From Patrick Oven

Leader of the Guildford greenbelt Group at Guildford borough Council

In response to: County Council Set To Formalise Two-unitary Proposal to the Government

So Cllr Oliver, leader of Surrey County Council, considers that two unitary authorities, rather than three as preferred by the majority of Surrey boroughs and districts, “will unlock further devolution in Surrey”.

Two will he says, “be most beneficial to Surrey’s future”. To that end, he proposes “Community Level Boards”,  his reasoning being that such a proposal  “strengthens community level engagement” as people want “a real say in services and decisions that affect them”.

The proposed Community Boards have absolutely nothing to do with whether there should be  two, or even three, unitaries, or indeed the existing system of local government. Cllr Oliver’s seeming Damascene conversion to community involvement could have been carried out under the existing county council system.

Rather, this is tantamount to an admission that two unitaries rather than three will inevitably lead to much more remote local government, so something has to be done to give a semblance of community involvement. It is simply the most token of token gestures. All that would be devolved under this proposal is influence, not power, and unfortunately it is only power that really matters.

None of us can do anything about the government plan to move from a two-tier system of local government to unitary authorities. However a three-unitary Surrey would be infinitely preferable.

A casual glance at a map of Surrey will show there are three principal urban areas in the county. Epsom, Ewell, Banstead, Reigate and Redhill in the east, Woking, Guildford and Godalming in the west/south-west, and Staines, Ashford, Chertsey and Walton in the northwest.

By far the most logical solution would be to have three unitaries centred on these localities. That would still provide some true semblance of localism. People could vote on the basis of local issues, rather than rely on some form of unaccountable “Quango”.

Cllr Oliver states “of course considerations must be given to the differing levels of debt the authorities would potentially inherit”.  The three most financially challenged authorities are bankrupt Woking, Spelthorne in very serious difficulties and Runnymede fast heading the same way.

Guildford has only just recovered from being close to insolvency, and may not yet be completely out of the woods. Yet what does this proposal seek to do? To put all the financially challenged authorities together in the western unitary.

Three would have allowed Woking to be separated from the other two and put in a south-western authority with Guildford and Waverley. At least then the debt would be spread.

Three unitaries would also allow authorities of around 400,000 population in each, below the government ideal figure of half a million, but allowing some leeway for the inevitable growth that will occur in the county’s population. Two unitaries, at 600,000 approximately each, would be over the ideal figure from the outset.

So why is Cllr Oliver so keen on a two-unitary proposal? Well, it is the closest to the existing county council set-up, and I strongly suspect the Tories at Surrey do not want to see a separate north-west Surrey Authority, close to London, where they would be very unlikely to gain control.

Two unitaries gives a much better chance, though after yesterday’s local election results, hardly a strong one.

Accordingly, I strongly suspect this proposal is politically driven, rather than considering what is the most democratic way for the government drive to unitaries to be achieved.

Two unitaries would undoubtedly be cheaper, but considerable savings would still be made with three. Since this is the biggest change in local government for 50 years, getting it right should be the primary aim, not cost, and certainly not political expediency.