr Hannah Dalton

Cllr Hannah Dalton, chair of the Epsom & Ewell Borough Council Residents Association (Majority Group) and co-chair of the Surrey Leaders Group, said: “It is important to stress that although this reflects a significant step forward in the process of shaping future governance in Surrey, no final decisions have been made, particularly in relation to the financial implications of any potential reorganisation.

“Conversations regarding the treatment of existing debt across the county are ongoing with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, and nothing will be confirmed until these discussions are resolved.”