Has Surrey become Britain’s sinkhole capital? Well, the figures certainly point in that direction.

Surrey County Council is on track to spend a staggering £1.6m fixing the collapsed 65ft hole in a section of Godstone High Street – a bill that dwarfs what most local authorities spend on sinkholes.

Figures obtained through Freedom of Information (FOI) requests show councils across the UK have spent more than £6.2m tackling over 7,000 sinkholes since 2020. But Surrey alone accounts for almost half of that total, shelling out over £3.1m making it by far the country’s biggest spender.

The Godstone collapse, which first appeared in February, has left the part of the High Street shut for months and businesses struggling.

Surrey County Council has already spent £850,000 on emergency responses, surveys, roadworks and consultancy fees, including £360,000 on just site establishment.

Another £800,000 is forecast for stabilisation work, filling in the mine tunnels, and further repairs – taking the final bill to £1.65m. This will amount to just over a quarter of the total UK bill on sinkholes for the last five years.

What is driving the cost?

The British Geological Society has stated that Surrey is particularly prone to sinkholes due to the underlying sands in the county, which are weakly cemented.

According to council documents, the ground beneath Godstone sits on the Folkestone Sandstone Formation – a weak, sandy foundation that made the area vulnerable to collapse. CCTV images provided under FOI request confirm the collapse was worsened by an old sand mine tunnel running beneath the High Street.

While the council insists the road should reopen by December 16, locals are not holding their breath. Residents have been struggling for months with the road closure, diversions, fall in trade and general feel of chaos. That being said, an official report shown to SurreyLive by the council does state that the project is tracking towards a final inspection date of December 16th.

A Surrey County Council spokesperson said: “This continues to be a highly complex incident involving a number of investigations led by our Highways Officers and other agencies, including specialist teams and utility companies.

“Work is underway to reconstruct the final footpath affected by the collapse and we’re now planning how we stabilise the collapsed area and fill in the tunnel network.

“We are updating local residents and businesses as we progress through each stage of the process and expect the final two residents to be back in their properties by the end of September.

“Once our stabilisation work and the SES works to reconnect and relay the mains through the collapse area are completed, the area will be refilled and repaired permanently. We are currently planning to complete our repairs and reopen the High Street during December.”

A nationwide problem

The Godstone collapse may be dramatic, but it’s part of a wider and growing problem. Since 2020, sinkholes have been recorded everywhere from Reading to Scotland, with councils spending millions to patch them up.

The top spenders after Surrey include Reading (£976,500), East Sussex (£767,238) and Transport Scotland (£602,000). If you take away the Godstone sinkhole expenditure, Surrey still comes up top with over £2.2m being put towards sinkholes.

Lloyd Allen, Infrastructure Team Manager for Surrey County Council, on Godstone high street. (Credit: Surrey County Council).

Emily Dalton LDRS

Additional reporting from Sam McEvans

Related reports:

Godstone’s gasworks fury while sinkhole not fixed

Godstone “Sink-hole” residents to return

Surrey sink-hole major incident

A supported living service in Redhill has been rated “inadequate” and put into special measures after inspectors said they uncovered six legal breaches.

The health watchdog slammed the service as putting “unnecessary stress” on people by only giving 28 days’ notice when required to move out.

Threeways Dom Care, on Brighton Road, which supports adults with learning disabilities, was inspected by the Care Quality Commission (CQC) in July 2025.

The watchdog found “serious leadership failings” which it said left people without dignity, independence or self care.

Roger James, CQC’s deputy director for Surrey, said: “Our inspection of Threeways Dom Care exposed serious leadership failings that were denying people dignity, respect, and independence in their care.”

Inspectors flagged problems across the board, including poor record-keeping, lack of staff training, and a failure to manage basic health needs like nutrition and epilepsy.

Some staff were found to be unkind, while others ignored health and safety basics. One care staff member was found wearing flip flops which could bring in dirt, and others were discovered to raise their voice at people or ask them to be quiet in what is meant to be their home.

The CQC report also criticised leaders for mishandling the closure of the home. Just one day after the inspection, residents and their families were told the service was shutting and given 28 days to move out.

Mr James, CQC’s deputy director for Surrey, added: “Threeways ignored people’s voices, failed to inform them or their relatives of their rights as tenants, and put an enormous amount of unnecessary stress on people as well as making the transfer to a new care service for them more difficult.”

He added the service did not promote an open or honest culture, with safeguarding concerns often missed or ignored, leaving people at risk of harm.

But Threeways management has hit back, accusing the regulator of ignoring their side of the story. A spokesperson for the service said: “Families have always been happy with the service and we’ve had positive feedback from professionals. The service will close once commissioners confirm a move date, and in the meantime, we’re doing our best to ensure a smooth transition.”

Despite those reassurances, the CQC has placed the service into special measures, meaning it will be closely monitored and expected to make urgent improvements if it wishes to continue operating.

Emily Dalton LDRS

Adult social care stock image. Credit Eduardo Barrios on Unsplash

A bid to raid a Epsom and Ewell council’s multi-million pound property reserves to pay for crumbling public buildings has been thrown out by councillors.

Epsom and Ewell Borough councillors blocked a move to dip into a £7m ‘rainy day’ fund to pay for important repairs to community venues.

Opposition councillors argued that money locked away in the ‘property income equalisation’ (PIE) reserve could be better spent fixing leaky roofs, broken boilers and delayed upgrades at places like Bourne Hall, the playhouse and the Harrier Centre.

Cllr Alex Coley (Independent Ruxley) told a Strategy and Resources Committee meeting on September 25: “Why prioritise handing over a well- financed property empire to a new unitary at the cost of the huge burden of deferred works on our crumbling public buildings? Do we want to see our venues sold off or handed over to charitable trusts and then closed soon after because they can’t afford much needed repairs?”

Cllr James Lawrence (LibDem College) backed the call, saying the council’s property income was now more secure and that modestly trimming the reserve could free up £1.5m to plug the gap in the capital budget: “We’ve come out of COVID uncertainty and we’ve got secure rental income.” He argued the council can safely reduce reserves and use the money to fund the projects residents actually need.

But senior councillors and officers pushed back hard, warning that the reserve was vital to protect the council from sudden losses if tenants went bust or properties stood empty. They said cutting it down to £1m would be “reckless” given the risks tied to £64m of commercial property borrowing.

Council leader, Hannah Dalton, (RA SAtoneleigh) said: “You kind of need to take a whole system to view and not just pick bits out.” She explained the council is working through the assets and reserves and will continue to work, keeping members updated.

Cllr Dalton said: “We’re also waiting to see what the fair funding review could mean for Surrey alone. They’re thinking there could be a deficit of 45 million pounds in the county so we’re having to look at everything.”

Cllr Neil Dallen (RA Town) said: “We’re in the unusual position of not staring at bankruptcy like other councils — and that’s because we’ve been prudent. We’ve got reserves to cover things that have gone wrong and things have gone wrong and the reserves have actually been used to satisfy that.”

Council finance chiefs also reminded members that a full review of reserves and council-owned assets is already under way, with results due in November.

The Section 151 officer confirmed that if reserves are found to be “over-prudent”, some money could be released for other priorities, and that selling off struggling assets remained an option.

An attempt to water down the proposal — including disposing of 70 East Street and using the cash to top up building repairs — was also rejected. In the end, councillors voted to “note but take no action” on the motion.

Epsom and Ewell Borough Council town hall. (Credit: Emily Dalton/ LDRS)

Emily Dalton LDRS

Caterham could soon be governed by a single town council after a majority of residents backed the idea – but the proposal has split opinion among councillors and locals.

At the moment, Caterham is split between Caterham on the Hill parish council and Caterham Valley parish council. Parish councils are the ground level tier of government in England which look after parks, community centres, funding events, lobbying on planning and making local voices are heard.

A summer consultation found 77 per cent of 237 respondents supported merging Caterham on the Hill Parish Council and Caterham Valley Parish Council. But councillors pointed out that hardly one per cent of Caterham’s population responded to the consultation, at a Strategy and Resources Committee on September 25.

Cllr Michael Cooper said: “We haven’t had a consultation at all – less than one per cent took part […]We need to involve the public properly.”

Others urged looking at the bigger picture. Cllr Jeremy Pursehouse said: “I know the people in the valley and people on the hill look at themselves as completely different species. I hate to disappoint you but everyone else looks at it as Caterham.”

The push for the merger comes as Surrey prepares for a major shakeup with new unitary authorities due in 2026 which will replace district and borough councils. Supporters of the town council plan say Caterham needs a stronger, unified voice to stop it being overshadowed in the new system.

Supporters say the merger would give the town a stronger voice, reduce duplication and save resources. Critics argue the consultation was poorly promoted and that fewer than one per cent of residents responded.

Caterham Valley Parish Council chair Tony Pierce, who is also standing in a by-election, said: “One single council representing the residents of Caterham is the optimum way to represent people. Caterham is not two towns but one – residents don’t confine their activities to either the Valley or the Hill. A larger council representing all residents will have a strong voice.”

Local resident Robin Franklin, from Caterham on the Hill, backed the move but urged councillors to think about younger generations. He said: “A town council gives Caterham a single negotiating voice and a clear chance to prioritise the things young people keep asking for: safer routes to school, better street lighting and cycle parking.”

Not everyone is on board. Caterham on the Hill Parish Council said it opposed a merger at this stage, arguing the process was rushed, that residents had not been given enough pros and cons, and that Valley households could face a massive hike in their local council tax bill. It also raised concerns that merging could dilute attention to local issues.

Speaking personally, Cllr Ben Horne said a merger could still bring benefits: “At the moment we’ve got two sets of meetings and duplication. A town council would carry more weight in seeking funding, modernise our governance and give Caterham the leadership it deserves.

The review panel has recommended pressing ahead with draft proposals. A second consultation – including details of council tax costs – will take place in the future.

If approved, Caterham Town Council would have 15 councillors across five wards, with the first elections due in May 2026.

View down Station Avenue, Caterham. (Credit: Google Street View)

Emily Dalton LDRS

After six years of waiting and false starts, Bookham is finally getting a new community centre.

The old Bookham Youth Centre on Lower Road shut its doors in 2019 after falling into disrepair, leaving the area without a dedicated youth and community hub. 

Members agreed to spend £2.8m of existing capital funds to knock down the old building and replace it at a Surrey cabinet meeting on September 24. Councillors said they hope the new multi-purpose building will be ready by March 2027.

Cllr Clare Curran, Conservative member for Bookham and Fetcham West said: “There is real excitement in Bookham that a new centre is going to be delivered.

“This is not just a youth facility […] The former centre was used by a huge range of community users from everything from the University of the Third Age to challenges with disabled children and an early years provider.”

The new centre is set to take the place of three lost facilities – the former youth centre, The Bridge in Leatherhead (closed after RAAC was found in the roof) and the Bookham Family Centre. Day-to-day running of the centre is expected to be handed to a third-party provider, meaning no additional ongoing costs to the council or future unitary authority. 

“It has taken some time to get to this point,” said Cllr Clare Curran who represents Bookham. “We’ve had a few false dawns on the journey.”

In 2021, councillors promised a shiny new building on the Lower Road Reception Ground, at the cost of £2.5m, with homes alongside to help pay for it. But that plan was scrapped after tougher planning rules on the Green Belt and new biodiversity requirements meant the recreation ground scheme was no longer possible.

Instead, Surrey County Council has shifted its focus back to the old youth centre site. But housing that was meant to come alongside the scheme has been kicked into the long grass, with any decision on new homes delayed until after 2027.

Public consultation and planning approvals are still to come so residents still have an opportunity to have their say.

Emily Dalton LDRS

Bookham Community Centre on 164 Lower Road. (Credit: Google Street View)

Plans to turn a family house into a home for vulnerable children on a Surrey street have been given the green light despite strong opposition from its future neighbours.

A five-bed detached home on Crosby Hill Drive in Camberley will be transformed into a children’s home for up to three kids aged 10-17. Staff would live in with them around the clock, with no changes made to the building itself. 

Council officers state the home is sorely needed, with rising demand for secure, regulated accommodation for children in care. 

But of 28 locals who wrote in about the scheme, 27 objected. Concerns ranged from traffic and road safety to fears the change could alter the “character” of the street. But councillors said many of the concerns were based on myths and misunderstandings about children’s homes. 

Members of a Surrey County Council planning committee approved the scheme at a meeting on September 24. 

One resident, however, wrote in support, arguing the location is exactly the kind of quiet and supportive environment vulnerable children should be given: “Everyone deserves a safe place to live,” they said. 

Despite traffic concerns, highway officers said there will not be a material change in the use of the road or car parking spaces down the street.

Rebecca Hanifan, responsible for looking after children’s homes within Surrey, told the committee: “Children’s homes are heavily regulated. The children who live in them are risk assessed and those with higher needs are placed in secure settings, not in the community.

“These are children who can live in a family setting- they go to school, they sleep well at night, and do normal activities over the weekend. Our homes blend into communities, property values do not drop and our children are well-behaved.”

Cllr Ernest Mallett MBE dismissed the claims the children’s home would damage the character of Crosby Hill Drive. He said: “How is that any different to children living in other houses? This is a perfectly viable use for the property. It won’t be any trouble to anyone and won’t be any different to any other house on the street. 

“We are a first-class western society and we take care of people.”

Others noted practical issues- like the lack of a bus shelter nearby and concerns about parking during staff changeovers – but backed the need for more children’s homes, given the national shortage of foster carers. 

The thorny issue of restrictive covenants on the property was raised by Nigel James, speaking on behalf of one of the neighbours, who said the council risked “wasting tax payers’ money” if due diligence was not done. But officers and councillors stressed covenants were not a planning matter for the committee, and Cllr Mallett said they were “virtually unenforceable”.

Cllr Jeremy Webster expressed unease about “parachuting” a children’s home into a quiet residential area and cited apparent estate agent warnings of a 10 per cent dip in house values. Meanwhile, Cllr Trefor Hogg said he sympathised with residents’ concerns but stressed: “We need both foster homes and children’s homes in Surrey.”

Emily Dalton LDRS

View outside 18 Crosby Hill Drive, in Camberley. (Credit: Surrey County Council documents)

‘Sink holes happen’ was the blunt message from a Surrey highways officer when asked if the council had the budget to repair five crumbling suburban roads.

In fairness, council budgets are often in flux with authorities never knowing how much funding they will receive from the central government and whether they will get any extra pennies from grants.

But that has not softened the blow for Walton residents who say they are “disappointed” after finding out five battered neighbourhood roads might not be resurfaced until 2028.

Almost 300 people signed a petition calling for urgent repairs to Cottimore Avenue, Cromwell Close, Fairfax Crescent, Monks Close and Stuart Avenue. Residents claim the roads in Walton are riddled with cracks, potholes and uneven pavements that pose a danger to pedestrians, cyclists and drivers. 

Residents say the situation has gone on for decades – with complaints about the roads dating back to the 1990s. But people say their calls for Surrey County Council to act have been repeatedly put aside and pushed back despite rat run traffic and speeding issues. One resident even claimed that it has been at least 40 years since the roads were last resurfaced. 

Residents said they are worried the delays will only get worse once Surrey is broken into unitary councils in Local Government Reorganisation. “It seems the problem is simply being passed on to the next authority,” said Paolo Orezzi, lead petitioner. “The road will simply deteriorate and it will increase the cost liability.”

But highway bosses have said the streets will not be resurfaced any time soon at a Highways, Transport and Economic Growth meeting on September 23. Instead, they have been given a flatteringly modest ‘medium priority’ rating in the county’s road maintenance list meaning it is unlikely the work will be complete before 2028/29. 

Even then, the plan is not to fully resurface the roads but to ‘fine mill’ the concrete beneath the tarmac. This is a cheaper process but residents fear this will not go far enough. 

Highway officers defended the decision pointing to the sheer scale of the challenge. “We manage 5,000km of roads across Surrey,” an officer said. “There is no doubt the roads would benefit from work but we have to prioritise based on budgets, emergencies and needs. Unfortunately, we can’t give firm timescales beyond next year- things change, sinkholes happen.”

Cllr Rachael Lake, who said she has been backing the residents’ calls for years, recalled: “I was standing next to a crack where the tarmac had totally worn away. You could actually get a child’s foot stuck down it. It was dangerous.”

The Conservative member for Walton said she was prepared to use her entire £120,000 allocated budget to fix the roads following residents accusing her of not looking after them. But Cllr Lake claimed highway officers would not even let her put the five worn out roads on a waiting list to be resurfaced. 

Lead for Highways, Transport and Economic Growth, Cllr Matt Furniss relented and asked officers to reassess the five roads in question, speak to residents and see if anything can be done with Cllr Lake’s allocated budget to get the roads on the list. Cllr Furniss added: “We can potentially do it next year but I am not promising anything.”

Residents said they are worried the delays will only get worse once Surrey is broken into unitary councils in Local Government Reorganisation. “It seems the problem is simply being passed on to the next authority,” said Paolo Orezzi, lead petitioner. “The road will simply deteriorate and it will increase the cost liability.”

Highway officers defended the decision pointing to the sheer scale of the challenge. “We manage 5,000km of roads across Surrey,” an officer said. “There is no doubt the roads would benefit from work but we have to prioritise based on budgets, emergencies and needs. Unfortunately, we can’t give firm timescales beyond next year- things change, sinkholes happen.”

Pothole stock image. Credit Kathryn Anderson

Emily Dalton LDRS

Related reports:

Will Surrey potholes outwit AI?

Pothole payouts and repairs penalise Councillor projects?

On the Hunt for pothole repairs

Don’t blame us for potholes say Surrey’s highway authority.

Outline plans for 60 homes on the edge of a Surrey village have been scrapped again in a bid to stop “London creeping towards us”.

Elmbridge councillors said the land north of Raleigh Drive in Claygate is green belt not ‘grey belt’ and ruled it unsuitable for housing at a planning meeting on September 16.

They also said the plans failed the flood risk ‘sequential test’ meaning safer sites should be looked at first before building there.

The scheme would have seen new homes (up to 50 per cent affordable), open space and landscaping built on the land north of Raleigh Drive and to the east of Claygate House.

The application triggered more than 300 objections from residents, alongside opposition from Claygate Parish Council. Concerns centred on traffic, flooding and the loss of open countryside.

Cllr Janet Turner said: “I have seen over the years how London is creeping towards us.” The member for Hinchley Wood explained: “When you come out of London to Hinchley Wood or Esher or Long Ditton, you will immediately relax because you have an open aspect.

“This is what Elmbridge and Surrey are all about. This is the entrance into our cultural area and we must protect it. Once it’s gone you cannot bring it back.”

Other members agreed, arguing if you weakened one patch of the green belt, you weakened the whole metropolitan ring. Cllr Alistair Mann described it as “death by a thousand cuts” to the green belt if piecemeal applications keep being approved.

The site, next to Claygate house, once home to a bowls green, pitch and putt course and tennis courts, has reportedly fallen into disrepair.

A similar plan was refused in 2023 and dismissed at appeal last year with inspectors at the time ruling it was inappropriate development in the green belt.

Planning officers initially recommended the new scheme for approval, arguing that housing demand and national policy around the green belt has changed.

Elmbridge can currently only demonstrate a 0.9-year housing supply- well below the five years required by the government. Elmbridge currently has a house building target of 1,443 homes annually.

“Our housing need is so critical now, I don’t think this scratchy bit of land is putting green belt in danger,” said Cllr Elaine Sesemann.

She explained: “I would protect greenbelt forever along with every other councillor in this chamber but the world of planning has changed so dramatically.”

Council leader Mike Rollings admitted the local housing need has dramatically increased since 2023 when the plans were first put forward. However Cllr Rolling still determined the square patch of land was not appropriate for house building.

Emily Dalton LDRS

Illustrative view looking south of application site (left) and former Claygate House with Shanly Homes Oaklands Park development to the rear (Credit: Elmbridge Borough Council)

A bid to build a huge battery storage farm on green belt land in Shepperton has been thrown out after councillors decided it didn’t pass the ‘special circumstances’ test needed to build on protected countryside.

Sunbury BESS Ltd wanted to install 50 industrial-scale battery units – each the size of a shipping container – on 3.5 hectares of land north of Charlton Lane, next to the Eco Park. The site, sandwiched between the M3 and the railway line, is designated green belt.

Objecting to the scheme, Nigel Spooner said: “We ask the committee to refuse this application and thus avoid inflicting on Charlton village, Shepperton and Sunbury an entirely inappropriate, unnecessary and hazardous blight for the next 40 years.”

Officers had originally concluded the project’s climate benefits – supporting renewable energy and cutting carbon – outweighed the harm to the green belt and local landscape.

But Spelthorne Borough Council’s planning committee threw out the application on September 17, arguing there simply were not any “very special circumstances” to justify bulldozing into green belt land.

The scheme, designed to store energy for the National Grid and release it when demand peaks, was pitched as helping the UK hit its climate targets.

The battery site would store electricity when there is plenty spare and feed it back into the grid when demand is high to help balance the supply. The applicant’s agent said at the meeting: “The project will actively contribute to decarbonisation by reducing renewable energy curtailment.”

But Green Party Cllr Malcolm Beecher argued: “If we are still using fossil fuel power in our power stations to generate the electricity going into the batteries for storage, we are not reducing our carbon emissions.

“Unless we have a condition that only green energy can be stored in these batteries, there are no special circumstances to have it in the green belt.”

The company halved the size of its original plans following strong objections, but locals still were not convinced. Residents wrote more than 40 letters objecting to the proposal, raising fears about fire risk, noise, health hazards and what they described as “the industrialisation” of Shepperton’s countryside.

But in the end, it was the location that killed the scheme. Planning officers said the battery farm counted as “inappropriate development” in the Green Belt, causing a “significant loss of openness” and clashing with rules designed to stop urban sprawl.

Despite concerns about fire risks and safety, officials said there was no evidence to refuse the battery farm on these grounds. Surrey Fire and Rescue service as well as the Health and Safety Executive raised no objections.

A planning report stated: “The proposal would introduce a range of industrial plant within an open field, resulting in considerable harm to the openness of the Green Belt and encroaching into the countryside. These harms are not clearly outweighed by the benefits put forward.”

The decision is a major blow for Sunbury BESS Ltd, which argued the project would provide vital infrastructure to balance renewable energy supply and demand.

Emily Dalton LDRS

Image: An example of a battery storage “farm”: Invenergy Beech Ridge Energy Storage System at Beech Ridge Wind Farm in Greenbrier County, West Virginia. Author Z22. Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license.

Guildford could soon see one of its biggest housing developments in decades, with fresh plans submitted to build up to 1,800 new homes at Gosden Hill.

Developers Martin Grant Homes want to transform farmland off the A3 into a new neighbourhood complete with schools, shops, sports pitches, and even a Park and Ride. 

The outline applications sets out a long-term vision for the site, which would include:

• Up to 1,800 homes, including 40 per cent affordable housing
• Six Gypsy and Traveller pitches 
• A new local centre with shops, health and community facilities
• Land for both a primary school and secondary school 
• Around 10,000sqm of employment floorspace
• A 250-space Park and Ride near the A3
• Large areas of green space, including allotments, play areas, and a new woodland walking rout

Developers say the project would create a “gateway for Guildford” for drivers coming off the A3. The site, covering more than 130 hectares of farmland and woodland, sits between Burpham and the A3. If approved, the first phase 150 homes would be built with access from Merrow Lane. 

The bulk of the site will be housing in a mix of family homes, apartments and some specialist accommodation. Planning documents detail the homes will be built in phases including a mixture of sizes from smaller flats to larger family homes, around 720 affordable homes, space for self-build plots and some elderly care housing.

Most of the higher density housing, like apartment blocks, would sit around the centre and the main street of the new community, while the rest of the site would focus on family housing with gardens.

Not everyone will welcome the idea of more traffic but the scheme includes a new A3 junction, cycle paths, and upgraded bus services to ease the pressure on local roads.

About 34 hectares of open space is planned including a big new woodland walking area at Cotts and Frithy’s Wood. Developers say overhead power lines will be buried underground and much of the existing woodland kept to help the site blend in with the landscape. 

Guildford Borough Council cannot currently meet government housing supply targets so the developers argue the project should be green-lit to help tackle the housing shortage.

If given the green light, Gosden Hill would become home to thousands of people, with the developer promising it will be a “healthy, happy and sociable” place to live.

Only eight people have objected to the scheme so far with the majority of comments slamming the construction traffic plan as “wholly inadequate” for the road and likely to cause “intolerable disruption”.

Emily Dalton LDRS

Outline of the proposed development on Gosden Hill Farm. (Credit: Guildford Borough Council/ Martin Grant Homes)