Written by the Centre for Britain and Europe team collaboratively, in response to the Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) decision for Surrey. The team includes Professor Amelia Hadfield, Vassilis Karokis-Mavrikos, Maya Chew, Margaryta Khovostova and Megan Ward.
On the 20th of October 2020, the Mayor of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority, Andy Burnham, held a press conference to publicly condemn the Johnson government’s imposition of Tier 3 restrictions on the city-region, as well as its decision to withdraw from negotiations on a poverty alleviation package. For keen observers, this non-traditional power play offered an early glimpse into the vision behind the current Local Government Reorganisation (LGR). Ironically, the Johnson government – then on the receiving end of Burnham’s “stick” – can itself be credited with popularising the notion of “Levelling Up,” which helped bring devolution back onto the government agenda. Under the current Labour government, LGR has been formalised through the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill and the shift from two-tier areas to unitary councils has been defined as the first step towards the establishment of “Strategic Authorities” across the UK.
Indeed, this was emphasised in two government letters to Surrey – one dated 5th of February 2025, urging local leaders to submit plans for LGR, and another dated 28th of October, announcing the government’s decision to proceed with the creation of “two new unitary councils in Surrey – East Surrey Council and West Surrey Council”. This option was supported by Elmbridge Borough Council, Mole Valley District Council, and Surrey County Council, but opposed by Epsom and Ewell Borough Council, Guildford Borough Council, Reigate and Banstead Borough Council, Runnymede Borough Council, Spelthorne Borough Council, Surrey Heath Borough Council, Waverley Borough Council, Woking Borough Council, and Tandridge District Council. As of April 2027, all of the previously mentioned local government bodies will cease to exist and will be replaced by the two new unitary authorities.
Positives
The move towards two new unitary authorities aligns with the government’s vision for local government bodies covering populations of “500,000 or more”.
Economies of Scale: As in other parts of the country, this shift to larger, more encompassing statutory bodies is motivated by considerations of economies of scale. By pooling tax bases and staff, the new councils should be able to reduce overheads and eliminate duplicated functions across departments. In short, the larger authorities are expected to deliver comparable services across their areas at lower cost and with greater financial resilience. To support the transition, the government also agreed to clear £500 million of Woking’s debt ahead of the merger.
Improved capacity for service delivery: Each new council will inherit the combined expertise of multiple existing authorities, bringing together more specialist staff across key service areas. In practice, this should result in more unified planning and less duplication of functions between the county and borough layers. Such consolidation is expected to accelerate decision-making and enable Surrey to invest in improved technology and strategic planning capacity across the board. Moreover, as noted by police and fire and rescue bodies in the government’s public consultation on the reform, the proposed East/West split aligns with existing emergency service command areas, further supporting administrative efficiency.
Housing and planning flexibility: Surrey faces mounting housing demand alongside growing pressure on its green belt. A two-council model offers greater flexibility to meet development targets while safeguarding environmentally sensitive land. The proposed East/West Surrey structure allows housing growth to be concentrated in areas with stronger infrastructure capacity, thereby reducing pressure on the green belt and preserving local character where possible.
Challenges and Risks
Local identity and representation: The creation of the new mega-councils poses risks for local democracy. In the government’s public consultation, only 19% of Surrey residents supported the two-council plan, while 58% considered it “too large” and detrimental to local identity and accountability. Proponents of the three-council option warned early on that an East/West division would produce remote and disconnected authorities, undermining local knowledge and weakening community-based economies. To mitigate such risks, both central and local government have placed growing emphasis on the establishment and expansion of Neighbourhood Area Committees – bodies bringing together local councillors, police, health, and voluntary groups to advise the new unitary councils.
VCSE Sector: Concerns around responsiveness and collaboration between the new local government bodies and the community level extend prominently to the Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise (VCSE) Sector. Recent CBE research, in partnership with Surrey Community Action, has highlighted the instrumental role of VCSE organisations in supporting Surrey residents and contributing to public service delivery, especially during periods of austerity and disruptive crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Strong partnership with local government is essential to the VCSE sector’s growth and effectiveness, and the new local government model should ensure that community organisations are well supported to continue fulfilling their mission of serving Surrey’s communities.
Flood risks and climate resilience: The reorganisation of Surrey’s councils comes at a time when much of the county faces serious and escalating flood risks. Climate change is already placing unprecedented pressure on Surrey’s rivers, including the Thames, Wey and Mole, which in recent years have burst their banks with devastating consequences. An estimated 25,000 properties are currently at risk, a figure expected to double over the next 25 years. Yet as attention shifts toward implementing the two new unitary councils and managing the shadow authority period, there is concern that vital local flood-prevention and resilience measures could be sidelined. To counter this, both East and West Surrey councils will need to ensure that robust, locally informed flood strategies remain central to their climate and infrastructure agendas, safeguarding vulnerable communities and sustaining public trust in the new governance model.
Debt and fiscal pressures: Combining councils also combines their debts. Across Surrey, local authorities collectively hold around £5 billion in liabilities, much of it concentrated in councils such as Woking (£2.1 billion), Spelthorne (£1 billion), and Runnymede (£0.6 billion). The government has already committed to clearing £500 million of Woking’s debt as part of the reorganisation, but the long-term management of the remaining liabilities remains uncertain. Without careful oversight, these inherited debts could constrain future budgets and delay planned service improvements.
Exacerbated East-West polarisation: The creation of two unitary councils, risks entrenching inequalities if resources do not track need. East Surrey is generally more rural, with thinner transport and community infrastructure, while West Surrey contains several economic clusters (e.g., universities and advanced manufacturing/ICT). CBE’s 2024 report had already noted the issue of sectoral concentration in the West. And while Surrey is affluent overall, deprivation is concentrated in specific neighbourhoods across both East and West. Targeting should therefore be area-based rather than council-wide.
Investment perception risk: The CBE’s inward-investment review highlighted that fragmented place narratives and perceptions of an East/West divide will muddy Surrey’s business offering, thereby weakening investor confidence. Although it remains unclear whether the current Business Surrey service provided by the Surrey County Council will continue, creating competing East Surrey and West Surrey sub-brands would send mixed messages and risk fuelling local rivalries that undermine inward investment and growth.
Short-Term Priorities
Following the government’s announcement, a race against time has begun to prepare for the formal introduction of the new system in April 2027.
Key priorities include:
Transition Committees and Elections: Elections are expected in May 2026, with the new councils operating in “shadow” form for a year before officially taking over in April 2027. This means forming joint transition committees now to align budgets, harmonize systems and draft new by-laws. Clear timetables should be set for each service area so that by 2027 local government functions can continue seamlessly under the new council
Budgeting and financial arrangements: The new East and West councils need agreed 2027-28 budgets, factoring in how much debt service they will carry. Short‑term teams should finalize council-tax levels, business-rate sharing and reserve allocations so that each new council starts with a sound financial plan. Contingency funds will also be needed for transition costs.
Service continuity: It is critical that day‑to‑day services remain unaffected. Handover schedules should be prepared for key services and joint service boards, or continuity teams should maintain collaboration in the early stages of the transition. Planning must avoid lapses in support for residents during the changeover.
Community and stakeholder engagement: It is vital to keep citizens informed and involved. Policymakers at both the central and local level should consistently explain changes to local communities and provide updates on the implementation timeline. Engaging NHS, emergency services, VCSE and business partners early is also crucial to coordinate across services. Maintaining high transparency now will build trust for the new system later.
Long-Term? Surrey as a Mayoral Strategic Authority and Place-based Governance in Practice
But why all the bother? Aligned with the government’s wider devolution objectives, Surrey’s future holds the promise of a Mayoral Strategic Authority. Under the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, Mayoral Strategic Authorities combine the mayor’s general “powers of competence” with statutory control over key functions spanning transport, housing, skills, economic development, public safety, and health improvement. In practice, this model aims to replace fragmented decision-making with a single accountable institution capable of strategic investment and multi-level collaboration.
For Surrey, this can mean moving towards a place-based governance system where coordination between the councils, the mayor, and local stakeholders – business, health, education, and the VCSE sector – responds to local needs with greater timeliness and greater executive autonomy. It can mean regional empowerment, prioritising local community needs and taking into account local particularities – much like Greater Manchester’s “rebellion” against the central government’s one-size-fits-all approach in 2020. Yet without the right approach, it can also mean eroding the people-first character that has long made local government vital to community life in the county.
During such a transition, both in the short and long term, universities can and should play an essential role as knowledge anchors. Universities hold a unique civic duty within the communities they serve, supporting local economic growth, developing key skills for residents, creating vibrant and attractive places, and responding to local needs through their research and engagement. The University of Surrey is the largest single organisation in Guildford Borough and operates both through and for the Surrey communities. As such, shaping the future of devolution to truly serve local needs will depend on leveraging the multidisciplinary expertise of Surrey’s universities, and turning knowledge into impactful governance improvements.
At the CBE, we proudly see ourselves as citizen-scientists – rooted in our communities and driven by the responsibility to connect research with impact. Amidst times of uncertainty, we remain committed to helping bring the voices of Surrey’s communities into local government policymaking at every step.
The road ahead for Surrey is one of opportunity, but also of complexity and risk. If inclusiveness, transparency, responsiveness, and strategic foresight guide each step of this journey, the future can indeed be a bright one.
