Letter: The Reorganisation Situation Is Different in Surrey

Published on: 10 Sep, 2026
Updated on: 10 Sep, 2026

From Lottie Harding

In response to: East Surrey Council Leaders Also Want to Stay ‘On Track’ With Reorganisation Programme

My understanding is that the basis of the legal challenges by Hampshire and Essex county councils, to the government’s LGR decisions in those areas, is the way it was proposed to divide up the county areas.

Four or five unitary authorities were envisaged, involving changes to the existing district boundaries of some of the districts, so that some were split between two or three unitary authorities. This was felt to be financially unviable.

It was also claimed the decisions didn’t meet some of the other criteria government had set itself, including keeping to current district boundaries, and lacked proper reasoning. The decisions were bonkers and a huge waste of an opportunity to reduce the overall costs of local government for taxpayers.

There is also talk in some press articles the former minister went against his officials’ advice. Perhaps the government’s own legal advice agreed. My hunch is the outcome of the review will be different decisions and then LGR will continue in those areas to be be implemented in 2029.

The situation in Surrey is different, only two unitary councils are being created. The government made clear in its decision letter it was choosing the option most likely to be financially sustainable which was supported by the modelling in both business cases.

No existing council challenged that decision at the time, presumably as there were no legal grounds to do so, even if they didn’t like the decision.

The primary legislation abolishing the existing councils and creating the new councils has passed, elections have been held and implementation is underway. Those involved are getting on with the job.

Responses to Letter: The Reorganisation Situation Is Different in Surrey

Wayne Smith Reply

September 10, 2026 at 1:23 pm

If the government decision to proceed with the Surrey reorganisation was based on it being ‘financially sustainable’, then surely that is grounds enough to challenge it?

How many times have we read that the new West Surrey Council will likely be insolvent from day one thanks to being saddled with Woking’s £2 billion debt?
Bernard Quoroll Reply

September 11, 2026 at 6:23 pm

No one has answered the question “was the making of an order for Surrey lawful?” Nor does the fact that no council queried its legality, at the time, answer that question.

If it was unlawful and could have been judicially reviewed before, as other councils have, it surely remains open to challenge now or even later. Better to provide a reasoned explanation which demonstrates that the decision was one the minister was properly entitled to take and put it to bed.

Something like this has happened before during the 1990s, when a rolling review undertaken by Sir John Banham, (who chaired an independent Local Government Commission), and which consulted extensively, ended in confusion and ground to a disorderly halt.

It was rumoured at the time that the Environment Minister, (under pressure from PM John Major and other Tory grandees), was reminded that to abolish a Conservative Buckinghamshire County would have political consequences.

A different government this time, but both parties have one thing in common; they haves learned that they can more easily achieve their ends by back room, so-called “devolution” deals and imposed mayors, without even bothering to ask an informed public what they think.

This is supposed to be a democracy. The unwillingness of this Government to share the basis for its decisions and demonstrate lawfulness speaks volumes. So does the rush of elected people saying it’s too late.”