Surrey Police has launched a county-wide crackdown on illegal e-bikes and e-scooters, with seized machines set to be destroyed under a tougher enforcement policy from next month.

The new operation, called Operation Scramble, will see roads policing officers working alongside local Safer Neighbourhood Teams to stop riders suspected of using illegal or dangerously modified machines, or riding in an antisocial or reckless manner.

Police say they have already seized 136 e-bikes and e-scooters in Surrey during 2026, compared with 127 during the whole of last year.

Where the age of riders has been established, Surrey Police says 36 per cent have been children or teenagers.

Chief Superintendent Graham Barnett, head of Surrey and Sussex Police’s operations and protective security command, said illegal use had become a growing problem.

“The illegal use of e-bikes and e-scooters is a growing problem in Surrey, and we will tirelessly pursue riders who are causing fear and nuisance in our county,” he said.

“Many of the reports of illegal e-bikes relate to criminal activity.”

He added that the force would combine enforcement with education, particularly because of the number of younger riders involved.

From next month Surrey Police says its policy will be for illegal e-bikes and e-scooters seized by officers to be sent for destruction.

The distinction between an ordinary legal e-bike and an illegal machine can sometimes be misunderstood.

A road-legal electrically assisted pedal cycle, or EAPC, must have pedals capable of propelling it, an electric motor with a maximum continuous rated output of no more than 250 watts and electrical assistance which cuts out once the bicycle reaches 15.5mph.

Riders must be at least 14 years old. A compliant EAPC can be used without a driving licence, vehicle registration, road tax or motor insurance and is generally treated in law in the same way as an ordinary bicycle.

However, a machine capable of being powered electrically beyond 15.5mph, or fitted with a motor exceeding the permitted continuous rating, does not qualify simply because it looks like a bicycle.

It is instead treated as a motor vehicle and, for lawful road use, would need the appropriate registration, insurance and driving licence requirements to be met. An approved motorcycle helmet may also be required.

The Government considered increasing the normal e-bike power limit from 250 watts to 500 watts in 2024, together with relaxing rules governing throttle-controlled “twist and go” bikes. The proposals were abandoned in January 2025 after most of the main stakeholder organisations responding to the consultation opposed them and the Department for Transport concluded there was insufficient evidence to justify the change. The 250-watt limit therefore remains.

The position for privately owned e-scooters is more restrictive.

They are legally classed as motor vehicles and cannot ordinarily be used on public roads, pavements or other public places. Special regulations allow e-scooters hired as part of authorised Government trials to be used in participating areas, but there is no such rental trial operating in Surrey.

Official casualty figures suggest the issue is not confined to nuisance complaints.

Department for Transport statistics published in July show there were 1,377 reported collisions involving e-scooters in Great Britain during 2025, resulting in 1,477 casualties. Ten people were killed, all of them e-scooter riders, while an estimated 484 people were seriously injured.

Thirteen casualties from e-scooter collisions were recorded within the Surrey Police area during 2025.

Surrey Police says that since October 2025 there have also been two collisions resulting in serious injury in the county involving e-scooters and three road traffic collisions involving e-bikes.

Concern about illegal powered bikes and scooters has already featured in local policing priorities elsewhere in Surrey. Earlier this month Surrey Police identified illegal use of e-scooters and bikes around Frimley Green Recreation Ground as an antisocial behaviour priority, saying officers could use powers including vehicle seizure as well as traffic offence reports.

There is a separate safety concern surrounding poorly manufactured or modified electric bikes.

In March 2025 Surrey County Council reported that an unsafe battery fitted to a converted e-bike had caused a fire at a Surrey home while being charged. Surrey Fire and Rescue Service and Trading Standards subsequently secured the removal of the particular battery from sale on Amazon.

Government safety advice warns that counterfeit, damaged or badly modified batteries and incompatible chargers can increase the risk of lithium-ion battery fires.

Surrey Police and Crime Commissioner Lisa Townsend said complaints about e-bikes and e-scooters had repeatedly been raised during her office’s Policing Your Community roadshow over the summer.

“They told us loud and clear they have had enough and we have listened to those concerns,” she said.

“The result is this operation which aims to crackdown on illegal riding and take these often-dangerous machines off our streets for good. We know that their use can often be linked to wider criminal activity and the message is clear – we want to make Surrey an illegal e-bike and e-scooter free county.”

Chief Superintendent Barnett said: “From next month our policy is clear: all illegal e-bikes and e-scooters we seize will be sent for destruction.

“I hope this provides direct reassurance to Surrey residents that we are listening to your concerns around illegal and reckless riding and taking decisive action.”

Sam Jones – Reporter

.

Related Reports

• Back to Westminster with local priorities in focus – 18 September 2026. Helen Maguire MP said she would host a roundtable of police chiefs to press for clearer Government guidance on e-scooters. epsomandewelltimes.com
• January crime and safety round-up – 4 June 2026. Surrey Police identified antisocial use of motorbikes and e-bikes as a local policing priority in Epsom and Ewell. epsomandewelltimes.com
• The New Year view from Westminster – 2 February 2026. Helen Maguire highlighted constituents’ concerns about illegal and unsafe e-scooter use and called for a more coordinated response. epsomandewelltimes.com
• Surrey services get fire e-bike removed from Amazon – 13 March 2025. Surrey Fire and Rescue Service and Trading Standards acted after an unsafe e-bike battery caused a house fire. epsomandewelltimes.com

Image: “idealised” e-bike and e-scooter in Epsom High Street (Google street view)

A controversial 400 home development, that has faced huge backlash from the community, is the best way to save Leatherhead from ‘dying’,  councillors have said.

It came after an opposition motion calling on  Mole Valley District Council to seek guarantees on the financial benefits and improvements to the Swan Centre as part of the Bull Hill regeneration scheme was shot down.

First by the large numbers of the ruling Liberal Democrat group who walked out of the debate claiming it could prejudice them against any future planning decisions. 

Then by Councillor Keira Vyvyan-Robinson (Liberal Democrat: North Leaherhead) who quickly pushed through an amended and softened down motion that called on the council to continue working with developers Keir Partnership to secure the financial benefits and improvements.

The unamended motion was originally been put forward by Cllr Gerry Sevenoaks (Independent: Ashtead Park).

He said: “Bull Hill would literally change Leatherhead as a town. “The question is for better or for worse?

“There is no doubt that this is a controversial project that will impact the town , with increased traffic congestion and building works for the construction of over a number of years. It will look like carnage”.

“Crucially it does not have the full support of residents as demonstrated in the public campaign against the development and negative feedback from the so-called consultation. At its inception the Keir Partnership provided all sorts of wonderful benefits to the residents of Leathehead.”

“Affordable housing, social housing, refurbished Swan centre, cinema, financial profit for investment in the town. Sadly and predictably these financial and community benefits have diminished and materialised. The profit share is down from £22m to £14m, reduced car parking, and no cinema or leisure facilities, and we see there is no social housing.”

“How has this been allowed to happen?

He added: “Having already given up £4million worth of land, Mole Valley council could be left with no profit to invest in community benefits for Leatherhead town centre. The result being that Leatherhead will look like Croydon-on-Sea and with a continued rundown town centre with no investment. What have the people on Leatherhead done to deserve such municipal vandalism?”

Councillors defending the amended softened motion said there was a strong silent majority in favour of the project, and that the redevelopment had not been an issue for residents on doorsteps at the recent May elections.

Cllr Claire Malcomson (Liberal Democrats: Holmwoods and Beare Green) said: “Whatever happens it will improve Leatherhead because Leatherhead, as mentioned, is a dying town, and it needs improvement.

“It needs more housing to feed the shops, and entertainment, and the theatre, and that is the whole point of it.

“Yes, some things have had to be cut back because the climate has changed, but I do think ultimately Leatherhead will benefit from this.”

Chris Caulfield Local Democracy Reporter

Image: Plans for Bull Hill Leatherhead (image Leret Group_

Related Reports:

• Red rag at Bull Hill as residents rage over high-rise plans – 31 January 2026 epsomandewelltimes.com
• Blockbuster cinema and 480 homes plan for Leatherhead town centre – 6 December 2025 epsomandewelltimes.com
• Leatherhead to get new cinema and bowling alley? – 13 March 2025 epsomandewelltimes.com
• River Mole to attract visitors to Leatherhead? – 23 December 2024 epsomandewelltimes.com
• Mole Valley ‘won’t bend’ to petitioners – covering opposition to the Bull Hill element of Transform Leatherhead. epsomandewelltimes.com
• Epsom’s neighbour cracks on with its Local Plan – 23 October 2024; includes Bull Hill as Leatherhead’s proposed “Urban Quarter” and the wider allocation of housing to the town. epsomandewelltimes.com

His Majesty’s Lord-Lieutenant of Surrey visited Nescot in Epsom with a large delegation of Deputy Lieutenants and community leaders to hear directly from students about their experiences, concerns and ambitions.

Mrs Neelam Dharni Devesher MBE toured the college yesterday, meeting students across subjects ranging from hair and beauty and bricklaying to robotics, motorsport, performing arts and catering.

The visit also gave students the opportunity to raise issues affecting young people in Surrey, including the cost of living and difficulties travelling around the county by public transport.

A panel discussion entitled “Being a Youth in Surrey” formed a central part of the visit. Students spoke about their experiences and aspirations, with their views intended to help inform the Lord-Lieutenant’s work during her term of office.

One student told the delegation: “It’s really important for young people to have opportunities to speak up like this about the things that affect us.

“Transport is a big issue for me. Getting to college can be expensive and it isn’t always easy to get around Surrey using public transport.

“The cost of living is another concern, because when you’re studying, everyday things like travelling to college and getting a good meal can really add up.”

Mrs Devesher said one of the most rewarding parts of her role was meeting young people and hearing about their lives and ambitions.

She said: “I was hugely impressed by the students at Nescot, whose enthusiasm, talent and aspiration was evident throughout.

“The visit gave us the chance to listen to what matters to young people today and to understand how we can help reflect that in the work we do across Surrey.”

The Lord-Lieutenant and her delegation also toured Nescot’s teaching facilities, including its immersive classroom and Institute of Technology.

Visitors were greeted by “Nes bot”, the college robot, which presented them with their visitor lanyards.

Performing arts students provided entertainment, Nescot’s motorsport team displayed its vehicle and catering students prepared food for the visitors. Public services students also took part in a parade and flag-raising ceremony.

The delegation was hosted by Nescot Principal and CEO Julie Kapsalis MBE and members of the college’s leadership team.

Ms Kapsalis said: “It was an honour to welcome the Lord-Lieutenant and her delegation to Nescot.

“With such a large group, we got to showcase the extraordinary breadth of learning that takes place across our campus, from advanced technology and construction trades to performing arts, hospitality and childcare.

“Most importantly, it gave our students the chance to share their views and experiences directly with civic leaders.”

The Lord-Lieutenant is the King’s personal representative in Surrey. The unpaid and politically neutral role includes supporting community organisations, arranging and attending Royal visits, presenting honours and promoting voluntary, business and military organisations across the county.

Nescot, the North East Surrey College of Technology, offers vocational and technical courses for school leavers and adults from its campus in Ewell.

Courses include motor vehicle studies, animal care, hair and beauty, computing and IT, performing arts, childcare, health and social care and construction.

Further information is available at www.nescot.ac.uk.

Lionel Blackman

---

Guests accompanying the Lord-Lieutenant included:

Emma O’Donnell, Deputy Clerk to the Surrey Lieutenancy

Jacqui Archer, PA to His Majesty’s Lord-Lieutenant of Surrey

Andrew Canale MVO, Deputy Lieutenant

Dr Beccy Bowden, Chief Executive, Community Foundation for Surrey

Bridget Biddell MBE, Co-Director, Hampton Estate and former High Sheriff of Surrey

Carol Magras, Magistrate

Sir Denis O’Connor CBE QPM, former Chief Constable of Surrey and lecturer at Cambridge University

Giles Verity, Deputy Lieutenant

James Babbington OBE, Deputy Lieutenant

John Machin, Deputy Lieutenant

Jonathan Freeman MBE, CEO, Charity for Civil Servants

Joosje Hamilton, High Sheriff of Surrey

Kristina Murrin, Deputy Lieutenant

Lady Louise O’Connor, Deputy Lieutenant

Mark Carter, Deputy Lieutenant

Mark Tantam, Deputy Lieutenant

Mary Zoeller, Deputy Lieutenant

Dr Michael Kelly JP, Under Sheriff of Surrey

Nick Brooks, Deputy Lieutenant

Shaded Azeem, Deputy Lieutenant

Timothy Wates, Deputy Lieutenant

Peter Lee, Vice-President, Surrey Clubs for Young People

Michael Hayman MBE, Lieutenancy Business Group and Lieutenancy Communications Group

Reverend Clare Marren, Chaplain to the Lord-Lieutenant of Surrey

Dr Vanessa Lawrence CB, Location International

Middlesex campaigners said they were ‘gutted’ after the government pulled the rug on efforts to bring back the historic county’s name – but critics said the council should have checked the legality first.

In July, the new shadow authority passed a motion to rebrand itself as West Surrey and South Middlesex, in time for October when official branding was due to be released.

Last week, however, the minister for housing communities and local government wrote to the leader of West Surrey saying their request had been denied but said it could take legal advice on whether it was possible to use a more widely accepted name without the formal legal change.

The news was met with dismay by campaigners who said they had hoped the government would have ‘done the right thing for once’.

Critics however said the name change should have been put to residents, while the minister’s decision also raised serious questions over why it was advanced before the legal basis was known.

Middlesex was abolished as a local authority  on April 1, 1965, and campaigners, including astrologer Russell Grant, have been fighting for its return ever since.

Councillor Harry Boparai, the Liberal Democrat councillor for Sunbury Common & Ashford Common put forward the original motion.

He said: “It’s really sad. South Middlesex is one sixth of the new authority. We are part of the family, we don’t want to be the dysfunctional cousins on the side.

“We’re not trying to be different, we’re just trying to be who we are. Get on a train to Reigate, get on a train to Guildford, get on a train to Spelthorne and you’ll see the difference, years of neglect.

“Going forward we want a level playing field.”

At the October 12, West Surrey shadow executive, its leader, Councillor Paul Follows, said they would look at ways of bringing the matter back to a future consideration but that the council would carry on as West Surrey in the meantime.

Cllr Boparai added: “We will still get there. I was confident they would just rubber stamp it but they didn’t. 

“In 1972, the government assisted councils to change their names and considering we’re now the only unitary going forward, you would think they would have helped us because we have all this debt to deal with. I’m determined to get this over the line.”

Councillor Jane Austin, leader of the Conservative opposition group, said: “The Lib Dem Leader may well be relieved by the minister’s response, as while we recognise this is an important issue for some residents in the Spelthorne area, many people across the other five boroughs have struggled to understand why the Lib Dem administration was pursuing a name change in the first place – and why this was being prioritised over tackling council debt and ensuring the successful transfer of vital public services.

“The minister’s letter raises serious questions about why the proposal was advanced before establishing the legal basis for doing so, and without giving residents a proper opportunity to have their say.

“West Surrey Conservatives maintain that any decision affecting the identity of West Surrey must be based on clear legal advice, proper scrutiny, a full understanding of the costs and meaningful public consultation.”

Chris Caulfield Local Democracy Reporter

Image: Cllr Harry Boparai with fellow councillors (image Harry Boparai) with Middlesex flag

Related Reports:

Epsom’s Cllr McCormick gives Middlesex revival the irregular iambic treatment – Surrey County Council backs an earlier call for the western unitary to be named “West Surrey and South Middlesex”. epsomandewelltimes.com

Residents invited to help shape New East and West Surrey council brands – Residents were asked for their views as work began on the identities of Surrey’s two new councils. epsomandewelltimes.com

Surrey leaders promise smooth transition to unitaries – Preparations for the replacement of Surrey’s existing councils by East and West Surrey. epsomandewelltimes.com

West Surrey ‘much worse off’ – The financial inheritance facing the new western unitary authority. epsomandewelltimes.com

Epsom & Ewell 4-0 Molesey. Southern Combination Challenge Cup Second Round – Monday 13th October 2026 – Chalky Lane, Chessington – Attendance: 87

The Salts progressed comfortably into the next round of the Southern Combination Challenge Cup with a convincing 4-0 victory over Molesey.

Epsom & Ewell, playing up the slope in the first half, created the game’s first opening but fired over the crossbar.

The Salts took the lead after 14 minutes. Following a goalmouth scramble, Antonios Nazareth reacted quickest at the far post to poke the ball home and give Epsom the advantage.

The match took a significant turn four minutes before the break when Molesey’s Elvis Kwashie was shown a straight red card following a reckless challenge on Jason Bloor. Bloor required several minutes of treatment before continuing.

There was further controversy just before half-time when a Molesey defender appeared to handle the ball while playing it back towards his goalkeeper, but the referee waved away Epsom’s appeals.

The hosts nevertheless went into the interval holding a deserved 1-0 lead.

Epsom & Ewell started the second half somewhat sluggishly, with Blessing Hombessa collecting a yellow card on 50 minutes. Further cautions followed for Alex Foord and Angel Montes as the game became increasingly competitive.

Hombessa’s evening was cut short on 58 minutes after a heavy knock, with Oba introduced in his place.

The Salts made further changes shortly afterwards as Niall Stilwell and Charlie Miller entered the action, while Courtney Swaby and Kionte Waul were also introduced as Epsom & Ewell looked to make their numerical advantage count.

The sides were reduced to ten men apiece on 69 minutes when Montes received his second yellow card of the evening and was dismissed.

Despite that setback, the Salts soon doubled their lead.

On 75 minutes, substitute Oba broke clear, drove towards goal and finished confidently to make it 2-0. A minute later, the Molesey goalkeeper produced an excellent diving save to prevent a third.

The hosts continued to press. Swaby struck the upright after beating his defender on 80 minutes, before Waul embarked on a surging run from inside his own half, only to see his effort saved by the goalkeeper.

Epsom & Ewell’s third goal arrived five minutes from time when Oba completed his brace with another determined run and composed finish. Swaby again threatened moments later but fired narrowly wide.

There was still time for one final flourish.

On 90 minutes, Harry Grant powered home a towering header from a corner to score his first goal for the club and complete an emphatic 4-0 victory.

The win sends Epsom & Ewell into the next round, where they will face either Kingstonian or Balham away.

Epsom and Ewell FC Media

Epsom and Ewell residents are being invited to delve into family albums and memories as the borough prepares to celebrate its 90th anniversary next year.

Epsom & Ewell Borough Council is asking people to contribute photographs, personal recollections and stories spanning the nine decades since the borough was created in 1937.

The anniversary comes at a particularly significant moment in local history. The celebrations will coincide with the final year of Epsom & Ewell Borough Council before local government reorganisation sees its functions pass to the new East Surrey Council.

The Council says it is developing a programme of events and activities intended to celebrate the borough’s heritage, achievements and community spirit. Residents’ contributions will help build a record of local people, places, events and everyday life through the decades. 90th

Council Leader Cllr Hannah Dalton (RA Stoneleigh) said the authority wanted to celebrate “the people, places and moments that have shaped Epsom and Ewell over the last 90 years”, adding that family photographs, memories of community events and accounts of how the borough has changed could all help tell its story.

Contributions to the Council can be sent to ninety@epsom-ewell.gov.uk.

The Epsom and Ewell Times would also be delighted to hear from readers who have photographs, recollections or stories they would like to share with the wider community.

This is intended to complement, rather than duplicate, the Council’s anniversary project. Material sent to Epsom and Ewell Times may, where suitable and with the contributor’s agreement, form the basis of articles or features during the anniversary year.

There is an additional reason why readers may wish to share their memories with the Times. Each weekly edition of the Epsom and Ewell Times is legally required to be deposited with the British Library, creating a permanent historical record of the newspaper and the local life it reports.

That means a photograph, recollection or family story published by Epsom and Ewell Times would not only be shared with today’s readers, but become part of an archived record available to future generations.

We would particularly welcome memories which capture ordinary life as well as major events: schools and workplaces, shops that have disappeared, sporting clubs, neighbourhood celebrations, wartime and post-war memories, changing streets and buildings, local characters, community organisations and photographs showing how familiar parts of Epsom and Ewell once looked.

Readers are encouraged to contribute to the Council’s own 90th anniversary collection. Those who would also like Epsom and Ewell Times to consider their material for publication can send it to admin@epsomandewelltimes.com, ideally with names, dates and locations where known, together with a few words explaining the story behind any photograph.

As the borough enters its 90th year — and the final chapter of the Borough Council itself — there may never be a better moment to gather these memories while those who can tell their stories are still able to do so.

Epsom and Ewell Borough Council has applied to the UK Government to create a body of “Charter Trustees” which would continue the mayoral and other civic traditions of the Borough beyond April 2027. The Charter Trustees would be the Councillors elected in the Epsom and Ewell districts to the new East Surrey Council.

The new East Surrey council’s logo has been unveiled to the public in the latest big step towards the authority’s creation next spring.

With just under six months to go until Surrey County Council and the county’s 11 district councils are abolished, the two new unitary authorities that will replace them are beginning to take shape.

The East Surrey logo, which will accompany all official documents and communications for the new council, was crafted following a consultation with residents about what makes the area special.

It features five shapes that are designed to represent the five boroughs merging to form the new council – which are Elmbridge, Epsom & Ewell, Mole Valley, Reigate & Banstead and Tandridge.

“The logo tells the story of East Surrey,” council leader Steve Wotton (Liberal Democrats: Horley West, Salfords & Sidlow) explained.

“The five interconnected shapes represent the five areas coming together to create one new council, while reflecting the rivers, countryside and landscapes that connect our communities.

“Just as importantly, it symbolises the relationships between people, places and services that will help make East Surrey Council a strong and connected organisation.”

An East Surrey spokesperson stressed that the logo was designed in-house at no additional cost to taxpayers.

The consultation that led to the design drew more than 2,000 responses among residents, with community, countryside, waterways, and heritage emerging as the strongest themes defining East Surrey.

It was the area’s landscape, rivers and countryside that inspired the colour palette featured on the logo.

Councillor Wotton added: “I would like to thank everyone who took the time to share their views and ideas. 

“This new identity has been shaped by the people and communities it will serve and reflects the pride people feel in East Surrey. 

“My thanks also to our talented in-house designers who have created the new brand using their skills, creativity and local knowledge, making best use of existing resources, without additional cost to taxpayers.”

East Surrey shadow authority’s cabinet has agreed to a phased introduction of the new brand, meaning that existing signage and vehicles bearing the old county and district council logos will not immediately be replaced or repainted.

Instead, they will only be changed to feature the new East Surrey logo as and when they need to be renovated in a bid to save on unnecessary costs.

The logo for the new West Surrey council will be decided in the coming weeks, the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS) understands.

East and West Surrey councils will formally take over the reins of local government from April 2027, at which point they will be responsible for all services in their respective areas.

Under the current system, this responsibility is split between the county council and various district councils, with Surrey County Council managing services such as education and highways while the districts take care of council tax and planning applications.

Although the government has paused local government restructure for many other similar “two-tier” councils across England, it is still going ahead in Surrey as the process is too far down the line.

James Moules Local Democracy Reporter

.

.

.

.

.

The outgoing leader of Surrey County Council has warned Surrey risks being “left behind” if the county does not adopt an elected mayor in the near future.

Councillor Tim Oliver (Conservative: Weybridge) urged the incoming East and West Surrey councils to lean into Prime Minister Andy Burnham’s devolution agenda that could see the creation of an overarching mayor for the county.

The two new unitary councils will assume all local government responsibilities from April 2027, and are aiming to pool their resources on key issues through a framework called a foundation strategic authority (FSA).

An FSA can also serve as a stepping stone towards the creation of a mayoral combined authority – such as those seen in Greater Manchester, the West Midlands and the Tees Valley.

Speaking at a Surrey County Council meeting, Councillor Oliver said: “[The FSA] will enable the two councils to work together over a strategic footprint, capitalising on the government’s devolution agenda and take Surrey’s local economy from strength to strength.”

He added: “Surrey needs to grab this opportunity with both hands, and I hope the leadership of East and West Surrey go full throttle in working with government to deliver it – including backing a mayor for Surrey in 2028.”

Andy Burnham, who served as Greater Manchester mayor for nearly a decade before becoming Prime Minister, has vowed to make devolution of power to England’s regions a defining mission of his government.

Shortly after entering Downing Street, Mr Burnham pledged to give regional mayors a share of income tax receipts, as well as granting strategic authorities more control over business rates revenue.

Councillor Oliver said: “No one can be oblivious to the Prime Minister’s mission to create mayors across the country with wide ranging strategic powers and access to funding that simply won’t be available to non-mayoral areas.”

He further warned: “Without a mayor, there is a very real risk that Surrey will be left behind.”

It comes as East and West Surrey shadow authorities prepare the groundwork for the handover of local government power from the county council next spring.

These shadow councils were elected in May, and are tasked with setting up the new authorities in time for vesting day – including setting the new councils’ budgets for the coming year.

But Councillor Oliver cautioned that the financial picture for the new councils remains tricky amid changes to government funding and increased demand for services.

He said: “There will be huge challenges ahead as a result of the government’s Fair Funding Review, which will cost Surrey dearly as money is diverted to other areas of the country instead.”

The government’s Fair Funding Review is designed to recalibrate the money each council receives based on factors including population and deprivation, but Surrey is estimated to lose out as a result.

Last year, Councillor Oliver said Surrey could lose as much as £50m a year over the next three years through the reforms.

A ministerial foreword to the Fair Funding Review says: “This government is prepared to take the tough choices to improve services for the working people of Britain – with a balanced approach that protects all local authorities but ensures funding is truly based on need.”

The next round of council budgets will be set by the West and East Surrey shadow authorities ahead of the handover in April.

But speaking at today’s meeting, Councillor Oliver warned: “We know a council tax increase will be necessary, but it won’t be enough to make up for the shortfall in funding imposed by this government. 

“Tough decisions and innovative transformation will be needed.”

However, he praised the legacy that Surrey County Council is leaving for the new authorities, saying: “We can be proud that we are handing over an organisation that has been managed well – with robust reserves and perfectly manageable levels of debt.”

James Moules Local Democracy Reporter

.

Related reports:

Mayoralty is not for Surrey Leader

Devolution or dilution? And who decides?

Epsom Council leader’s delayed response to additional local government layer initiative

East Surrey is still going ahead – so what happens next?

Epsom and Ewell to Go East in Surrey shake-up

Devolution plans for Surrey

Surrey councillors and officers could soon be barred from using online AI tools such as Gemini and ChatGPT under new rules around the burgeoning tech’s use.

A Surrey County Council AI policy has been put forward, which aims to set out when it is appropriate and inappropriate to use artificial intelligence for council business.

The draft document, which was reviewed by a council committee ahead of final approval, demands that AI users must only utilise approved tools and softwares for council business.

Gemini and ChatGPT are explicitly listed as examples of tools accessed directly via the internet – which would not be permitted under the new regulations.

The new policy comes following a motion from October 2025 that called on Surrey County Council to present an AI policy in response to the technology’s rapidly growing use.

While guidance on its use already existed for the council’s members and officers, this is the authority’s first formal policy on the matter.

Other inappropriate uses of AI listed include using it to make decisions that affect people “without human oversight” and generating false or misleading information.

It also prohibits the use of AI that results in discrimination on the basis of protected characteristics, breaching data protection or unlawfully accessing sensitive information.

The policy says: “Where AI is used for general business purposes, users must use Microsoft Copilot Chat or Copilot 365 (or other SCC-authorised tools) rather than consumer tools such as Gemini or ChatGPT, due to data-security concerns. 

“Approved tools have been risk-assessed and have existing SCC guardrails and oversight.”

The council instead says assistance with “routine administrative tasks” is an example of where AI can be used within the rules – such as summarising reports and scheduling meetings.

It also says the tech can be used to generate meeting minutes so long as they are clearly labelled as AI-assisted.

Summarising public consultation responses and improving workflow efficiency are also on the list of approved uses.

Breaches of the rules set out in this policy would be treated as misconduct, according to the document, which could result in disciplinary action for employees or other contractual consequences for agency workers and contractors.

Surrey County Council’s resources and performance select committee put forward recommendations around the policy – including that it be shared with the future West and East Surrey council, which will take over responsibility in April 2027.

The recommendations also called for strengthening the policy around training for the tech’s use and considering AI’s environmental impact.

If adopted, the policy would be reviewed on an annual basis – or sooner if required, such as if it needed to be brought in line with any prospective national laws or regulations.

Last October’s motion, proposed by Councillor Jonathan Essex (Green Party: Redhill East) called for transparency about where AI is used and for awareness as to the energy and environmental impact of the technology.

“The energy use and wider environmental footprint associated with server farm capacity used by AI is significant,” the motion reads.

The policy is expected to be discussed and finalised by Surrey County Council’s cabinet following the committee’s recommendations.

James Moules Local Democracy Reporter

Surrey’s gritter drivers are now available 24/7 to help keep residents moving during the colder months.

38 state-of-the-art gritting vehicles typically travel over 1,775 miles of the county’s busiest routes before and during severe weather, using the 10,000 tonnes of salt stored at four Surrey depots.

Two mini gritters are also on standby to grit roads that are harder to access with larger vehicles. 1,700 grit bins have also been filled across the county at locations that are not on the priority gritting routes but may have:

• difficult road junctions
• slopes
• acute bends
• a large numbers of pedestrians.

Winter arrangements typically begin in October and run until the end of March although this period can be extended depending on weather conditions.

Matt Furniss, Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Economic Growth said, “We’re committed to keeping drivers and our local communities safe and connected here in Surrey and investing in our roads.

“When temperatures plummet, our gritter drivers across the county are ready and prepared to work around the clock to keep traffic moving on our busiest routes.

“Our Immediate Response Centre will also continue to support communities 24/7 and we will work closely with the Met Office to monitor weather conditions throughout the season.”

Residents can report highways issues at tellus.surreycc.gov.uk. More information about gritting is available here.

Surrey County Council

Medway 24 Sutton & Epsom 7 Saturday 10th October

Sutton & Epsom have only had three league visits to Priestfields. The first encounter in 2016 saw an Andy Matthews hat-trick secure promotion for the Black & Whites from the old London One South. On their last trip, Sutton & Epsom had an abundant advantage of 26 points overhauled by a marauding Medway team.

Last season the hosts were most unfortunate to be relegated on points difference from Level 5 and are naturally looking for a return to Regional 1 at the earliest possible opportunity.

With both clubs enjoying a perfect start to the new campaign, garnering maximum points, it was all set to be a fair measure of both sides’ credentials for the season to come. Medway’s 24-7 triumph maintained their perfect record.

Sutton & Epsom played with the slope in the first period and opened their account in the third minute. A dazzling break, synonymous with Adam Bibby’s play, jinked through the defence and hooker Sam Lennie was in support to cross the whitewash. Freddy Bunting slotted over the conversion for a most encouraging 7-0 score for the visitors.

Unfortunately for Sutton & Epsom it became a case of one step forward and two or three back as they accumulated penalties for multiple offences.

On the quarter-hour Medway equalised. After sustained pressure, powerful lock Peter Cole, stationed on the touchline, received the ball a few metres out and forced his way over before running around to improve the angle for the conversion. A grateful Owen Church-Mills obliged and made it 7-7.

Soon after the restart Sutton & Epsom lost Angus Findlay to a yellow card as the weight of penalties became too much for the referee to bear. Reduced to 14 men, Medway took advantage with a sweeping attack.

Then, to the dismay of the travelling Rugby Lane supporters, Freddy Bunting was given a yellow card for a no-arms tackle in the corner. Sutton & Epsom were now very much unlucky 13.

The Priestfields crowd were soon applauding the lead. The Men of Kent – or Kentish Men, depending on their geographical disposition – scored through a driving maul as lock Peter Cole collected his second try of the afternoon. Owen Church-Mills added another conversion for 14-7.

Rather than meekly folding in adversity, Sutton & Epsom stiffened their resolve and took the attack to Medway. There was to be no fairytale ending as they were halted on the line. It was to the visitors’ considerable credit that they did not concede another point while suffering their numerical deficiencies.

Then, just when the Black & Whites thought they could return to normal, they lost full-back Michael Bennion to an ankle injury. Joe Lovatt came off the bench to play at scrum-half as Sutton & Epsom amended the back division, with Euan Findlay switching to 15.

The remainder of the half continued as powerful tackling subdued attacking intent. For Sutton & Epsom, Tipene Maxwell made his first start in his familiar position at 12 and reminded supporters of yesteryear of James Faaatuatu, whose bone-shaking tackling enlivened Rugby Lane ten years ago.

The first period ended with Medway leading 14-7 and all the players grateful for a breather after a very physical half.

The crowd at Priestfields were witnessing the type of match one would anticipate from two unbeaten teams. With the home team having the advantage of the slope for the second half they were marginal favourites, but Sutton & Epsom had shown enough attacking intent to keep the match in the balance.

The start of the second half reflected the closeness of the contest and was patchy as both sides battled for supremacy. Sutton & Epsom were perhaps guilty of trying to force plays, but that was the result of the parsimonious Medway defence, which robustly stood its ground.

The third quarter proved to be a stop-start affair that ended with more misfortune for the visitors. Joe Lovatt was forced from the field having suffered a broken nose. This was most untimely for the scrum-half as he is about to get married.

Once more the coaches scratched their heads to reorganise their backs. It was not quite shuffling deckchairs on the Titanic, as Josh Rea has often slipped into the backs, but the situation was far from ideal. Pete Gordon came off the bench to play in the back row.

With 15 minutes left on the clock, the Kent club got some breathing space with their third try of the afternoon. Gaining possession from a loose ball near halfway after a Sutton & Epsom scrum, they progressed to the Black & White 22.

Following several phases, the ball came to John Sipawa and the prolific wing scored in his trademark style. Though the conversion failed, the hosts had a two-score advantage, leading 19-7.

If onlookers thought that might have knocked the stuffing out of the visitors they were very much mistaken, as Sutton & Epsom took the game to their opponents.

The Black & Whites threw themselves into attack mode as they went in search of points. They could not translate possession, territory and phases into points. Each half-break urged on by their supporters was met by scrambling cover. Greater risks were being taken in order to find a solution.

It was met with a cruel final nail in the coffin in added time. Pressing in the Medway 22, winger Perry Macauley picked off a pass and set off for glory. As the cover came and, 35 metres out, he weaved to avoid the tacklers and spotted support to his right.

Impressively, it was the mountainous figure of Peter Cole who set off after the kick ahead. He was rewarded for his heroic support run as he reached the ball first to complete his hat-trick – a rare accomplishment for a lock forward – as Medway led 24-7.

It is always a pleasure to see one of the engine room of the pack, the perennial unsung heroes, have their moment in the spotlight.

Shortly afterwards the final whistle concluded this hard-fought encounter. The Black & Whites were rather more black and blue, but in defeat they should find a great deal of solace in their spirit, unity to the cause and resilience in adversity.

Medway remain unbeaten with maximum points, with only Beckenham ahead of them in the table. The hosts’ defence was tireless while Peter Cole gained the plaudits.

Finally, a special note of thanks to Gareth O’Brien who, despite being a late injury withdrawal, demonstrated the qualities of the “good club man”. He not only travelled to the game but also took on the commentary duties as “Junior JC”.

Next Saturday the Black & Whites’ charabanc heads to the Warman Sports Club. Without the pitch priority given over to the cricketers, as was the case last season, they will play Bromley on their main pitch.

The Kent club have started the campaign with wins over the Ironsides, Dartfordians and Hammersmith & Fulham to sit fourth in the table, compared with Sutton & Epsom’s fifth position.

Sutton & Epsom: Bennion, Scott, Bibby, Maxwell, Findlay A, Bunting, Findlay E, Johnson, Lennie, Boaden, McTaggart, Glanville, Rea, Jones & Hegarty (c). Reps: Duey, Gordon & Lovatt.

Medway: McNamara, Macauley, Bullock, Clement, Sipawa, Church-Mills, Hyde, Nickalls, Knight, Miles, Cole, Kenny, Cauldwell, Wilson & Wickham. Reps: Fuller, Ross & Hearn.

Image from previous fixture. Credit Robin Kennedy

Epsom and Ewell Borough Council is expecting its spending on temporary accommodation to significantly exceed its 2026/27 budget as councillors heard that homelessness remains one of the authority’s biggest financial pressures.

The Council’s Community and Wellbeing Committee, meeting on 6th October, unanimously noted measures being taken to contain the costs and agreed that government homelessness funding, newly announced rough-sleeping funding and a 4% inflationary increase in the nightly-paid accommodation budget would be used to meet the additional expenditure.

The Council’s report says it continues to incur “significant financial outlay” in meeting its duties under the Housing Act 1996 and Homelessness Reduction Act 2017, with expenditure expected significantly to exceed the budget set for the current financial year.

Introducing the discussion, committee chairman Cllr Clive Woodbridge (Residents’ Association, Ewell Village) described homelessness as “one of the biggest problems facing the council at the present time”.

Strategic Housing Manager Arjan de Jong told councillors that high living costs, rising rents and limited access to affordable housing continued to create “significant headwinds”.

He said the Council was placing increasing emphasis on preventing homelessness before temporary accommodation became necessary, helping households into the private rented sector and moving people out of temporary accommodation more quickly.

The authority is also expanding its private-sector leasing arrangements and has delivered accommodation through the Government-backed Local Authority Housing Fund.

Mr de Jong said work was already under way with neighbouring councils on a joint homelessness action plan for the new East Surrey authority which takes over from Epsom and Ewell Borough Council next April.

Homeless approaches up sharply

Cllr Woodbridge told the meeting that approaches to the housing service had increased by around 80% over the previous two years, but argued that the increase had not translated into anything approaching the same rise in placements or expenditure because of the work undertaken by housing officers.

He said the financial pressure would have been “a lot worse” without the team’s efforts.

That reflects figures reported earlier this summer showing that homelessness applications rose by 82.6% during 2025/26 to 623. Epsom & Ewell Times reported in July that the Council had recorded a £410,000 adverse budget variance for that year, driven principally by temporary accommodation costs.

The underlying difficulty is not new. In 2023/24 the Council spent £1.665 million on nightly-paid accommodation. At that time more than 90 households were being accommodated in expensive nightly-paid properties outside the borough because there was insufficient temporary housing locally.

Section 21 evictions falling

Cllr Rob Geleit (Labour, Court) asked whether the Renters’ Rights Act was already affecting homelessness.

Mr de Jong said there had been an increase in approaches before the legislation took effect, which officers believed was partly caused by landlords leaving the market.

Since then, however, there had been “a significant, significant drop off” in approaches resulting from private landlords ending tenancies through no-fault or Section 21 evictions.

At this early stage, he said, “the intention of the Act looks like it’s having the intended consequences”.

The other main pressures were households being asked to leave accommodation provided by family or friends and people fleeing violence.

Preventing homelessness before placement

Cllr Christine Howells (Independent, Nonsuch) questioned what happened when somebody presented as homeless and whether accommodation was provided immediately.

Mr de Jong explained that an emergency out-of-hours placement could be made for one night, after which the person would undergo a full assessment.

During office hours, officers would first seek to prevent homelessness — potentially by talking to landlords or relatives, looking at whether short-term accommodation could be maintained, or helping the applicant secure somewhere in the private rented sector through schemes such as the Council’s rent deposit programme.

Only where those avenues failed would the case move towards a formal homelessness application and assessment of the statutory tests.

People placed while their case was investigated could remain accommodated while exercising rights of review against an adverse decision.

The Council also works with the East Surrey Outreach Service on rough sleeping, while members of the public concerned about somebody sleeping rough can report the case through StreetLink.

Extra staff seek cheaper alternatives

The Council has bolstered its relatively small housing team.

A rent-deposit role has been refocused as a rent-deposit and move-on post, tasked particularly with finding private landlords willing to house households currently in temporary accommodation.

Another officer is concentrating on hospital discharges, where relatively small numbers of cases can nevertheless consume significant resources because of the need to coordinate physical health, mental health, care and housing services.

An additional move-on post is specifically concentrating on households in nightly-paid accommodation — the most expensive form used by the Council.

Mr de Jong said affordable housing was so scarce that households could otherwise remain in temporary accommodation for “a considerable amount of time”.

Prison releases and violence

Cllr Phil Neale (Residents’ Association, Cuddington) asked whether the early release of prisoners was likely to add to homelessness pressures.

Mr de Jong said no effect had been identified at that stage. He added that probation and other statutory agencies have a “Duty to Refer” someone threatened with homelessness to the relevant council rather than simply leaving an individual to seek help after release.

Cllr Rachel King (Residents’ Association, Town) also asked about people fleeing violence.

Mr de Jong stressed that this was not limited to violence against women and girls or domestic abuse and could include gang-related violence.

People fleeing violence may apply to a council outside the area in which they normally live. He said Epsom’s proximity to London might consequently result in people approaching the borough from elsewhere.

Officers would take account of the location of alleged perpetrators or their associates when deciding where it was safe to accommodate someone.

East Surrey changes the map

The discussion also provided a glimpse of how homelessness administration could change when Epsom and Ewell Borough Council disappears next April.

Cllr Woodbridge asked what would happen to the concept of a local connection once East Surrey became the housing authority.

Mr de Jong said housing-allocation policies could continue separately for up to two years while the predecessor councils’ systems were aligned.

Homelessness law would operate differently: from vesting day, the authority to which somebody applied would be East Surrey rather than Epsom and Ewell.

That could also produce savings. The larger authority might have temporary accommodation available elsewhere within East Surrey which Epsom and Ewell does not currently use and which could be cheaper than nightly-paid placements sourced outside the borough.

Mr de Jong cautioned that the details remained “a work in progress”.

Government support

The financial pressures are not being met by council taxpayers alone.

For 2026/27 the Government has consolidated several previous funding streams into its Homelessness, Rough Sleeping and Domestic Abuse Grant. Nationally, almost £885 million is being distributed under the scheme, with £529,219 allocated specifically to Epsom and Ewell.

The grant combines former homelessness prevention, rough sleeping and domestic abuse funding and also contains money associated with the homelessness consequences of the Renters’ Rights Act.

Its purpose includes helping councils discharge their statutory homelessness duties, fund prevention work and staffing, and reduce rough sleeping. Government rules generally restrict its use for the direct ongoing cost of temporary accommodation, although transitional exceptions apply during 2026/27 to certain accommodation already being provided.

The Government says the consolidated grant across England has been increased substantially as part of its multi-year local government settlement, with a wider package of approximately £2.4 billion planned over the spending-review period for homelessness, rough sleeping and domestic abuse activity.

At Epsom and Ewell, councillors unanimously noted the proposed use of the grant alongside recently announced Rough Sleeper Programme funding and the 4% uplift in the nightly-paid accommodation budget to address the current-year pressure.

Urgent housing decision

The committee also formally noted an urgent decision taken earlier in the year to appoint Turning Point to provide independent reviews of adverse homelessness decisions.

Cllr Woodbridge explained that applicants rejected for housing assistance have a statutory right to seek a review. Without a review service in place, the Council risked being unable properly to determine such challenges, with potentially costly consequences.

The appointment had therefore been made urgently rather than waiting several months for the next committee meeting.

Cllr Geleit welcomed the documentation, saying it was “nice to see a well-presented urgent decision in paperwork”.

The committee unanimously noted the decision.

Closing the meeting, Cllr Woodbridge observed that it was possible — although not certain — that this might prove to be the final meeting of Epsom and Ewell Borough Council’s Community and Wellbeing Committee before local government reorganisation.

With East Surrey taking responsibility for housing from 1st April 2027, he said it was difficult to predict how much meaningful business would remain for the committee in its final months.

Sam Jones – Reporter

.

Related Reports

• Epsom and Ewell Council admits homelessness pressure is “getting worse” despite action: 17 July 2026
• Micro-homes for a macro-problem?: on the Council’s proposed temporary homes for local families
• Epsom and Ewell appeal to owners of empty homes: 4 March 2025
• Epsom and Ewell Press Release on Homelessness: detailed background on temporary accommodation, housing shortages and Council costs

Image: Geograph Britain and Ireland | Licence details Creator: Evelyn Simak | Credit: Evelyn Simak Copyright: © Evelyn Simak and licenced for reuse under cc-by-sa/2.0