Letter: I Hope West Surrey Council Will Overturn GBC’s Town Council Proposal

Published on: 22 Mar, 2026
Updated on: 22 Mar, 2026

From Lottie Harding

In response to: Opinion – Guildford Needs a Town Council

I cannot believe the arrogance shown in this opinion piece by Cllr George Potter [Lib Dem, Burpham].

To dismiss the legitimate concerns of 47 per cent of the people who took the time to respond to the consultation on the cost of a parish/town council for Guildford, with the implication that respondents did not understand the issues, is ridiculous.

I, and am sure a great many others, know full well that parish councillors are unpaid, but that still doesn’t mean we need 24 of them to manage a limited portfolio of services when we will have 10 councillors representing the town on the West Surrey Council.

Cllr Potter does not know what assets or services the new West Surrey Council may be willing to transfer to any parish/town council, so the reasoning that it will do more than just allotments and the mayoralty is deeply flawed.

The West Surrey council may well choose, as a different but equally valid option, to put such assets, from across West Surrey, into a “cultural trust”. This is a model followed by many other councils up and down the country.

Such a proposal would instantly reduce costs because it would, if nothing else, reduce the business rates liability on the buildings. Such an idea would safeguard assets for the benefit of the community without costing the taxpayer a penny. Many residents may also wonder whether giving their council tax away in community grants is value for money.

The decision Guildford councillors have made is not value for money.  Councillors are putting forward a proposal to increase costs to taxpayers over the long term, with no clear support for that proposal from the community. This is at a time when the whole point of the local government reorganisation was to streamline services and generate efficiencies.

The proposal to re-create another layer of local government goes completely against the principles of the reorganisation. It was said in the debate that a six per cent turnout was a good turnout compared to places like Epsom, which, on a lower turnout, voted overwhelmingly against a community council.

But it wasn’t!

Cllr Potter chose an untypical example to compare against in order to justify the unjustifiable. Let’s take a look at another neighbouring example – Mole Valley.

They recently ran a consultation and decided to set up a parish council for Dorking. That decision was based on a turnout of 22 per cent with a clear majority of 800 in favour of setting up a parish council, a clear mandate from the community of Dorking.

In contrast, a similar consultation obtained a turnout of 19 per cent in Leatherhead, with 965 (55 per cent) votes against setting up a parish council for Leatherhead and 815 (45 per cent) in favour. As a result, a parish council has not been agreed for Leatherhead.

Turnouts of 14 to 33 per cent obtained by Mole Valley are equivalent to turnouts in elections for the police and crime commissioner and local councils. Those sorts of turnouts give the councillors a mandate. That is not what Guildford councillors have from their community.

I can only hope the West Surrey Council, once formed, sees sense and overturns this ridiculous proposal from a bunch of people about to lose their jobs.

Share This Post