Devolution Diaries: In Focus: Surrey
The future of local government in Surrey is up for grabs, with competing proposals submitted on March 21st to reorganise its two-tier system into either:
- Two new unitary authorities
- Three unitary authorities with Reigate & Banstead possibly joining with Crawley to make their own unitary authority
A single Surrey-wide unitary authority was already dismissed early on. While the model promised cost savings and simplicity, it did not meet the Government criteria in creating a Mayoral Strategic Authority – blocking key devolution opportunities.
Now, the County Council’s preferred option is to divide the county into two unitary authorities – either along a North/South or East/West split. For each option, two variations are proposed: one where Spelthorne falls in either the East or West, and another where Elmbridge is placed in either the North or South, depending on the configuration.
According to the County’s interim plan, this model performs best against government criteria for local government reform. Each unit would serve over 500,000 residents, enabling the creation of a Strategic Authority which offers better financial resilience and simplistic service delivery compared to a three unitary authority model.
Most of Surrey’s district and borough councils (with the exception of Mole Valley and Elmbridge) have actively supported a different view. In their joint submission, they argue that a three-unitary authority is “community-led” and better reflects the county’s distinct geographic, economic, and social identities.
Their model proposes new councils for West, North, and East Surrey—configured, they argue, around Surrey’s distinct economic clusters. They also highlight whilst both the two and three unitary authority option are both financially viable, the three unitary option strikes the “best balance between efficiency and maintaining a strong local connection”.
Yet the County Council warns that the three-unitary model would be the most expensive to implement, with lower population sizes that fail to meet government guidelines. They raise concerns about long-term viability and financial sustainability. In addition, they argue that there are more risks associated with a three unitary solution, such as the risk of fragmented services, duplication of effort, and inequality between more and less prosperous areas.
Differences in opinion have emerged not only over the proposed models, but also over how they are being presented to the public. On the 27th of March, eight district and borough councils launched an online consultation to gauge public opinion. The survey promotes the three-unitary option and links only to the district and boroughs’ plan, not the County’s. Council leader Tim Oliver called it “misleading” and said the results would be “unreliable.” In contrast, district and borough councils insist the consultation is about listening to residents’ views on a “once-in-a-generation opportunity.”
Adding another layer of complexity, the leaders of Reigate & Banstead and Crawley Borough Councils have written to the government proposing a cross-county unitary authority. They argue that the current Surrey–West Sussex boundary is “illogical” and risks holding back growth in the Gatwick Diamond, where the two areas together generate over £13 billion. The joint letter calls for governance that reflects economic reality, not simply historic lines. What remains unclear is whether Reigate & Banstead would leave Surrey to join West Sussex—potentially leaving Tandridge isolated—or, perhaps more plausibly, whether Crawley could instead be brought into a reconfigured eastern Surrey authority.
Surrey’s reorganisation proposals are more than a bureaucratic reshuffle—they’re a test of how England’s local government can adapt to the pressures of modern governance while staying rooted in local accountability. But they’re also fast becoming a political test for Labour. With Surrey moving ahead of other areas on such an accelerated timeline—and divisions between county and district leaders deepening— the process is growing increasingly fraught just as decisions start to loom. With new proposals like Reigate–Crawley entering the mix, the path forward will depend on meaningful engagement and whether a unified local vision can emerge before the May 9th submission deadline.
