Rebecca Paul has asked East Surrey's leader to hold off signing the Orders for the Redhill, Reigate and Banstead councils, over a £15 to £30 Band D precept.

The MP for Reigate has asked East Surrey Council’s leader to pause the creation of Redhill, Reigate and Banstead town councils before the legal Orders are signed. Rebecca Paul published her letter to Councillor Steve Wotton on her own website on Friday 18 September.

The East Surrey Shadow Authority Executive approved the three new councils four days earlier, on 14 September. The borough council said then that the Orders “have been drafted and can now be signed” (Reigate & Banstead Borough Council). We set out what the decision does in new town councils for Reigate, Redhill and Banstead.

The letter does not oppose parish councils in principle. It asks for a delay of “a couple of years”.

What the MP is asking for

Her central request is at the end of the letter:

In light of these concerns I would urge you to pause implementation before the Orders are signed and consider whether the prudent course would be to allow East Surrey first to come into operational maturity, take on its responsibilities and be judged on its performance before creating additional councils with their own taxation powers and responsibilities.

Her reasons, as set out in the letter:

  • Timing. She calls it “premature” to create new councils before East Surrey Council is operational, when one aim of reorganisation was to “remove a tier of administration”.
  • Competing workload. East Surrey takes on adult social care and SEND on the same day, 1 April 2027, and she argues that transfer “ought to be the overriding priority”.
  • Cost. The new precept could add £15 to £30 a year to a Band D bill, on top of “other possible future additions” including a mayoral precept.
  • No referendum lock. Parish councils are not covered by the council tax referendum principles that apply to principal authorities, so costs could be “pushed down” to them later.
  • Set-up costs. She asks for “the estimated establishment costs and the anticipated ongoing annual cost to taxpayers”, including three sets of elections.
  • Road money. A share of Community Infrastructure Levy receipts must go to parish councils, and she argues that fragmenting it “could therefore create a barrier to pooling sufficient funding for more substantial road resurfacing programmes”. The parish councils will not be the highways authority; East Surrey will.
  • The Mayoralty. She asks what happens to the “historic ceremonial Mayoralty of Reigate and Banstead”.
  • Notice. She says she was “very disappointed” to get no advance notification that the decision was coming to the Executive, and none once it had been taken.

The £15 to £30 is the council’s own estimate, not hers

The precept figure in the letter comes from the borough council. Its own statement on the decision says the initial estimate for a Band D property in the new parishes is “between £15 and £30, depending on the number of households or electors in each area”.

That is for the basic functions of a parish council plus responsibility for statutory allotments. It buys a comparison with the two councils the borough already has. For 2025/26 the Band D charge is £57.31 in Horley and £34.83 in Salfords & Sidlow, both of which do more than the basic functions (Reigate & Banstead Borough Council).

The borough council also says that if the new councils want extra responsibilities beyond year one, that is a matter for discussion and agreement. Nobody has published a precept for any of the three.

The consultation numbers, from the council’s own report

The letter’s sharpest factual claim is about public demand. Rebecca Paul writes that the first stage of the review drew “only 240 responses across the entire borough”, and that at the later stage “around 1,300 favourable responses were recorded across the relevant proposals from an electorate approaching 87,000”.

The council’s final recommendations report records the second stage in detail. It counted 2,260 online responses in total, of which 1,770 were kept after blanks and duplicates were removed, plus 349 sent by post or email.

Those responses were split by area, and each area was asked its own question. The two that created the new councils came out like this:

Area Responses Supported some form of parish or town council
Redhill and Reigate 995 799, or 80%
Banstead and the villages 804 517, or 64%

Add the two together and you get 1,316 favourable responses, which is where the MP’s “around 1,300” comes from. Her figure checks out against the council’s own tables.

Within the Redhill and Reigate area the split was sharp. Of those who said they lived in Redhill, 72% backed some form of parish or town council; in Reigate it was 88%. On the choice between one combined council and two, 70% of Reigate respondents wanted two separate councils, against 27% in Redhill.

The report is explicit that this “is not a referendum but a consultation”, and that “the detailed responses, rather than the pure number of responses” is what counts against the statutory criteria.

One point in the letter is worth separating out. The MP’s complaint is about advance notice of the Executive decision, which is a different thing from the consultation. The council’s report lists “Members of Parliament” among those the draft recommendations consultation was sent to.

What the three councils would be

Chart of the three proposed councils: Banstead and The Villages 40,229 electors and 27 councillors, Redhill Town Council 32,268 electors and 27 councillors, Reigate Town Council 18,179 electors and 19 councillors, with an estimated Band D precept of £15 to £30

The electorate figures below are the council’s forecasts for 1 May 2030, from the final recommendations report.

Council Electorate (2030) Councillors
Banstead & The Villages 40,229 27
Redhill Town Council 32,268 27
Reigate Town Council 18,179 19

Horley Town Council keeps its existing status but grows from 18 councillors to 20, with seven redrawn wards. Salfords & Sidlow Parish Council is unchanged.

What happens next

The timetable in the council’s statement has not moved:

  • Now. The Orders are drafted and can be signed. This is the point the MP is asking East Surrey to pause at.
  • 1 December 2026. The borough council expects to publish the revised electoral register, after a polling district and polling place review.
  • 1 April 2027. Vesting Day. East Surrey Council takes over, and the new parish arrangements take effect. East Surrey councillors act as transitional parish councillors.
  • 6 May 2027. Elections for the new and existing parish councils.
  • 10 May 2027. Newly elected parish councillors take up their posts.

East Surrey Council had published no response to the letter when we checked on 19 September.

What it means for you

  • Nothing on your bill changes this year. Any new precept would first appear in the 2027/28 council tax, set by transitional councillors before the May 2027 elections.
  • The estimate to plan around is £15 to £30 a year at Band D, and it is an estimate, not a decision. Check your band on our Reigate council tax bands page.
  • If you want to say something, say it now. The MP has put a survey on her site through the item linked above, and the Orders are at the signing stage.
  • The election to watch is 6 May 2027, when all three councils are elected for the first time. Polling districts are being redrawn before then, and we covered that review in polling station changes.

Sources

More from Reigate News: new town councils for Reigate, Redhill and Banstead, East Surrey Council’s HQ at Woodhatch Place and Reigate council tax bands.