Opinion: What is The Point of Restructuring Local Government?

Published on: 19 Jan, 2025
Updated on: 19 Jan, 2025

SCC leader Tim Oliver has requested that Surrey is in the first group of local authorities to reorganise.

By Pete Bennett

chair of the Residents for Guildford & Villages Party

Local political parties are getting very animated about the probable postponement of the county elections in May, but little is being said about the cause of this proposal – the restructuring of local government.

The government believes that devolving power to the regions is the key to unlocking growth. Done right, they are probably right, but to win that “prize”, there are some huge challenges that need to be overcome.

The Proposal

The government has decided that all borough, district and county councils will be abolished and replaced by “Strategic” and “Unitary” authorities.

Powers will be devolved from central government to a “strategic authority”, in many cases led by a directly elected mayor. The assumption is that there will be a new strategic authority that covers the county of Surrey.

Surrey will also have two or three unitary authorities. Current thinking is leaning towards three – one in the north of Surrey (more or less inside the M25), one in the east and a third in the west. These will have the combined powers of the current borough or district and county councils.

There is currently no mention of abolishing parish councils or existing town councils.

This restructuring will happen. It is no longer a choice for the regions. The only choice is speed.

There will be a priority group of councils who will lead the way and help to define the model and devolved powers of the strategic authority. Later regions may then have no choice but to adopt what has been decided by the “pioneers”.

Surrey County Council (SCC) believe that it is better to have a seat at the table than to wait for a model to be imposed on them. The government is “minded” to postpone the elections for the early adopters, to allow them to progress at speed without the distraction of an election and new councillors who need at least a year to find their feet in a new role.

The Prize – Unlocking Growth

If you were to design local government from scratch, you would not arrive at the current model. Guildford Borough Council (GBC) has 48 councillors but no longer enough money to do much more than ensure the bins get collected.

Although they supposedly have planning responsibility, that function has become more and more rules-based in favour of the developer. With the new housing targets, the ability to refuse any development will decline even further.

Even delivery responsibilities are split in odd ways. On-street parking is SCC, off-street parking is GBC. Waste collection is GBC, but disposal is SCC. The collaboration between Guildford and Waverley was an admission that each borough, in itself, is too small to be effective. The proposed unitary authorities are a logical extension of that realisation.

For all the political games that go on at GBC, the councillors have almost zero capability to make any difference to local people. Is it any wonder that only 40 per cent of people turn out to vote? Combining the delivery responsibilities of borough and county council therefore makes sense.

This is not the reason the government has mandated this change. They believe that (as seen in many countries in Europe) devolving more powers and funds to local areas is essential to promote growth.

The Challenges

1. Local Representation

The idea that Guildford Borough Council would be replaced by remote politicians covering at least a third of Surrey may not sit well with the electorate (or at least the minority who vote). More power may be delegated to parish councils (who already struggle to find enough people to cover their roles), but a new town council would (almost certainly) need to be created for Guildford. The result would then be three layers of local council instead of two: the mayor and strategic authority, the unitary authority and the town council.

If this is the case, then what power would the new Guildford Town Council have, and who would be prepared to sit on it? Perhaps the Guildford councillors elected to the unitary authority should automatically form the town council (ideally with representatives from local organisations like the Guildford Society and the Guildford Residents Association), but would there be anything worthwhile to discuss?

2. Unitary authority borders

Where will they draw the borders of the new local authorities? The NHS regional structure, that is, the Integrated Care Boards (ICBs), has been designed to be based on communities. This is unlike the traditional electoral boundaries which are arbitrary lines on a map.

An example of this is in Ash, which falls under part of Frimley NHS ICB, and lacks coordination with SCC and GBC. The new strategic authority would not immediately have responsibility for health, but it is a stated intention for the future. The borders for the new authority should logically match these ICB boundaries and not stick to the county boundaries.

This, however, may not be possible because of a major issue in Surrey, that of debt.

3. Debt

Surrey borough councils have a combined debt of £5.5 billion. (£2 billion from Woking alone). The government has stated that they are not going to write off local debt as part of this exercise although Cllr Oliver has requested they do.

Unsurprisingly, no other county is keen to join with Surrey to take on a share of that debt. Although the level of debt across the whole of Surrey is more sustainable than for Woking on its own.

The idea that assets will have to be sold off in Guildford to cover Woking’s debt is obviously unfair on Guildford, and (more concerning for the SCC Conservative) would be very unpopular having the potential to motivate a powerful and destabilising political campaign.

4. Planning

Planning is the most sensitive of local government responsibilities. Everyone wants to own their own home, or for their children to afford a home, but nobody wants development in any area they care about. Planning policies being created by people who may have never even been to Guildford will be deeply unpopular (although residents of East Horsley and Ash would already say this about GBC).

5. Elections

The published timeline suggests elections in 2026. Given this is intended to deliver Labour’s “Growth Agenda” (and to avoid the inevitable transitional disruption being a hot issue at the next General Election), you can understand their desire for fast progress.

We just don’t believe this is realistic. Experience with other regions makes 2027 more likely. That means a two-year delay for the elections.

I have seen an email from one political party that doesn’t mention the restructuring and just accuses Labour of an attack on democracy for cancelling the elections. Although such deliberately inflammatory misinformation will not work on readers of The Dragon, the idea of postponing elections is a serious matter.

Ignoring the politics (given the current situation the Lib Dems and Reform will expect to do well and want the election), is there really a justification for cancelling the elections?

The arguments for the county council elections in May 2025 are obvious, but the argument for them to be postponed is equally persuasive (and this was also the approach in the 1970s, over half a century ago, when local government was last restructured). Even ignoring the £2.5 million the election would cost, the new council would have one single item on the agenda – their own abolition.

Given the opinion polls, it is likely there will be a significant number of new councillors. Generally, it takes up to two years for a new councillor to get up to speed, by which time they would be in the process of being replaced.

Assuming the opinion polls are right, we would have an entirely new Surrey County Council Executive, who in addition to getting used to the role would also feel the need to readdress all the progress made on this issue and just slow down the process.

Although the government is unlikely to change its mind based on articles like this, I would personally (albeit reluctantly) support the decision to postpone the elections.

6. Delivery

As with any form of corporate restructuring, the costs will be significant. Despite a reduction in the number of councillors, this will not provide a cost saving in the short term. If an elected mayor can deliver the growth the country needs, then the cost will be worth it.

If they can get this right, then maybe there will be joined-up thinking in delivering infrastructure to support new housing. If the Mayor and strategic authority is given real authority to make a difference, then people may once again see the point in voting in local elections.

That is a lot of “ifs”. There are huge challenges to be overcome. Let’s hope that politics can be set aside for once, and that councillors of all persuasions could work together to build something suitable for the 21st century.