Lib Dems and Labour Respond to SCC’s Two-unitary Proposal

Published on: 2 May, 2025
Updated on: 4 May, 2025

With news that Surrey County Council is expecting to submit its proposal for Surrey to be divided into two unitary authorities as part of the local Government reorganisation, we asked local political parties for their views. Here is what two of them said…

Cllr Julia McShane

Julia McShane, Lib Dem group leader at GBC and leader of the council, said: “The Conservatives at Surrey County Council denied residents their democratic right to vote on 1 May so they could retain power and avoid the predicted Conservative losses across the County.

“They have no mandate to put forward any proposal for devolution let alone the two unitary model they are supporting.

Surrey County Council’s proposal would divide the county into two unitary authorities, east and west.

“Districts and boroughs have agreed a three-unitary proposal which puts people and communities first. It creates financial savings, and retains local decision-making and democratic representation. Residents across Surrey gave their views in a survey and overwhelmingly supported the three-unitary option, as do we in Guildford.

“It’s wrong for the Conservatives at Surrey County Council to try and put all the debt into a West Surrey Unitary. Wrong because the debt was created by Conservative-run borough councils and SCC has £1 billion debt of its own. Woking’s residents are already feeling the negative impact of that Conservative legacy.

“The debt issue must be resolved as part of the ongoing negotiation with the government. The three unitary authorities must be financially viable to be able to deliver the vital services our communities need. Guildford’s residents should not be shouldering the Conservatives’ debt burden and as Lib Dems we will fight to get a fair deal for them.”

Brian Creese

Brian Creese, the former chair of Guildford Labour, also supports a three-unitary solution but presented some different arguments: “The government has asked for consensus between the various partners in agreeing plans for the new unitary authorities. This has proved impossible in Surrey, though strangely the divide has not been between political parties but between the existing county council and the existing boroughs.

“Initially, SCC supported a laughable proposal to maintain the county intact but with more power, now they have decided to try and split the county down the middle and claim a strategic rationale.

“There are many weaknesses to this proposal, but perhaps the most serious is that this put would all the heavily debted councils (Woking, Spelthorne & Runnymede) in the West. The two-unitary proposal would mean the residents of Guildford would pick up the tab for Tory mismanagement in Woking and Spelthorne, £3 billion between them. I hope the government will reject it.

The alternative three-unitary solution supported by Brian Creese and eight of the eleven boroughs and districts. Elmbridge Borough Council

“The majority of the boroughs, on the other hand, seem likely to embrace a three-unitary solution. This proposal is more geographically coherent: a council representing those councils closest to London, on the London side of the M25 (Runnymede, Spelthorne, Elmbridge), a western unitary of the more urban boroughs centred on Guildford and Woking (Waverley, Woking, Guildford, Surrey Heath); this would include the A3 and Waterloo/Portsmouth road and train lines. Finally, an eastern unitary consisting of the more rural parts of the county (Reigate & Redhill, Mole Valley, Epsom & Ewell, Tandridge).

“Many external agencies delivering infrastructure are already grouped along these lines and the population numbers better fit Government guidelines. This would produce three significantly different but coherent councils focused on individual strengths.”