Major boundary changes could see some Surrey residents change wards for the next local elections in a redrawing of the political map of the county.

Council wards in Surrey are to increase by over 1,000 residents per councillor by 2029 in new county boundaries which have been drawn up. Around 70 per cent of ward boundaries will change as the Local Government Boundary Commission estimates an increase of nearly 90,000 people who are registered to vote.

The commission says the new layout – which would retain the 81 elected councillors we have today – would help the council to carry out its functions more effectively as it would even out the populations within each division.

The Commission is the independent body which draws these boundaries based on community ties, similar electorate numbers and which facilities (e.g parks, leisure centres) it makes sense for people to share.

Varying levels of public consultation on draft proposals took place between February 2023 and March 2024.Professor Colin Mellors, Chair of the Commission, said: “We are very grateful to people in Surrey. We looked at all the views they gave us. They helped us improve our earlier proposals. We believe the new arrangements will deliver electoral fairness while maintaining local ties.”

Recommendations from the Commission cannot affect the Surrey county’s external boundaries, or result in changes to postcodes. It does not have an effect on local taxes, house prices, or car and house insurance premiums. However, it may affect which ward someone is in.

The Commission is required by law to consider not the number of households, but the number of electors within each division. For instance, residents suggested East and West Molesey should be combined in a single council ward division. However, such a division covering the two borough wards of Molesey West and Molesey East would have 36 per cent more electors than average. It was therefore not accepted because it would have a disproportionate number of eligible voters compared to other wards.

County councils elect its members once every four years. Surrey’s next election is taking place in 2025. Currently, the Conservatives are the largest group with 49 councillors out of a total 81 seats. There are also 16 Liberal Democrats, two Green Party, two Labour (and Co-operative) councillors, four Independents, and 13 from different resident associations and groups.

Changes to ward boundaries will be made so each councillor represents roughly the same number of electors. Recommendations are based on how many electors (ie people registered to vote) there are “likely” to be in five years after the publication of the Committee’s proposal.

Approximately 876,454 eligible voters lived in the county in 2022, averaging at 10,820 electors per councillor. The Commission estimates this number will increase by nearly 90,000 by 2029: Around 964,825 Surrey electors will be divided up to roughly 11,911 residents for each councillor. Just 24 ward boundaries out of 81 will stay the same.

More than 900 comments were made by people and organisations to help decide the new divisions. Changes in response to what local people said include altering the divisions in rural areas of Guildford, in response to fresh evidence on the ‘community identity’. For example, the village and civil parish of Ash was seen as more urban than rural, consequently moving out of the Worplesdon division and into Shalford.

Additionally, Jacobs Well village was reviewed as having stronger community identity and rural connections with Worplesdon parish rather than neighbouring areas of Guildford.

There are some slight changes in Waverley.”The Commission received no proposals for changes to the boundaries or names for Cranleigh & Ewhurst, Farnham Central, Farnham North, Farnham South, Godalming North, and Haslemere, and it said they received broad support from Surrey County Council. The Commission says it confirms its draft recommendations for these six divisions as final.

When it came to  Godalming South, Milford & Witley, Waverley Eastern Villages, and Waverley Western Villages, the commission said its draft recommendations proposed a name of Frensham, Elstead & Hindhead instead of Waverley Western Villages, and invited comments on possible names for Eastern Villages division.

The county council, Thursley Parish Council, Elstead Parish Council, Tilford Parish Council, Frensham Parish Council, and Haslemere Town Council, all opposed this name change for the western division, proposing instead to retain the existing ‘Waverley Western Villages’ name. The Commission said it was persuaded to amend its draft recommendations for the division name, and the corresponding division in the east of the borough. It is  including division names of ‘Waverley Western Villages’ and ‘Waverley Eastern Villages’ as part of its final recommendations.

The only comments received about boundaries in this borough related to the area around the village of Wormley. its draft recommendations placed this area in the division now called Waverley Western Villages, in order to achieve good electoral equality of this division.

The county council, and Witley & Milford Parish Council, suggested that the community identity of Wormley lay more towards Milford and Godalming, rather than to the west. The Parish Council suggested that villages such as Norney, Shackleford, and Eashing had closer links with other settlements in Waverley Western Villages division – however, as these villages are in the borough of Guildford rather than Waverley, the Commission could not place them in Waverley Western Villages division.

The commission said placing Wormley and the surrounding area in Godalming South, Milford & Witley division would leave Waverley Western Villages with a minus 14 per cent electoral variance. Where a plausible alternative exists, it considers that this level of electoral inequality can be justified only in exceptional circumstances.

The Commission reported that is received relatively few comments when it came to Woking and proposals for Goldsworth East & Horsell Village, Knaphill & Goldsworth West, The Byfleets, Woking North, Woking South, Woking South East, and Woking South West.

It said the county council, while broadly supporting the recommendations, proposed two minor changes. Woking Conservatives provided a submission reiterating a number of their proposals from the initial stages of this review, but providing relatively little fresh evidence. The Commission considered this proposal carefully again, but in light of the multiple sources of support for the draft recommendations, it wasn’t persuaded to make fundamental changes to them.

The council proposed that the area around Broadmead House be placed in Woking South East, rather than Woking South division. This would allow the Gresham Mill housing development in this area to be united within a single division. The Commission accepted this.

Without expressing a final view, the council presented the case for and against a change of boundary between Goldsworth East & Horsell Village and Woking South West divisions. The proposed change would see Winnington Way, and neighbouring streets, placed in Woking South West division, in contrast to the draft recommendations which had these streets in Goldsworth East & Horsell Village.

The bulk of the submission in this area argued that St John’s Road did not offer a particularly strong or clear boundary, compared to Parley Drive, and that it allows the use of the Basingstoke Canal as a very clear boundary for a longer distance.

The Commission believed that Parley Drive offers a stronger boundary than St John’s Road. While the history of the area is interesting but it received little specific information as to the present-day community identity of this area. It decided to recommend to place the area in question in Woking South West division.

The proposed changes will need to be approved by the new Parliament.