Crawley and Reigate & Banstead: Should two councils become one?
Should two become one? Councils consider combining
6 minutes ago
Share
Save
Jack Fiehn
BBC Surrey, political reporter
Share
Save
Getty Images
Crawley Borough Council and Reigate & Banstead Borough Council say there are economic benefits to forming a unitary authority.
Two councils in south-east England are considering asking the government to allow them to combine.
Crawley Borough Council (CBC) and Reigate & Banstead Borough Council (RBBC) have put together a proposal about forming a new unitary authority.
The councils say their aim is to get the economic benefits of being part of an economic area close to Gatwick airport.
Government ministers have said they want a major redesign of local government, with the two-tier council system being scrapped and areas having elected mayors.
RBBC approved the plan on Tuesday. CBC is meeting on Wednesday.
But why are the two boroughs considering this idea?
Reigate & Banstead is also supporting a proposal to have three unitary authorities across Surrey.
You could say that officials at Reigate and Banstead are trying to ride two horses at the same time.
On one hand, they are backing the plan – now supported by nine of the borough and district councils – to split Surrey into three unitary authorities.
On the other, they are looking at working with Crawley.
Arguments in favour include growing the economy of the two boroughs, the potential to develop road and rail transport links, such as the M25 and the North Downs line, and having a stronger voice on the future of Gatwick.
A report also says the proposal would help with building new homes in places like Redhill Aerodrome and land near Salfords, although some councillors have raised concerns about losing green spaces.
The government has asked for more details about the plan, including some of the financial aspects, such as dealing with the debts of councils in Surrey, and also the provision of services
Follow BBC Surrey on Facebook, on X, and on Instagram. Send your story ideas to southeasttoday@bbc.co.uk or WhatsApp us on 08081 002250.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
2 hours ago
- BBC News
'No-one is going to join Spurs without a manager' - fans on deadline day
We asked for your views on whether Tottenham need to act urgently in the transfer market, as the first of the two deadline days this summer comes to a close on are some of your comments:Tristen: We don't have a manger to make any decisions with signing players so probably not, however, Daniel Levy loves a cheap club signing regardless what any manager says so he will probably sign someone who will be another sub-par Would rather we waited until our new manager is appointed before we delve into the transfer I hope there will be no moves in or out until a new manager is in place. This needs to happen before the window We won't be making any additions in this brief window. No-one is going to join Spurs without a manager in place. The only news I could imagine would be a double deal for a player and manager from the same club, with one from our current squad going in the other direction. But really, I think the corporate leadership would desperately like to see the end of this mini-window, which has only dispirited the fan No business will be done because, thanks to the chairman, we have no manager! He wastes yet another opportunity to really build a winning team!Clare: Thanks to Levy and his board we don't even have a manager to make any decisions. We're already now so far behind others completing early transfers. In order to compete in the Premier League and Champions league this season, the incoming manager (whoever he is and whenever he comes) has a lot of work to do. We have quite a young squad and so Levy has to dig deep into his pocket and at least spend the Europa League money on experienced and proven players.
Telegraph
2 hours ago
- Telegraph
At last the ‘Iron Chancellor' has turned, but the cost could be fatal
While Rachel Reeves has often invoked the soviet nickname embraced by Baroness Thatcher, she has typically struggled to live up to the 'Iron Chancellor' moniker she craved. Where Thatcher declared 'the lady's not for turning', Reeves has more frequently been found flip-flopping. We now have details of the latest volte-face, and a rough value has been ascribed to the political capital Labour burnt during its first major fiscal event. The price of all goodwill afforded to a new government? £450m, or 0.05pc of the total tax take. Since the winter fuel payment was first scrapped for all pensioners except those in receipt of pension credit, we've been patiently expecting this about-turn, which doesn't scream confidence in government policy. At midday yesterday, HM Treasury confirmed that a new arbitrary figure had been laid down to determine the deserving/undeserving old, this time set at £35,000. Those below this line of personal income will be entitled to £200 per household (up to £300 if all residents are over 80), while those above it are not entitled to keep the money. Yes, that is a personal income allowance to judge a household payment. On £35,001 and live alone? Not a penny. Two of you on £35,000 for a total household income of £70,000? The full amount. One of you above and one below? The payment will be split, and the one earning above the threshold will have to pay theirs back. Will it rise in line with the triple lock? No clue. Where does £35,000 come from as a limit? Well it's less than average earnings and nowhere near any tax bracket, so answers on a postcard please. Will the Government ensure only those entitled to the benefit receive it? No. It will be paid to all and clawed back through PAYE or self-assessment tax returns. Sound complicated? It sure does – and complicated generally means expensive administration. High street accountancy firms will leap on the confusion, but I'm not sure this is the productivity boost Reeves dreamed of. So far, nobody has cobbled together any estimates for how much this system will cost HMRC to develop and implement, but it's not zero. Don't forget, the previous eligibility criterion of being a pension credit recipient has already sparked its own costs. According to former pensions minister, Sir Steve Webb, the flurry of new applicants has already added a £200m annual cost, reducing the benefit to Treasury coffers to just £250m, not £450m, before any admin costs are factored in. That's 0.03pc of the total tax take. He explained: 'These changes wipe out most of the extra revenue which the Government was expecting to get from the winter fuel payment policy. 'Not only has the Government knocked more than a billion pounds off the expected revenue but it has also had to find more than £200m per year extra because of the surge in pension credit claims. 'Overall, the amount raised looks tiny relative to the political damage which the whole episode has caused to the Government.' But it's not just political damage – in the immediate wake of the news, gilt yields rose. Certainly, some element of this is simply factoring in the lower revenues the Government can now expect, but more critically, it is shifting perceptions. The long shadow of Liz Truss's mini-Budget continues to haunt Labour, and they are likely to be undone by their own political spin. Reeves et al oversimplified what happened in September 2022 and tied their hands in the process. Changing policy is a natural part of government and waiting for the next Budget isn't always possible, but when you tell the nation (and markets) that it's fiscally irresponsible to do so, you cannot be surprised when eyebrows are raised. Reeves's Spring Statement already effectively broke her promise of one major fiscal event per year – yesterday's revelation has broken most of the others. The policy is not accompanied by an Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) forecast (although one is promised for the next Budget), and weren't we told the cut was necessary to fill the black hole? Before the changes, ING's James Smith, a developed market economist focused on the UK, had already predicted that Reeves would have no fiscal headroom – now she'll miss it by at least another £1.25bn. With the two-child benefit cap also likely to be axed, which will add another £3.5bn to the outgoings side of the balance sheet, not to mention the £17bn cost of boosting defence spending to 3pc, Reeves is more likely to have a sore neck than any headroom. But the Chancellor keeps painting herself into a corner – she has once again recommitted herself to not raising income tax, National Insurance or VAT. She has doubled down on her 'non-negotiable' fiscal rules and respect for the OBR, forcing her to fiddle with the margins every time the bond markets hiccup. We'll have to wait and see what happens with Wednesday's spending review, but something will have to give soon, and it's looking more likely than ever that it will be Reeves.
Telegraph
2 hours ago
- Telegraph
Public sector employment swells to highest level in 14 years
Public sector employment has surged to the highest level in 14 years as Rachel Reeves prepares to unveil a £300bn spending spree this week. Almost 6.2m people were employed in the public sector in March, official figures show, 35,000 more than a year earlier. This is the highest number of public sector employees since December 2011. The figures from the Office for National Statistics came ahead of Ms Reeves's spending review on Wednesday, which is expected to offer big increases to defence and health while squeezing other departments. The Chancellor has raised departmental spending by nearly £400bn since Labour won the election. It comes as economists have warned more tax rises are 'inevitable' in autumn. The figures from the ONS also show that the number of civil servants is the highest since 2006, at 550,000, rising by 6,000 from a year earlier. This helped to push the total figure of central government workers to a record high of 4m, up by 93,000 from a year ago. The ONS said the rise was driven by the NHS, the Civil Service and some local authority schools becoming academies, which changes how their staff are classified in the numbers. While public sector hiring surged, the jobs downturn across the economy deepened as firms grappled with big tax and minimum wage hikes. The number of vacancies fell from 760,000 on average across February to April to 736,000 for the three months to May.
