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)

An Epsom care home has been told it needs to make big improvements after inspectors found residents were being left to lead “very isolated lives.”

Fir Trees House, a residential home in Epsom for up to seven adults with learning disabilities, was inspected between October 2024 and July this year following concerns about the quality of care and facilities. At the time of the assessment, only four people were living there – most with long-term mental health conditions and several being assessed for autism.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) said the home was “not always safe” and “not well-led,” warning that some residents were at risk of harm. Inspectors branded the care homes as ‘requiring improvement’ in key areas.

Inspectors said the service “wasn’t always meeting” standards set out under national guidance on supporting people with learning disabilities and autism. In particular, they found staff often focused on tasks rather than encouraging residents to live more fulfilled, independent lives.

One resident told inspectors they were happy at the home, but others described their care as “unsympathetic” and even disrespectful. One person told inspectors: “They went on to recall their first day at the service, saying, “Staff laughed at me as I tried to get up the stairs, I felt very unwell. I had to rest on the stairs, I thought I was going to lose consciousness, my head was spinning and they were laughing.” 

The CQC also criticised the service for failing to learn from mistakes. In one case, a resident was moved out after a court ruled they weren’t getting the support they needed. But no managers investigated what went wrong.

The report highlighted a lack of staff at night, meaning people’s safety could not be guaranteed in an emergency. Staff also admitted they weren’t sure which outside organisations they should contact if they had safeguarding concerns.

On top of that, the report said residents were not being encouraged to eat meals together, socialise, or take part in the local community – leaving them at risk of isolation.

However, inspectors did note some positives. Medication was managed safely, refurbishment work had started – including installing a stair lift – and staff spoke positively about the management team.

Inspectors said the home itself needed work. Kitchens and bathrooms were not always clean, and some areas were in poor condition. Since then, refurbishments have begun, with new flooring, a wet room and plans for a stair lift to help people with mobility needs.

The Care Quality Commission said Fir Trees House remained in breach of legal rules around person-centred care and governance.

Fir Trees House has been approached for comment.

283 Fir Tree Road, Epsom, Surrey. (Credit: Google Street View)

A Surrey sports ground is set to get a £114,000 hand out to keep it afloat after the site racked up a big budget shortfall last year. But councillors insist residents will now get clearer oversight on how the pavilion is run. 

The sports ground – home to Guildford Cricket Club and Surrey County Cricket Club – was hit by major staffing problems in 2024/25, leaving the management company more than £114k in the red.

As the ground is run as a charity and doesn’t have money of its own, Guildford Borough Council, as trustee, has agreed to step in and cover the gap. Without the cash, the charity would be unable to pay its bills and could go under.

Alongside plugging last year’s hole, councillors have also signed off on a three-year business plan. That means topping up the ground’s budget with a further £80,687 in 2025/26 and £20,572 in 2026/27 – though beyond that no more bailouts are expected.

Without this, officers warned, the charity could fail, leaving taxpayers to foot the bill while the council runs the site directly without the specialist know-how of its cricketing partners.

Speaking at the Executive meeting on September 12, Cllr Catherine Houston said it was “encouraging to see this coming into shape,” adding: “It is not the shadowy ‘what’s happening here’ question that we’ve all had. I’m really pleased to see the council is able to keep an eye on what is happening in a much more formal way.”

She praised the new structure, with three directors and dedicated officers in place, saying it gave the council confidence there was now ‘a vision’ for the site.

CEO Pedro Wrobel also backed the move, recognising that the problems stemmed from decisions made before the current Executive was in place.

“This is an issue that has a legacy that starts from prior to this Executive coming to force,” he said. “What you are doing here is getting a firm grip on that […] and putting it in a position where you are able to improve the value for money the organisation is getting.”

The Pavilion was refurbished in 2018 and reopened the following year, with the idea that hosting events and matches would help cover running costs. The council’s Executive will make a decision on the extra funding in the coming weeks.

The Guildford Pavilion. (Credit: Google Street View)

Plans to redevelop Surrey Police’s Mount Browne headquarters in Guildford — including a new dog training school — have been green-lit for a second time despite fresh flood risk modelling showing “pockets of high surface water flooding” across the site.

Guildford Borough Council’s Planning Committee approved the scheme in November 2024, but since then national planning rules have changed and the Environment Agency has issued new flood maps.

As a result, Surrey Police and the council agreed to bring the scheme back to committee.

The updated modelling shows parts of the site, including the former bowling green earmarked for the new dog school, face a high risk of surface water flooding.

Councillors raised concerns about what that actually means in practice at another planning committee meeting on September 9.

“On one hand we say there’s a high risk of flooding — and then we say the infrastructure will support that regardless,” Cllr Stephen Hives said. “So I’m a bit confused: is there a danger to welfare or not?”

Planning officers insisted the scheme still passes the required “sequential test” — which means no safer, alternative sites are reasonably available — and that the approved drainage strategy will prevent increased flood risk.

“In practical terms it will make no difference to this development,” an officer told the committee. “The drainage strategy already approved is sufficient even with the updated flood risk.”

The development does not fall within the newly created “Grey Belt” category introduced in the revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), but it was judged to still harm the Surrey Hills National Landscape.

With no new highways flooding issues identified and no change to the approved drainage plan, officers confirmed the project remains compliant with planning rules. Plans to redevelop the police HQ and build a new access road was unanimously approved.

Mount Browne has been the headquarters of Surrey Police for more than 70 years. The current campus contains a large number of buildings which have been constructed mainly on a piecemeal basis and are judged no longer fit for purpose.

Emily Dalton

Proposed Redevelopment of Mount Browne, Surrey Police\’s HQ. (Credit: Surrey Police)

Surrey County Council has set the record straight about whether residents can hang flags from lampposts.

In a statement shared with councillors and online, the authority said: “We recognise the importance of the Union flag and flag of St George as symbols of national pride, and we proudly fly the Union flag from our council headquarters in Reigate.”

But the county council reminded people that anything fixed to a lamppost or painted on roads needs official permission first.

Without it, the council warns, flags and other attachments can pose safety risks for drivers and pedestrians. Unauthorised flags or paint markings will be removed during routine inspections.

Waverley Borough Council leader and Godalming county councillor Paul Follows, who shared the council’s advice online, said residents should also be mindful about putting flags on property they don’t own. “Please don’t be surprised if it’s taken down or reported by the owner,” he said.

He added that removing graffiti or markings from public spaces costs money that ultimately comes out of taxpayers’ pockets. “You can of course always fly a flag from your own property if you want to,” he said.

Anyone keen to display a flag on public land is encouraged to apply for permission first. Details of how to do so are available on the Surrey County Council website.

Emily Dalton

Image: Union Jack flags on Ruxley Lane lampposts

Council tax bills could keep climbing despite warnings residents could be getting less bang for their buck. Surrey’s Police and Crime Commissioner has insisted she “will not ask the public to be less safe” as she defended plans to raise council tax for policing. 

At a Police and Crime Panel meeting last week (September 4), PCC Lisa Townsend explained the decisions on the annual precept rise were driven by the Chief Constable’s assessment of what the force needs to keep the country safe.

“It’s not me plucking a figure out of thin air,” she told councillors. For Ms Townsend, the choice is clear: “Surrey Police are cutting their cloth, but what I am not prepared to do is ask the public to be less safe.”

Surrey Police must find £14.8m savings by 2029 with pay (which makes up 80 per cent of its spending) ramping up costs, a report states. Each 1 per cent pay rise for police officers adds £2.4m to the budget, equivalent to £4.80 on the average council tax bill. 

The report revealed: “Whilst the force is making every effort to not impact services as a result of savings required, there is a risk that this will not be possible”. 

Ms Townsend’s comments came after councillors questioned whether constant tax rises could be justified when Surrey Police must still deliver sweeping budget cuts to balance its budget. 

Cllr Richard Wilson challenged: “At some point Surrey Police has to cut its cloth. You can’t keep asking the public for more and more money when it’s a regressive tax.” He asked the PCC to “give the public a break” from the ever-increasing tax bills. 

But finance officers warned that the ability to make further cuts “become more difficult every year” despite efforts to standardise IT systems, renegotiate contracts and improve procurement. They warned if Surrey Police do not increase the precept in a particular year then it has “missed that chance” in every following year to raise funds for the Force.

Although the Government has promised to fund some police pay rises above 2.8 per cent, Surrey is still waiting for clarity on how much of this money it will actually receive. The long-awaited Police Reform Bill could also see some functions stripped away to a national body or Surrey forced into merger talks — changes with potentially “major financial implications.”

Surrey remains one of the lowest government-funded forces in the country, leaving residents to shoulder more of the burden through local taxation.

A former Surrey care home is being given a new lease of life – not for elderly residents but as a mix of hotel rooms and shared housing.

The Elders, on Epsom Road, Ewell, will now officially become a 12-room guesthouse with an 8-bed HMO (house of multiple occupation), plus a manager’s flat, after councillors approved the proposal on September 4.

The decision by Epsom and Ewell Borough Council’s planning committee follows a rocky planning history of previous refusals, enforcement notices and accusations the owners were running it without permission.

Cllr Clive Woodbridge said: “Moving it from a sort of limbo where it’s operating as it is but without any ability to be regulated – because it’s not supposed to be happening – it probably tips my balance.”

The building has been empty for several years and developers argue it is no longer suitable for modern care needs.

The scheme has divided opinion with some councillors saying they were uneasy about losing a care facility at a time when demand is only growing. Members noted the loss of the care home – capable of housing up to 24 residents – would also mean a loss of housing.

HMOs tend to have a bad reputation and are sometimes attributed for noisy neighbours and anti-social behaviour. But Cllr Phil Neale admitted this one looked “more for professional people” than “itinerant” workers.

Planning documents reveal the HMO rooms are aimed at housing staff employed by the owners in local care homes, providing affordable accommodation for new workers before moving into the housing market.

Cllr Alison Kelly argued the units could help newcomers find their feet. She said: “It’s quite a reasonable use of a HMO.”

Not everyone was convinced. Cllr Jan Mason tore into the design, claiming: “It looks like it’s been produced on a packet of cigarettes.” While Cllr Neale raised concerns about sustainability. He said: “I’m disappointed again that we’ve missed the opportunity to push solar panels.”

Outside the former care home on Epsom Road. (Credit: Google Street View)

Surrey’s Police and Crime Commissioner has said the “vitriolic” online abuse she faced after an anti-catcalling trial campaign went viral shows why tackling violence against women and girls must remain a priority.

The ‘Jog On’ pilot, launched in the summer, was led by a female police officer who had been harassed while out running. It aimed to address the harassment many women face in public spaces just going about their lives but it sparked fierce backlash online- with some critics questioning whether it was a good use of police resources. 

Ms Townsend, who said she was not directly involved in the campaign, said she received the “most vitriolic messages” on social media and they were the worst she had faced in her time as a PCC. 

She told a Police and Crime Panel on September 4: “The fact that this was the most awful sort of language that I’ve had I think tells you why this work is so important.”

One X (formerly Twitter) user asked her whether the campaign was a waste of Surrey Police;s time, given that catcalling was not a criminal offence. Others said it was a total waste of taxpayer’s money.

Townsend has responded on social media and publicly that early intervention and crime prevention are essential parts of policing, explaining that behaviours dismissed as minor – like catcalling and public intimidation – can escalate into more serious offences. 

The PCC’s comments come as she set out Surrey’s apparent progress against her Police and Crime Plan which says tackling VAWG is a top priority.

Councillors challenged Surrey Police’s record claiming it is not possible to tell whether violence against women and girls has increased or decreased. The volume of violent domestic abuse crimes reported has decreased by 4 per cent from 7,995 in June 2024 to 7,673 in June 2025. However, the volume of serious sexual offences has increased by 2 per cent from June 2024 to June 2025.

The PCC said: “I hope to see reports of violence against women and girls go up during my term as PCC because we know it is one of the most under-reported crimes in this country, not just in Surrey but right across this country.

“I don’t take an increase in reports as a bad thing. I think everyone that comes forward to talk about an experience that they may not have had the confidence to do before is a good and important thing.

“I don’t expect to see a reduction in reports anytime soon.”

Lisa Townsend, Surrey Police and Crime Commissioner. (Credit: Surrey PCC office)