Surrey Local Government Changes Plough Ahead Regardless of High Court Ruling

Published on: 18 Feb, 2026
Updated on: 18 Feb, 2026

Ministry of Housing, Communities, and Local Government is co-located with the Home Office in Westminster. Google

By Chris Caulfield

local democracy reporter

The Government’s u-turn on reinstating elections across 30 local authorities shows just how “rash and reckless” last year’s decision was to cancel polls in Surrey, opposition councillors said today (February 17).

In 2025, residents were told elections in Surrey should be axed because councils needed time to focus on merging into two mega authorities.

Now however, the Government has written to the High Court to set out its position that 30 councils, including 21 going through their own mergers, “in the light of recent legal advice” will go ahead with council elections this year. But it’s a year too late for Surrey.

How Surrey is to be divided up into two unitary authorities in 2027. SHBC

The decision comes after a legal challenge was brought against the decision to delay polls by Reform UK leader Nigel Farage. It means all local elections in May 2026 will now go ahead.

This decision has left some in Surrey wondering what has changed and whether they needed to cancel their own polls?

In a letter to the affected chief executives, Steve Reed, Secretary of State for housing, communities and local government, wrote: “I recognise that many of the local councils undergoing reorganisation voiced genuine concerns about the pressure they are under as we seek to deliver the most ambitious reforms of local government in a generation.

“I am therefore announcing today that we will provide up to £63 million in additional capacity funding to the 21 local areas undergoing reorganisation across the whole programme, building on the £7.6 million provided for developing proposals last year.

“I will shortly set out further detail about how that funding will be allocated.”

Cllr Paul Follows

Cllr Paul Follows, leader of the Liberal Democrat group at Surrey County Council opposed the postponement in 2025 saying it robbed people of their democratic right and left in place dozens of unmandated councillors.

Speaking after the Government’s announcement, he said: “I am sure those areas will welcome the chance to have their democratic rights restored and to have their say on the various proposals for local government reorganisation in those areas.

“Surrey of course will not be one of them, due to the rash and reckless actions of Conservative-led Surrey County Council.

“They have jumped into the unknown, exposed most of the county to significant debt and discord in the process with barely a plan of their own – joined at the hip on this subject to a Labour government that, seemingly, are abandoning their own plans on a daily basis.”

Surrey County Council wrote to the Government in January last year to take up the offer of delaying its own elections. It argued this would give officers the time to focus on merging with its boroughs and districts.

They added that spending millions on an election only to then dissolve the entire council within a year or two would be a waste of time and money.

Asked what has changed since then and whether its decision in Surrey was still correct the ministry gave a stock reply that declined to answer questions put to it.

It said that, in the case of Surrey, last year’s elections to the county council and six of the district councils are being replaced by elections to the two new unitary councils.

The decision is in relation to the postponement of 30 local council elections, and is separate from the decision which impacts Surrey.

The ministry declined to add anything further.

Cllr Tim Oliver

Tim Oliver, leader of Surrey County Council said: “In Surrey we remain focussed on delivering a smooth transition for devolution and local government reorganisation and we are gearing up for local elections in May as planned.

“Last year, we were confirmed on the Government’s accelerated programme and elections were postponed for one year so that the necessary preparatory work could take place at pace.”

The council also pointed out that some of the reinstated council elections this year had already been postponed once, and would have given their elected officials six-year terms.

Share This Post