Letter: Councillors Should Vote In Favour of Creating a Town Council for Guildford

Published on: 15 Sep, 2026
Updated on: 15 Sep, 2026

From Paul Cooper

In response to: Proposal for a Guildford Town Council Needs Further Consideration

Conservative chairman Thom Van Every’s argument rests on an extraordinary contradiction.

He says the consultation produced “no clear support”, yet treats a margin of just 21 responses; 1,507 against and 1,486 in favour, as sufficient reason to stop the proposal.

A margin of 21 is either decisive or it is not. It cannot be dismissed as inconclusive in one paragraph and then transformed into a public veto in the next. Just eleven people changing sides would have reversed the result.

Five wards supported the proposal and five opposed it. That demonstrates a finely balanced consultation, not a mandate against a town council.

Thom also omits the first consultation, in which 58 per cent of respondents supported creating a parish council. More importantly, both consultations were exactly that: consultations, not referendums. The council said so explicitly. Councillors were legally required to consider the responses alongside community identity, cohesion and effective local government, not simply count ticks in boxes.

That is what Guildford Borough Council did. The proposal was debated at a full council meeting and supported by 24 votes to nine, with Conservative councillors speaking on both sides. To suggest that there has been no cross-party debate is therefore grossly misleading.

The financial argument is equally selective. Residents were given an estimated first-year range of £60 to £100. The final proposal is approximately £69 for a Band D property, that’s only £5.75 a month, supported by a published first-year financial envelope and indicative budget.

Yes, future precepts are uncapped. They will also be determined by councillors elected by Guildford residents. That is called democratic accountability.

A town council would not belong to the Liberal Democrats. Conservatives could contest it, win seats, control costs, prevent duplication and shape the services it provides. Democracy does not stop being democracy merely because another party might win.

Nor did the Liberal Democrats invent the decision-making route. The law places this decision with the Shadow Authority Executive. Rejecting the proposal would not create a harmless pause for “further consideration”. It would require another lengthy and expensive governance review and could leave almost 80,000 Guildford residents without parish-level representation for years.

With Guildford being absorbed into an authority serving nearly 700,000 people, the Conservative response should be subsidiarity: decisions made as close as possible to the people affected.

Create the council. Contest the elections. Keep the precept lean. Make it accountable.

Arguing that Guildford should have less local democracy because 21 consultation responses went one way is not prudence. It is political timidity dressed up as fiscal responsibility.

Responses to Letter: Councillors Should Vote In Favour of Creating a Town Council for Guildford

Helena Townsend Reply

September 15, 2026 at 7:49 pm

Can Paul Cooper confirm exactly what a town council can do that a unitary council can’t? Will they have special powers?

I want to know what I’m going to be paying for if this gets voted through.
- Paul Cooper Reply
  
  September 23, 2026 at 11:00 pm
  
  No, a town council would not possess some magical power unavailable to the unitary council. Legally, it will have parish council status with a “town council” label.
  
  What it provides is different: councillors elected specifically to represent Guildford, a budget raised specifically for Guildford, and a statutory local voice on planning, although it could only comment on applications, not decide them.
  
  The published first-year budget is nearly £2 million, equivalent to about £69 a year, or £5.75 a month for a Band D property. Initially, that would fund the council’s staff, elections, premises, IT, insurance and audit, as well as allotments, civic functions and planning consultation. It does not currently buy residents a promised package of parks, community centres, public toilets or street services. Any such responsibilities would have to be negotiated with West Surrey Council and funded through future budgets. The precept could then rise or fall.
  
  So the demand for a clear service-transfer plan, proper costing and protection against duplication is entirely reasonable.
  
  Where Conservative chair Thom van Every becomes political rather than pragmatic is in branding this a “Liberal Democrat tax”.
  
  The town council would be elected in May 2027; it would belong to Guildford residents, not the Liberal Democrats. Conservatives could stand, win control and keep its costs down. A serious opposition would set conditions for transparency, value for money and no double charging and then seek the voters’ support. Treating the institution as illegitimate simply because another party is currently establishing it is party political positioning, not practical local government.