Fringe Box

Socialize

Twitter

It’s Two Unitaries for Surrey – SoS Says It Is Best Option for Financial Sustainability

Published on: 28 Oct, 2025
Updated on: 29 Oct, 2025

By Chris Caulfield

local democracy reporter

The end of Surrey councils as we know them is set to be confirmed with the Government ready to announce massive changes to how services are delivered in the county – and Woking will get a a £500 million bail-out to help make it happen.

Surrey County Council, together with its 11 boroughs and districts, will be dissolved and merged into two mega authorities, the Local Democracy Reporting Service understands.

Steve Reed MP

In a letter sent on Tuesday (October 28) by Steve Reed, Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, to the leaders of Surrey’s councils, he said he has decided to move forward with two new unitary councils in Surrey – East Surrey Council and West Surrey Council – subject to Parliamentary approval.

Waverley, Guildford, Woking, Surrey Heath, Runnymede and Spelthorne will be merged in to the west, while Mole Valley, Elmbridge, Epsom and Ewell, Reigate and Banstead, and Tandridge will form the east.

The decision puts bankrupt Woking in with heavily indebted Runnymede and Spelthorne, together with the financially stressed Surrey Heath – which has led to concerns in the past about creating a troubled authority from the word go.

Mr Reed rejected the alternative three-council model despite both proposals meeting the criteria for devolution set out by the Government as the two unitary plans was a better fit financially.

See: Two Unitaries for Surrey – Letter to Council Leaders in Full

One of the biggest questions the Government had to deal with was the incredible £5 billion of debt levels within the old councils, led by bankrupt Woking Borough Council.

Mr Reed wrote: “In particular, I believe (two unitaries) performs better against the second criterion: whether the councils are the right size to achieve efficiencies, improve capacity and withstand financial shocks. My view is that the two unitary proposal is more likely to be financially sustainable.

“As you will appreciate, this criterion is particularly relevant in the unique context of Surrey, where reorganisation is a critical intervention to improve the financial viability of the area’s councils.

“Putting Surrey’s local authorities on a more sustainable footing is vital to safeguarding the services its residents rely on, as well as investing in their futures.”

On finance Mr Reed also committed to repay £500 million of Woking Borough Council’s debt in 2026-27. He said: “This is a significant and unprecedented commitment given historic capital practices at the Council.

“It reflects our acknowledgement that, even after the rationalisation of Woking’s historic assets, there is significant unsupported debt held by the Council that cannot be managed locally.”

Mr Reed said that having one council in charge in each area will see quicker decisions to grow our towns, connect people to opportunity, speed up house building and get vital infrastructure projects moving, while attracting new investment.

He accepted the three-council plan, as backed by the majority of the boroughs and districts, was a better geographical fit but moving to two councils made more sense financially.

Once approved, the government will pass a law abolishing the existing councils and establish new structures with with desired start date looking like being April 1, 2027.

He is expected to announce his plans at the commons later today (Tuesday, October 28).

Share This Post

Responses to It’s Two Unitaries for Surrey – SoS Says It Is Best Option for Financial Sustainability

  1. M.Durant. Reply

    October 28, 2025 at 7:33 pm

    The plan to divide Surrey into two unitary councils risks placing an unfair financial burden on West Surrey, which would be saddled with Woking’s massive, unresolved debt.

    The government should have written off this debt. Instead, residents now face the prospect of significantly higher council tax and even deeper cuts to essential social services — at a time when the cost of living crisis is already stretching households to the limit.

    This approach is not only financially unsound, it’s socially unjust. A three-unitary model might have offered a more balanced and equitable solution, spreading the financial load more fairly across the region.

  2. Peter Hyde Reply

    October 29, 2025 at 9:10 am

    If financial sustainability was the trump card then a single unitary council for Surrey was the logical option. Sadly, meaningful local democracy is dead.

  3. Patrick Bray Reply

    October 29, 2025 at 12:12 pm

    I don’t want to be pessimistic but in the context of local government “larger” does seem to amount to “less accountable”.

    I suspect that “quicker decisions to grow our community” means less local say in planning decisions and more blight on people’s lives to benefit developers and land owners.

    Furthermore, I suggest that the remaining debts of the local areas will in part be funded by selling off my local councils assets, ones I feel are local people’s assets.

    I suppose Guildford is being developed until it looks like Woking anyway, so if they end up part of the same sprawl it will match on a superficial level.

    • Jim Allen Reply

      October 30, 2025 at 9:38 pm

      Could the Localism Act 2011 be used to prevent such sales?

      An asset of community value (ACV) is a building or piece of land that is used to further the social wellbeing or social interests of the local community, including cultural, recreational, or sporting activities.

      To be listed, the asset must currently be used, or have been used in the recent past, for such purposes, and it must be realistic that it could continue to serve these purposes for at least the next five years.

      Get listing folks.

      • Patrick Bray Reply

        October 31, 2025 at 6:08 pm

        That’s good to know. Is there a process to go through to list or is it on an objection basis?

Leave a Comment

Please see our comments policy. All comments are moderated and may take time to appear. Full names, or at least initial and surname, must be given.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *