Just hours after Surrey County Council’s Cabinet agreed on its preferred options for reorganising local government, An Extraordinary Meeting of ‘Your Waverley’ made a momentous decision.
A decision that could map its future for generations – but only if the Labour Government agrees?
It was a hard, long, and arduous day for Waverley’s two-hatted councillors, who endured over 12/13, often acrimonious hours of debate in Surrey and later in Waverley’s chambers.
Opening the meeting, Mayor John Ward asked councillors to reflect during a moment of silence on the seriousness of their decision-making. He urged them not to say anything their Granny wouldn’t like. It was a vain hope that wasn’t to be fulfilled.
An 11th-hour amendment from Jeremy Hunt’s Lady In Waiting Cllr and Opposition Tory leader Jane Austin put paid to that. Her group’s amendment to seek Surrey County Council’s two Unitary Options would produce more savings with more councils collaborating. This is from a councillor who has constantly criticised and lambasted Waverley’s collaboration with Guildford BC since her arrival at the Towers! You couldn’t make it up. Not all her Tory colleagues supported the amendment but abstained when the amendment was lost.
Later, Cllr Liz Townsend said she had listened to Cllr Austin with incredulity and made a swingeing attack on her stand, which she claimed was not serving Waverley residents’ “localism” interests.
Others cast doubt on the “skewing” of SCC’s figures – a view shared by most borough and district councils across Surrey that have voted for three Unitary Authorities.
The question of the big D then surfaced.
Councillors agreed that none of the options could succeed until there was transparency and a view by the Central Government on how Woking, Spelthorne, and other councils’ debt, including Surrey CC debt, would be managed. Woking alone had debts of £2.2b.
It is well worth watching the Executive Webcast here and listening to Waverley’s Finance Portfolio Holder, Cllr Mark Merryweather, explain in minute detail how Surrey’s accounts have been interpreted to shine a favourable light on the state of its finances. Others raised concerns, including the borough and district councils, of the robustness and evidence base for some of SCC’s financial information.
Surrey has recently thrown another £4.4m into the never-ending bottomless pit of the Brightwells Yard development in Farnham due to the vague asset sales and unaffordable debt concerning its infrastructure.
There has been huge overspending on children’s education and welfare and older people’s services. Some councillors claimed SCC had been failing the county’s residents for years – and it had forgotten and ignored part of the Waverley borough, including its pot-holed roads and unkempt verges.
Waverley criticised “the breakneck speed” of life-changing decisions that should have taken more than three months. Surrey made a decision that would be the first to be tackled by the Government.
The huge reduction proposed for new councillors would lead to “career politicians” covering vast swathes of Surrey. This was not an issue for Opposition leader Austin, who claimed it would be easy for her, who could manage the workload with four children. This from a councillor who, within weeks of arriving at Waverley, sought a parliamentary seat—wanted to resign—and stood for Liverpool South!
Farnham Residents’ Cllr Jerry Hyman said he had significant concerns about the ‘proposed Strategic Mayor’ for the county, and residents wanted much more information on the role and its implications. That individual would sit above whatever Unitary option was chosen and ‘strategically direct’ the county’s future. He recognised that Consultation with the public would follow, but he believed that consultation should occur sooner rather than later.
Surrey is on a uniquely fast track towards the new system of unitary local government, with SCC required to submit an Interim Plan by the 21st of March and its final proposal by the 9th of May. This leaves only a couple of days for residents to be consulted on the interim plan. Will SCC consider the views of those they purport to represent and who will be most affected by the outcomes?
The council’s recommendation to seek THREE Unitary Authorities for Surrey, which would Include Waverley BC, was agreed to by 33 votes to eight, with four abstentions, in a recorded vote. It was later confirmed unanimously by the Executive.
This is what the Three Unitary Option could look like.
This is one of several similar SCC options. This proposes Waverley & Guildford joining two bankrupt councils, Woking, with a debt of £2.2b!
Executive `meeting worth a watch.
Brilliant as ever!
You should stand as a local MP or failing that, leader of the new council, or failing that join the team of “have I got news for you” who probably read this blog. Become their script writer; it’s the best!
As ever – SCC wants the biggest slice of the Pie – But they couldn’t give a stuff about anything outside of the Suburbs of London – I personally think 3 Unitaries is the only way forward with (eventually a Single Mayor) who can be held to account.
We are not the same… I know I have family in Elmbridge (Weybridge & Byfleet) whose needs are TOTALLY Different to those in the far more Remote Waverley where we live. They want better links to London and their current Pretty good Infrastructure …. WE just want SOME INFRASTRUCTUE that meets the needs of the more Rural parts of Surrey in the East bordering W Sussex.
This has been RUSHED THROUGH as ever in the Hope they can be at the Front of the Queue for this with no consideration for those of us outside London.
We should have had an Election in May 2025 then at least we could make our views known but that isn’t going to happen is it? Democracy in this Country is STUFFED
If this is all sorted by May 2026 when we can vote for it – I will eat my HAT!