An Epsom corner shop has been given the green light for longer trading hours – but stopped short of being allowed to serve alcohol 24/7. 

Ruxley Food & Wine, an off-licence on a busy A-road junction at 427 Kingston Road, applied to extend its alcohol license sales to 24 hours a day. The plan included serving customers via a hatch after 11pm, with Uber Eats and delivery drivers able to collect goods through the window. 

But at a meeting on August 13, Epsom and Ewell Borough Council’s licensing committee agreed to a police-backed compromise: alcohol can be sold until 1am Sunday-Thursday, and until 3am on Fridays and Saturdays. 

The store’s consultant told councillors the business had traded without incident for three years. He said crime levels in the immediate area were low with “less than one offence a month” and argued serving alcohol, cigarettes and milk late at night “will not attract a disorderly crowd”. 

The consultant explained extending the corner shop’s hours was to attract additional business. Currently the shop can sell alcohol between 8am and 11pm. He said: “Why should members of the public be denied service when most people go to bed at 10pm at night?”

After hearing Surrey Police and the council’s Environmental Health department’s concerns, the applicant decided to reduce its licence application operating hours to 7am-2am the following day Sunday to Thursday, and then 7am to 3am Friday to Saturday.

But at the meeting officers still stressed their worries have not been resolved. Environmental Health officers argued the importance of protecting residents from late-night disturbance and the safety of potential lone shop workers. 

Both Surrey police and Environmental Health warned of potential noise and nuisance for nearby residents – those living on adjoining streets or above the parade of shops.

“If you open up later it does open up the area to potential crime and disorder,” said a Surrey Police representative. She argued selling alcohol 24 hours a day or similar will increase the likelihood of such crimes such as anti-social behaviour.

The committee concluded that granting the full hours could undermine the licensing objectives of preventing crime and disorder, public safety, preventing public nuisance and protecting children from harm particularly during weeknights in a residential area. 

Image: Ruxley Food and Wine shop on Kingston Road. (Credit Emily Dalton/ LDRS)

Campaigners in an Epsom village have hit out at proposals to build on “pristine farmland”, warning the plans will destroy a cherished stretch of countryside on the edge of the Surrey Hills. The outline application covers more than five hectares of agricultural farm land at Langley Bottom Farm, adjacent to Langley Vale village. Developer Fairfax Aspire Ltd has envisioned the 5.2 hectare field on Epsom Downs for 110 new homes. Although the exact height, design and layout will be determined later, planning documents suggest the new houses will be predominantly two-storey to eaves.

Dubbed ‘the valley’, locals are baffled that the agricultural field could ever be considered as a grey belt. The land has been classed as ‘low-quality land’ that could be prioritised for development, but residents say the designation is nonsense. “[Grey belt should be] for scrappy old car parks, not pristine farmland,” John Mumford of the Woodcote Epsom Residents Society and Save Langley Vale said. He pointed out the combine harvester in the field and explained it is still being used for agriculture. “We shouldn’t be sacrificing the green belt for land for land-owning interests,” he added. Fairfax Aspire Ltd stated in the application: “The site represents an opportunity for modest, sustainable development on the edge of the settlement boundary.”

The proposed development site sits down the road from Epsom Derby race course and is part of a landscape known for its race horse culture and rich ecology. Matt Dunn, who grew up in Langley Vale, described how buses only visited hourly, and horse riding and jockey training were common pastimes in the close-knit community. He said: “This scheme is tacked on, not integrated into the village.” Planning documents state most of the existing hedgerows and important trees will be retained and enhanced with native planting, with other features including new ecological improvements like wildlife corridors linking to the nearby woodland at The Warren. But campaigners say it is home to deer, badgers, and protected bird species like buzzards and skylarks, and that horse riders, dog walkers and ramblers make frequent use of the fields behind the village.

“It will completely destroy a much loved valley,” Matt said. “Ecology mitigation doesn’t mean anything if it doesn’t change the wrongs and the impact on wildlife.” The dispute comes amid national concerns over habitat loss — in England, the abundance of wildlife species has fallen by around 19 per cent since 1970. Matt accused the developer of trying to “whip up houses which don’t meet local need,” describing the affordable housing element as a “tick-boxing exercise”. The 29-year-old explained that selling houses at 80 per cent of the average Epsom house price (£559k according to RightMove) does not make the homes remotely affordable.

Langley Vale currently has around 400 houses, and campaigners fear the development could swell its size by more than 20 per cent, straining the roads, utilities and services. A new access road would be created on Langley Vale Road to get into the site, but residents warn this could exacerbate traffic issues in their rural community. Campaigners have also launched a petition against the development which has gained more than 1,000 signatures already. Mr Mumford has also set up a fundraiser to help pay for the campaign, gathering £3,700.

Planning documents state: “The opportunity exists for the creation of a high quality landscape and ecology led residential scheme to be provided in this sustainable location. The illustrative material demonstrates how a residential scheme, including new affordable homes, can be delivered without having undue impact on the site’s immediate neighbours, the wider area or key landscape and ecological features. The site is available, sustainable and importantly, deliverable, and will link to Langley Vale and the wider area.” The developer has been approached for further comment.

Related report:

110-Home Scheme at Langley Vale Sparks Green Belt Fears

Campaigners, Matt Dunn (left) and John Mumford (right), in front of the proposed development site. (Credit: Emily Dalton/LDRS)

Two sets of initials could soon reshape local democracy in Surrey – and in Epsom & Ewell in particular.

LGR – Local Government Reorganisation – is the national government’s plan to abolish the county’s current two-tier system of Surrey County Council plus district and borough councils. In its place, two or three large “unitary authorities” would run services such as bin collections, road repairs and adult social care.

CGR – Community Governance Review – is something different. It is a locally led process that can create, merge or change parish council boundaries, or set up entirely new ones. Several Surrey councils, including Epsom & Ewell, have launched CGRs to give residents a direct say in how their communities are represented at the most local level.

What CGRs Do

A CGR reviews whether the smallest level of local government – parish, town, community or neighbourhood councils – reflects local identities and meets community needs. Councils must consult the public before making recommendations.
The aim is to:

• Give growing communities their own voice
• Reflect population changes
• Ensure fairer electoral representation
• Improve local accountability

Changes could mean creating a parish council for a town centre, merging existing parishes, or adjusting outdated boundaries.

Parish councils have elected members, meet regularly, and can run services such as allotments, parks, bus shelters, community centres, street lighting, litter bins, and festivals. They are funded through a “precept” added to council tax – typically a small sum, but dependent on the services provided.

Why Epsom & Ewell Is Doing a CGR Now

Epsom & Ewell Borough Council is preparing for the possible abolition of the borough in 2027 under LGR. Its CGR is asking residents whether new parish councils should be created for areas within the borough so that, after the borough council is gone, communities still have a local voice.

The consultation runs until 9 October 2025.

The LGR Position – Three Unitary Councils Proposed

This week, Epsom & Ewell Borough Council confirmed its support for a proposal backed by nine district and borough councils to replace the current two-tier system with three unitary councils – East, North and West Surrey – rather than one county-wide authority.

Council Leader Hannah Dalton said she has been speaking with residents at community events:

“People care deeply about their communities and local areas. They want to know their voice will continue to be heard after the changes to local government take place in 2027. This echoes what we found earlier in the year when… we asked residents to tell us what is most important to them about local government reorganisation.”

A spring 2025 survey found 63% of respondents preferred three new unitaries, citing local decision-making and understanding of local issues as their top priorities.

The government’s decision on the future structure is expected in October 2025.

The Link Between LGR and CGR

While LGR is about creating larger unitary councils to simplify services and save money, CGRs are about ensuring that smaller, more local voices are not lost in the process. In effect, as the top tier becomes bigger, the smallest tier could be strengthened.

Epsom & Ewell’s view is that parish councils would give residents “a direct route to be heard” after borough councils disappear, keeping decision-making about local facilities and neighbourhood priorities close to home.

Have Your Say

Residents can take part in the Epsom & Ewell CGR consultation before 9 October 2025. Details are available on the council’s website.

Image shows the three unitary authority solution preferred by most Surrey district councils. Image Waverley Borough Council

A budding Surrey casino has applied for a 24/7 gambling licence despite local opposition. Golden Slots (Southern) Limited has asked for a 24/7 gambling licence for an adult gaming centre in the former Barclays bank building on Church Street, Ashford.

Spelthorne Borough Council has refused planning permission three times for the gaming centre- but was eventually overruled at appeal in April 2025.

The government planning inspector green lit the scheme but the approval came with conditions: the 24-hour opening hours originally proposed were reduced to 9am-11pm and requirements were placed on sound insulation and managing potential late night disturbances.

The applicant’s agent said: “Irrespective of whether a premises licence is granted to operate 24/7 my client does not intend to breach any planning condition on opening hours.”

The licencing application states “the premises will be open 24/7” and states there is no restriction on opening times for adult gaming centres. According to the council, the adult gaming centre would still have to comply with planning conditions even if a 24-hour licence was granted. The discrepancy regarding opening hours can be dealt with at the sub-committee hearing.

Spelthorne councillors voted to support a national campaign urging the Government to modernise gambling laws at a full council meeting on July 17.

The motion proposed by Cllr Harry Boparai and seconded by Cllr Katherine Rutherford calls for councils to be granted powers to implement stronger safeguards to better protect communities from gambling-related harm and to work with local health and voluntary sector partners to signpost residents to gambling addiction support and education initiatives.

The gambling licence application details an electronic lock will be used between 10pm-8am with the door locked during these hours and opened by a staff member when a customer wants to enter the casino.

The maglock will also be used when the machines are being emptied and refloated when the premises will be closed, the application said.

The application reads: “At least two members of staff working on site at any given time on the basis of a maximum of eight customers, if the numbers increase then an additional member of staff will be used for busier periods.”

Proposed design layouts of the casino show 42 seats around the edge of the premises, including a kiosk/ customer service desk with 20 seats. The number and type of adult gaming machines have not been included in the licence application.

The application also includes a local gambling risk assessment outlining how the operator plans to minimise harm to children, vulnerable people and the wider community.

Mitigation measures include 24-hour CCTV, staff training, a ‘Think 25’ age verification policy and access to self-exclusion tools for customers.

The risk assessment acknowledges the site’s proximity to schools, care homes, ATMs and existing gambling premises but insists there is a low risk of harm because of the proposed safeguards.

The application read: “Golden Slots is an established operator that has held an Operating Licence since January 2016 without any enforcement action taken against it. It operates other sites in Milton Keynes, Haringey, Cricklewood and Northampton.”

Residents can comment on the application on the council’s website until August 27. Police and public health officials can also submit comments.

Plans submitted to turn the vacant bank into an 24/7 adult gaming centre (image Google)

The leader of Spelthorne Borough Council has again written to the Home Office, demanding the government to abandon controversial plans to use Stanwell Hotel exclusively for single male asylum seekers.

The Home Office announced on August 1 it was temporarily pausing the scheme. But it has not been abandoned.

In her second letter on the matter, this time addressed to the Minister of State for Border Security and Asylum, Cllr Joanne Sexton warned the Home Office there could be “further escalation within the community” if this “urgent and significant” issue is not seen to.

She wrote: “I am writing to you to register heightened community concern over the potential consequences of the proposed changes and the impact they will have on Stanwell Village.”

The renewed letter comes just days after hundreds of people protested outside the hotel near Heathrow Airport. Dozens of signs were held stating ‘Just say no’ and people were chanting outside the hotel.

So far two people have been arrested during the protests, one on suspicion of attempted arson and another on suspicion of “conspiracy to commit violent disorder and aggravated trespass”.

Councillors and Spelthorne MP Lincoln Jopp have also expressed disappointment at the situation, urging the Home Office to listen to the community.

The Home Office have since paused the plans but Cllr Sexton has urged for a meeting to be arranged with herself and the Labour Group Leader, Cllr Jon Button, in whose ward the hotel is located.

In her first letter on July 25, Cllr Sexton had warned the Home Office has caused “alarm” in the community and is completely inappropriate for the area.

She said the decision would undo months of successful integration and was made without any proper consultation with the council or residents.

A Home Office spokesperson said: “The government is reducing expensive hotel use as part of a complete overhaul of the asylum system.

“From over 400 asylum hotels open in summer 2023, costing almost £9m a day, there are now less than 210, and we want them all closed by the end of this Parliament.

“We will continue to work closely with community partners across the country, and discuss any concerns they have, as we look to fix this broken system together. The security of the local communities within which hotels are located will always be our paramount concern.”

Image: Stanwell Hotel protest on July 31. (Credit: Sam Jennings/ Facebook) Permission for use.

Pro-Palestinian campaigners have urged a Surrey council to cut financial ties with Barclays Bank, accusing the firm, of funding what they called Israel’s “genocide of the Palestinian people”. But no formal decision on divestment was made at the meeting.

Simon Higgins, on behalf of West Surrey Palestine Solidarity Campaign, delivered a statement to Guildford Borough Council on July 30, calling for the authority to take an “ethical and moral stand” by divesting from Barclays.

He claimed research shows Barclays holds billions in shares and loans to arms companies whose weapons are being used in Israel in attacks on Palestinians.

“If Guildford Borough Council keeps investing in Barclays, it’s helping fund this genocide,” Mr Higgins said. “This cannot continue.” He added the bank helps the Israeli government raise money by acting as a dealer for its bonds.

Mr Higgins said: “Data obtained by independent research organisation, Profundo has revealed that

• Barclays holds over £2 billion in shares and provides £6.1 billion in loans and underwriting to nine companies whose weapons are being used by Israel in its genocidal attacks on the Palestinian people.
• Investment and financial services to these arms companies facilitates the provision of weapons for Israel’s attacks.
• Barclays acts as a ‘primary dealer’ for Israel’s government bonds, enabling it to raise money to fund its genocidal policies. By investing in Barclays, GBC is aiding this genocide.”
• He said over 700 local people have signed a petition calling for the council to divest, adding both the Mayor of Guildford and the council’s finance lead have acknowledged the seriousness of the situation.

Responding to the claims, Cllr Richard Lucas, lead for finance and property said he shared Mr Higgins’ horror at what is happening in Gaza, but did not believe the case against Barclays was clear-cut.

Cllr Lucas said: “[ Guildford council ] share Mr Higgins’ revulsion of what is going on but we don’t think he has made a clear case against Barclays and furthermore we are not in a position to make a detailed judgment on this.

“We’re already moving away from Barclays as part of our wider investment strategy,” he added. “We understand the concerns, but we have to make decisions responsibly.”

He said the research quoted by Higgins contradicts Barclays’ own statements, which say the bank doesn’t use its own money to invest in arms companies and that it pulled out of Israeli government bond deals last summer.

Cllr Lucas also explained how the council’s investment policy works. “We follow national guidelines that tell us to prioritise security and liquidity, and to act as responsible investors,” he said.

The council currently has two investments with Barclays – £3 million in a 95-day notice account (which is already being withdrawn), and £1.5 million in bonds that mature in 2027. Lucas said pulling out of the latter early would result in a significant financial loss.

“We’re already moving away from Barclays as part of our wider investment strategy,” he added. “We understand the concerns, but we have to make decisions responsibly.”

Speaking afterwards, Mr Higgins said: “At the meeting I was shut down and denied a right of reply. This is unfair, undemocratic and unconstitutional.”

Image credit: rawpixel.com CC 1 License details

A Surrey council leader has said she was “shocked” to learn of Home Office proposals to house exclusively male asylum seekers in a hotel in a village.

In a strongly worded letter to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Spelthorne Borough Council (SBC) leader Joanne Sexton expressed “serious concerns” regarding changes to plans for The Stanwell Hotel on the villages Town Lane.

SBC said it had previously approved for families and single women to be accommodated at the venue but the new plans would mean relocating the current families and women and replacing them with men.

The Home Office said it wants to close all hotels by the end of Parliament and will “continue to work closely with community partners”.

Cllr Sexton said the existing group of families at the hotel were “integrating well and building community ties. This abrupt change risks undermining all of that”.

In her letter to the Home Office, the leader said the council is “determined to avoid circumstances that could lead to civil unrest”. Describing the potential upheaval as an “adult male intensification”, Cllr Sexton added she is “alarmed about the potential consequences of the proposed changes and the impact they will have”.

A council spokesperson added that, while Spelthorne had a history of supporting asylum seekers including both Afghan and Ukrainian refugees, it still expects to be properly consulted and involved in decisions that significantly impact the local area.

SBC is urging the government to listen to the concerns of the local authority and the community, and is calling on the Home Office to immediately reconsider and consult on the way forward.

A Home Office spokesperson said: “The government is reducing expensive hotel use as part of a complete overhaul of the asylum system.

“From over 400 asylum hotels open in summer 2023, costing almost £9m a day, there are now less than 210.

“We will continue to work closely with community partners across the country, and discuss any concerns they have, as we look to fix this broken system together. The security of the local communities within which hotels are located will always be our paramount concern.”

The Home Office has a legal obligation to support asylum seekers who would otherwise be destitute by providing appropriate support, which usually includes accommodation.

Outside of The Stanwell Hotel, Stanwell, Staines. (Credit: Google Street View)

A former science teacher and head of year at a Surrey private school has avoided a ban from the profession despite sending ‘sexually explicit’ messages to three colleagues.

Leishan Silva, 44, was sacked from Downsend School in Leatherhead following an internal investigation into complaints by three female staff about inappropriate and persistent behaviour.

He later admitted to the allegations during a private misconduct hearing held by the Teaching Regulation Agency (TRA) on July 11.

Messages sent by Mr Silva were categorised as “sexually motivated” by the TRA. He sent one colleague messages like “f*** me, you look amazing”, “what’s wrong with c**, it’s natural?” and “your amazing boobs”. He also suggested he would like to see one of them wear a bikini on a school trip to a water park.

Between 2018-2023, Mr Silva pursued sexual conversations with three colleagues. The social media messages displayed what the TRA panel called “a pattern of behaviour over a sustained period”.

Despite finding Mr Silva’s actions amounted to “unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute”, the panel stopped short of recommending he should be banned from teaching.

Instead, they opted to publish the findings as a warning on the government’s website.

Also noted by the panel was Mr Silva’s “unblemished” disciplinary record and successful teaching career prior to the allegations. The panel said there was no evidence these concerns were brought to Mr Silva’s attention at an earlier stage.

His attention was drawn to these concerns retrospectively, so his poor conduct could not have been addressed earlier.

When the allegations were made by the three staff members, Downsend School launched an internal investigation, leading to a disciplinary hearing which resulted in Mr Silva being sacked from the school.

In mitigation, the panel noted Mr Silva had expressed remorse and insight regarding the harm and embarrassment he has caused to his female colleagues. He had also written apology letters to each of the colleagues. Mr Silva had told the panel that difficult personal circumstances at the time may have affected his judgment.

In isolation, the interactions with a colleague could be categorised as a ‘low level concern’ according to the TRA panel. But taken together, the panel said the messages showed a pattern of behaviour over a sustained period of time.

The report said: “Therefore, the cumulative effect of this repeated behaviour led to the panel’s determination that Mr Silva’s case amounted to unacceptable professional conduct.”

Concluding, the secretary of state said: “The publication of the findings made would be sufficient to send an appropriate message to the teacher as to the standards of behaviour that were not acceptable and that the publication would meet the public interest requirement of declaring proper standards of the profession.”

Stock image of empty classroom. (Credit: kieurope/ Pixabay)

A £4.9m overhaul of special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) services in Surrey has been approved. But opposition members have claimed the investment won’t fix the system’s deep-rooted problems. The funding was signed off by ruling cabinet members for Surrey County Council at a meeting on July 22, as part of the council’s ongoing budget planning for next year (2026/27). But extra resources and staff “will not by themselves make the significant change the service needs”, according to opposing councillors.

Changes to the SEND service have been recommended as a result of the End-to-End review of the statutory service, council documents state. These include hiring 30 new permanent case officers, forming a new team dedicated to issuing Education, Health Care Plans (EHCPs), and reducing case load from over 200 to 150 per officer. Council documents detail there would also be two new operational groups formed – one focused on staffing, training and system development, while another group will focus solely on tribunals, mediations, dispute resolution, complaints and quality assurance.

But Cllr Fiona Davidson, the committee chair who oversees and scrutinises SEND services, flagged serious concerns to cabinet members. She said the committee “has already found that employing extra staff does not by itself result in the outcomes we so desperately need.” The member for Guildford Residents and Villages slammed the proposal and argued the funding does not describe specific, measurable outcomes or impacts: “How will we know we have made progress?” She said: “[The committee has] deep concerns that this additional funding will once again not deliver the services that the children with SEND, their parents and carers have a right to expect, and all Surrey residents should demand.”

Cllr Davidson said an injection of £15m into SEND services in July 2023 was promised to enable many process improvements in communications, IT changes and strengthen governance. “Was this £15m value for money?” she asked cabinet members. She said: “To make matters worse, many of the backlog EHCPs which the £15m funded turned out not to be fit for purpose. These backlog EHCPs have contributed to the rising number of appeals by parents to the SEND tribunal. The human cost of these poor EHCPs have been extremely depressing […] Children not in school for months and years, families wrung out by trying to get support, schools at the end of their ability to cope trying to get very specialist support for their students. So we wondered, was that £15m value for money?” Although she agreed the investment has delivered significant EHCP timeliness, she said it is not clear that it has achieved much else promised two years ago.

Tim Oliver, Leader of Surrey County Council, defended the new plans, insisting the focus would be on prevention, early intervention and supporting families more effectively. He said: “It’s absolutely wrong that families feel pushed down that route to find the solution that is right for their child. This cabinet is very focused on spending every pound or penny of public money effectively.”

Related reports:

SENDing Pupils to Epsom’s Mainstream Schools?

Surrey sent on a U-turn on SEND by MPs?

Surrey MPs unite against County on SEND silence

Surrey SEND parents owed money

Epsom SEND case highlights a national problem

Surrey sorry for SEND shortcomings

New Surrey County Council HQ, Woodhatch Place on Cockshot Hill, Reigate. Credit Surrey County Council

A Surrey County Council could be pushed to the brink of financial crisis if government reforms, aimed at evening out local authority funding, go ahead, its leader has warned. Cllr Tim Oliver (Conservative) said Surrey County Council could be heading towards a “cliff edge” under proposals which could dramatically reduce Surrey’s income. The central government is looking at scrapping the current council tax funding model in favour of a national 100 per cent ‘equaliser’ system where each local authority gets the same amount of funding. The Conservative leader’s warning came during a cabinet meeting on July 22, where he suggested the government’s ‘Fair Funding Review’ would hit Surrey harder than most councils due to its higher council tax base.

The central government has launched a review into how local councils are funded across the country, called the fair funding review. Reports suggest the government could go ahead with a 100 per cent “equaliser” for local government income, meaning every council essentially gets the same level of council tax income. “There will be at some point a cliff edge for this council,” the Conservative leader warned colleagues. “There is an expectation we will look to our residents to fill that gap. That gap won’t be filled – can’t be filled – even if we were to increase council tax by 5 per cent.” Currently, Surrey has a high council tax base meaning it has more band H houses, paying at least £3,692.70 in 2025, compared to other parts of the country.

The funding reforms under consideration could flatten out this advantage by reallocating resources away from wealthier counties like Surrey and towards lower-income authorities. Cllr Oliver warned the resulting drop in funding would not be completely offset by any increase in local council tax, leaving the council with a growing deficit and fewer levers to pull. “It’s absolutely essential that we drive efficiencies wherever possible,” he said. “Otherwise this council like many others I’m afraid will be in section 114 territory where we simply cannot have a balanced budget.” A Section 114 notice effectively means the council’s expenditure outweighs its income. As councils cannot go ‘bankrupt’ it stops the authority from spending any more money except from its legal responsibilities.

Despite the stark and solemn warnings, Cllr Oliver said the council was committed to avoiding that outcome and praised the authority’s efforts over the past six years to manage finances. He said: “Whether that’s lobbying the government or managing our budget locally […] to make sure we can continue to provide services to our residents but that is going to be challenging.”

But government ministers would argue the current local government system is “broken” and outdated, with council tax bands still based on 1991 property values. A statement from the secretaries of state on the Fair Funding Review said: “Our reforms will take into account the different needs and costs faced by communities across the country, including adjusting for the costs of remoteness faced by rural communities, and the ability of individual local authorities to raise Council Tax, while also resetting business rates income. It will update the crucial formulae used to calculate funding allocations, which are a decade out of date.”

Related reports:

Two unitaries will save money says Surrey leader

Surrey leaders review spending review

Surrey’s BIG debt question in local government reorganisation

Tim Oliver Surrey County Council leader – Surrey Live