To receive any motions submitted in accordance with Procedure Rule 12.1.
The Motion set out below is proposed by the Leader of the Council, Cllr John Ward, and seconded by the Deputy Leader, Cllr Paul Follows.
The Leader of the Principal Opposition Group, Cllr Julia Potts, has confirmed her support for the Motion, and for it being included on the agenda for Full Council.
The Mayor has agreed to accept this Motion for debate at Full Council although it was received after the deadline for receipt of Motions.
The Government has announced its intention to publish a Recovery and Devolution white paper in the autumn and the question of the shape and structure of local government in Surrey is being actively discussed by the County Council and others.
The Motion reads as follows:
“This Council opposes a single Surrey-wide Unitary Authority;
This Council recognises principles of localism many of which are incompatible with a single unitary authority within Surrey, therefore Council, instructs the Executive to urgently investigate alternative forms of Unitary Authorities and the timing of any such reorganisation that may be more advantageous to Waverley and its residents, including any opportunities with neighbouring Counties.”
Minutes:
29.1 The Mayor informed Members and members of the public that the Motion to be debated had been received after the normal deadline for receipt of written Motions. However, in view of the timing of the statement from Surrey County Council, and with the agreement of the Leader of the Principal Opposition Group, she had felt it important to accept the Motion and enable a debate.
29.2 The Leader began his introduction by reading the text of the Motion:
“This Council opposes a single Surrey-wide Unitary Authority;
This Council recognises principles of localism many of which are incompatible with a single unitary authority within Surrey, therefore Council, instructs the Executive to urgently investigate alternative forms of Unitary Authorities and the timing of any such reorganisation that may be more advantageous to Waverley and its residents, including any opportunities with neighbouring Counties.”
The Motion was seconded by Cllr Paul Follows. The Leader requested that a recorded vote be taken on the Motion, which was supported by the Executive including Cllr Follows, Cllr Beaman, Cllr Clark, Cllr Merryweather, and Cllr MacLeod.
29.3 The Leader reminded Members of the backdrop to government’s launch of the biggest reorganisation of local government for 50 years – the ongoing global pandemic, imminent worldwide recession, and the UK about to leave the EU potentially without a trade deal. The recently announced White Paper on Devolution and Recovery trailed Combined Authorities and directly elected mayors as the way forward. Whilst there was some enthusiasm for streamlining by abolishing one tier of local government, replacing this with directly elected mayors with their attendant bureaucracy and costs did not seem logical. The Leader thanked the Leader of the Opposition for her co-operation in supporting this urgent Motion to Council, to give Members the opportunity to voice their views on unitary councils in general, and on the recent proposal by Surrey County Council to establish a Surrey-wide unitary council. There had been strong rumours for some time that counties would attempt to centralize power in this way, and the recent actions suggested a degree of coordination from above. There were also strong rumours that the government would attempt to abandon the county council elections due next year in order to facilitate this. It was important not to allow residents to be disenfranchised in this manner.
29.4 The Leader of Surrey County Council had written to the Secretary of State asking that Surrey be formally requested to apply to become a single mega-unitary authority by abolishing all of the current eleven boroughs and districts and seizing their powers. The letter did not refer to there being consensus on the proposal, without which the government had indicated proposals would not be pursued. In fact, all eleven Leaders of the Surrey boroughs had expressed their united opposition to the Surrey single unitary proposal. The efficient formation of unitary councils depended on three factors: their size, their location, and their quality. In other words, their ability to perform their functions efficiently and to the advantage of their residents. There were currently 56 non-metropolitan unitary authorities in England ranging in size from one serving about 40 000 people to the largest serving about half a million, but with an average of about 250 000 residents each. In stark contrast to this, Surrey proposed that they should centrally govern all of the county's 1.2 million people. Based on the government's expected size of 300 to 400 000 people it should be possible to do better than this for instance by splitting Surrey into three or four more effective locally based unitary authorities with properly devolved powers and offices situated in the area they serve.
29.5 The Surrey proposal failed to meet local aspirations both on the grounds of size and location. There were numerous ways to improve efficiency whilst keeping administration close to the people being represented. The proposal from Surrey for more centralization was the very reverse of the principle of devolution, the supposed subject of the forthcoming White Paper.
29.6 The Deputy Leader, Cllr Paul Follows, welcomed the constructive dialogue between the administration and the opposition over recent days that had enabled this Motion to come forward, and which would empower the Executive to continue these discussions in greater depth. The Liberal Democrat Group was strongly opposed to the proposal by Surrey County Council for a single Surrey unitary authority. However, they did not rule out the general concept of unitary authorities, and would give qualified support to multiple smaller unitary authorities that could include components internal or external to Surrey.
29.7 The fundamental elements missing from the matter so far were courtesy, consultation, communication and consensus. Surrey County Council, and in particular its Leader, had proceeded without consultation with the Boroughs and Districts, or with residents; they had not communicated with anyone outside a small group of Surrey County Councillors and Surrey MPs; and there was clearly no consensus other than in opposition to the proposal. The idea of pursuing controversial and complicated local government reform at this time was at best frivolous and at worst, dangerous.
29.8 A single unitary authority of over 1.2 million people was antithetical to localism; Surrey would be monolithic and unaccountable. The proposals also included an elected mayor which added cost and diluted accountability. If realized it would also be the largest such authority not just in the UK but in northern Europe. This proposed new authority would somehow need to work with residents from Haslemere to Egham in one direction, and Farnham to Oxted in the other, and all points in between. The Covid period had reinforced the real and persistent value of local knowledge and local response in our communities. This proposed centralised authority would encompass planning, highways, children's services, social care, and much more; and any thought that planning matters might devolve to Towns and Parishes was simply naïve
29.9 Cllr Julia Potts, Leader of the Principal Opposition Group echoed the introduction from Cllr Ward and welcomed the cross-party discussions that had taken place over recent days and the opportunity for the discussion at Full Council. Cllr Potts emphasised that this was a free vote for Conservative Group Members. Ultimately, this was about what was right for residents. There was no denying that 50 years on from the last major re-structure of local government there was a need to look at a new system that reflected the needs of residents. But that did not mean any process should be rushed, and it should involve dialogue and ensure all options are explored. At the moment information was very scarce, and the heart of the motion before Members was that need for the Executive to explore every option and report back to Council and enable informed decisions.
29.10 Many Members spoke in support of the Motion. In addition to the principle points articulated by the Leader, Deputy Leader and Opposition Leader, Members commented on:
· The uncertainty of genuine savings being made through creation of a single Surrey unitary.
· The need for proportional representation to give a reasonable balance of opinion across larger areas with larger individual electoral wards.
· Consideration being given to enabling natural communities that crossed country boundaries with Hampshire and West Sussex.
· A possible north-south Surrey unitary split along the A25 corridor reflecting Surrey’s more urban north and more rural south.
· The need to respond swiftly to Surrey County Council’s proposals and to consider all options.
· The potential for larger town councils to take on more devolved responsibilities and really empower local communities.
29.11 Cllr Cosser and Cllr Peter Martin expressed reservations about supporting the motion that explicitly ruled out the option of a single Surrey unitary authority. Both Members felt that this had to be one of the options to be explored in order to come to a fully informed decision on the best option for Waverley residents.
29.12 In summing up, the Leader thanked Members for their comments and support. He reiterated his concern at the speed with which Surrey County Council was moving forward, and taking the least complex option for them to progress without considering what was best for Surrey residents. The Borough and District Leaders were discussing a joint working group to develop a response and the Motion would give the Executive to explore options with the other Surrey authorities.
29.13 Council RESOLVED to agree the following Motion, which was proposed by the Leader, Cllr John Ward, and seconded by the Deputy Leader, Cllr Paul Follows:
“This Council opposes a single Surrey-wide Unitary Authority;
This Council recognises principles of localism many of which are incompatible with a single unitary authority within Surrey, therefore Council, instructs the Executive to urgently investigate alternative forms of Unitary Authorities and the timing of any such reorganisation that may be more advantageous to Waverley and its residents, including any opportunities with neighbouring Counties.”
In accordance with PR 17, a recorded vote was taken:
For the Motion: 51
Cllrs Christine Baker, David Beaman, Roger Blishen, Peter Clark, Carole Cockburn, Richard Cole, Martin D’Arcy, Jerome Davidson, Kevin Deanus, Simon Dear, Sally Dickson, Brian Edmonds, Patricia Ellis, David Else, Jenny Else, Jan Floyd-Douglass, Paul Follows, Mary Foryszewski, Maxine Gale, Michael Goodridge, John Gray, Joan Heagin, Val Henry, George Hesse, Daniel Hunt, Jerry Hyman, Peter Isherwood, Jacquie Keen, Robert Knowles, Anna James, Andy MacLeod, Penny Marriott, Peter Marriott, Michaela Martin, Mark Merryweather, Stephen Mulliner, John Neale, Peter Nicholson, Nick Palmer, Julia Potts, Ruth Reed, Paul Rivers, Penny Rivers, John Robini, Anne-Marie Rosoman, Trevor Sadler, Richard Seaborne, Liz Townsend, John Ward, Steve Williams, and George Wilson
Against the Motion: 0
Abstentions: 2
Cllrs Steve Cosser and Peter Martin