The desperate state of Woking Borough Council’s de-facto bankruptcy means its “only way forward” is to beg for “financial support from Government”. The sheer scale of the problems were laid bare today when Woking Borough Council issued a section 114 notice showing the historic problems that plunged it into billions of pounds of debt with day-to-day expenditure far outstripping its financial resources.

It’s a far cry from 2014 when the council’s former chief executive Ray Morgan dismissed concerns about how multi-million pound skyscraper projects would be paid for when costs began to spiral – instead saying they were affordable.

While  in 2021 when he said councillors who blocked planning permission for tall buildings were destroying the town’s economy. According to the notice, the borough council has been “in dialogue” with the Department of Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) since May 2022 over its “very large loan portfolio” and the “risks around the ability… to manage the scale of operations”.

A non-statutory review was then carried out in December 2022 –  with the report published in May 2023 when commissioners were appointed to take over much of the running of the council. A separate internal review was conducted that found long-standing issues dating back to before 2016 including an environment of weak financial controls, sub-optimal record keeping, and a lack of resources to manage complex company structures.

There has also been an “absence of external audit opinions on the council’s accounts since 2018/19”, the notice said. It added that, had the financial problems uncovered been understood before 2021 “the council would have had grave difficulty in setting lawfully balanced budgets” after  2018/19. 

The overall size of Woking Borough Council’s long-term liabilities is expected to hit £2.6bn by 2025/26.
However, assets the council invested in have been written down meaning t’s expected deficit –  borrowing it can not afford –  is £1.18 billion, 107 times greater than the amount it raises in council tax in each financial year (£11m). 

To make matters worse, the council has been setting aside insufficient cash for the repayment of debt.
Calculations for how much to set aside had “not been undertaken in the manner required for a number of years” with the notice saying “there is a high probability” reports produced over the years to deal with budget setting, financial monitoring, capital programming, capital financing and treasury management “have all contained inaccuracies and misassumptions.”

The additional charge to be made in 2023/24 is estimated to be £95m. To understand the scale of the problem, “if the additional charges of £75m in each year were to be funded by service reductions…the Council could no longer afford to provide any services at all and would still see a net budget shortfall”. The council has said it is redesigning its budget monitoring process after the review found them to be “weak and poorly designed”.

Much of the council’s debt, including £750m in borrowing for the Victoria Square development, was made through a complex structure of private companies.

The 114 notice said that there needed to undergo a “detailed review and simplification” but it was “likely that the case for using companies to develop assets and run services may be significantly weakened” going forward.

Any Government support the council may get is “likely to require” it to “dispose of surplus property or otherwise secure value from the assets under ownership”, in order to shed “at least part of the ongoing financial liabilities that may be incurred by the public purse”.

The notice warns of  “very significant reductions in both budget and service levels” in the coming years and that “there is no prospect that the council will balance its budget in 2023/24, 2024/25 or the successive years without external intervention on a very large scale”.  It adds, “for the avoidance of doubt, the council has no means of funding the financial deficit from resources that are available locally and has a very small funding base”.

Further section 114 issues are expected “as more work is completed and the recovery planning is developed fully to set the council’s financial affairs.”The council said the process would “take some time to resolve” with any “substantial recovery” likely to take at least two years. 

As of the date of the report the majority of the Woking Borough Council’s Finance Directorate Management Team “is formed of interim contract staff who have been retained by the Council only recently”.

The vast majority of the black hole was amassed on the back of a borrowing spree between 2016 and 2019 when the council was under the stewardship of its former chief executive, Ray Morgan. 

Mr Morgan retired in March 2021 after 14 years at the helm and the Local Democracy Reporting Service went to visit him seeking his views on what happened, why it happened, and who should take responsibility for the council having to stop all spending it is not legally obligated to cover. 

Mr Morgan first joined Woking Borough Council as director of financial services in April 1989. In May 2000 he was appointed an executive director  and promoted to acting chief executive in 2005.

Mr Morgan was a key proponent of the town’s redevelopment strategy, kicking off with The Wolsey Place shopping centre in 2010 for £68 million. Four years later he declared developments including Victoria Square, were central to his plans to transform Woking into a city.

The debt to redevelop Victoria Square has spiralled to about £750million.

In March 2021, the council applied to the Department for Levelling Up Housing and Communities (DLUHC) for Exceptional Financial Support (EFS), but at that time Mr Morgan, in his statement to DLUHC, said he remained confident that the council’s financial strategy was able to withstand normal economic cycles.

Mr Morgan declined to give a formal interview over the matter when approached the day after the council issued its section 114 notice declaring it was broke and  instead issued the following statement.

Speaking to the LDRS, he said: “I have not been party to any of the deliberations recently made by the council and neither was I asked by it or others about any of the decisions that were taken by the Council, following advice from officers and advisors, and, on a cross party basis, in respect of Victoria Square, Sheerwater and the replacement of Victoria Arch; which are the major investments by the Council.

“As an official of the council, I was always happy to engage with your media colleagues to explain the council’s position and the reasoning behind the advice I and my colleagues gave to the council. However, as I am no longer employed by the council, I do not think it appropriate for me to engage in a public discussion when I am no longer in possession of the facts of the matter.”

Woking maybe a town distant on the horizon of Epsom but its debts may yet ripple onto Epsom and Ewell taxpayers’ shoulders. Chris Caulfield reports.

Woking Borough Council has gone bust under the weight of its £2billion debt and banned from any new spending after effectively being declared bankrupt.

The dire situation means the council will cut all spending for non-essential services after a section 114 notice was issued. The authority’s debt is forecasted to rise to £2.6bn. The only exceptions are in cases where it must legally protect vulnerable people and for services it must cover by law.

The  full impact on residents is not yet clear. Croydon Council, which issued its third 114 notice last year, had to increase council tax by 15 per cent and its till negotiating a bail out for about half a billion pounds.
Woking Borough Council’s notice comes three weeks after Government appointed commissioners were sent in by, the Department of Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLHUC) over the “serious concerns” over the “exceptional level of financial and commercial risk” the authority exposed itself to, “as well as its approach to strategic financial decision making and debt management”.

Julie Fisher, Woking Borough Council’s chief executive, said: “The issuing of a Section 114 Notice is a very serious matter that rightly reflects the scale and breadth of the acute financial situation facing the Council. Through the commissioning of an independent financial review of the Council’s borrowing and loans to its companies, we have a comprehensive understanding of our severe financial position which informed the Section 151 Officer’s decision to issue a Section 114 Notice.

“The Council is required to meet within 21 days to consider the notice. I am preparing a response to this notice for an Extraordinary Meeting of Full Council that is being arranged for Tuesday June 20 to meet this requirement. Following the Secretary of State’s appointment of a Commissioning Team, I will be seeking their expertise and using their critical insight to help the council deliver an Improvement and Recovery Plan at pace to ensure we take actions that are in the interests of the public purse.

My first report on these actions will be to the Thursday 13 July meeting of the Council’s Executive.”

The council’s debt soared into the billions on the back of an investment strategy that saw it borrow hundreds of millions of pounds for regeneration projects.

The most high profile, the Victoria Square development in Woking town centre, was based on £750million in borrowing, with reports now showing the project to be worth just £200m.

The council said its Section 151 officer and interim director of finance  issued the notice “in response to the unprecedented financial challenges facing the Council.” It said “the expenditure of the council is set to exceed the financial resources available, and therefore it can no longer balance its budget for the current financial year nor subsequent years.

“Against the core funding of £16million available in the 2023/24 financial year, the Council faces a deficit of £1.2billion.”

The council has been on DLUHC’s radar for sometime, given the scale of its commercial activity and financial situation, noting that, relative to its size is became the “the most indebted local authority” in the UK.

As of December 2022 it had amassed £1.9bn of debt compared to a core spending power of £14m. The section 114 notice means it is no longer possible for the council to balance its budget but as yet the government has not committed to a bail out – the scale of which could have national implications.

The amount of money needed to get the council on to an even keel is beyond the remit of DLUHC and needs formal government approval. However leaked documents from an unpublished report suggested this could impact government borrowing ability.

Two main private companies run by the council, Wey Group and Victoria Square Woking Ltd, generated the majority of its debt through housing and regeneration schemes between 2016 and 2019.

Cllr Ann-Marie Barker, leader of Woking Borough Council, said: “My administration has been very clear about the huge financial challenges facing the council due to the legacy of inherited debt.

“The Notice makes clear the true scale of these challenges which are so significant that the Council cannot simply deal with them on its own. We must work in partnership with the whole of government and its agencies to support us in delivering a robust Improvement and Recovery Plan.

“I understand the concerns and questions this will raise, and I am committed to maintaining transparency with residents and partners as we progress through this unsettling time. Difficult decisions will lie ahead as we seek to balance the Council’s budget and address the unaffordable debt.”

WOKING’S DEBT CRISIS EXPLAINED

Related reports:

Woking Council has the worst debt in Britain!

Woking £490m write down sparks ‘worst fears’

Waking to Woking’s woeful debt

Would you want to live in Woking?

Woking up to a very big debt problem

A “senior level” review into Surrey County Council’s educational shortcomings must be carried out and £15,000 paid out to the families it has failed, a local government watchdog ordered.

The county council must also demonstrate what it is doing to increase educational psychology capacity, and cut waiting times  – as well as show how it will increase capacity for specialist school places.

The ruling came in three damning reports published by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman against Surrey County Council that found it has again failed young people. 

In the first ruling, the county council was found to have caused someone to miss three quarters of their education  over a two year period. According to the published report, a county council ‘fault’ caused an eight-month delay in their education and evidence showed the person’s father had “concerns” his son was “academically behind as a result”. The report read: “He has not received the education he was by law entitled to receive. 

“This had a serious impact on [his] educational development and caused him distress by reason of being isolated at home. Our remedies guidance outlines that where no education is provided at all, we would normally recommend £600 per month to remedy a loss of education. There are 10 academic months in each school year. In this case, there was lack of the required provision over two academic years. This equates to a remedy of £12,000. 

“However, the council provided 27 per cent of the provision [he] was entitled to receive and so this should be accounted for. This informs a financial remedy of £8,760 to put right [the] loss of education and his associated distress.”

The county council was also ordered to apologise to the family for each area of fault and injustice cause, and to pay a further £200 as an acknowledgement of the uncertainty and distress suffered.

As a result, the ombudsman said the county council must conduct a senior-level detailed written review into its failings. It should focus on “delays in implementing timely alternative provision and the effective monitoring and recording of decisions relating to what provision is suitable in the circumstances”.

The review will then inform “service improvements and policy changes, as well as specific feedback and areas of needed training to those involved in the case”.

The second ruling, issued at the same time in April and published six-weeks later, found council maladministration caused a mother, who said she had to leave work to look after her two out-of-school children, distress. The council blamed staffing changes and shortages but there appears, the ombudsman said, to have been a lack of monitoring or oversight during one of her children’s  processes.

Documents seen by the ombudsman showed the council “delayed consulting with schools and finding suitable a school place”. 

The watchdog found Surrey County Council to be at fault and that it failed to provide education and SEN provision to the children. As a result the council was told to apologise and pay £100 for time and trouble, £1,000 for distress, and £3,300 for missed provision.

The third ruling the ombudsman issued, found the council to be at fault for a two-month delay in issuing an Education, Health and Care Plan, and then failing to provide what it recommended. The council agreed to apologise and make a payment in recognition of the injustice caused. It must now apologise and pay £200 for the frustration caused by its faults.

The council was also ordered to pay £600 for the loss of provision caused by its delay, and a further £300 every month from the date of the plan until  a special school place or suitable alternative provision can be arranged.

Within three months the council must also provide evidence of what it is doing to increase educational psychology capacity and reduce waiting times, as well as evidence of how it will increase capacity for specialist school places.

Clare Curran, Surrey County Council cabinet member for education and learning said  “We take the findings from the Ombudsman very seriously and we apologise for the distress these families experienced.

We are not able to comment on any individual children specifically, however we are constantly reviewing how we support young people who are unable to attend school, and are implementing our £180million capital programme that is increasing the availability of, and access to specialist provision. We also recognise the significant issues that confront the SEND system nationally. 

“We have seen a 64 per cent  increase in education, health and care needs assessment requests across Surrey since 2020, at a time of a national shortage of educational psychologists.”

She added that the council was doing its “utmost” to recruit more but hoped to see the shortage in trained education psychologists and other issues addressed soon through the government’s improvement plan.

Cllr Curran said: “We remain committed to improving outcomes for children with additional needs so that they are happy, healthy, safe and confident about their future.”

Related reports:

Education assessment delays making parents sick

Council pays £3,900 to mother of SEND child

Surrey County failed SEND boy

Surrey County Council officers say the authority must tackle a £12million overspend on school transport “to avoid adversely impacting services”.

The situation is made all the more difficult as “pressures anticipated for 2023/24 are significantly higher than in recent financial years”.

Surrey County Council has a duty to ensure 160,000 school children  can get to school each day. 
Of those, about 9,600 qualify for home to school travel assistance. 

In 2021/22, 4,185 children used the travel scheme, up from 3,452 the year before. Between 2017 and 2020 the figure never topped 3,000.

The experience of families applying for travel assistance in the lead up to the 2022/23 academic year were so bad, and the service so overrun, the council set up a review that came back with 50 recommendations.

One parent interviewed as part of the process said “I felt incredibly sorry for them because they must have had every parent in Surrey with children screaming at them”.

The review found that during the peak of 2022, travel assistance teams became “stretched and overwhelmed”, with key staff absent for “reasons including stress”.

The £12m overspend is particularly bad news for parents, many of whom were forced to wait months after the academic year began to get travel provision organised by the council, as the gap between funding and demand is only set to grow, council papers showed.

According to scrutiny papers, the “overall outlook for 2023/24 is one of significant challenge, with budget envelopes remaining relatively static in the face of substantial increases in the cost of maintaining current service provision and increased demand.  Despite a small increase in the projected levels of funding, pressures anticipated for 2023/24 are significantly higher than in recent financial years.”

The main driver behind the massive budget overspend, officers said, was “significant inflation, policy changes and the need to maintain the delivery of priority services experiencing significant demand pressures”. Closing the gap, they said, would “require further actions” that would be “extremely challenging, given the level of pressure forecast, and may require the council to adopt measures that postpone the achievement of [its] ambitions”.

An update on the council’s finances, discussed on Tuesday, May 30, showed that biggest cause for the the Children, Families and Lifelong Learning directorate’s £17.8m  total overspend was the result of “rapid increases in demand following the COVID pandemic” for the travel service,  and the re-opening of schools “after the 22/23 budget setting process” which was  “further compounded by high fuel costs and driver shortages.”

Officers have said that “tackling this gap will require a fundamentally different approach, given the level of efficiencies required, to avoid adversely impacting services”.

Related reports:

School transport failings lead to foodbanks…

Families ‘in limbo’ as SCC fails on school transport

It’s Walk to School Week in Surrey

Junior doctor strikes at a Surrey NHS trust is feared to become ‘monthly’ with ‘a lot less willingness’ from people to cover gaps in maintaining levels of service.

The Royal Surrey NHS foundation board meeting took place on Thursday, May 25, and almost immediately the issue of striking doctors came to the fore with staff retention and breaches of patient confidentiality also featuring prominently. 

Front and centre though was the dispute over pay and conditions between the Government and junior doctors. Royal Surrey CEO Louise Stead said, with three days of industrial action already announced for June, the trust “would be going into overdrive to plan for that” but said it would be more difficult as there would be “a lot less willingness” from people to cover any gaps – a problem that would only increase “as this goes on”.

She told the meeting it was increasingly likely that there would be “strikes every month until there is a resolution”, adding “this will be very difficult”. Trust chairperson Joss Bigmore said the “whole situation was becoming “increasingly frustrating on the hard working people”. He told the meeting: “Until they find a resolution to this its just going to get worse and worse.

He said: “It was galling to see the health secretary canvassing during the election when the junior doctors were on strike”, before adding “We have managed incredibly well so far but it won’t last. We really need to find a resolution to this.”

Junior doctors in England are planning a new  72-hour walkout in June as talks with the government once again broke down. The walkout will start at 7am on Wednesday, June 14, and run until Saturday, June 17 with the British Medical Union labelling the government’s 5 per cent pay offer as not “credible”.

Among the other items discussed during the morning meeting were the increase in the number of healthcare infections being detected across the hospital, in line with the rest of the UK since coming out of the Covid-19 pandemic.

Jacqui Tingle, the director of nursing and midwifery, said that while there had been a nationwide pattern for infectious diseases to rise as a whole, Royal Surrey had specific recorded a “spike” in c-difficile cases. 

The meeting also heard about the on-going issues with recruitment, which had played a role in the three month increase in complaints received from patients.

On IT,  she spoke to the “significant rise” in patient data breaches  – 248 from 90 reported last year, which she said was due to the implementation of a new electronic patient record system though these are said to be in decline,

What has been happening, she said, was the new system pulled patient data from a central hub rather than the most up-to-date local lists resulting, in some cases, in confidential medical letters being sent to the wrong address.

Related reports:

Surrey doctors to go on strike?

Image: Royal Surrey Hospital Trust Board (Chris Caulfield)

The experiences of Epsom and Ewell’s nearby Surrey Borough Councils help to enhance public understanding of the rights and responsibilities of local residents and our Council. This report of Chris Caulfield from our BBC LDRS partner is the subject of today’s editorial.

---

A woman whose mental health suffered at the hands of  “intimidating” anti-social neighbours was refused higher priority status by a council’s housing team, a local government watchdog said. 

The woman, named only as Ms B, raised the complaint about how Reigate and Banstead Borough Council dealt with her housing application – even after she provided medical evidence from her doctor about the impact of her neighbours’ actions.

It would also emerge that the council’s housing team failed to pass her case on to its medical advisor – despite claiming the decision was based on their feedback.

Ms B first contacted the council in 2021 seeking a larger housing association home and was placed in band c – medium priority. In June 2022, she then submitted a letter from her GP saying she “would greatly benefit from a house move away from disruptive neighbours” and that the “situation had affected her mental health and she needed high intensity psychotherapy”.

On September 26, 2022, she then submitted a fitness for work note from her GP, documents relating to her therapy, three police incident letters , and a letter from social prescribing.  On 26 October 2022, the council reviewed her status and ruled she “did not have any medical priority and sent her a decision by email”.

The council said this was based on advice from its own medical adviser – however it later admitted that it “erroneously said the case was passed to the Medical Adviser when it was not”.

The decision read: “Following careful assessment, we have concluded that your application should not be awarded any additional priority on medical grounds.”

Finally on November 23, 2022, on advice from her ward councillor, Ms B sent a statement explaining the anti-social behaviour and harassment experienced. It detailed incidents from 2017 but said problems escalated in December 2021, “mainly involving damage to her car but also some intimidating behaviour”.
Eventually the council reviewed her case and, at the beginning of January 2023, increased her priority to band b – and backdated it to November 23 the 2022.

The ombudsman found the council to be at fault, with the authority now agreeing to backdate her new priority to September 26 2022 , as well as pay her £150 for her time and trouble – and  to improve its procedures for the future.

The  council now has three months to review its housing allocation review procedures to ensure decisions are accurate, contain reasons, and provide a right of review where appropriate. They must also remind staff that they should make further enquiries when they receive information about changes in circumstance.

A spokesperson for Reigate and Banstead Borough Council said: “We accept the Ombudsman’s findings and we have worked with them to resolve the complaint and have fully complied with the mutually agreed actions.”

Woking Borough Council has crumbled under the sheer weight of its crippling £2billion debt as Government appointed commissioners have been sent in.

The borough council had amassed the billions in debt as part of a failing investment strategy that has spiralled out of control leading to the situation it is in now – its annual interest repayments are more than it brings in from council tax.

Today, the Department of Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLHUC) has sent in three commissioners over the  “serious concerns that have been raised regarding the exceptional level of financial and commercial risk” the authority exposed itself to, “as well as its approach to strategic financial decision making and debt management”. 

The council might also switch to full all-out elections every four years as that “can facilitate stable, strategic local leadership, delivering a clear programme for which it can be held to account by the electorate, and having the time to tackle some of the longer-term issues its communities might face”.

“The absence of such elections is often a consistent feature of under-performing councils and a common thread through many council interventions”, letters from DLUHC to the council read.

In a letter to the borough’s chief executive, DLUHC also criticised its “failure” to provide assurance “on the adequacy of the actions that it is taking to address the issues or provide assurance of its capacity to take the necessary action, considering the scale and pace of the response required.”

A Government report titled ‘Woking Borough Council: External assurances review’ published today (May 25) said: “In conclusion, as a result of past investment decisions, the Council has failed its best value duty leaving an unprecedented legacy for the current Leadership Team, which they have not been able to address to prevent financial failure. It is evident that the Council does not have the capacity and expertise to address the scale and complexity of these issues, and so it will continue to fail its best value duty.

“Resolving the issues and moving the Council back to a place of financial stability and value-for-money for the taxpayer will require significant support, including statutory oversight. There is a need for commercial and financial support including capital, legal and forensic accounting specialists. The Council will also need additional leadership capacity to help deliver this swiftly…….

“There are critical decisions that need to be taken in the next 2-3 months, for which immediate expert support is required.”

Within six months, the council must now prepare and agree a credibly resourced “Improvement and Recovery Plan” to the satisfaction of appointed commissioners.

The plan should set out “measures to be undertaken, together with milestones and delivery targets against which to measure performance, in order to deliver rapid and sustainable improvements in governance, finance and commercial functions”.

DLUHC said it had been closely monitoring the concerns around Woking Borough Council’s commercial activity and financial situation. 

Relative to its size, Woking is “the most indebted local authority” in the UK according to DLUHC.

DLUHC documents show that, as of December 2022, it had £1.9bn in borrowing compared to a core spending power of £14m. 

It has two main companies, ThamesWey Group and Victoria Square Woking Ltd, that generated the majority of its debt – through associated housing and regeneration schemes.

In January 2023, DLUHC commissioned an External Assurance Review, covering governance, finance and commercial issues, stating that it was “in the territory” of issuing a section 114 notice as part of setting its 2023/24 budget.

In a letter to Julie Fisher, chief executive of Woking Borough Council, Suzanne Clarke, deputy director at the Local Government Finance Stewardship, said: “After careful consideration of the evidence provided by the reviewers and officials, the Secretary of State considers that there is a pressing case for urgent government action to protect the interests of the residents and taxpayers of Woking, as well as national taxpayers. 

“The financial challenge is acute, and the Secretary of State is concerned that key decisions need to be taken in the coming weeks and months to secure Woking’s financial position, as well as provide assurance that your authority is taking all steps necessary to comply with its best value duty.”

Councillor Ann-Marie Barker, Leader of Woking Borough Council, said: “I am committed to openness and transparency and will continue to keep residents up to date on progress as we deal with the council’s finances. I welcome the letter I have received today from the Minister and the recommendations being proposed by the team that undertook this review.

“I am pleased that there is acknowledgement of the strong collaboration between officers of the council and the review team on the progress that has been made to address the council’s financial resilience. My administration is very clear about the huge challenges facing the council due to the legacy of both the extraordinarily high and disproportionate levels of debt that we have inherited from the previous administration. We are also very clear and focused on the significant risks that the council is now facing up to as a result of that debt.

“We also recognise that these challenges are so significant that the council and its officers cannot deal with these on its own. We therefore fully acknowledge and accept the findings of the report and welcome the support set out by the Minister in his letter.

“I know that councillors and officers will work at pace alongside the government-appointed commissioners to address the issues identified in the report and achieve best value for the public purse through the preparation and delivery of an action plan.

“When my administration gained control of the council last May, I pledged to take on the challenge of major change and embed affordable, responsible and sustainable principles into how the council conducts its future business and this remains my priority. As part of this pledge, we have taken steps to control borrowing, made changes to the governance of our commercial investments and I have instigated independent reviews of all the council’s borrowing and investments.

“I recognise we need to deliver our plans for recovery of the council’s finances with greater pace and urgency and we face difficult decisions in the months ahead. I will work with my officers to ensure, with the support of the commissioning team, we have the capacity and experience to deliver the improvements needed.

“I remain committed to keeping residents, businesses, and community partners fully informed as we progress through this process and develop the detailed plans for recovery with support and oversight from the commissioning team.”

Related reports:

Woking £490m write down sparks ‘worst fears’

Waking to Woking’s woeful debt

Would you want to live in Woking?

Woking up to a very big debt problem

Dominic Raab, former Deputy Prime Minister and Conservative MP for Esher and Walton, will step down at the next general election due to the “increasing concerns over the last few years about the pressure the job has placed” on his young family.

His decision was confirmed in a letter sent on Friday, May 19, to the local party’s group chairperson Peter Szanto. The announcement comes a month after he stood down as Deputy PM after the results of a bullying investigation into his conduct were handed to Prime Minister Rishi Sunak.

Mr Raab was first elected in May 2010 with an 18,593 majority,  although this was cut to just 2,743 in the May 2019 election.

As MP, he served as Deputy Prime Minister, Lord Chancellor, and Secretary of State for Justice.
He was also the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union from July to November 2018. He is married with two children. 

His resignation letter, which the Local Democracy Service has seen, read:

Dear Peter, 

I am writing to let you know of my decision to step down at the next General Election.
It has been a huge honour to represent the Conservatives, since 2010, in this wonderful constituency.
Thank you for your steadfast support and tireless efforts, alongside all the teamwork and hard graft put in by our superb officers, Councillors and members.
As we have discussed, I have become increasingly concerned over the last few years about the pressure the job has placed on my young family.
I will continue to carry out all my responsibilities to my constituents, and provide every support in campaigning, so that we may win here next year – which I am confident we can do under this Prime Minister’s leadership.

Yours Sincerely,

Dominic Raab.

In April this year, Mr Raab quit as Deputy Prime Minister after a report looking into bullying allegations was delivered to Downing Street. 

The Esher and Walton MP announced his resignation via a statement and said he would keep his word if any findings of bullying were found.

The inquiry, conducted by lawyer Adam Tolley KC,  upheld two of the allegations against Mr Raab.
His decision now to not stand as an MP was greeted with  “deep regret” by the group chair who said Mr Raab had “the full support of the Association to continue as our candidate”.

Mr Szanto said that “on a personal level” he knew of the sacrifices Mr Raab and his family had made but that his commitment to the residents of Esher and Walton had “always been outstanding”.

The Esher and Walton Conservative Association has since been in touch with Conservative campaign headquarters about the selection of a new parliamentary candidate although at this stage no timetable has been given. 

A Cumbrian coal mining firm is intervening in a landmark legal hearing to determine whether oil drilling should be allowed in Surrey.  The Horse Hill drilling case is set for the Supreme Court in June with protesters hoping for a ruling that could severely restrict fossil fuel exploration in the UK.

West Cumbria Mining Ltd, the company behind Britain’s first new prospective coal mine for decades has been given permission to intervene in the case over plans for oil drilling at Horse Hill, Surrey according to a Supreme Court order published earlier this month.

In law, an intervention is when a non-party joins ongoing litigation, as the case may affect their rights and they should have the right to be heard. The other intervening parties are Friends of the Earth, the Office for Environmental Protection (OEP) and Greenpeace.

The case is being brought by Redhill resident Sarah Finch on behalf of the Weald Action Group, which represents communities opposing onshore oil and gas projects. 

Ms Finch is challenging Surrey County Council’s 2019 decision to grant  UK Oil and Gas (UKOG) planning permission for drilling – on the grounds that environmental impact assessments must take into account downstream emissions caused by burning extracted oil.

Her fight has now reached the country’s highest court after three judges were split over the lawfulness of the county council’s decision to grant permission for 25 years of oil drilling and production – in the same year the county declared a climate emergency.

Carbon emissions from burning the extracted fossil fuels were not included in either the Horse Hill or Cumbrian coal mine’s environmental impact assessments.

Ms Finch said: “The fact that West Cumbria Mining wants to have its say in a case about a small onshore oil development 370 miles from their proposed coal mine shows the national importance of this case. I hope that the Supreme Court will confirm that no fossil fuel development – coal, oil or gas – should be allowed without consideration of its full climate impact.”

According to UKOG the Horse Hill site in Reigate and Banstead has so far produced about 185,000 barrels of oil. Approximately 1.362 million remain.

Friends of the Earth campaigner, Tony Bosworth, said: “The biggest climate impact from gas, coal and oil projects occurs when the fuel they produce is eventually burned – it’s unbelievable that this is effectively ignored when planning decisions are made. This landmark legal challenge could have huge implications for fossil fuel developments across the country, including the new coal mine in West Cumbria. West Cumbria Mining are clearly concerned, which is why they have intervened. 

“West Cumbria Mining boast that they will build the world’s first zero carbon mine, which is a complete contradiction in terms. Their calculations also ignore emissions from when the coal produced is actually used – that’s like saying that we should ignore the health impacts of smoking cigarettes and just look at how they are produced. 

“We need to stop burying our heads in the sand. Sarah Finch’s legal case could play a huge role in building a net zero future.”

OEP general counsel, Peter Ashford, said: “Environmental impact assessment is so important for integrating the environment into planning decision-making. We are interested in this case because of the opportunity to clarify the law here to ensure proper decision-making that enhances environmental protection.  We hope that the Supreme Court will take this opportunity, and will develop principles for determining the proper approach to the assessment of indirect effects under the EIA legislation.”

The hearing is scheduled for June 21.

The coal firm is now battling on two legal fronts after a judge ruled on Friday May 19 to grant Friends of the Earth and South Lakes Action on Climate Change a hearing to challenge the UK Government’s decision to approve West Cumbria Mining’s deep coal plans.

That hearing is expected to last for three days when it is heard later this year.

A spokesperson for West Cumbria Mining Limited said it would be inappropriate to comment on a live legal case. UKOG have been approached for comment.

Related Reports:

A Surrey Borough funds legal fight to stop oil drilling

The Hills Are Alive With the Sound of Drilling… ?

Surrey MPs oppose each other on drills in the hills

Oiling the wheels of justice on Surrey Hills

Image credits: NASA’s Earth Observatory and Rainer Lesniewski Getty Images

Surrey County Council failed to provide suitable full-time education to an SEND primary school child, causing the youngster to miss valuable learning time and creating undue stress for his mother, a local government watchdog has ruled.

The county council was ordered to pay £3,900 and apologise to the boy and his mother to acknowledge the injustice caused after the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman completed its investigation into the matter.

The council must pay £2,900 for the lack of education provided over a six-month period and a further £1,000 for the inconvenience, distress, time and trouble caused to his mother – including the impact on her employment. It must also provide updated guidance clarifying the legal position on complaints and appeals as well as evidence it has complied with the ruling.

The Ombudsman said it would not make further recommendations for service improvements to the council’s alternative education provision as these have been covered in “similar findings against the council in other cases in the recent past covering the same period”. Staff are also to be retrained and better records kept to “prevent a recurrence of the same fault in future cases.”

In 2020 the boy was on a waiting list for an autism assessment by the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS). In November 2021, his mainstream school then placed the youngster on a part-time, mornings only, timetable and by January 2022 it was assessed he should no longer attend school due to mental health concerns. 

His mother said he was then given worksheets but no online or face-to-face tuition was offered. His mother, a single parent, said she had to cut her hours at work as her son could not attend school.

In late March 2022, the council offered the family two hours per week teaching assistant (TA) support. 
Convinced her son was falling behind, his mother began paying private tutor to help for one hour a week.
Shortly after this the council increased TA time to three hours a week, and then later added one hour tutor time. By late June this was extended to four hours, increasing to seven and a half hours in September, and 14 hours in October 22.

Eventually,  the council said the boy should have access to mainstream provision for the remainder of his time at primary school but he would not be in a position to return immediately.  Discussions then turned to offering 25 hours educational provision through the county’s SEN team from September and a draft plan proposed he stay with his current school but likely to require specialist provision at secondary age.

In July, a meeting was then held with tutors, the school, and CAMHS – and an Education otherwise than at school (EOTAS) programme was suggested. His mother asked for this to be continued on an ongoing basis.

However, Surrey County Council decided he should continue with his current school in Summer 2022 and did not specify EOTAS or interim provision, or details of how he would reintegrate into the school.

His mother complained that the council failed to provide her son with proper education from January 2022 and failed to follow professional advice that he should receive EOTAS until he transferred to secondary school in September 2023 – instead proposing he be sent back to mainstream primary school for the remainder of the school year.

The Ombudsman upheld her complaint and found fault by the council in “failing to provide suitable fulltime education when a child was unable to attend school.” The report said: “This caused the child to miss out on education and caused the parent carer unnecessary inconvenience and distress. The agreed actions set out above are a satisfactory resolution to the complaint.”

A spokesman for Surrey County Council said: “We take the findings from the Ombudsman very seriously and we apologise for any distress the family experienced. We are not able to comment on any individual children specifically, however we know how important access to fulltime education is for all children to support their development and wellbeing, including when this must be provided outside of school.

“We remain committed to improving outcomes for children with additional needs so that they are happy, healthy, safe and confident about their future.”

Image – Emily Coady-Stemp

Related reports:

Surrey County failed SEND boy

Surrey to SEND £40m for special schools