Chris Caulfield of the BBC’s Local Democracy Service brings us the latest twist in the awful Woking Borough Council debt crisis. Its £2.1 billion debt accumulated under a Conservative administration from unwise property dealings. The Labour Government is driving forward a reorganisation of Surrey’s local government and there is anxiety that Woking’s debt will be spread to a wider Council tax payer base as a result. Could Epsom and Ewell householders end up paying for the mistakes of Councillors they did not elect?

Even if bankrupt Woking Borough Council sold everything it owned, it would still be more than £1.5 billion in debt. The huge figure was published as part of the ongoing reports Government commissioners must produce on the broken borough as it goes through the painful process of rebalancing its books.

The report stated that while the council, which declared itself bust in 2023 following a disastrous regeneration program that saddled residents with huge tax rises and massive service cuts, was taking steps to sell off its assets, the level of debt was still such that it needed significant government support. Published on March 6, the report revealed that the council had a core spending power of £16.9 million a year – but servicing its £2.1 billion debt was costing £1.3 million a week in interest alone.

“Even if everything else could be disposed of, the level of overhanging debt would still be significant, over £1.5 billion, as the level of debt far exceeds the value of assets,” the report stated. It added that some assets, such as the council’s social housing valued at £400 million, had to be retained. However, if the council did nothing, the annual interest costs and loan servicing would average £70 million and £73 million a year respectively, “which would add significantly to the level of debt.”

The council was granted Exceptional Financial Support for the next two years, allowing it to cover interest and other revenue costs. However, the commissioners warned: “With no ability to repay the exceptional financial support through asset sales, let alone all the legacy debt, the position is not sustainable. Work is underway to determine the best exit strategy from the commercial legacy, which we are engaging with government on, and it is recognised that a long-term financial solution will not be in place for the 2025/26 budget process. However, the current position is not viable, and commissioners are keen to continue engaging with government on the route forward.”

Responding on behalf of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, Baroness Taylor of Stevenage acknowledged the bleak situation but stated that the department was reassured Woking Borough Council was committed to radically overhauling its operations. Serious concerns remained over the task ahead and the potential impact on the impending reorganisation of local government – the dissolution of Surrey’s boroughs, districts, and county council, to be replaced with either two or three larger unitary bodies with an elected mayor.

Baroness Taylor wrote: “I share your concerns about the capacity of the council to deliver this programme of change and encourage you to work with the council and the ministry to consider how we can best enable the council to improve, for the benefit of residents. We have been clear with councils in Surrey that commissioners have a vital role, not only in supporting Woking to continue to improve but also in responding to the invitation to all principal authorities in Surrey to provide proposals for local government reorganisation, to ensure that proposals are robust.”

Related reports:

What Epsom could do with Woking’s £75 million bail out?

Ex-Council Officers under investigation for Woking’s £2 billion debt

Will Epsom and Ewell be bailing out Woking?

No wonder Woking went bankrupt. Scandal of private school loans

PM confident of success in Woking

Woking’s whopping bail out and tax rise

“Hard” times are coming to Surrey Heath Borough Council residents as millions of pounds are being cut from services, with many reduced to minimum standards, as its bleak financial situation became clear. The borough is saddled with high debt repayments to cover the cost of loans it borrowed to finance and purchase Camberley Square and the House of Fraser. The costs of servicing the debt are said to be almost as much as the council brings in through tax.

Plans to sell the town hall for housing and move into the House of Fraser building have also been put on ice due to the imminent restructuring of local government and the likely abolition of borough and district councils. It leaves the council having to rely on rapidly depleting reserves while it guts services to residents – or face going bust.

At the February 19 full meeting of Surrey Heath Borough Council, members agreed to make cuts of £2.143 million in ‘transformation savings’ while drawing down £21.67 million from earmarked reserves. This comes after years of uncertainty over the council’s finances – which have finally been audited for the first time since 2019.

The budget papers read: “The council now has a greater understanding of its level of reserves, the figures contained within its base budget and the overall size of the deficit. This is not a palatable situation and requires some significant transformational savings, efficiencies and additional income generation just to remain solvent over the period covered by this Medium-Term Financial Strategy (the next four years). Over the previous budgets, the council has applied some of its reserve balances to support regeneration and continued delivery of services to the local residents and businesses; however…this is not sustainable in perpetuity. Previous years have seen an annual base budget review exercise which generated £2.1 million overall savings to the council. These have not been sufficient to bridge the budget gap and have only succeeded in ‘buying more time’ on reserve usage; the council is now embarking on a council-wide transformation programme.”

This includes a full review of all discretionary services and a restructuring of what it provides to residents. The report read: “The desired outcome of reducing the cost of delivery through reduction in the non-statutory element level of service, ensuring compliance with only the minimum statutory requirement and ensuring appropriate cost recovery in the discretionary chargeable services offered.” There will also be a full review of the staffing structure as this makes up the majority of controllable costs of services.

The council has also said it would look to sell off assets and has identified some that could be disposed of. However, its two largest assets, and the ones that are primarily the root cause of much of the council’s financial problems, are now worth significantly less than what Surrey Heath paid. Selling these would result in huge losses.

Councillor Shaun Macdonald, leader of Surrey Heath Borough Council, said: “As expected, the view is not pretty. We are now clear that the numbers we inherited were fundamentally misstated, with the reserves being confirmed as £16m lower. That’s about a third of a haircut versus the total. Therefore, our ability to provide the same services to residents that they’ve been used to is nonexistent.”

He told the meeting: “Putting the properties to one side, our core income is about £13m and our core cost of services is roughly £15.8m. It does not take an accountant to understand that’s a difference of £2.8m a year – and that is before net indirect costs of roughly £5.3m, which is predominantly made of interest and debt repayments – less property income – to pay for the reckless purchases made in 2016 and which will remain a significant number for future generations. So what are our choices to address this longer term? Well, there are only two options: reduce costs and increase income further.

“Our ability to increase income is extremely limited, therefore the budget increases council tax by the permitted maximum of 2.99 per cent.” He said the maximum contribution must come through cost-cutting, through efficiencies, and through transformational change.

He added: “This is easier said than done. Not least with the cost of change to factor in. We simply have to stop doing things that we do today if it can’t pay its way or it’s not a statutory service, and that is hard. It’s hard for us collectively in this chamber, it’s hard for the officers who work very hard to provide our services, to provide our residents with the best services they can. It’s hard for our residents who are used to having what they’ve had as a service or the support that they’ve been given through grants.”

Related reports:

Guildford Borough Council keeps its lights on

Will Epsom and Ewell be bailing out Woking?

Will Epsom and Ewell be bailing out Guildford?

Will Epsom and Ewell be bailing out Spelthorne?

Critical front-line services will be spared after a huge government ‘bail out’ was agreed, bankrupt Woking Borough Council has said. Officially referred to as Exceptional Financial Support for local authorities, Woking Borough Council has been given £74.9 million for the 2025/26 financial year on top of the £96.5million agreed for 24/25.

Woking declared itself effectively bust in 2023 with debts of about £2 billion. It forced the council to cut new spending, axe non-statuary services and increase tax by 10 per cent.

It used the money to build up what it hoped would be a significant investment portfolio but instead saddled itself with huge debt repayments costing tens of millions of pounds every year that it simply can not afford.

It has left the council relying on the Government to cover the cost of its heavy borrowing, known as minimum debt repayment. And this week came the news that it would receive all the money it has asked for – including a further £ 2.8million to cover the cost of providing services this year.

Had the Government refused completely the council would have ground to a halt. Councils also have to, by law, balance their books each year, and the £2.8m above and beyond debt repayment was agreed as it was viewed that Woking Borough Council has been doing what it can to reduce its spending.

This has included mass layoffs, the sale of assets, and finding partners to take over the running of others. Had any further cuts been made in such a short period of time, the results would have been ‘catastrophic’ to both the council and residents it had been said.

The government cash comes as part of 30 councils overall that have been given support to manage financial pressures – such is the widespread problem of local government finance.

Cllr Ann-Marie Barker, Leader of Woking Borough Council, said: “I welcome the Government’s decision to provide exceptional financial support. Critically, this will ensure that the council can meet its financial obligations relating to its £2.1 billion legacy debt without impacting front-line services and will allow us to set a balanced budget at a meeting of Council on Monday 3 March.

“We continue to urgently address the council’s legacy debt through work being undertaken as part of our Improvement and Recovery Plan on asset rationalisation, debt reduction and improved commercial governance.

“We remain committed to working alongside Commissions and Government to find a lasting resolution to our complex and challenging financial situation.”

In January 2023, an external assurance review covering Woking Borough Council’s governance, finance and commercial issues was carried out. It provided an external assessment of Woking Borough Council’s governance arrangements, financial situation, commercial investments and its capacity and capability to manage these.

The Secretary of State was not satisfied that the pace or scale of the council’s response was proportionate to the issues it faced and decided immediate urgent government action was required, – and On May 25, 2023, he decided to intervene and appointed the review team as commissioners.

By June that year the council declared itself bankrupt and by October, the Commissioners spoke of the gravity of the situation in Woking and the scale of the challenge the council faced.

Related reports:

Will Epsom and Ewell be bailing out Woking?

Ex-Council Officers under investigation for Woking’s £2 billion debt

No wonder Woking went bankrupt. Scandal of private school loans

Poundland has been told to “show some local pride” and repair its broken shop front window and remove the graffiti from its East Molesey store.

The low-price chain, which serves up to seven million customers every week natonwide, has been issued with a community protection warning by Elmbridge Borough Council after ignoring multiple requests to address the eyesores. 

Elmbridge Borough Council  says it works with business groups and community volunteers to keep its high streets, villages and parades thriving and to bring that sense of civic pride. 

One group, from Manor Road, takes care of the planters along Walton Road to “lift up the high street”.  

Initiatives in the last year have been designed to make a positive impact on the community,  such as new bins, flower planters, deep cleans and pavement works.

It’s part of a move to get businesses, volunteers and the council working together in support of the borough’s high streets.

That work has been undermined for “almost a year” as Poundland left temporary wooden panelling and unsightly graffiti, in place.

A spokesman for Elmbridge Borough Council said: “Despite multiple requests to address the graffiti and damage at Poundland in East Molesey, sufficient action has not been taken.

“The store has tried to clean the windows professionally but could not get the graffiti removed. 

“In support of local residents, we have issued this Community Protection Warning hoping that Poundland will now undertake the necessary repairs and support our high streets.”

Under Community Protection Warnings,  £100 fines can be issued in the first instance. If  no action is taken, prosecutions can begin. If convicted the maximum penalty is a fine up to £20,000.

Councillor Steve Bax (Conservative: Molesey East) said: “Almost a year has gone by without action and they are giving the impression they are not bothered as long as the money continues to roll in. 

“When we have got Manor Road residents caring for the planters so brilliantly and doing their best to lift up the high street, we need this retailer to show some local pride too. 

“The council has issued a community protection warning against Poundland which gives the company 28 days to fix the shop front or face a fine. 

“Hopefully this formal action will now mean the company move forward and deal with shopfront issues.”

Poundland was approached for comment.

Two former officers at Woking Borough Council are being investigated over their roles in Woking Borough Council’s bankruptcy. The Financial Reporting Council (FRC) has confirmed that it is looking into the “professional standards” of two “individual accountants” in respect of Woking Borough Council’s operations and investment activities for the financial years ended 31 March 2017 to 31 March 2023.

While the FRC has not identified the two people involved, former CEO Ray Morgan has confirmed to the Local Democracy Reporting Service he is being  investigated. The Guardian has named the other as Leigh Clarke, who was the council’s chief financial officer until 2023. Shortly after her departure the council’s interim section 151 officer declared Woking bankrupt with debts of more than £2 billion.

Since then the council has had to cut huge numbers of jobs, increased its share of tax by 10 per cent and slashed funding to services and facilities. It is the second time the FRC has investigated council officers. In January 2024 it began an investigation into a former member at Thurrock Council after that authority admitted to a £469m budget black hole.

If that is any indication of timescales, it could easily be more than a year before a decision is reached in Woking. FRC sanctioning powers range from issuing unlimited fines down to a slap on the wrist. It can also strip people of their membership of professional bodies.

Both Ray Morgan and Leigh Clarke were named in the Grant Thornton report published on Tuesday, November 5 that examined the scale of Woking’s borrowing. The report found a “long and atypical history of borrowing from the Public Works Loan Board” ran between 1999 and 2020.

Borrowing accelerated rapidly between 2016 and 2019 – primarily to fund regeneration projects such as Victoria Place and Sheerwater but also to cover running costs at its companies as well as loans to a private school. The Grant Thornton report read: “There was a strong message, over a period of many years, from the former CEO, Ray Morgan, that if debt could be serviced it was possible to borrow as much as the council wished, for whatever purposes it chose.”

Will Forster said: “As Woking’s MP, I’ve called for those who effectively bankrupted our local council to be held to account. Pleased to see that the Financial Reporting Council, the UK’s accounting watchdog, is investigating Ray Morgan and Leigh Clarke, two former senior council figures.”

Responding to the news, Cllr Ann-Marie Barker, Leader of Woking Borough Council, said: “Since the council fully accepted the recommendations of the independent Grant Thornton public interest report, Government-appointed commissioners overseeing Woking Borough Council’s financial recovery have been liaising with relevant professional bodies.

“As a result, the Financial Reporting Council (FRC) has confirmed investigations into the conduct of two former employees.

“Woking residents deserve complete transparency and for those responsible for the borough’s financial issues to be held accountable. We will therefore do whatever we can to assist the FRC in their investigations.”

The FRC statement read: “This press notice concerns the opening of an investigation into the relevant individuals. The investigation does not relate to any persons or entities other than the relevant individuals and it would not be fair to treat any part of this announcement as constituting or evidencing an investigation into any other persons or entities.

“The Financial Reporting Council has commenced an investigation under the Accountancy Scheme into the conduct of two individual accountants in relation to their compliance with governance, reporting, regulations and professional standards in respect of Woking Borough Council’s operations and investment activities for the financial years ended 31 March 2017 to 31 March 2023.

“The individuals are no longer employed by the council. The decision was made at a meeting of the FRC’s conduct committee on 17 December 2024. The investigation will be conducted by the FRC’s executive counsel.”

Plans for a new railway connecting Surrey to Heathrow and beyond have resurfaced as the track’s backers welcomed government support for a third runway at the airport. The line, called the Heathrow Southern Railway (HSR), is a privately financed proposal to link towns in Surrey to one of the world’s busiest airports.

If built, it would operate between Heathrow and London Waterloo via Staines. There would also be direct trains from the airport to Woking and Guildford, before carrying on to the south coast. Heathrow Southern Railway said it also would provide for an extension of the Elizabeth Line to Staines.

Baroness Jo Valentine, the group’s chairperson, said: “The UK Government has set a bold agenda for growth with its support for a third runway at Heathrow Airport. Our railway enhances that growth by increasing connectivity and reducing surface emissions. These benefits accrue with a two runway airport but will be enhanced with an additional runway. We look forward to working with all partners to make this a reality.”

Mark Livock, chief executive, added: “The new Government has expressed interest in finding ways to harness private sector finance in making the delivery of major infrastructure schemes more affordable. Heathrow Southern Railway has a depth of experience in creating opportunities for private investment that could deliver tangible benefits to the UK, and southern rail access to Heathrow would positively transform public transport connectivity to Europe’s busiest airport.”

The group estimates that the new route would cut about millions of road journeys – with many of those from the M25. They added: “Our construction plans minimise the impact on neighbouring communities by providing a route mainly in tunnel and using only electric trains. Unlike the previous “Airtrack” proposals, HSR avoids level crossings in the Egham area.”

An HSR spokesperson said: “Our proposed route starts at Heathrow’s Terminal 5 station and is intended to run mainly in tunnel and be electrified to minimise environmental impact. It rises to the surface to connect to the existing railway near Staines and Virginia Water.”

Related reports:

Heathrow expansion reaction

“Blocks away” from airport expansions

Hsr Proposed Route (Image Heathrow Southern Rail)

Up to 200 new homes will be built on former green belt land despite fears they could overwhelm the already strained sewage system. Mole Valley District Council’s planning committee approved developer Thakeham’s vision for the 27-hectare site off Little Bookham Street on Wednesday, February 5. As well as the 200 homes, the plans will feature a community building, Gypsy and Traveller pitches, and public open space that the developers said would also open access to nearby ponds. Forty per cent of the homes would be affordable.

The site has been identified for development by the council’s local plan, but the application had drawn more than 300 objections. Residents speaking at the meeting raised concerns about raw sewage, as well as the impact on local children being pushed out of their school’s catchment area. Thames Water, however, raised no objections. Christine Milstead said: “Our green belt is definitely not Angela Rayner’s gray belt. We think this development will cause harm to the green belt and protected habitats. All residents have objected to surface water flooding, and there are springs all over this site. For years, residents have been pumping water off their patios to prevent their houses from flooding. When you get a lot of rain, water does not drain through permeable surfaces. Will the proposed infrastructure capture water from the rear of new properties, or will it just run down to Little Bookham Street?”

Speaking on behalf of the plans, Tristan Robinson, Thakeham’s director of external affairs, said Mole Valley was the fourth least affordable place to live in the country. He highlighted young couples struggling to afford housing and the 680 households on the waiting list. Despite the plans being voted through—by eight in favour, three against, and one abstention—Councillor Joanna Slater (Conservative; Leatherhead South) cautioned against setting a precedent for developing beyond what was laid out in the council’s local plan for green belt. Cllr Paul Kennedy (Liberal Democrats: Bookham East and Eastwick Park) also urged the committee to heed residents and environmental groups calling for the protection of the “precious unspoiled countryside.”

The new homes will be net carbon zero and feature a mix of one to four-bedroom properties. The developers aim to create 45 acres of open space and a new country park accessible to the wider community. Mr Robinson said: “After undertaking a comprehensive public consultation process for Land North West of Preston Farm, we are pleased to receive backing from Mole Valley District Council. The scheme includes 40 per cent affordable housing—something urgently needed locally—and significant new public open spaces for everyone to enjoy.”

Plans for 200 homes in Little Bookham (image Thakeham)

Fake QR codes, used to scam motorists into giving away their bank and card details, have been found in Guildford car parks.

The scam codes have been placed on payment machines, signs or barriers  in an attempt to defraud people into thinking they are making genuine payments, Guildford Borough Council has warned.

Not only are the unsuspecting drivers handing over private details to the scammers but they are also putting themselves at risk of collecting a fine for not having a valid parking ticket.

The council has issued a warning  to help people from getting caught out and said it does not use any QR codes at its car parks – so if you see one it’s a scam.

Lead councillor for commercial services, Councillor Catherine Houston, said: “We are aware of the increase in QR code parking scams across the country and I want to reassure residents that our teams regularly inspect our car parks to keep them safe and free from fraudulent activities.

“Criminals are becoming increasingly sophisticated in their methods so if you do spot a QR code in one of our car parks, please don’t scan it; report it to the council instead.

“By raising awareness of such scams, we help to protect drivers from being misled so that residents and visitors can use our car parks in confidence.”

Once scanned, the codes take people to a fake website that asks for credit and debit card information, mimicking genuine payment providers.

The council has now placed signs within all its car parks explaining to only use the  RingGo app and to not use any QR codes found. 

It has also pledged to remove any codes found with its enforcement team carrying out daily checks.

Scammers have targeted Guildford car parks (image Google)

Debt-ridden Woking Borough Council has approved the sale of two more assets as it continues slashing its way to a balanced budget.

The bankrupt authority, with debts of more than £2billion, is undergoing a full review of the buildings it owns as it’s forced to sell them off to try to ease the burden on the taxpayer if and when a Government bailout happens.

The two most recent sell offs are the  Egley Road Barn Site and Sheerwater Nursery. They are  currently being used by the Woking Gymnastics Club and a charity. 

Woking Borough Council went effectively bankrupt in 2023 on the back of a failed investment strategy to regenerate parts of the borough and has since had to raise its share of tax by 10 per cent, close a raft of public services including toilets, lose about 60 staff members and stop funding to community groups.

Borough leader Councillor Anne-Marie Barker told the Thursday January 16 executive committee: “It’s part of our asset disposal program to help to reduce the debt at Woking Council.”  

The meeting heard that an earlier bid to sell Egley Road had fallen through but a second offer had since been accepted.

Councillor Dale Roberts said: “The purchaser progressed their offer in good faith but has ultimately withdrawn. The recommendation is to transact with the next highest bidder.

“The recommended purchaser, the new bidder, has submitted the highest financial offer on a conditional  basis subject to planning.”

Exact details of what this is, and the value of the bids, are still being kept private.

He added: “These decisions aren’t purely economic, it’s a key factor for this council of course as it’s engaged in an asset disposal and debt reduction programme but it’s not purely economic” and that the decision “also aligned with the Woking for all strategy”.

He said: “It will help deliver a thriving community through partnerships.”

Tenants Woking Gymnastics Club has been sent what the council calls a “letter of assurance” outlining what help the authority can provide going forward “in terms of balancing everyone’s interest”. 

Cllr Roberts said: “We are doing everything we can though with Woking Gymnastics Club to facilitate their extension at the new site at Kingfield.

He added: “The disposal will facilitate the regeneration of the site.

“It will complement the existing development of residential land on the adjacent land holding and it will increase the provision of homes within the borough.

“It will also of course generate a capital receipt.”

The Sheerwater site, in Blackmore Crescent, has been sold to a “special purchaser because advantages have been found for their ownership that would not be available to other buyers.”

The two-storey community building, together with parking and a garden, does not currently provide the council with any rental income. It is being  let to a charity that leases the entire site for free. The charity licences part of the building to a children’s nursery with the  income retained by the charity to support its operation.

The report into the sale read: “The authority recognises that this may require difficult decisions to be made as part of the wider transformation policy and an important priority for the council is to revise its approach to property ownership and to identify opportunities to raise both income and capital receipts from the disposal of surplus properties within the context of supporting current/future council expenditure/debt.

Heathrow has been given the go ahead to press forward with plans for  third runway that will bring in hundreds of thousands of extra flights to the West London airport every year, the Chancellor has announced – but questions remain about how deliverable the project will be.

The airport has long pressed for a third runway. The plans  in the past have involved demolishing the mediaeval village of Harmondsworth and its neighbours Sipson and  Harlington.

Feasibility studies have also been carried out about re-routing the M25 through a tunnel under the new northern runway and the enormous infrastructure project is supposed to be built while the country meets its environmental targets.

Heathrow has welcomed the Chancellor’s announcement today that the Government is backing a third runway –  and would be inviting proposals to be brought forward by the summer. 

The government has already tightened legal pathways against any plans, cutting the number of appeals allowed from three down to just one.

Opponents, including the London Mayor’s office, MPs and campaign groups however,  argue a third runway won’t bring in hoped-for economic benefits but will raise “serious environmental and health concerns”.

The Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, said: “I remain opposed to a new runway at Heathrow Airport because of the severe impact it will have on noise, air pollution and meeting our climate change targets.

“I will scrutinise carefully any new proposals that now come forward from Heathrow, including the impact it will have on people living in the area and the huge knock-on effects for our transport infrastructure.

“Despite the progress that’s been made in the aviation sector to make it more sustainable, I’m simply not convinced that you can have hundreds of thousands of additional flights at Heathrow every year without a hugely damaging impact on our environment.”

Stanwell Moor is the Surrey village at the end of Heathrow’s southern runway. 

Residents there have grown used to jet engines flying overhead. So much so,  that some regard the noise made from incoming planes a respite compared with the roar when taking off.

The Stanwell Moor Residents’ Association, in a statement published on its website, said: “What is different this time is that easterly alternation planning application will go ahead regardless of the airport expansion and would lead to more flights over our village; and secondly, the Government are likely to reform planning to speed up the approval for expansion. 

“We will be ready to represent the village with a list of demands that put residents first.”

The Government said it would issue a full assessment of any expansion plans through the Airports National Policy Statement.

It said the project must represent value for money and that it, plus any associated service transport costs, will be financed through private funding to “ensure that a third runway is delivered in line with our legal, environmental and climate objectives.”

Paul Beckford, policy director at the HACAN clearskies group said: “The announcement today will disappoint the thousands of residents whose communities will be destroyed by a third runway and the millions who will be exposed to increases in noise and air pollution.

“Labour have set four tests that any airport expansion must pass in order to be approved and we believe that Heathrow’s current plans are simply not compatible with those tests.

“The Government believes that it can achieve both growth and meet its climate targets but this decision puts both of those ambitions at risk.

“Expanding the UK’s largest emitter of carbon in a forlorn hope of increasing GDP at some point in the future without a credible plan to deliver zero emission aviation is a folly of the highest order.”

The Liberal Democrats issued a statement from its MPs saying the third runway would jeopardise the UK’s climate commitments and will have a significant negative impact on local communities and human health. 

The hundreds of thousands of extra flights to-and-from Heathrow, they said, will increase the risk of health conditions including heart disease, strokes and mental health issues. 

MP for Esher and Walton Monica Harding said: “A third runway at Heathrow would have a profound impact on our climate, health, and communities. With a lack of clarity on the economic benefits and costs to the taxpayer, along with serious environmental and health concerns, the Government must urgently address these questions.” 

Others, such as the Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport UK were quick to praise the announcement but cautioned the importance of prioritising environmental concerns. 

Its chairperson, Paul Le Blond, said “Any expansion strategy must prioritise public transport integration, leveraging existing transport hubs and accommodating new rail links. 

“The development should include modernised terminals and new gateway facilities for both the northern and southern perimeters. Crucially, all environmental impacts—including noise, local air quality, and greenhouse gas emissions—must remain within statutory limits.

“Whilst the expansion would be privately funded through passenger and shipping revenues, government support through policy frameworks and strategic rail investment will be essential to unlock private sector investment.”

Related reports:

“Blocks away” from airport expansions

Surrey village to suffer a lot more Heathrow flights

Chance for Epsom and Ewell’s say on Heathrow flights

So called “blockers” to major transport projects will be cleared in a move that looks set to curb challenges to Heathrow and Gatwick Airport expansions, the Government has announced.

The Prime Minister wants to curtail legal challenges to major decisions in what the Government describes as “unarguable cases” they say can cause “years of delay and hundreds of millions of cost to projects that have been approved by democratically elected ministers.”

Instead, the legal system will be overhauled with campaigners given just one attempt at a legal challenge for “cynical cases lodged purely to cause delay rather than three”. It comes after reports the chancellor Rachel Reeves said she was prepared to face down critics of plans to expand Heathrow Airport and Gatwick –  arguing economic growth outweighed other concerns.

The Government has said this would balance the need for ongoing access to justice against what it describes as a “challenge culture” where small pressure groups obstruct decisions taken in the national interest. Prime Minister Keir Starmer said: “For too long, blockers have had the upper hand in legal challenges – using our court processes to frustrate growth. We’re putting an end to this challenge culture by taking on the NIMBYs and a broken system that has slowed down our progress as a nation. This is the government’s Plan for Change in action – taking the brakes off Britain by reforming the planning system so it is pro-growth and pro-infrastructure. The current first attempt, known as the paper permission stage,  will be scrapped. 

“Primary legislation will be changed so that where a judge in an oral hearing at the High Court deems the case Totally Without Merit, it will not be possible to ask the Court of Appeal to reconsider. To ensure ongoing access to justice, a request to appeal second attempt will be allowed for other cases.”

What the airports say

Heathrow has said it would wait until formal plans before commenting but that it strongly believed in its “vital role for the UK economy” and its long-held  belief that expanding capacity at the UK’s hub airport was critical for economic growth.

A Heathrow spokesperson said: “Heathrow is the best-connected airport in the world. That competitive advantage for UK plc already enables over £200bn of British trade annually. But growing the economy means adding capacity at the UK’s hub airport which is full. That’s why we’re planning to unlock capacity by improving and upgrading our existing infrastructure, while also looking at potential options to deliver a third runway at Heathrow in line with strict tests on carbon, noise and air quality.”

Stewart Wingate, CEO of London Gatwick said: “We can be a major part of the Government’s drive for growth. We are already contributing over £5.5billion to the UK economy and supporting over 76,000 jobs, but unless we can access greater airport capacity the UK will miss out on opportunities to enhance global connectivity and unlock further opportunities for trade, tourism and job creation. Bringing our Northern Runway into routine use, through a £2.2 billion privately financed, shovel-ready investment will create 14,000 jobs and generate £1 billion a year in economic benefits. 

“The project, which is due for government approval early next year, could be operational by the end of the decade. We have put forward a strong and compelling case focused around making best use of our existing infrastructure, minimising noise and environmental impacts and meeting the four ‘tests’ for airport expansion set by Labour.”

The average legal challenge takes about 18 months to resolve and more than half of of all major infrastructure decisions were taken to court.

Campainers will not rest

Paul Beckford, the chairperson of the HACAN clearskies campaign group challenges the notion that expanding the airport would bring the craved-for growth.

He says that at best it could bring in £3.3bn over 60 years and that 75 per cent of passengers using a third runway would likely be transfer passengers “who contribute nothing to the economy”. He also said that Heathrow expansion would not be in a vacuum and instead “suck growth” from the regions.

Government’s own figures show that a third runway  at Heathrow would suck growth from the regions, citing Department for Transport Aviation Forecasts that suggested “expansion at Heathrow would see 170,000 fewer flights per year from regional airports than if expansion does not take place”.

Mr Beckford said: “Local communities around Heathrow represent nearly a third of all people across Europe exposed to levels of aircraft noise that harms their health. If Heathrow were to expand the Government would expose over two million people to increases in noise pollution in spite of a deepening evidence base of the negative health impacts, particularly at night. Such expansion would increase the emissions of the country’s single largest source of carbon by around 9million tonnes per annum, which is incompatible with the UK’s climate targets. 

“It would be a failure of duty for any Government to put the health of their citizens at risk in the forlorn hope of generating growth when we know that the business case is marginal at best and 75 per cent of passengers using any third runway would contribute nothing to the UK economy.” 

Sally Pavey, who chair the CAGNE group that opposes expansion of Gatwick airport call the government’s decision a disgrace that ignored public opinion in order to build a new runway by stealth. She said: “If this story is true it opens the door to us communities concerned about the decline in our wellbeing to benefit the shareholders of Gatwick Airport. Any airport expansion shows a lack of understanding and priority placed by this government towards global warming and yet we see the signs constantly on the news of flooding, fires and rising temperatures.  

“Aviation is one of the biggest polluters this planet suffers and yet a new runway would add extra carbon a year plus greenhouse gases, and there are no true decarbonising factors that will reduce this as with more planes comes more CO2 and noise.  CAGNE has been at the forefront of opposing this new runway due to the lack of infrastructure, lack of workers, decline in air quality and unbelievable increase in noise as Gatwick would be as big as Heathrow today.  

“Gatwick already has serious issues with noise and yet we were not allowed to include the modernisation of airspace that Gatwick is reliant upon to reach its economic growth goals with two runway operation. This is just one of the reasons we will be legally challenging a decision to allow a new runway at Gatwick. We have already started to fundraise to legally challenge a decision to allow two runway operations  as there were so many flaws in the evidence provided by Gatwick at the DCO hearings, this news story, if factual, is just another reason to challenge a new runway decision.”

Hundreds of new homes could be built in Ashtead if newly submitted plans to Mole Valley District Council are approved. Wates Developments and its partners, Vistry Group, have submitted outline plans for up to 270 homes, of which about 40 per cent will be affordable.

The proposals, which still need to go through the planning process, also include a community centre that could become a children’s nursery. Nearby schools are said to be under-subscribed, with vacancy rates expected to grow in some areas, according to planning documents submitted to the council. The documents suggest that the new homes could help boost pupil numbers in local schools.

John Tarvit, director of planning for Wates Developments, said: “We have an exciting vision for this site to create a sense of place and community, with landscape-led design that incorporates a variety of green spaces. Our proposals will help encourage social interaction, provide safe and attractive streets, encourage sustainable travel choices, and maximise biodiversity. We’re proud that this will be a high-quality, net-zero development that reduces carbon emissions and enhances the resilience of the development to a changing climate. All new homes will be lean, clean, and green.”

The land, south of Ermyn Way, has been allocated for residential-led development by the council. The developers state they are “committed to creating a distinctive and responsive new neighbourhood, offering a good range of house sizes and types.

“The proposed development will enhance the existing local community and deliver a range of benefits for people in Ashtead in addition to the much-needed new homes.”

In addition to the housing scheme, the developers are proposing a community building with the potential for a children’s nursery, 30 acres of open space, and a children’s play area. At this stage, the plans are in outline format, but the developers have said that buildings will vary across the site, reaching up to a maximum of three storeys, although the majority will be two storeys.

The developers believe this approach will “create a varied roofscape, define marker buildings and add to the visual richness” of the project. They have also indicated that details such as the sizes of the homes, in terms of bedrooms, and the layout of the development are yet to be finalised.

Wates said the site currently consists of arable agricultural fields just north of the M25 and within walking and cycling distance of both Ashtead and Leatherhead. It is also already well connected to bus services. As part of the pre-planning process, Wates held meetings with nearby schools, including Trinity Primary School.

The planning statement noted: “At the meeting, the applicants were informed that the school is well below pupil capacity and referred to the same position at other local schools. It was explained to the applicants that local schools are accepting pupils who might not otherwise meet their selection criteria.” It added: “It was confirmed that Greville School currently has capacity and in the coming years will likely have greater capacity as there are significant spaces available in the reception year.”

Homes would be built on the western side of the site to create “a clear distinction between residential development and the eastern section within the retained green belt.” The final layout will be determined through discussion with the council.

Wates Development’s outline plans for up to 270 homes near the M25 in Ashstead (image Wates Development)

Precious green belt sites could be at risk of speculative developments and Waverley Borough Council could be powerless to stop them after its biggest housing project was judged to be taking too long to build.

All planning authorities must demonstrate they can provide enough land to supply housing for five years.

If they don’t they can become vulnerable to speculative applications and can lose control over where new homes are built – and may have to approve applications they would normally refuse.

Waverley Borough Council has been hit by a double whammy of increased housing targets by the Government and the Planning Inspectorate’s decision to pull the 2600-home Dunsfold Park from its projections over its “development trajectory”.

This has left the council running out of earmarked land for new homes in just two and a half years.

The situation gets even worse when the new Government’s increased housing targets are added into the fold, bringing the figure down to just one and a half years.

The figures were published in a Waverley Borough Council position statement last November following the Planning Inspector’s Dunsfold Park ruling.

It read: “The site has been discounted from the council’s five year housing land supply by Planning Inspectors in recent appeals and for this reason, the council has decided to exclude the site from the five year supply until there is more certainty about the timescales for delivery of housing on the site.”

The plan has been to redevelop the aerodrome to form a new garden village on the brownfield site.

Planning permission for the first stage of the project was originally granted by the Secretary of State in March 2018. Its infrastructure is expected to support other developments in the borough.

So far “not one home” has been built.

Councillor Jane Austin, leader of the Conservative opposition group on Waverley Borough Council, criticised the borough for not publicising the change more widely saying residents deserved to know what was happening.

She said: “These housing supply figures are utterly dire and will mean more opportunistic development in inappropriate locations.”

“We may as well just hand over the keys to opportunistic developers for any of the borough’s green fields without some kind of national planning protection over them. I am extremely concerned about what this means for Alfold and edge of town sites across the borough.”

Surrey County Councillor for Waverley Eastern Villages Kevin Deanus added: “Since Dunsfold Park gained planning consent in 2018 not one home has been constructed.

“Meanwhile local villages like Alfold have doubled in size. Major planning permissions in the local area have been granted dependent on infrastructure upgrades delivered via the Dunsfold Park permission.

“We now have raw sewage coming out of the ground in Alfold and huge pressure on local roads and infrastructure. Local people are despairing.”

Councillor Liz Townsend, Waverley Borough Council portfolio holder for planning and economic development said they remained fully committed to delivering sustainable housing that meets the needs of the community while challenging unjustified and unrealistic targets imposed by the Government.

Dunsfold Park had originally been included in the 2018 Local Plan when the council was under Conservative control and was one of several sites identified to meet housing needs.

She said: “While the council sets the framework for development, it is important to clarify that we do not have the power to compel developers to build homes once planning permissions are granted. As of now, planning permission has been granted for around 5,000 homes across Waverley.

“However, this is no longer sufficient to meet our five-year housing land supply target, primarily due to significant increases in government-mandated targets.

“Originally set at 590 homes per year, this skyrocketed to 710 homes under the previous government, and now to an extraordinary 1,481 homes per year under current government policies.

“This cumulative target amounts to a staggering 29,000 homes over the next 20 years — effectively requiring the construction of an additional Farnham and Godalming within the borough, which is entirely unfeasible.

“Waverley Borough Council has made robust representations to the Government, including direct appeals to the Deputy Prime Minister, outlining why the housing need calculations are flawed. To date, these concerns have been ignored.

“We are actively working with the promoters of Dunsfold Park and other developers to accelerate delivery.

“However, Government Planning Inspectors have questioned the certainty of delivery on the Dunsfold site within the next five years.

|As a result, the council has been forced to remove this site from its short-term housing projections, although this position will be continuously reviewed.

“The council is working urgently to develop a new Local Plan that ensures sustainable housing, job creation, and critical infrastructure.

“This is the only mechanism available to justify a more realistic housing target. Claims that the council is not fulfilling its obligations or has alternative options are factually incorrect.

“We are committed to addressing the national housing crisis while balancing the need to protect our borough’s character and environment.However, it is the Government’s disproportionate and unrealistic housing targets—not a lack of action by the council—that are placing immense pressure on local authorities across the country.

“Waverley Borough Council will continue to advocate for realistic and sustainable solutions to meet housing needs while standing firm against policies that jeopardise the future of our communities.”

Image: Waverley Borough Council (Chris Caulfield)

It could take another five years before the Redhill’s Harlequin Theatre reopens after dangerous crumbly concrete forced its closure.

The popular theatre and cinema space in the heart of the town centre welcomed up to 120,000 people a year through its doors before it suddenly shut when reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete, which can collapse without warning, was discovered in September 2023.

Now it appears it will potentially remain closed until 2030 while Reigate and Banstead Borough Council, which owns the theatre, carries out the £10m safety refurbishment work. 

Council leader Richard Biggs told the January overview and scrutiny committee: “I understand the strong feeling and interest in resolving this situation at the Harlequin.

“I think we can all agree that none of us wanted to be in this situation but the safety risks associated with RAAC are paramount.

“The critical red nature of the RAAC panels means that this is going to take some time to resolve.”

He added: “Optimistically two to three years, possibly up to five years to get it back.

“I don’t think that’s changed from the conversations that we’ve had so far but we need to get further down the road and then we can start putting proper dates on things.”

The Harlequin Theatre is regarded as  a key cultural venue in Redhill and acts as a hub for cultural and social activities.

It’s closure has forced the council to look at providing alternate venues but early pledges to find a 500 seater venue have so far proved fruitless.

Cllr Biggs has still not ruled out the possibility of a larger venue being found but feels it is more likely that the arts community will have to settle for something less than half that size.

He said: “The likelihood at the moment is that we haven’t found a suitable arrangement for something of that size and costs.

“If we’ve got to spend the money I want to spend it straight on getting the Harlequin back up and running.”

He added: “I have said consistently that at the moment, we haven’t found any suitable temporary venues. 

“We have to consider the cost. I know people think that there’s a money tree somewhere, there isn’t.

“My priority is to get the Harlequin back up and running, particularly because of our lease obligations but partly because I genuinely believe that it’s a huge asset to Redhill and for the borough and for the wider area.

“There are lots of reasons for getting it back up and running as quick as possible and I want to make sure that we are concentrating on the right thing.”

He did not rule out the possibility of finding a larger site but added that there is a need for a variety of spaces.

In 2023 they sold about 69,000 tickets at the Harlequin’s box office with a further 5,000 sold via alternate sites.

On average the Harlequin Theatre cafe welcomed a further 40 people per day and about 2,400 a year.

The productions would bring a further 6,000 people to the site and room hires an additional 10,000 each year.

Room hires included local churches and the NHS  for café Milk and  baby weigh-ins.

The council said it is looking for a mix of sites to fulfil these roles as well as audition spaces and performance venues.  

The council leader invited interested groups who may have suitable sites to  come forward with options but stressed that he did not wish to distract from his main priority of finishing the Harlequin project.

Related reports:

Redhill theatre gone to rack and ruin?

The “Croydonisation” of Woking will continue after a 26-storey town centre tower block on the former BHS site was approved. The plans for the 272-home 85-metre-tall building are nearly identical to those previously rejected in March 2024 but have been signed off following changes to Woking Borough Council’s housing targets and further clarifications from the developers. Donard Real Estate will demolish the former store to create the Crown Gardens project. The build-to-rent project will include 28 affordable homes as well as retail and commercial zones on the ground floor of the Commercial Way site. There would also be public space landscaping to improve the area around Christ Church.

Approving the plans – which were also under a separate appeal – would help the council meet its new, higher housing targets and help take pressure off green belt sites. The meeting was also assured the building would be predominantly made of brick, limiting the potential of weather damaging external cladding. The town centre had to be closed off after cladding fell from the Hilton Hotel building this year due to storms. Speaking on behalf of the developers was Mervyn McFarland. He said, “Crown Gardens will deliver 272 high-quality build-to-rent homes addressing the growing need for housing and helping Woking’s residents, particularly young people and families, to stay in Woking and contribute to the town’s vitality and growth. It will help alleviate pressure on traditional housing stock while also contributing to meeting housing targets. It will free up homes better suited to families and other demographics, contributing to a more balanced housing market in Woking. Crown Gardens will support Woking’s regeneration, bringing up to 700 new residents to the town centre. This is expected to bring in around £10m expenditure annually in local spending, boosting businesses.”

The limited parking at the site was no longer considered a valid reason to object to the plans given its proximity to Woking Railway Station and active travel options. The January 7 planning committee also noted that a similar high-rise application at Technology House was allowed on appeal, with the Planning Inspector saying parking options were sufficient. Councillor Rob Leach (Liberal Democrat, St Johns) said: “It’s clear that the development will help meet the housing needs that we have and the new government target building levels, to a significant extent, are helped by this. I’ve always been resistant to skyscrapers in Woking, what I’ve called the Croydonisation of Woking, in the past, but I think this has to be preferable to incursions on the green belt where that can be avoided.”

Related report:

Blot on Epsom Downs horizon to grow no more?

The May 2025 Surrey county elections must not be postponed, the 11 boroughs and district councils have said. That call has been amplified with the Surrey Liberal Democrat MPs writing to Government lending their support to the call – while a petition arguing the same has been signed by more than 3,000 people. The decision to call off this year’s poll will be down to Government ministers who said they would consider delaying local elections in areas going through the devolution process. Surrey has put itself at the front of that queue – which would get rid of existing councils and replace them with a new structure. What that would look like is anyone’s guess at the moment, but could range from a single mega council, or potentially two or three slightly smaller bodies. Any new system would have an overarching strategic mayor.

The county leadership argues that postponing the elections would give officers time to get on with the once in a lifetime reorganisation – which needs to have interim proposals submitted by March ahead of a more ironclad May deadline. They also question the value of holding elections, which would cost an estimated £2.48m, for a council that was effectively doomed to die within two years – the new devolved authority is expected to be up and running in 2027 with shadow elections held the year before.

The leaders of the 11 Surrey District and Borough Councils met with their Surrey County Council counterpart on January 7 to discuss the English Devolution White Paper and what this would mean for the residents of Surrey. There was acknowledgement that the central Government was determined to introduce sweeping changes through devolution with district and county councils merged into new unitary authorities. A statement released after the meeting read: “All the Leaders of the Surrey District and Borough Councils expressed their concerns around the pace of change being imposed by central government and that such widespread and significant change needs wider consultation with the residents, stakeholders, and businesses across the county. In addition there was concern that the change, as proposed, will decrease local representation for residents of Surrey. While the Leaders concluded that there needs to be a dialogue with Surrey County Council on the proposed changes, there was wide agreement that the county council’s plan to write to the Secretary of State, Jim McMahon MP on Friday January 10, requesting to postpone the county elections scheduled to take place on May 1 2025 was not supported by the District and Borough Leaders and would be opposed if submitted.”

Surrey Heath Borough Council leader Shaun Macdonald added that allowing the elections to go ahead would ensure that all those involved “in shaping the future of our communities” had the democratic mandate to represent residents. The six Liberal Democrat MPs for Surrey also co-signed a letter to Government calling on it to not pass legislation postponing this year’s elections, describing it as an affront to democracy. They also expressed concerns over the speed of devolution and local government reorganisation. They said: “A proposal of this scale requires careful consideration and broad support. Yet, just three weeks after the government’s announcement, no credible plan exists. There has been insufficient engagement with district and borough councils or MPs to justify this unprecedented step.”

Elections, they said, must go ahead to give those voted in the mandate for how to deliver those changes. They added: “This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reshape local government in Surrey, and it must not be derailed by unnecessary delays or a lack of transparency.”

Related reports:

Are Epsom and Ewell’s Interests Served by Postponing Democracy?

Surrey’s Conservative leader wants to postpone May’s poll reckoning

Local government reorganisation: What will it mean for Epsom and Ewell?

All change! Epsom and Ewell Borough Council approaching its final stop?