ÄûÃʵ¼°¹

ÄûÃʵ¼°¹, Elmbridge Borough Council and Mole Valley District Council welcome the opportunity to take part in this consultation. Our analysis, informed by evidence, shows that the best outcome of local government reorganisation to unlock devolution is to arrange ÄûÃʵ¼°¹ into two unitary councils, West and East, replacing the current county council and 11 district and borough councils. Our proposal will save money, offer better value for taxpayers with stable finances to protect vital services, simplify services with fewer points of contact and less confusion about who does what, and further strengthen local communities by connecting people through newly created Neighbourhood Area Committees in the towns and villages they care about.

The three unitary proposal put forward by other councils in ÄûÃʵ¼°¹ isn’t the best outcome for a number of reasons.

Future economic geographies

The functional economic areas that are referred to in the three unitary proposal are based on the Interim Strategic Statement and 2050 Place Ambition, developed in 2016. This document set out a vision for functional places based on nine sub-areas across the whole of ÄûÃʵ¼°¹, used to define the geographies in the three unitary proposal. A key flaw in this assumption is the sub-areas are not functional economic areas in their own right and are not directly aligned to the three geographies being proposed. While they have their own functional housing markets and economic links with strategic geographies, they are being used incorrectly as the basis for the three unitaries. Conversely, the two unitary proposal establishes two economically viable areas with similar business survival rates and comparable council tax bases which are better aligned against spending on key demand driven services, supporting balanced growth across the county.

The three unitary proposal is also not conducive to maximising the county’s potential for economic growth. Smaller authorities would concentrate growth on current strengths and sectors across each area. World leading sub-sectors that are key to ÄûÃʵ¼°¹’s growth and success of the Government’s Industrial Strategy, such as gaming and cyber-security, are interconnected across the county. Three unitaries would limit cross-county working across innovation assets and cluster activity, which are important to driving further growth.

Population size

The three unitary proposal does not meet government’s guiding principle for new unitary authorities to aim for a population of 500,000 or more. Moreover, the proposal does not put forward a robust justification for creating organisations serving smaller populations. It also creates an unbalanced population split across three unitaries – with 39% of ÄûÃʵ¼°¹’s population being in the western unitary, 27% in northern unitary and 34% in the eastern unitary. However, the two unitary proposal, based on Census 2021 population data, would see East ÄûÃʵ¼°¹ with a population of 545,798 and West ÄûÃʵ¼°¹ with a population of 657,309 – both meeting the government’s population criteria. It also offers an equitable population split of 55% in the East and 45% in the West, leading to similar levels of service demand between the councils.

Unequal tax base

The three unitary proposal provides an unequal split of council tax income, with total council tax income being split 38% in the West, 27% in the north and 34% in the East. This would have significant financial implications for the proposed northern unitary which would impact its ability to raise funds. This compares to the two unitary proposal which proposes a geography that establishes two unitaries with a similar split of council tax income (47% in the East and 53% in the West).

As a proxy for the health of the business sector in ÄûÃʵ¼°¹, analysis was undertaken by examining the number of businesses started, ended and active in ÄûÃʵ¼°¹. Using this metric, the three unitary model sees a significant variance in business births, deaths and active businesses between the three proposed authorities which implies an unstable business environment between the three authorities. However, the two unitary proposal offers the lowest variance in terms of this metric. Full analysis is presented in the ‘Business births, deaths and enterprises’ section (page 68) in the appendices of the two unitary proposal.

Help to increase housing supply and meet local needs

Unitary councils operating on a smaller geographic scale are in a worse position to identify suitable sites for future housing development and to overcome delivery challenges compared to larger authorities.

Land area and population density considerations are key determinants for the ability to develop land and to operate services that will be within easy reach of potential service users. The three unitary proposal highlights large variances in population density as well as total land area which means there would be significant inequity between the three councils in terms of them being able to operate services that will be within an easy reach of potential service users. However, the two unitary proposal offers an almost equal split in population density, alongside a favourable total area split of 46% in the East and 54% in the West. Full analysis is presented in the ‘Land area and population density’ section (page 59) in the appendices of the two unitary proposal.

Financial outcomes

The LGR submission made by 9 District & Borough Councils proposes that the creation of two unitaries could save £90 million per year and the creation of three unitaries could save £66 million per year.  ÄûÃʵ¼°¹, Mole Valley and Elmbridge believe the scale of these savings is fundamentally flawed, in particular because:

• The scale of savings, particularly for non-staffing expenditure, included in the three unitary proposal is far in excess of what has been achieved through LGR in other parts of the country, and there is no evidence base included in the three unitary proposal about how the higher level of savings proposed for ÄûÃʵ¼°¹ would be achieved.
• The cost of disaggregating ÄûÃʵ¼°¹ services is significantly underestimated in the three unitary proposal. This proposal assumes key SCC services such as Adults and Children’s social care can be easily split across geographies with minimal cost impact. It also proposes shared delivery models without having consulted with services or adequately considered the impacts on sovereign accountability and decision-making that such arrangements would have, which would seem to go against the stated aims of the three unitary proposal to have different services focused on each local population. The three unitary proposal also only includes an understated disaggregation cost for service delivery functions and assumes there would be no disaggregation costs for front office or support functions. We do not believe this is credible.
• The three unitary proposal includes a £15 million benefit through charging an additional 2% on the current D&B council tax income base relating to the Adult Social Care (ASC) precept. While it is true that the scale of the ASC precept could increase through unitarisation, this is specifically linked to changes in ASC expenditure which is subject to future decision-making by the new unitaries. As such, it is incorrect to treat potential extra council tax income that may or may not be levied and should not be treated as a net saving but a change in funding necessitated by continued upward pressure in ASC expenditure, so required to be utilised for that specific purpose rather than as a general saving.

The net benefits combining savings and disaggregation costs assumed in the three unitary proposal is substantially higher than those estimated in undertaken by consultants for the County Councils Network of the net impact of LGR in ÄûÃʵ¼°¹.

In contrast, the two unitary proposal’s much more proportionate modelling sets out that when financial benefits and disaggregation costs are combined, a three unitary model is estimated to lead to an additional cost of £16 million per year at mid-point. This is because the three unitary model is estimated to deliver only £41 million per year in financial savings whilst the cost of disaggregating county council services across three new authorities would cost £57 million per year.

Conversely, when financial benefits and disaggregation costs are combined, a two unitary scenario is estimated to lead to a net financial saving of £23 million per year at mid-point. This is because a two unitary model is estimated to deliver £61 million of ongoing financial benefits per year at mid-point whilst the cost of disaggregating county council services across two new authorities is estimated as £38 million per year.

SCC, Mole Valley and Elmbridge’s LGR submission included a base/more prudent, to stretch/more ambitious modelled range of benefits and costs, with the mid-point position considered a reasonable balance of prudence vs ambition. In contrast, the modelling presented in the submission made by the 9 district & borough councils only included a single set of financials for each unitary option without any sensitivity analysis, further increasing the risk around the accuracy of the modelling.

The table below compares the net financial position included in the final LGR submissions made by SCC, Mole Valley and Elmbridge and the 9 district & borough councils. It also includes the position for ÄûÃʵ¼°¹ estimated by independent consultants on behalf of the County Councils Network.

Estimated net ongoing saving/ (additional cost) per year

The benefits of consolidating services currently duplicated across the district and borough councils would generate less economies of scale and financial efficiencies in three unitaries compared to two unitaries.

Two authorities will offer significant scale that will enable financial efficiencies through greater buying power. These benefits would be lower under three unitaries. For example, district and borough spend that is commissioned 11 times across the county can be brought together into two larger contracts, leading to economies of scale. Contracts can be tailored to the needs of the different unitary areas while delivering wider efficiencies. This can enable better control over key markets, such as for waste collection contracts where commissioning at greater scale can achieve financial efficiencies and improve outcomes for residents.

Taking these factors into account, we estimate two unitaries can generate financial benefits of £61 million per year (prior to considering the cost of disaggregating ÄûÃʵ¼°¹ services) compared to £40 million per year for a three unitary model.

Service delivery and governance

Three unitary councils may take very different approaches to service delivery, exacerbated by the uneven split in population, tax base and service demand, which may create greater inconsistencies in residents’ experiences living in different parts of the county.

Though simplifying governance from 12 councils to three councils will make it easier for residents to understand who provides their services and improve access, arrangements will be even simpler under a two unitary model.

Similarly, though three unitaries will benefit from closer working between services that are currently divided between the two tiers, these benefits would be accentuated under two unitaries.

It should also be noted that the more unitary authorities that exist in ÄûÃʵ¼°¹, there would be more competition between these authorities for roles that are hard to fill, such as in planning, legal and social care. This will be particularly exacerbated given the neighbouring authorities that are also undergoing LGR. This has a further consequence in potentially increasing salaries and therefore costs of the new organisations in ÄûÃʵ¼°¹. In addition, the three unitary model presents a risk of disparity in service provision due to uneven distribution of staff with the right knowledge, skills and experience – this would be more acute compared to two unitary councils.

Adult social care

Adult Social Care (ASC) and Children, Families & Lifelong Learning account for 63% of ÄûÃʵ¼°¹’s 2025/26 general fund budget, primarily funded by council tax and social care grants.

Services have estimated how key expenditure areas – Adult Social Care packages, Children’s Social Care, and Home to School Transport – would be split across potential unitary geographies compared with anticipated income and funding splits. For financial sustainability purposes, there needs to be as close a correlation as possible between the split of expenditure and key funding sources to avoid any one new unitary being relatively over or under-funded.

Under the three unitary model, analysis shows poor correlation between the estimated split of ASC expenditure and the key funding sources (Council Tax income and ASC grants). Our own analysis highlights that the closest correlation is from a West / East split in the two unitary model. Full analysis is presented in the ‘Adult Social Care’ section (page 77) in the appendices of the two unitary proposal.

Children's social care

Children’s Social Care (CSC) accounts for £95 million of ÄûÃʵ¼°¹’s net revenue general fund budgeted expenditure in 2025/26.

For financial sustainability purposes, there needs to be as close a correlation as possible between the split of expenditure and key funding sources to avoid any one new unitary being relatively over or under-funded.

The three unitary proposal shows the greatest degree of difference between the estimate split of CSC expenditure and the two key funding sources – Council Tax income and CSC grants. Conversely, a West / East split for the two unitary proposal shows the closest correlation. Full analysis is presented in the ‘Children’s Social Care’ section (page 78) in the appendices of the two unitary proposal.

Unequal service demand

To support their success, new unitary authorities must be founded on an equitable distribution of service demand. The following points show how imbalances can impair service delivery, strain finances, and weaken organisational resilience, putting long-term sustainability at risk from the outset.

The new unitary councils will take on the support of state-maintained schools across their geography. In terms of the percentage of total pupils supported, the three unitary proposal has more significant variances compared to the two unitary proposal meaning that there would be unequal educational services demand within the three unitary model which could impact service delivery. Full analysis is presented in the ‘Support to Schools’ section (page 82) in the appendices of the two unitary proposal.

ÄûÃʵ¼°¹ Register Offices operate out of five locations, covering births, deaths and ceremonies for the whole of the county. Whilst under three unitaries there would be at least one legacy office in each of the new authorities, there would be at least two under the two unitary proposal, leading to greater access to services in both unitary areas. The three unitary proposal also suffers from wider variances in both births and deaths registered compared to the two unitary proposal meaning that there would be unequal registry demand within the three unitary model which could impact service delivery. Full analysis is presented in the ‘Registrations of births, deaths and ceremonies’ section (page 84) in the appendices of the two unitary proposal.

In the current two-tier system, lower-tier authorities assess people presenting as homeless and determine whether they are threatened with homelessness or already homeless. This duty would be assumed by the new unitary authorities who would be tasked with supporting these residents as appropriate for their circumstances. Three unitary authorities would have a high degree of variation between prevention and relief duty between the new authorities whilst in a two unitary model, the split is near equal meaning both authorities may experience similar demands of homelessness support. Full analysis is presented in the ‘Homelessness Assessments 2023-2024’ section (page 63) in the appendices of the two unitary proposal.

The new unitaries will both be designated as Highways Authorities. They will inherit a share of over 3,000 miles of public highways that is currently managed by ÄûÃʵ¼°¹. Under three unitary authorities there would be large variances in miles of road inherited, for example the proposed western unitary would inherit 1,317 miles whilst the proposed northern unitary would inherit only 598 miles. However, under two unitary authorities, East ÄûÃʵ¼°¹ would inherit 1,355 miles and West ÄûÃʵ¼°¹ would inherit 1,666 miles. While this does not factor in the current backlog of maintenance, it is a long-term predictor of maintenance requirement. Full analysis is presented in the ‘Highways maintenance’ section (page 85) in the appendices of the two unitary proposal.

Council finances

Analysis shows that the three unitary option is the least favourable financially, with midpoint modelling estimating an ongoing annual net additional cost of £16 million. Due to the lower savings and higher costs estimated for the creation of three unitaries, the cumulative cashflow position is also significantly less favourable, with an additional cost at midpoint of £229 million.

In contrast, two unitary councils are estimated to save money on the current two-tier arrangements, delivering ongoing net annual benefits of £23 million at midpoint and a cumulative net cash benefit after seven years of £22 million at midpoint.

Three unitary councils would also have decreased contract buying power and a less pronounced say in shaping the market compared to a two unitary model owing to their scale.

More generally, the three unitary model will be vulnerable to financial shocks and will be financially unsustainable. Recent history in ÄûÃʵ¼°¹ shows smaller organisations can be less financially sustainable and the size of the unitaries in a three unitary scenario is not sufficient to achieve financial resilience or economies of scale to optimise efficiency or best value delivery of services.

Transition costs

Transition costs in the main will need to be found by the ÄûÃʵ¼°¹ local authorities, given the very low government funding received. This will be an unbudgeted pressure.

We are also assuming Council Tax income above current MTFS assumptions if increases are at the maximum. However, this will ultimately be for the new unitaries to decide.

Given the collective financial challenges faced across local government in ÄûÃʵ¼°¹ including increasing service delivery pressures, high levels of unsustainable debt for some authorities and the impact of Fair Funding reforms, three unitary councils will provide less financial resilience to manage the transition costs of LGR in ÄûÃʵ¼°¹ adversely impacting on the ability to implement LGR effectively and on the wider financial sustainability of the new unitary authorities.

Conversely, while funding transition costs will still present a challenge for two unitaries, which is why the two unitary proposal requested a material level of funding from government in its final submission, this model will provide greater resilience for manging these costs and enabling more effective implementation of LGR.

Future services transformation opportunities identified

Transformation benefits will take longer to realise as they are more reliant on changes to be delivered after the new unitaries go live. However, these opportunities include wider workforce and reduction in non-staffing expenditure savings beyond the lower level of initial savings achieved through reorganisation alone, reduction in property revenue costs through consolidating ÄûÃʵ¼°¹’s existing local authority operational estate, and a modest increase proposed for sales, fees and charges income.

A three unitary model is estimated to have potential to deliver £30 million at midpoint of transformation savings per year.  A two unitary model offers greater potential for savings, primarily due to consolidation with greater economies of scale. We estimate two unitaries has the potential to deliver £42 million at midpoint of transformation savings per year. The fact that knowledge and expertise to deliver the changes necessary to achieve savings and improve services will be more concentrated in two rather than three areas in a two unitary model will also improve the likelihood of higher level of savings being achieved.

ÄûÃʵ¼°¹’s LGR will be taking place in the context of existing significant financial challenges. This includes continued increasing demand for vital services and cost pressures resulting in forecast budget gaps across all ÄûÃʵ¼°¹ local authorities in the medium term.

This is further exacerbated by the ongoing financial pressures faced by local authorities, which highlight the importance of ensuring that LGR creates councils that are financially sustainable in the long term and well-positioned to manage future financial shocks. The proposal submitted by ÄûÃʵ¼°¹, Elmbridge Borough Council and Mole Valley District Council clearly sets out that any new unitary authorities would face ongoing and significant financial challenges, irrespective of whether a two- or three-unitary model were adopted.

The ability to cope with these financial pressures exists in all models, although the two unitary model is more viable than the three unitary model when looking at future financial sustainability.

With this context in mind, our view is the government needs to provide support in two areas to avoid the need for immediate Exceptional Financial Support for at least one of the new unitaries:

• to write off the existing stranded debt that the new unitaries would inherit from Woking, and
• for government to provide adequate funding to cover the material level of ÄûÃʵ¼°¹’s LGR implementation costs (estimated at c£85 million for two unitaries and increasing for three), to limit the need for reserves across ÄûÃʵ¼°¹’s local authorities to be used to fund these costs so reserves can be maintained to support future sustainability.

An annual budget gap of £263 million collectively across all local authorities in ÄûÃʵ¼°¹ is currently estimated by the end of 2029/30. An additional budget gap of £151 million is estimated for Woking Borough Council in this period, primarily driven by the very high level of costs for servicing Woking’s stranded debt related to historic commercial activities.

A three unitary proposal is likely to cost more than the current local authorities in ÄûÃʵ¼°¹, principally due to costs of disaggregating county council services across three new unitary authorities. A two unitary proposal is modelled to deliver a net financial return to help contribute towards the significant financial challenges faced by local government in ÄûÃʵ¼°¹ and offers greater potential for financial sustainability in the longer term.

However, the two unitary final proposal demonstrated that, even when both the modelled LGR benefits for two unitaries and potential additional Council Tax income, assuming maximum increases per year, are factored in, the annual budget challenge for the new authorities by 2029/30 is still in excess of £260 million.

Without further assistance from the government, the LGR proposals alone will not put local government in the area as a whole on a firmer footing. This is further exacerbated by the prospect of significant expected funding reductions as a result of the government’s Fair Funding Reforms.

Our evidence has shown that the three unitary proposal is not the most suitable option to deliver high quality and sustainable public services for our residents.

Service demand split and fragmentation of services

Our analysis shows that the three unitary model will result in an uneven split in population, age and demographics which are likely to result in uneven future demand pressures in each of the proposed geographies. Full analysis is presented in the ‘Population size by broad age bands’ section (page 56) in the appendices of the two unitary proposal.

The three unitary model is likely to result in the least equitable split of total households across the proposed authorities. This could impact on a variety of service demands, such as kerbside waste collection. There are also considerable variations in the percentage split of social rented households and privately rented households. Areas with lower numbers of these households are likely to have greater affluence and generally lower need for certain services compared to areas with higher numbers of social rented households. As such this would likely lead to uneven splits in service demand experienced by the new unitary councils. Full analysis is presented in the ‘Number of households by tenure type’ section (page 62) in the appendices of the two unitary proposal.

Delivering high quality social care services

Integration of services currently held across the upper and lower tier will add value within Children’s Services as alignment of services such as Leisure, Early Help and Housing, should lead to an enhanced preventative early help offer to families, closer to their communities.

However, the disaggregation of adults and children's social care presents significant risks to service delivery. The least amount of disaggregation reduces that risk, costs less and provides greater continuity of social care delivery – making the three unitary proposal more costly and riskier when compared to the two unitary model.

The three unitary proposal makes assumptions that County Council social care services are configured locally and therefore can be easily disaggregated into the three proposed geographies. This overlooks the way in which these services are actually run with many significant county-wide elements that would need to be disaggregated.

In an attempt to mitigate some of the disaggregation risks, the three unitary plan sets out different service models for upper-tier services but provides no evidence of any engagement with these services to assess the viability of the different models. Instead, the plan simply sets out factual descriptions of different models without a critical appraisal. The suggestion of a shared delivery model for adults and children’s care services is not adequately evidenced and does not explain how it would work, how any issues around governance would be managed, or recognise the fact the councils each need to appoint to their own statutory roles and retain clear sovereign accountability for decision-making.

Unlike the two unitary proposal, modelling for a three unitary model shows there is a weaker correlation between estimated social care demands against council tax income and social care funding in each new authority area which will impact the quality of social care service delivery in those areas and put those authorities at greater financial risk.

Housing and homelessness services

Aligning Housing, Planning, and Adult Social Care will enable the new councils to deliver more tailored housing solutions for older adults, people with disabilities, and young people transitioning to Adult Social Care – such as homes with technology enabled care services and preventative features that promote independence.

This joined-up approach should help accelerate the delivery of specialist housing, building on ÄûÃʵ¼°¹’s Right Homes, Right Support strategy, and significantly improve quality of life for those with long-term conditions.

However, the three unitary councils operating within smaller geographical areas would face greater difficulties in identifying suitable sites for future housing development and in overcoming delivery constraints. There may also be issues in commissioning if more councils are competing for the same suppliers, with making adaptations to housing to support independent living – for example.

Public service reform opportunities

ÄûÃʵ¼°¹ Heartlands and ÄûÃʵ¼°¹ Police are looking to reorganise their service delivery along the same geography as the two unitary proposal which would create co-terminosity of key public services and enable better joint working and public service reform across the area.

The two unitary proposal for Neighbourhood Area Committees (referred to as Community Boards in the final proposal) will also offer an opportunity for stronger relationships between residents and local public services to support public service reform at a neighbourhood level. Partners from the health and voluntary, community and social enterprise (VCSE) sector are working with us to help pilot these Committees using a ‘test, learn and grow’ approach.

The three unitary proposal would create a local authority footprint that is not aligned with the delivery footprints of the NHS and ÄûÃʵ¼°¹ Police, preventing these public services from realising the benefits of better joint working and public service reform longer term.

This was a key reason behind why the ÄûÃʵ¼°¹ Fire and Rescue Service, NHS ÄûÃʵ¼°¹ Heartlands ICS, the Police and Crime Commissioner and ÄûÃʵ¼°¹ Police all endorsed the two unitary proposal rather than the three unitary proposal.

As part of the LGR proposal development, the 12 local authorities across ÄûÃʵ¼°¹ engaged with residents through various mediums including surveys, social media and in person events, ensuring residents were kept informed and able to contribute their views and priorities for LGR.

Resident engagement

The three unitary proposal references a series of resident engagement activities and claims a 3:1 ratio for resident support for three unitaries from this. Whilst there were 3,300 responses to the survey, the proposal does not confirm that the methodology used produced results that could be described as representative of the population’s views. It is therefore misleading to claim this is what wider residents across the county want.

To engage on and inform the two unitary proposal, meaningful engagement was carried out both in person and online which helped to shape the plan. This included an online panel survey, in person library events and social media engagement. The online panel survey took place early in the LGR process, between 12 and 26 February 2025, when ÄûÃʵ¼°¹ received a response from 576 residents on their preferred outcomes on LGR. The responses regarding preferred number of unitaries across ÄûÃʵ¼°¹ showed no clear preference, with a third agreeing or strongly agreeing with both three and one unitary authorities, compared to 25% for two. The overall data lacked consensus with 40% disagreeing or strongly disagreeing with both two and three unitaries. Regarding what outcomes residents would most like to see resulting from LGR, the research found that residents care most about:

• Better value for money when delivering services (60%)
• Clearer accountability (45%)
• A more financially resilient council (37%)

As we have demonstrated in responses to other questions, the three unitary model is not the best geography to enable any of these outcomes to be realised, thereby going against the priorities voiced by residents.

Partner engagement

The three unitary proposal references resident engagement but does not evidence endorsement from key strategic partners.

The two unitary proposal was jointly submitted by ÄûÃʵ¼°¹, Mole Valley District Council and Elmbridge Borough Council and following extensive engagement with key strategic partners during the development phase, the plan was endorsed by partners including the Community Foundation for ÄûÃʵ¼°¹, Luminus (home of Healthwatch ÄûÃʵ¼°¹), ÄûÃʵ¼°¹ Fire and Rescue, ÄûÃʵ¼°¹ Heartlands Integrated Care System, ÄûÃʵ¼°¹ Minority Ethnic Forum, ÄûÃʵ¼°¹ Police and the Police and Crime Commissioner for ÄûÃʵ¼°¹.

Local identity

ÄûÃʵ¼°¹’s geography, reflecting its history, is one of multiple towns and villages which are typically the “real places” that people identify with, over and above any administrative boundaries. As such, any proposal for unitarisation will need to be underpinned by a robust community engagement model that aligns closely with local identify and priorities. Our view is unitary local government needs to work at greater scale to have the financial resilience to sustain strong community engagement needs to be in place for building trust with residents. More information on this can be found in response to question 8.

The three unitary proposal claims its new unitary structure “represents an appropriate balance, well-tailored to local circumstance”. However, those authorities will still have some degree of remoteness from the communities they serve, so will need strengthened community engagement models to build relationships with residents and respond to local priorities.

The proposal to create more parish and town councils across ÄûÃʵ¼°¹ does not go far enough in laying the groundwork for the more radical reform that is needed to make local public services more responsive to the needs of local communities. The Neighbourhood Area Committees in the two unitary proposal are intended to pilot a model that seeks to further public sector reforms in ÄûÃʵ¼°¹.

Both proposals submitted enable the creation of a Strategic Authority across ÄûÃʵ¼°¹ which, with an elected Mayor, would bring devolved powers and responsibilities for local transport, infrastructure, housing, planning, skills, economic growth and climate change, in addition to control of devolved funding streams and income generation levers, to a local level.

A Strategic Authority footprint across the current ÄûÃʵ¼°¹ County footprint will enable better alignment of key public sector services. The Police and Crime Commissioner functions and Fire and Rescue Authority functions will sit with the Mayor as the service and SA boundaries would align. Furthermore, the Mayor will have a statutory health improvement and health inequalities duty and a role in the Integrated Care Board and in the Health and Wellbeing Board.

In the three unitary model this strategic alignment would be underpinned by a fractured delivery footprint where health, public safety and local authority delivery is mis-aligned, hindering strong partnership working and reform. The two unitary proposal would allow for both service delivery alignment, and strategic alignment of these key services, creating a much stronger local public sector landscape.

Due to its history, ÄûÃʵ¼°¹ is naturally polycentric. Towns and villages are the places that people identify with rather than any administrative boundaries. They are therefore the key building blocks at which practical outcomes can be delivered for residents at a local level, through an enhanced community engagement model, which is a key element of the two unitary proposal. In the final plan submitted by ÄûÃʵ¼°¹, Elmbridge Borough Council and Mole Valley District Council the model centred around Community Boards, which we have since begun piloting under the name of Neighbourhood Area Committees.

Community engagement models

The three unitary proposal refers to Community Boards as “traditional” structures for engagement but advocates for a greater role for town and parish councils which are also well-established mechanisms. It goes on to claim that under their model, communities would be engaged at an appropriate scale, reducing cost to the public purse. However, this isn’t evidenced, and the proposed geography would likely need three separate community engagement structures across each new geography, adding complexity and cost to the partnership landscape.

ÄûÃʵ¼°¹, Elmbridge Borough Council and Mole Valley District Council are building on existing work in towns and villages to grow participation and engagement by piloting new Neighbourhood Area Committees (NACs). ÄûÃʵ¼°¹ are also working on a pilot with Tandridge District Council. We hope to see these NACs underpin the new unitary configuration for robust and locally led community engagement. The three unitary model, with its lower financial resilience and uneven divide in tax base, service demand and demographics, may not have the resources or capacity to embed and support the delivery of a robust NAC model, resulting in differing experiences of community engagement by residents in different parts of ÄûÃʵ¼°¹.

Smaller geographies do not equal better community engagement

A central pillar of the three unitary proposal is the assumption that smaller councils are better at engaging residents. Although a three unitary model will cover slightly smaller populations per authority than a two unitary model would, it is unlikely that this factor alone will have any significant impact on the councils’ abilities to delivery genuine neighbourhood empowerment.

A council covering a population of 450,000 is unlikely to feel more local at the neighbourhood level than a council covering 550,000. Rather it will be about the council’s ability to prioritise and support the development of NACs (or equivalent) at a level that is meaningful to residents.

Many of the methods for community engagement put forward in the three unitary proposal are very costly to implement, and smaller authorities with lower budgets would have less ability to fund these activities. For example, the case study on Participatory Budgeting on page 98 is effective for getting informed resident views on making financial efficiencies for council budgets, but is very costly in terms of enlisting residents to participate, and would require significant investment of money and staff time to make it work. This is backed up by Involve, a registered charity committed to strengthening public participation in democracy1. Two unitary councils are more likely to have the scale and financial ability to deliver on more systematic, innovative engagement with residents.

The three unitary proposal also makes reference to NHS neighbourhood teams – citing a perceived disparity in the scale between two large unitary councils and these teams hampering cooperation – this overlooks that current successful arrangements between the (larger) county council and NHS neighbourhood teams already exist. The recently announced NHS 10-year plan also offers an opportunity to build on these arrangements with a strong emphasis on neighbourhood health planning to ensure integrated, locally tailored care that addresses health inequalities. The Neighbourhood Area Committees put forward by the two unitary proposal will support this by bringing the right partners together to make local health planning more effective.

The process of LGR should, as a priority, unlock devolution for the county, enabling the transition of significant powers and funding from central government to the local level to deliver more effectively in line with local priorities. To create a Mayoral Strategic Authority on a ÄûÃʵ¼°¹ footprint, we have had to explore the creation of two or more unitary councils, ruling out a single unitary authority for ÄûÃʵ¼°¹ under the current guidance.

With the two unitary model standing up favourably against the government’s criteria and the priorities for a robust and sustainable local government structure, we feel that the proposed geography of two new councils: East ÄûÃʵ¼°¹ and West ÄûÃʵ¼°¹, is a better option when compared to the three unitary proposal.

East ÄûÃʵ¼°¹ and West ÄûÃʵ¼°¹ will be equipped to provide enhanced service delivery achieved through the integration of services currently divided between county and district and borough councils, leading to more cohesive and efficient operations. This integration will particularly benefit critical areas such as Housing and Waste Management.

Financial sustainability is an important consideration in this process. A two unitary model is projected to deliver financial savings through economies of scale, reduced duplication, and more effective use of resources. These savings will be crucial in going towards addressing budget gaps. It should therefore be a key deciding factor that the three unitary model is not projected to deliver any financial savings and instead will have a net cost, putting the sector on worse financial footing.

Our proposed approach to stronger community engagement, included in the two unitary proposal, emphasises the importance of local engagement and empowerment. By establishing Neighbourhood Area Committees and enhancing local partnership working, residents will have a clearer voice in decision-making processes, fostering greater accountability and responsiveness.

In order to ensure a safe, legal and stable transition to unitary local government in ÄûÃʵ¼°¹, government must ensure the right transitionary governance is in place. Precedent in prior reorganisations indicates that this will likely take the form of Joint Committees, although it is noted that in places such as Cumbria there was limited county representation on these. County councils shoulder the statutory and operational responsibilities for services such as Adult Social Care and Children’s Services which comprise the majority of county council budgets. District and borough councils, while key partners, do not deliver these functions and should not disproportionately shape their future delivery models. It is both proportionate and necessary that Joint Committees and associated transitionary arrangements, reflect county councils’ scale of risk and depth of expertise to support a safe and legal transition.

In addition, we would welcome early engagement with Government on Section 24 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007, to help ensure new unitary authorities are not left with disproportionate financial liabilities.