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
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Civil servants stage protest over work-from-home ban
Civil servants are beginning indefinite industrial action from Monday, protesting against office closures and a work from home ban imposed by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. Members of the Public and Commercial Services (PCS) union working for the department, including those based in London offices, will undertake action short of a strike. The union has said its campaign is a direct response to the planned closure of six offices, the implementation of "rigid" office attendance policies, and the stopping of location-neutral recruitment practices, which allow remote working. 'From removing staff from an office before the lease expires to spuriously challenging lawful notices of industrial action, the employer seems intent to avoid proper consultation, disregard fair process and alienate its staff,' PCS president Martin Cavanagh said. 'Closing local offices while rigidly enforcing mandatory office attendance doesn't make sense. The way out of this dispute is to negotiate, not frustrate.' A Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government spokesperson said: 'We have engaged with unions and staff about a number of proposals – including plans to expand four offices outside of London and close six offices over the next two years, as leases come to an end. 'The department will continue to have offices in every English region as well as Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and all staff affected will be able to continue in their roles.' The Conservative Party's Alex Burghart, shadow chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster, said: 'It speaks volumes that some civil servants are walking out not over pay, but because they're being asked to show up to work and make better use of public buildings. 'Most people can't refuse to travel to their workplace, so why should Whitehall be any different? 'Labour should be clear whether they stand with the unions defending empty desks or with taxpayers who expect a civil service that works for them.'
BBC News
2 hours ago
- BBC News
Lower buildings requested for Beehive Centre plans in Cambridge
A city council said it would reverse its opposition to plans to redevelop a shopping centre if there was a condition limiting the loss of daylight to nearby homes.A five-day inquiry into plans to knock down the Beehive Centre in Cambridge in order to build new offices, laboratories and community spaces began on City Council recommended the plans for refusal in February, on the basis the buildings would block light in nearby homes, but this decision was later called in by Angela Rayner, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local means a decision on the application will be made at a national government level, following the inquiry. The city council objected to the maximum possible heights for the new office blocks and laboratories, which it said would block daylight to nearby homes at an unacceptable developer, Railpen, said it did not think the maximum heights it had proposed would have an unacceptable impact on light levels reaching people's put forward details of an illustrative scheme, which showed lower heights for the proposed some cases, the difference in height between the buildings in each proposal was several city council said it would support a condition that would limit the impact of the development to this illustrative scheme, saying that otherwise it would continue to oppose the redevelopment. The opening day of the inquiry saw the city council, councillors and members of the public raise a series of concerns about the Beehive Centre currently has 17 retail units including shops, food outlets and a gym.A note published by the council, setting out its new position, said: "The parties agree that the daylight, sunlight and overshadowing (DSO) effects of the illustrative scheme, would be materially lesser than a scheme built out to the maximum parameters shown on the parameter plans."The residual DSO harm from the illustrative scheme would be acceptable in planning terms."It will be for the Planning Inspectorate and Rayner to decide whether this condition is imposed if approval is given to the redevelopment. Follow Cambridgeshire news on BBC Sounds, Facebook, Instagram and X.
The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
Discussing possible punishments for welfare rebels ‘not constructive'
It is not 'constructive' to discuss any punishments that could await for Labour MPs who rebel over welfare reforms, a minister has said, as the Government looks to shore up support. Ministers are set to lay out the concessions they will make on Monday, in the hope that the climbdown will be enough to secure backbench votes this week. Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall announced last week that changes to the personal independence payment will only apply to new claimants from November 2026, and ministers also rowed back on plans to cut the health-related element of Universal Credit after 126 Labour MPs signed an amendment that would have effectively killed the Government's Bill. Although the changes are expected to get some of those rebels on board, there are still threats of revolt. Baroness Jacqui Smith – who served as a chief whip under Sir Tony Blair – was asked on Sky News what the consequences should be for Labour MPs who vote against the Government on the matter. She said: 'I don't think talking about punishments, even as a former chief whip, is the constructive way forward here.' Baroness Smith later added: 'It's always the case in legislation that you introduce the Bill, you have a second reading on the principles, and then you think about the detail as you take that through all of its stages in Parliament. I'm sure that that will continue to happen.' Asked on Times Radio whether rebels will have the whip removed, education minister Baroness Smith said that it is important to 'keep talking' to MPs. The legislation is due to be voted on on Tuesday at its second reading, and the Government will amend the Bill at the Commons committee stage to put the changes in place. The original plans restricted eligibility for the personal independence payment (Pip) and cut the health-related element of universal credit. The changes to Pip will now only apply to new claims from November 2026. Plans to cut the health-related element of universal credit have also been altered, with all existing recipients to have their incomes protected in real terms. Details of a review of the Pip assessment, to be led by disabilities minister Sir Stephen Timms and 'co-produced' with disabled people, will also be published. The original amendment signed by 120-plus backbenchers is expected to be withdrawn after some MPs were appeased by last week's announcement. However, a new one is expected to be tabled by rebels on Monday. Labour MP Rachael Maskell said she would sign the new amendment aiming to stop the Bill, saying it was not clear how the promised concessions would be brought in. 'There's no confidence … we're being asked to sign a blank cheque even with these changes,' she told the PA news agency. Vicky Foxcroft, who quit as a Labour whip over the reforms, told The Guardian there were 'areas where I still think there's need for movement' and that she had not decided how to vote. Olivia Blake, a Labour MP with a disclosed disability, told the paper the changes could create 'an unethical two-tier system that treats two people with the exact same injury or illness differently'. Clive Efford, the MP for Eltham and Chislehurst, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that he will still not support the Government's measures. 'There are choices that the Government can make here; there are other places it can go to identify the resources. What we want to see, and fully support, is measures the Government is putting in the palace to assist people to move into work, the right to try, we support, but we can't guarantee the savings,' he said. 'When you're asking for £3.5 billion regardless of the impact of those changes, that can only adversely affect people who are in the benefit system.'
