Opinion: Local Government Reorganisation – How Did It Happen Like This? Part 3

Published on: 6 May, 2026
Updated on: 5 May, 2026

Cllr Pat Oven

Patrick Oven

borough councillor for Send & Lovelace and Guildford Greenbelt Group leader

In Part 1 of his opinion piece Patrick Oven asked how we had arrived at the current solution for the Government’s reorganisation of local government. In Part 2 he explored the factors that should have been considered when deciding how many unitary authorities Surrey should have. In Part 3 he draws his conclusions about why the choice for two unitary authies was made…

So what conclusions can we draw about the reasons behind the decision to have only two unitary authorities in Surrey?

The two unitary council solution proposed by SCC.

We could clearly have presented a very convincing case for three unitaries based on the examples of other counties.

Had Surrey Heath been pulled from the West Surrey authority and included in the possible northern one of Elmbridge, Runnymede and Spelthorne, we could have presented an argument for three very similarly sized unitaries: northern, 440,000, western (without Surrey Heath), 389,000 and eastern of 415,100.

A major advantage, as far as westen and northern authorities would have been concerned, is that the authorities with the debt problems would not all be consolidated in one Unitary.

It was always clear to me, as a Guildford councillor and one involved with the process of pulling Guildford back from the brink of bankruptcy barely two years ago, that we would inevitably be tied with Woking.

But to also tie us with Spelthorne, with its c. £700 million debt and Runnymede with about £500,000 seems a step too far.

They could have been separated into the northern authority and given the western one, at least some chance, given the expected Government aid for Woking, to keep its head above water.

As it is, I see no prospect for the impending West Surrey Council other than of being insolvent from the outset. An open door policy towards planning applications, to generate planning application fees then council tax revenue once built, seems inevitable. Whilst having personal reasons based on age for not standing again, I am utterly dismayed by what is happening. The circumstances outlined above made my decision inevitable.

Authorities of around 400,000 and the debt split fairly. A balanced approach. Yes, the authorities would be way bigger than before, that was always going to happen. But they would at least be based on clear geographical and, importantly, manageable areas.

So, why do we not have three unitary authorities in Surrey? Sadly, I have to conclude that, given the arguments for them to me seem indisputable, the decision was made for political reasons. Surrey County Council was so set on two unitaries.

Supporting county councillors will say the two model authority was cheaper. Given that even three unitaries would have led to considerable savings than before, I consider that a complete red herring.

This is a local government system, which, if the previous one is to be a guide, should last for half a century. The fundamental requirement is to get it right, not the cost. A relatively small saving in setting up costs will be as nothing over the period of the operation.

It should have been done once and done properly.

But I have to sadly conclude that the real reason we have been saddled with this is political. The Conservative majority on Surrey County Council thought that a three unitary model would give them no chance in a northern untitary authority abutting London. Such would almost inevitably, be Lib Dem and Labour territory.

I may of course be entirely wrong. We will see from the results whether the voters agree with my assessment of the two authority model and the possible reasons behind it by punishing those they feel responsible.

I strongly suspect that thoughtful voters will be unimpressed by the performance of Surrey County Council and the reorganization they volunteered to be first to perform, to the detriment of the residents of Surrey.