Navigating Surrey's Local Government Reorganisation: Balancing Planning and Governance Challenges
- Rowan Cole
- Sep 29
- 4 min read
Updated: Oct 14
The government’s pledge to deliver 1.5 million homes in England by 2029 was ambitious from the outset. When Angela Rayner reiterated this commitment at UKREiiF, it became clear that achieving it would be very difficult. Now, as Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) unfolds in Surrey, the risks to meeting that target have become even more apparent. This is not just theory; the real-world consequences of LGR are already creating new challenges that could delay planning approvals and, therefore, housing delivery unless the transition is carefully managed.
The Challenge of Timelines
The timetable is extremely tight. Creating two or three new unitary councils from 11 districts and one county council, serving a population of 1.25 million with a combined budget of billions, by April 2027 is an enormous undertaking. Optimism in Whitehall about swift reform overlooks the realities on the ground. Structural change of this scale rarely runs smoothly, and political events in Westminster will inevitably shift ministerial focus.
The Need for Reform
Yet, reform is overdue. Ever since my time as a Councillor in Surrey, I have supported the principle of unitary authorities. Few could argue that 12 separate councils, each with its own development policies, represent the most effective model. Boroughs around the M25 face common pressures around growth and transport, while the south of the county is more rural. The real debate is whether boundaries will reflect geography and community identity or whether short-term financial crises, such as Woking’s £1.9 billion debt, will dictate the future.
Woking’s Warning: Governance or Financial Struggles?
Woking Borough Council’s £1.9 billion debt forced government intervention in 2023. Its financial collapse has shaped the LGR debate, raising fears that short-term fiscal crises may drive long-term boundaries. For Surrey residents, this serves as a warning that governance failures in one authority can reshape the entire county.
Risks for Developers
For developers and others with planning ambitions, the risks are tangible. Planning applications are already slowing. Nationally, decisions fell 10% year-on-year to June 2024, while backlogs stood at 108,900 live applications in October (DLUHC, 2024). Recruitment is also a problem. Around 10% of officer posts in larger authorities were vacant in April 2024 (Planning Resource, 2024), and councils facing abolition struggle to attract staff. Councillors may become more cautious, reluctant to approve controversial applications while seeking new seats in reconstituted authorities. After all, would you back an unpopular scheme if your political career depended on re-election when fewer seats are up for grabs?
1.5 Million New Homes: Housing at Stake?
Surrey’s housing need is estimated at 5,000–6,000 homes per year under the government’s standard method. If reorganisation slows decision-making, thousands of homes risk delay. For a government committed to 1.5 million nationally, Surrey alone could account for tens of thousands lost over the course of this parliament.
The Democratic Voice at Risk
The democratic voice also risks dilution. In Dorset and Wiltshire, unitary reform was accompanied by a stronger parish and town council tier (LGA, 2011; Dorset Council, 2021). Surrey’s proposals retain existing parishes but do not create new ones (Surrey Districts’ Proposal, 2025). This leaves large areas, including Woking, Epsom & Ewell, Spelthorne, Runnymede, and Guildford town, without parish coverage (NALC, 2025; Guildford CGR, 2025). The result is a patchwork: villages with a strong local voice sit alongside towns of tens of thousands with none. Community Governance Reviews could address this, but they take at least a year (MHCLG Guidance, 2010). That means the new unitary authorities will begin life with an uneven democratic settlement.
Consultation Compressed: A Legal Challenge?
Surrey’s statutory consultation lasted just seven weeks—shorter than recent reorganisations and far below the twelve weeks allowed in 2007. Compressed timelines risk stakeholders feeling unheard and flaws going untested, leaving a double deficit of weaker representation and reduced legitimacy. It also opens the door for opponents to question the legitimacy of the process, potentially in the courts.
Ensuring Continuity
For housing associations, trusts, regeneration partnerships, and others, the key concern is continuity. Will planning departments and funding decisions grind to a halt as shadow authorities form, or can stability be maintained? Pragmatism will be vital. More lucrative fixed-term officer contracts with options to transition to the new authority, shared caseloads between outgoing and incoming councils, and proactive communication with applicants could all limit disruption.
If managed well, reorganisation should and could bring benefits. Larger councils could deliver more strategic local plans, aligning housing growth with infrastructure and jobs. Streamlined governance should reduce duplication and cost. But these benefits will only materialise if the risks are acknowledged and managed head-on.
The Opportunity Ahead
Surrey’s LGR is an opportunity, but one that comes with high stakes. Without decisive action, the county’s shake-up could delay, rather than deliver, the homes this government has promised, and risk undermining the legitimacy of local governance for years to come.
Do you think LGR will delay the delivery of new housing?
Is Surrey's timetable being rushed through?
Is all of this good or bad for coherent planning?
Comments