Today, your Waverley councillors will be briefed on their demise.
Leader Cllr Paul Follows hoped his colleagues would attend today’s briefing to hear the latest position on Local Government Reorganisation (LGR).
You couldn’t Adam or Eve it, but most of the population don’t even know local government is being reorganised!
Some are already jubilant that the government has sounded the death knell. The leader of Waverley’s Tory Opposition cannot hide her glee at watching our council bite the dust.
Surrey ruled out a county-wide unitary despite a Government suggestion to include the option in final proposals as a benchmarking measure.
In an 11-page feedback letter, the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government told chief executives that including a single unitary option as a “benchmark” would be “helpful” in considering the potential net savings from two and three unitary options.
So what Aunty Angela wants, she may yet get!
However, Surrey’s council leaders say a unitary covering the entire county is not considered due to concerns over democratic accountability and devolution, regardless of the financial implications.
Surrey needs to submit its reorganisation proposals to the government by 9 May because it sought an accelerated timeline. The other two-tier areas have until the autumn.
Many residents believe Tory-controlled SCC acted in undue haste, and may leave our borough and others repenting at leisure.
Surrey CC leader Tim Oliver (Con) says none of the 12 local authorities are considering a single unitary because at least two councils are needed to form a future strategic authority.
Surrey in Billy No Mates Scenario
He added that all surrounding councils in Sussex, Berkshire and Hampshire had been contacted about devolution possibilities, “but they are all doing their own thing”.
It is no secret that Cllr Oliver has long lusted after a behemoth unitary authority in Surrey.
The government withdrew Norfolk and Suffolk devolution deals in September, ruling out single-county mayoral strategic authorities.
Tandridge DC leader Catherine Sayer (Ind) said she is “concerned” that a county unitary may “still be on the table purely for financial reasons and not because it’s a good option for residents”.
Chair of the Surrey Leaders Group, a forum for all 12 local authority political leaders in the county, Hannah Dalton (Ind) said:
“A single authority for Surrey is not what councils or residents want, and it hasn’t been proven that having a large unitary would save money in the long term anyway.
“It’s clear from our resident engagement that they would prefer going to three unitaries as it would best protect decision-makers’ connection with their place.”
Cllr Dalton added that leaders of future unitaries could even agree to share services to ensure “continuity” or improve cost efficiency.
Three-unitary option for Surrey
Out of the 11 districts in the county, eight have publicly sided with plans for three unitaries, except Woking BC, Elmbridge BC and Mole Valley DC.
Leader of Elmbridge BC, Mike Rollings (Lib Dem), who has not “signed up” for any local government reorganisation proposal, said forcing the inclusion of a single authority would be counter to the government’s promise of “collaboration” with councils.
He added: “Most of our residents are not too happy about it as it moves decision making further away, and not closer like the central government promised”
Call to clear the debt first.
All leaders, including Waverley’s Paul Follows, believe the success of local government reorganisation would depend on resolving the debt accrued by councils, particularly Woking. It would set the new authorities “up to fail” without resolving this issue.
Cllr Oliver insisted that “Surrey should not have to pay”, saying Woking’s debt is “irrecoverable” so should be written off.
Tandridge’s Cllr Sayer warned that the new unitaries may only be able to “afford” statutory services unless this happens.
However, the MHCLG feedback letter stated that “the default position is that assets and liabilities remain locally managed by councils”, but “acknowledges” that “exceptional circumstances” of failures linked to “capital practices”.
It added that proposals should reflect the “extent to which the implications of this can be managed locally, including as part of efficiencies possible through reorganisation”.
Meanwhile in the real World.
One huge issue that isn’t obvious is that if the effect on Universal Credit. Depending on which borough you are currently in you either get housing benefit via UC or the borough. A series of transitions have already taken place. But legacy benefits still persist and the deadlines and understanding if policy is slipping. The two new unitary authorities will be faced with massive DWP backlogs as the DWP has to deal with unexpected migration cases from legacy to UC. Just one example of unforseen consequences. Then just add every other social services that has relied on boroughs.
The speed of change is deliberate. It is to sweep every rea problem aside. Kaiser Tim is a macro man playing at empires and the people don’t matter to him. Real problems and people don’t matter. The vision of a glorious empire is all he seeks.
People will die because of the speed of this change.
Brutal. But fact. Too many holes for the vulnerable to be dumped in.
The people of Surrey deserve a vote. They are being denied it and only now when it’s too late are they understanding the consequences.
MeaninglessMud
“You couldn’t Adam or Eve it, but most of the population don’t even know local government is being reorganized!”
“It’s clear from our resident engagement that they would prefer going to three unitaries as it would best protect decision-makers’ connection with their place.”
How does that work then other than Paul Follows prefers going to three unitaries or does he now speak for everyone?
When have councils considered democratic accountability? Less half vote in local elections because they are purposefully kept in the dark as to how their council tax is being wasted and gambled such as on “investment” folly that looses billions without accountability. Perversely such failure is rewarded with golden pension bungs as reward for gross failure?
I think the fact that WaverleyWeb won’t publish my previous two comments on this subject confirms exactly who is the hidden owner of the BuildDunsfold social media campaign. Why the secrecy WW?
We trashed your abusive comments for the simple reason that they are inaccurate and defamatory. The Waverley Web has nothing to do with the new Facebook Page and has no idea who published it. Here at the WW, we have covered the Dunsfold development since it was first mooted many years ago. It was widely accepted that the airfield is the largest brownfield site in the borough and one of the largest brownfield sites in the country. It has an extant planning consent and is part of Waverley’s local plan. You obviously have your views on whether or not it should be developed, and you are entitled to air those views. However, you are not entitled to make inaccurate accusations on this site, and if you continue to do so, they will be removed.
We repeat. We have no connection with the campaign you mention. We cover the whole of Waverley’s borough.
There was no abuse in my comments. I stated that you are the owner of the BuildDunsfold website (how is that defamatory as you clearly state here that you are perfectly aligned with the views of the BuildDunsfold campaign). I also stated that there were only about 20 signatures on the petition. I also stated that 99% of the comments on the BuildDunsfold FB posts were objecting to building on the site – completely at odds with your assertion here that residents are incensed with delay from Trinity. Let others judge whether what I say is more reliable than what you have written here.
OK—go and ask the residents of Alfold. See how they feel about the countryside surrounding them being submerged in concrete at an alarming rate.
As we said before, we will say it again if you didn’t hear it the first time. The WW has nothing to do with the Facebook Group you mention. Get it!
Oh Dear!
We really are in a mess aren’t we? Two authorities or Three? Question? – Answer we will end up in a mire of more Cr*p because they will be run by the same Idiots we have now.
No one has the Cojones to speak about what is and has been so wrong with what we have.
Consolidate it into a mix of smaller more Toxic authorities and you end up with Thames Water – Simples really… SEWAGE!