Anyone arrested for behaving badly on Epsom Derby day could be stuck with a £100 fine, a Surrey council says.

Epsom and Ewell Borough Council has green-lit a public space protection order (PSPO) ahead of this year’s Epsom Derby on June 7. Members voted through the new rules at a full council meeting, which could last up to three years, on Tuesday May 6.

The order applies to anyone harassing or threatening others, or continuing to drink alcohol after being ordered to stop by a police officer, community support officer or council officer. People wearing a piece of clothing with the intent to hide their identity to commit crime or behave anti-socially could also be at risk of large fines.

“There is an escalating amount of antisocial behaviour in the borough,” said Councillor Shanice Goldman, Chair of the Crime and Disorder Committee. She said: “The PSPO is a new tool specifically for the Epsom & Ewell area which will allow police and appropriate council staff to address antisocial behaviour effectively, without immediately resorting to arrests.”

Cllr Bernie Muir exclaimed: “Some residents are actually actively thinking of leaving the borough.” She said people have told her they do not like walking through an “intimidating” bunch of people to get into a restaurant or Epsom playhouse. Cllr Muir said: “Just having to put up with what is bad enough in itself the fear and uncertainty of antisocial behaviour but it’s going to impact economic life as well.”

Members spoke up in support of the order and hoped it would bring positive change to Epsom and Ewell. Cllr Goldman said: “I hope this order will ensure a more enjoyable experience for everyone on the day, as well as a safer environment in the borough going forward.”

Report: https://democracy.epsom-ewell.gov.uk/documents/s35629/Adoption%20of%20a%20Public%20Spaces%20Protection%20Order.pdf

Press release: https://www.epsom-ewell.gov.uk/news/epsom-ewell-borough-council-put-measures-place-combat-anti-social-%C2%A0behaviour-borough-ahead

Plans for Surrey’s various district and borough councils to be devolved have been finalised. Surrey county councillors voted on how all 648 square miles of Surrey should be carved into two during a cabinet meeting on Wednesday, May 7.

Surrey County Council’s plans, supported by Elmbridge Borough Council and Mole Valley District Council, propose two new councils are created, splitting Surrey into East and West. But devolutions plans supported by the majority of the borough and district councils support splitting Surrey into three.

The Labour government outlined colossal structural changes to councils in December, aiming to give local authorities more power. Surrey’s 12 unitary authorities- district and borough councils- were told to submit their proposals for one a single-tier council would like across Surrey.

At rapid speed, the county council has drawn up plans for Surrey to be split in two: making up West Surrey would be Woking, Spelthorne, Runnymede, Surrey Heath, Guildford and Waverley; on the East would be Elmbridge, Epsom and Ewell, Reigate and Banstead, Mole Valley and Tandridge.

Leader of the county council, Tim OIiver said: “The decision was always going to be based on the evidence, not on political lines or emotional lines.

“This is about what is in the best interest for residents… how can we establish unitaries that are going to be financially secure going forward.”

The leader emphasised the “evidence” only supports a two unitary authority is fair, even and best value for residents.

Cllr Catherine Powell, leader of the Residents’ Association and Independents Group, said having three councils is the “most balanced option” and claimed the East and West division is “financially unsustainable”.

“It will include all three areas with the highest need for children’s services and the three areas with the lowest council tax band base, which also happen to be the same three areas with the highest levels of debt,” she said.

She claimed that SCC’s own analysis showed it would be better for Spelthorne to join the East Surrey side, both in terms of financial and service distribution.

Cllr Powell urged the potentially crippling debt from the councils needs to be solved before any final decision is made. Conversations continue between the government and Woking on how to manage their debt, while Runnymede’s financial situation is still struggling and Spelthorne now has government commissioners in to manage the debt.

The three-council plan would put Epsom & Ewell, Mole Valley, Reigate & Banstead and Tandridge into East Surrey. Elmbridge, Runnymede and Spelthorne would become North Surrey, and Guildford, Surrey Heath, Waverley and Woking in West Surrey.

But Cllr Oliver slammed the arguments as “weaponising” the debt across Surrey. He labelled the claim as “inconsistent”, as those in favour of three unitaries would lump struggling councils Spelthorne and Runnymede together with Elmbridge. He said: “How can it possibly be better than splitting them across two unitaries?”

Cllr George Potter slammed the Conservative councillors for supporting the idea of two mega councils based on their report. He said the council was merely “making the figures fit the pre-determined conclusions”.

However, Cllr Edward Hawkins said residents he has spoken to are “not bothered about changes but want the reduction of administration”. He said people just “want the bins emptied and the roads repaired”.

Despite the mudslinging, none of the councillors will decide what ultimately Surrey will look like in years to come. Timelines show the government will consult and interrogate the various proposals put forward, and decide how Surrey shall be carved up in the autumn.

Options for Surrey to be split into two and three unitaries will both be put on the table and submitted to government ministers on May 9.

Imagine starting a new homes project and not being able to drive onto the site. That could be the reality for one Surrey council which has got into a road row with neighbours over access to a street.

Residents down Fairview Road claim Epsom and Ewell Borough Council are not legally allowed to drive into the old builder’s yard at the end of their road. The council has launched a scheme to place three ‘shipping container’ homes on the land to provide temporary accommodation for families on the housing register. The plans were agreed in November last year.

“It’s a real David and Goliath situation,” said Debbie Ransome, who has together with the neighbours challenged the council’s right to enter the site, by Fairview Road. She argued that it is wrong for the council to claim they have the access rights when she believes they are not entitled to use the road.

HM Land Registry has accepted the resident’s application to block the council’s right of way, and is now considering the claim. A spokesperson for Land Registry said: “Unfortunately, it is beyond HMLR’s remit to comment on whether or not the Council are legally allowed to access their land from Fairview Road.”

She has accused the council of “bullying” and “intimidating” behaviour as residents have challenged their right to access to the site- and now Ms Ransome is heading to tribunal. “I’m a single parent, I pay my taxes,” she said

Ms Ransome, who lives next to the site in Epsom, explained herself and the neighbours have also allegedly received a solicitor’s letter from the council threatening police action if they continue ‘disrupting’ the development.

Epsom and Ewell Borough Council state they intend to fight the claim as they head towards tribunal with Ms Ransome. The local authority state it rejects the allegations and said it is following the process laid out by the Land Registry.

An unusual situation, Fairview Road is a private street with a mystery owner. So the council (and future occupants) are not technically allowed to drive down the road to get to the former builder’s yard- even though the local authority owns the site.

In September 2024, the council applied for a right of way on the site based on the long-term use from the previous occupant, Mr Adrian Giles MBE. Under a legal tool known as ‘lost modern grant’, people are able to claim if they have continually used the access route for 20 years without permission or by using force.

But Ms Ransome is disputing Mr Giles was in a position to claim access, saying she believes he forfeited access when he moved his business from the road some time ago. She also claims Mr Giles’ late father agreed to sublet the land to a roofer – not part of the rent agreement with the council – and gained money from it.

Documents and emails seen by the author show Mr Giles admitting and apologising to the council he had not told them about the roofer subletting the land in his Land Registry statement. The roofer reportedly left the site in 2014, and the land was given back to the council in 2016.

Calling the council’s actions as “deplorable”, Ms Ransome said it is “completely wrong” and “not fair on the residents” that the council would try to get access to the site this way. She claimed: “They have got the [access] by lying and they’re supposed to be the council. They’re supposed to be the people that we trust to follow rules and regulations.”

The council approved the application to develop three new ‘modular’, or pre-constructed, homes to support local families at risk of homelessness on 7 November 2024.

A long-time opponent of the pre-constructed home scheme, Ms Ransome said the development will be “detrimental to hundreds of school kids” who use the road as a cut through to Glyn Secondary School and Sixth Form. With a width of 3.55m, Fairview Road is 10cm below national standards so cars have to mount the curb to carefully pass each other. Objectors said this could be a serious safeguarding risk to children walking to and from school.

Councillor Steven McCormick, Chair of the Planning Committee, said: “The new homes are planned to be located alongside Fairview Road, making use of brownfield land and contributing to the borough’s temporary housing availability. These units would allow the council to house local families facing homelessness within the borough, close to schools and local support networks.”

The Residents’ Association member clarified pedestrian safety concerns were recognised and discussed at length in the planning meeting where the application for temporary accommodation was considered.

He said: “In coming to a decision about the development’s use for the provision of temporary accommodation, the Committee noted the comments from the County Highway Authority who were satisfied that: the development would not result in a significant increase in traffic generation, or result in issues of highway safety, or cause issues with the operation of the existing highway network.”

Cllr McCormick added: “The council has followed the process laid out by the Land Registry. Residents have challenged the Land Registry’s decision, but the council remains confident in its position. The council refutes any further allegations.”

Adrian Giles MBE declined to comment and referred back to the council’s response.

Link to planning portal: https://eplanning.epsom-ewell.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=RQ0JVVGYIQR00

Related reports:

Fair view Decision

Epsom’s homelessness crisis

What are the solutions to Epsom’s homeless crisis?

Neglect at a Surrey children’s care home contributed to the tragic death of a 12-year-old girl, a coroner has found. Raihana Awolaja sadly died of natural causes contributed by neglect on June 1, 2023 at Tadworth Court care home.

Staff at a Surrey care home failed to give the 24-hour, one-to-one support Raihana needed because of her extensive health issues, according to the legal firm representing the family, Leigh Day. 

Mike Thiedke, Chief Executive of The Children’s Trust, said: “We unreservedly apologise to Raihana’s family for these failings […] Raihana’s death has had a profound effect on the way we deliver care and work with families today at The Children’s Trust.”

Born prematurely at 27 weeks as a twin, Raihana was left with complex disabilities including being non-verbal and dependent on breathing through a tube in her neck. Raihana needed round the clock, one-to-one supervision to ensure her breathing tube did not get blocked, Leigh Day said. 

But the coroner Professor Fiona Wilcox concluded there was confusion around the meaning of ‘one-to-one’ care between Croydon Council and The Children’s Trust.

 The inquest heard the care home did not have enough staff available to consistently cover patients one-to-one. They were told individual staff members were regularly left caring for at least two patients at a time during staffing breaks and twice daily shift handovers. 

Prof Wilcox criticised the nursing staff involved, as she found it was likely had Raihana been properly observed, the deterioration in her condition would have been identified and her life saved. 

Raihana was a looked-after child under the council’s care due to her extensive needs. In 2022, she was placed by Croydon Council at Tadworth Court in Surrey, a care home operated by The Children’s Trust. 

 Raihana’s mother, Latifat Kehinde Solomon, had serious concerns about her daughter’s care at The Children’s Trust, the inquest heard. Ms Soloman claimed she had repeatedly found Raihana without one-to-one care during her visits. 

Ms Soloman said she flagged this potentially dangerous situation several times with Children’s Trust staff and Croydon Council. Despite her concerns, she said nobody did anything. 

Nandi Jordan, who represented Raihana’s family during the hearing, said it is “rare” for a coroner to find neglect in an inquest for medical treatment. She said the conclusion reflects that Raihana’s death was “an avoidable tragedy” and there were “substantial failures by multiple professionals and agencies involved in her care”. 

Records show, on the evening of Monday, May 29, 2023, the nurse responsible for Raihana started her shift and checked the 12-year-old’s chart. The inquest heard that despite Raihana appearing more tired than usual the nurse chose not to monitor her oxygen levels. Instead, the nurse left and went to another building to complete some admin work. 

 The nurse asked a colleague to observe Raihana but no one seemed available, so she was actually left on her own. Records show when the nurse returned from her admin task, she found Raihana in cardiac arrest, a Leigh Day spokesperson said.

Staff performed CPR and called an ambulance. The court heard that paramedics were told Raihana had been left unattended for 15 minutes.  Raihana was taken to St George’s Hospital, in Tooting, London. But sadly, three days later, she died.

The Chief Executive of The Children’s Trust, said: “Raihana was not being observed to the standard that the organisation would expect in the period immediately before she was found unresponsive on the evening of 29 May 2023.

“Following this heartbreaking experience, we have increased frontline staffing levels and changed how we monitor and observe children and young people in partnership with our regulators and the wider health care system.

“On behalf of The Children’s Trust, we express our most heartfelt condolences to Raihana’s family and acknowledge how difficult the inquest must have been.”

Ms Jordan, from Leigh Day said: “It is too late for Raihana, but we can only hope that the findings of this inquest act as a vehicle for much needed change with the agencies involved; firstly, to take carers’ concerns seriously when they advocate for their loved ones, and secondly, to ensure the care they are providing is safe for seriously disabled people who may not be able to advocate for themselves.” 

A spokesperson for Croydon Council said: “Our first thoughts are with Raihana’s family, and we want to express our deepest condolences for their devastating loss.

“Raihana was placed at The Children’s Trust so she could receive 24-hour care for her complex needs and we worked to ensure Raihana’s mother was included in reviews, her voice was heard and any concerns addressed.

“Despite this, and the assurances we received from the Trust, it is clear that the care they provided fell below our expectations. Following internal reviews, the Trust have changed their processes around staffing and one-to-one care and we will continue to work with them to ensure that lessons have been learned from this tragedy.”

Epsom and Ewell Borough Council has approved plans for hundreds of new homes. The former SGN Gasworks site on East Street in Epsom will see all of its buildings and infrastructure demolished to make way for new homes. The town’s “biggest planning application in years” has been approved. Members of Epsom and Ewell Borough Council planning committee agreed to the outline scheme for 456 homes by a majority vote on April 24. The development will see five high rise blocks, ranging from eight to twelve storeys tall. A performing arts centre, educational buildings and an open public garden are also included in the plans. Of the proposed 456 homes, according to planning documents, 210 will be one-bedroom, 180 will be two-bedroom, and 66 will be three-bedroom units. A further 46 of the 456 homes will be social rent units and 21 wheelchair accessible, according to planning documents.

“You cannot build a nine-storey building behind someone’s back door,” said Richard Coles, an Epsom resident speaking against the scheme. He explained it would be “60 metres from my back door to someone’s balcony, for some hundred or so properties”. Mr Coles argued the new builds will make life significantly worse for those living immediately around the blocks. “We’re not delivering for Epsom if we’re not delivering for all our residents,” Cllr Kim Spickett said. “We’re not talking about overlooking buildings, we’re talking about human beings.” Responding to concerns, council planners said fears of overlooking is not such an issue in practice because neither resident can really make out the features or activities of a person that far away. Officers accepted sunlight would be reduced for six neighbouring homes and 23 student rooms but said the benefits of the scheme would outweigh the impact.

Wrestling with the application, Cllr Julian Freeman appreciated the residents’ concerns but said “fear is often much worse than the reality”. He added the borough is in a “housing crisis” and “for the greater good” the development will provide new homes for 600 or more people. Cllr Kate Chinn slammed the council for not building enough homes or social housing over the last five years. “We’re now asking residents to pay the price for the failures of the past,” she said. With only 68 car parking spaces for 456 homes, councillors urged for something to be done. Members worried about tradesmen needing to use cars for work or families driving to school. Around 21 spaces would be designated for wheelchair users which Cllr Freeman challenged as “excessive”. Cllr Jan Mason said: “People living there actually will be defranchised.” She claimed future residents might not be able to have people visiting the house or getting the work men round.

Officers said fewer parking bays would help “champion a change in attitude” to using cars and support the council’s “ambitious target” of becoming carbon neutral by 2035. But some councillors said it was “unrealistic” to demand people to change their motor habits by restricting parking spaces. Just a 10 minute walk from Epsom train station, the applicants argued the development would be an immensely sustainable location. People can get to London Waterloo station in around 35 minutes. Members agreed conditions to the car management plan so it could come back to committee for further approval if needed.

Also included in the scheme, Laine Theatre Arts College will be replaced by a modern building. The development will be further detailed in separate planning applications, the report said. The site has been used as gas works for more than 150 years, according to documents, while a separate application for the same site has stated the storage facility for natural gas “has been permanently decommissioned and purged”.

Image: Site Masterplan (Aerial) Formation Architects

Plans for a McDonald’s in Cobham have been thrown out. 

McDonald’s had hoped to find a new home on the former Loch Fyne Restaurant in Portsmouth Road on the outskirts of Cobham. Members of Elmbridge Borough Council’s planning committee rejected the application by majority vote on April 24, against officer’s recommendations to approve. 

Councillors were unhappy that the new McDonald’s would be within walking distance of schools and near an area of high social and economic deprivation. “McDonald’s isn’t a proper choice,” Cllr Lawrence Wells said, “most of it is ultra-processed food.”

The Liberal Democrat councillor for Cobham and Downside argued: “To young people and families who have very little access to healthy food or treats, a McDonald’s will be like the witch’s candy house to Hansel and Gretel.”

North of the potential McDonald’s site, argued Cllr Wells, there is a socially and economically deprived area between River View Gardens and Northfield Road. He claimed the 650-odd houses come in the fifth most underprivileged sub-ward in the whole of Surrey. 

But Cllr Ashley Tilling accused groups of “middle class snobbery” in opposing the scheme. He said it was unlikely there would be such opposition if a Gail’s or a Megan’s decided to open there. 

Councillors debated whether it was appropriate for a fast food restaurant and take away should be in walking distance from schools, parks and a children’s home. Surrey County Council had also raised concerns about the potential health impacts the new burger branch could have, being so close to areas where children congregate. 

“You have a duty to protect the most vulnerable, you have the duty to protect the health and wellbeing of your constituents,” Mr Sabi said, speaking for residents against the scheme at the meeting. He argued the council was using a London yardstick for walking distance to fast food places for a Surrey borough. 

Fearing the chicken nugget chain would exacerbate issues of obesity and not promote healthy living, planning members refused the scheme. Officers said it was a matter of judgement and there was no evidence to suggest the American burger branch would make people less healthy.

Other councillors warned “we don’t live in a totalitarian state where people are told what they must and mustn’t eat” or that it is even their role on the planning committee to “combat obesity”. 

Ward councillor Katerina Lusk acknowledged the old Loch Fyne Restaurant is in “disrepair” and no other use has been found. Cllr Tilling also supported bringing the locally listed building “back to life” and re-using it in the community. 

Despite the concerns, many people flagged the multi-million dollar company would bring huge financial benefits to the village, increasing visitors and supporting local business.

But Cllr Lusk highlighted the limited indoor dining options (60 covers) and proposed opening hours until midnight, which could mean it would be primarily used for takeaway. “More noise, more traffic and constant delivery movements- all spilling into an area already burdened with congestion and frequent flooding,” Cllr Lusk said. 

Submitted last year, the application has been hugely contentious. Hundreds of objections flooded in from residents, including an online petition reaching over 34,000 signatures. A similar strength of feeling was also boosted from those who want to see a closer Happy Meal in Cobham. 

McDonald’s has been approached for comment.

Related report:

Global fast-food giant targets Surrey village

Plans for an Aldi store near an Epsom junction described as being “fraught with danger” have been green-lit after an appeal—but with conditions attached. For years, the budget superstore has been trying to get planning permission on the Former Dairy Crest Site on Alexandra Road in Epsom. The planning inspector recognised the road is “far from easy to navigate and potentially dangerous” but said mitigations to encourage people to walk to the store would help.

Members of Epsom and Ewell Borough Council had thrown out the German company’s second application in July 2024 due to fears that increased traffic would have a severe impact on road safety. A previous application was rejected in 2015 over concerns about the site’s location, car parking capacity, traffic levels, and the potential effect on the neighbourhood’s character. The new £5 million development includes parking and some landscaping, but earlier plans for residential units have been dropped.

Residents and councillors had previously criticised the scheme for exacerbating an already ‘challenging junction’, often described as a “rat run” and “fraught with danger”. Despite these objections, Surrey Highways raised no formal objection and concluded the development would not create unacceptable risks.

Although the planning inspector agreed that the Aldi store would “undoubtedly increase the potential for conflict between vehicles and pedestrians”, they concluded that “additional measures to encourage drivers to slow down and take extra care would help to mitigate these increased risks.” The decision statement noted: “At the end of the day, nearly all collisions are the result of human error. In this case, the lack of an obvious pattern of collisions suggests that there are not significant problems with the layout which could easily be addressed by engineering interventions.”

The conditions imposed on Aldi’s approved scheme include improving pedestrian access to the site, implementing slow-down measures, installing new junction signage, and laying anti-skid surfacing—all subject to full agreement by the Surrey Highways Authority. The inspector highlighted the Former Dairy Crest Site as a location with “good opportunities to encourage more customers to choose to walk to the store”.

Improved pedestrian access was seen as an acceptable compromise, rather than simply accepting that peak times would bring queues and delays due to limited parking. Based on average data, the risk of excessive pressure on the Five Ways junction was considered small, though the inspector acknowledged that at exceptional times—such as Christmas—some delays would be inevitable. However, they concluded that seasonal stress is not sufficient justification for additional parking, “when the priority should be to promote increased numbers of visits to the store on foot.”

Aldi now has three years to begin construction of their new bargain grocery store on Alexandra Road before planning permission expires.

Image: CGI visualisation of Aldi store on the Former Dairy Crest Site, on Alexandra Road, Epsom. (Credit: Aldi/ Epsom and Ewell Borough Council)

A global fast food giant could be coming to a Surrey village as a new McDonald’s restaurant and takeaway might get the go ahead. Despite being famed for its ‘Happy Meal’, some residents fear the American icon will be ‘detrimental to the health of Cobham”.

The popular burger and nugget chain is hoping to find a new home in the former Loch Fyne Restaurant on Portsmouth Road, Cobham. The fate of the application will be decided by Elmbridge Borough Council members at a planning meeting on April 24.

Planning officers have recommended McDonald’s gets the green light to transform the disused fish restaurant. Residents have railed against the scheme, with nearly 500 letters of objection sent to the council.

The village of Cobham was named as one of the most affluent communities in the county but the Northfield Estate, where the restaurant is proposed, is among Surrey’s poorest socio-economic areas.

Significant concern has been raised about the proposed distance (or lack of) to local schools and playgrounds nearby. Opponents have claimed the new branch will “encourage children to form unhealthy habits”, “exploit young people” who will eat at McDonald’s and add to the country’s obesity crisis.

People have said the new outlet will be “detrimental to the health of Cobham” and the impact “cannot be underestimated”. Lots of residents pointed out there is already an outlet at the M25 services, so they do not need another one closer to the village.

Wyndham Avenue park and Hamilton Ave play area, both managed by PA Housing, are just a four-minute walk away (321m) from the potential McDonald’s site. Felton Fleet Prep School, Cobham Free School and Cobham recreation ground are only a seven minute walk (482m) away from the fast food chain.

But planning officers said the nearest schools are not within a 400m radius walking distance to the site. The intervening A3 would be a “man-made barrier” to the fast food chain, officers reported, and the proposed restaurant is not on the main school route to Cobham Free School so children would be walking the opposite way.

Although the neighbouring petrol station has a Greggs, the proposed restaurant will not create a ‘cluster’ of takeaways. The nearest other takeaways are in Cobham’s centre some 700m away, according to the report.

Despite recognising local public health concern, officers found there is no evidence the multi-million fast food chain will have a detrimental impact on health in the neighbouring areas. National planning guidance says local authorities should refuse plans for takeaways near schools and where young people hang out. Surrey County Council’s public health team did not object to the new McDonald’s in principle.

Cobham residents launched a petition in May 2024 against the plans to open a new restaurant and takeaway. The petition, which has garnered over 34,000 signatures, calls for the site to be turned into a community hub instead. Concerns raised include increased traffic, litter, and potential impacts on the area’s health and well-being.

Despite the concerns, many people flagged the multi-million dollar company would bring huge financial benefits to the village, increasing visitors and supporting local business. Others said the new ‘Happy Meal’ site could provide up to £60k a year in business rates for the council.

Supporters of the proposed McDonald’s slammed the listed building as an “eyesore” and in need of “restoration”. The new fast food outlet would employ around 120 people, which the company hopes to recruit from the local area, as well as offering training and career development.

People said comments about the quality and ‘wholesomeness’ of the food is “irrelevant” as no one has to eat there. Those looking forward to the new branch said it would be a good place for young people to meet and socialise as well as providing more takeaway options.

According to the chain, the new restaurant would include both indoor and outdoor seating with space for 60 diners, 30 cars parking bays, two of which would be accessible and three with EV charging spaces. The American fast food branch is hoping to be open every day from 6am to 11pm.

McDonald’s has been approached for further comment.

Plans for a new paintball and laser tag centre have been put forward in a former farm building. The new play shooting centre could be launched at The Paddock on Langley Vale Road, Epsom.

The proposed play shooting range already has a name- dubbed ‘PandaWarz’-and will offer Lasertag to the under 16’s and Tactical Paintball to those 16 and over. 

Developers claimed Epsom is a “thriving town with much to offer” but is “limited in leisure”. Planning documents sent to the council read there are “minimal opportunities for young children and young adults” particularly when it comes to their “special annual celebrations”, or birthdays. 

Details of the scheme include changing the existing agricultural building into an indoor children’s Lastertag arena. Two containers could also be installed, making closed arenas, along with a temporary roof covering for the indoor Tactical Paintball. 

Planning documents said that “PandaWarz’s objective is to modernise the game” by using military skills and techniques from close range to build up obstacles. 

The equipment will be modernised and operating with magazines, according to the applicant. Planning documents read: “The games are tactical, not simply spraying paintballs and hoping to hit.”

The two purpose play area will be made up of shipping containers, internal rooms, mazes and obstacles. Fine mesh is proposed to cover the arenas so no paintballs can be fired beyond the confines of the play area. A gantry has been designed over and around the arena with a temporary roof covering to protect both spectator and player from any weather.

Planning details read: “Twenty minutes running around a dark room filled with obstacles and UV reactive artwork shooting each other in teams. A successful way of both entertaining [children] and wearing them out!”

Noise will be reduced by containing the games within the existing building and as well as using the constructed containers and temporary roofing, the application states. 

Car parking for up to 15 vehicles is included, with additional parking directed to the open, free roadside parking a short walk away on the Downs.

Locals can comment on the proposals until April 30 on the council’s website. Epsom and Ewell Borough Council will decide the future of The Paddock site at a later date.

Proposed site layout. Epsom and Ewell planning documents.

Plans for a new Surrey Police headquarters have been put forward for its eastern division in Leatherhead. 

The force said it hopes to develop a “bespoke and permanent” HQ on the former Electrical Research Association and Cobham Industries site. An application has also been put forward to develop an area of the Cleeve Road site into affordable housing. 

After discovering Reinforced Autoclaved Aerated Concrete (RAAC) in Reigate Police Station in September 2023, the division temporarily moved to the old Surrey Fire & Rescue Services HQ at Wray Park in Reigate.

Deputy Chief Constable Nev Kemp said the planning application is a “key step in our journey” to building a permanent location for police operations in East Surrey. He said the force has been focusing on finding a site that will help staff and officers to investigate and prevent crime and keep people safe.

Surrey Police bought the former Electrical Research Association (ERA) and Cobham Industries site on Cleeve Road in 2018 for nearly £20.5m, aiming to develop a new, purpose-built headquarters from the ground up.  But by 2021 the Police and Crime Commissioner and the Surrey Police Chief Officer team decided to scrap the idea and look to Mount Browne, in Guildford, and redevelop the existing HQ. 

The Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS) revealed earlier this year that Surrey Police spent nearly £3 million, on top of the £20.5m used to buy the Leatherhead site, on failed plans to move its headquarters as part of disastrous money-saving efforts. Much of the money used was spent on building designs and surveys for the project which the Police and Crime Commissioner said was directly transferable to the Mount Browne redevelopment project.

The force said it had held public meetings with local residents, businesses, councillors, and community group representatives to share initial plans and gather feedback. The force is also working closely with key stakeholders in the community, including Mole Valley District Council.

Related report:

Surrey police to move to Epsom and Ewell constituency

Cleeve Road premises bought by Surrey Police. Google Street View

Going “back to basics” is the key part of Surrey Police’s priorities under new plans announced by the county’s Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC). 

Surrey’s new Police and Crime plan launched on April 4 includes ambitions to address the issues affecting people’s daily lives as well as focus on safeguarding vulnerable children and adults. Seeking to strengthen community trust, the plan details that every neighbourhood will have a dedicated police officer or PCSO with clear contact details. 

PCC Lisa Townsend said the new approach will “concentrate on what our policing teams do best – fighting crime in our local communities, getting tough on offenders and protecting people.”

The plan, which runs to 2028, names violence against women and girls, the “growing scourge of shoplifting” along with rural offences and antisocial behaviour as priorities to deal with regionally. Boosting police morale and creating a supporting workplace culture is also listed as a prime concern to retaining officers in Surrey. 

“I want Surrey Police to focus on tackling those crimes that blight our local communities, while also taking persistent offenders off our streets,” Ms Townsend said. “I promised that we would return to a ‘back to basics’ approach to policing, and this pledge forms the cornerstone of my Police and Crime Plan.”

The “back to basics” approach focuses on five crucial elements:

• Getting the fundamentals right – preventing crime, bringing offenders to justice swiftly, and tackling the issues that concern residents most.
• Protecting vulnerable people in Surrey – from children and young people, to elderly residents, rural communities and those in a mental health crisis
• Preventing violence against women and girls – helping women and girls in Surrey both be safe and feel safe whether in public or private
• Strengthening safe and resilient communities – where people feel listened to, feel a visible police presence and confident issues will be resolved
• Fostering integrity, accountability and wellbeing in policing –creating a transparent and supportive workplace culture, aiming to improve officer wellbeing and reduce staff turnover

Safer roads have been left out as a priority from this police and crime plan, much to the dismay of Surrey county councillors at a meeting earlier this year. They slammed the plan for having a lack of objective targets for many of the measures.

However, the new plan does include addressing gaps in road safety, finding local initiatives and to support Surrey County Council’s vision to reduce and eliminate deaths and serious injuries on the road. 

Early intervention efforts are also set to include tackling knife related-crime, working with schools and community groups to educate young people about the nature and consequences of serious crimes. 

Efforts to tackle violence against women and girls include building public confidence in the police’s ability to investigate VAWG, but it does not specifically outline how. Plans also detail ensuring survivor voices and the needs of families of perpetrators are heard to understand experiences and challenges. 

The plan also includes measures such as using data and intelligence to understand crime trends and find priority areas to keep neighbourhoods safe. Community and stakeholder collaboration will play a more active and important role over the next five years and the PCC hopes to create lasting solutions. 

Tim De Meyer, the county’s Chief Police Constable said: “There is much that Surrey Police and the PCC can do with our partners to build safe and resilient communities – especially in respect of our fight against pernicious crimes such as shoplifting. 

“My meetings with the public have shown that theft, anti-social behaviour and drug abuse trouble people a great deal. I believe that this Plan, allied with that of the Force, will help us redouble our efforts to ensure that Surrey Police applies all its neighbourhood policing experience to combat these issues.”

Local engagement has formed much of the basis of the new priorities with residents, community groups, business leaders and victims’ services consulted over the last autumn and winter.

After a long wait, good news may finally be coming to some who were forced to evacuate after a massive sinkhole opened up in a Surrey town. Families living on the impacted street in Godstone have been told they may be allowed to return home this weekend.

The huge hole appeared on Godstone High Street on February 17 and was quickly declared a major incident due to its seriousness and complexity. Now scaled down to a ‘significant incident’ investigations are still ongoing as to what the cause is and how to solve it.

“We have some really good news for residents,” said Lloyd Allen, Infrastructure Team Manager for Surrey County Council. “We’re expecting them to return this weekend.”

Wearing a hi-vis jacket and standing in front of part of the enormous hole, Mr Allen said families on Godstone high street can once again sleep in their own beds. He warned that the news is subject to a couple of issues the team is investigating and and depends on them getting the all-clear that water quality is up to standard.

Five weeks after the high street was almost swallowed up by the sinkhole, highway officials still do not know what caused the major incident. “The plan for the future is to carry on doing what we are doing,” said Mr Allen with no clear indication of when the saga might end. The infrastructure manager said he and the team, as well as specially hired geo technical engineers are analysing the investigation results and seeing if there is a tunnel network.

In a new video released by the county council, the highways team gave a latest update on Godstone with some crucial insights. Surveys have revealed a lot of anomalies in the area which could be deep sewers, series of tunnels or even potentially soak away from properties. Further investigations are still needed to pin down exactly what they are, the team said.

Afterwards, the team will plot a series of bore holes on the site that they can carry out to look under the surface. If more tunnels or voids are found, they can put cameras down and do some more testing. “But that work might take several months longer,” Mr Allen said.

Matt Furniss, Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Economic Growth at Surrey County Council, said: “Highways Officers have used foam concrete to temporarily fill the hole to stabilise the area and to ensure it doesn’t get any bigger.”

“Specialist surveys are continuing in areas which were previously inaccessible, to determine the underlying cause of the collapse and how best to permanently repair the area so it doesn’t reoccur.”

“Due to the unprecedented nature of this incident, we expect the full-scale repair of the site to take several more months although we expect residents will be able to return to their homes whilst works are carried out, once it is safe to do so. We thank them for their ongoing patience as we deal with this complex incident.”

Related report:

Surrey sink-hole major incident

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

Professional dog walkers say they were told “if you don’t like what we’re doing, take your dog somewhere else” at a public meeting about a new licensing scheme being introduced for several Surrey beauty spots.

Dog walkers have claimed the land managers are using the new licensing project as a ‘pay or go away scheme’ which they say it is more expensive than neighbouring schemes and has been “appallingly” managed. 

New rules could see professional dog walkers pay £360 to use a Surrey beauty spot, Banstead Common, from April 1. Banstead Common Conservators (BCC) said the main reason for setting up the scheme was to ensure the safety of everyone who uses the Commons and to control commercial business on the land. 

“There’s disdain for the profession and that’s been made very clear,” said Emma, a self-employed dog walker. She previously spoke to Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS) of the BCC staff being “heavy handed”. Now, Emma said the BCC are “bullying people into submission” with the new licensing rules. 

Calling the land managers “prejudiced”, the professional dog walkers said the BCC have presented “no evidence” that they are a danger to the public or conservation compared to any other person who walks over the heath. 

“They are refusing to supply the legal standing for the scheme,” said Emma, “I just don’t know what else to do.” Dog walkers have said they welcome the licensing scheme in principle but accused the BCC’s proposition as ‘unworkable’, more expensive than others and without engagement or input from dog walkers. 

Rather than just a side-hustle, professional dog-walking is a job or business that people pay their mortgage with. Jen, a dog walker for nearly 10 years said: “The chairman and another committee member were dismissive and incredibly rude when concerned dog walkers asked legitimate questions about the licensing scheme at a January meeting.”

For months the professional dog walkers have complained they have been “left in the dark” and there has been “no dialogue” with the managers implementing a scheme which could significantly change their working conditions. “Their attitude has spurred so much misery and alienation,” an anonymous local dog walker said. 

The chairman of the BCC accused professional dog walkers of “lying” in their complaints and “being insulting” against the BCC at a public meeting earlier this year. Another member advised dog walkers if they were not willing to pay for the license they should “go back to where they came from”.

A BCC spokesperson said: “All of our engagement with any user of Banstead Commons is done with respect and in accordance with our statutory duties.” The BCC have said they have responded to all enquiries they have received “in a professional and timely manner” and have hosted three informal meetings about the licensing scheme with positive feedback.

The land managers have said they are using their powers under paragraph 18 of the Metropolitan Commons Banstead (Supplemental) Act 1893 act to restrict commercial activity. Despite repeated requests from LDRS and interested groups, the conservators chose not to specifically highlight which part of the act they are referring to.

The BCC said the scheme was a response to the increase in the number of dogs being walked commercially on the Commons in recent years and the pressure it puts on the land, wildlife and visitors. As land managers, the conservators said, they need to ensure businesses are insured and identifiable when they are operating on our sites.

Spanning 1,350 acres, the land – owned by Reigate and Banstead Borough Council – includes Banstead Heath, Banstead Downs, Park Downs and Burgh Heath. Although the BCC claim the £360 annual license fee offers a good deal for users at just less than £1 a day, professional dog walkers argue it is extortionate compared to other Surrey and London boroughs which are council-run. 

Similar schemes are also being trialled elsewhere in Surrey. Nonsuch Park in Epsom, is running a pilot commercial dog licensing fee of £200 a year with a limit of six dogs walking at any one time. The licence will be managed by Epsom and Ewell Borough Council as well as the London Borough of Sutton Council. Charging £164.50 to use open spaces across the whole district, Tandridge District Council also runs a licensing scheme.

Although some dog walkers may call the response “overblown”, the BCC said it has clear legal responsibilities to “protect the integrity of Banstead Commons and visitor safety”. The group added it has also catered its response in line with a prevention of future deaths report for Natasha Johnston, a professional dog walker who tragically was mauled to death by eight dogs she was walking in Caterham in 2023.

“Unknown people shouldn’t approach unknown dogs,” said Jen. She said the part of the scheme she was most concerned about was BCC staff being able to walk up to her and the dogs and check collars which could put the dogs and herself at risk. “It goes completely against my GDPR policy,” Jen said.

As it stands, if a dog walker’s license is revoked there is no process of appeal and no refund. “They are judge, jury and executioner,” Jen said. She lamented that neither Reigate and Banstead Borough Council, the landowners, nor the Department for Environmental Food and Rural Affairs want to get involved and the BCC are “unaccountable”.

“What’s different between dog walkers and members of the public walking dogs?” the anonymous dog walker challenged, explaining everyone uses the land and has to pick up dog poo. Speaking to the LDRS, the dog walkers said they take out local community dogs that live in the area and provide a needed service.

A BCC spokesperson said: “Banstead Commons Conservators are looking forward to working together with licensed dog walkers operating on our Commons. We have set up clear reporting procedures with licensed businesses which as well as a direct staff member to report concerns, includes hosting an annual review meeting open to all licensed businesses and an invitation for two representatives to join our Banstead Commons Consultative Group.

“Banstead Commons are wonderful open spaces enjoyed by many residents and visitors from further afield. Under our Act commercial activity is controlled in order to protect the integrity of the Commons and the welfare of its users. With the increasing volume of professional dog walkers, including displacement from other areas that have already implemented restrictions, it has become necessary to take the responsible step of licensing this activity. This scheme will help regulate the numbers of dogs being walked commercially on our sites and ensure that companies are operating safely and treating Banstead Commons, its users and wildlife with respect and consideration.

“Unless there is an incident to manage, Banstead Commons Conservators will not be interfering with licensed dog walking companies when they are operating safely and adhering to the licence scheme […] Banstead Commons Conservators are always compliant in their operations.”

Related reports:

A dog’s dinner of a licensing scheme?

Should Nonsuch Park go to the dogs?

Image: Four dogs in Banstead wood, ahead of the licensing scheme to be introduced. (Credit: Dog walker Emma)

An Epsom councillor who has been a leading Liberal Democrat  in the area for over 20 years has defected to become an independent member. After several changes, including upcoming local Government reorganisation, Cllr Julie Morris has taken the decision to continue serving College Ward as an Independent councillor. 

She has served on Epsom and Ewell Borough Council for almost 20 years, her old party described her as “experienced local champion”. A spokesperson for the party said on social media: “We want to express our gratitude for the years of service Julie has given to the Epsom and Ewell Liberal Democrats.” 

Stepping into the well-worn shoes of the former leader, Cllr James Lawrence (also of the College Ward) will now take over. Only three Lib Dem councillors will now sit on the council, along with 25 Residents Association members, three Labour, two Conservative and now two Independent. 

According to the Lib Dem website, Cllr Morris has led a number of environmental campaigns including: leading the charge against the Aldi food store plans for Epsom in 2015, a local campaign to stop builders developing back gardens, the campaign to preserve part of the Mill Road railway cutting as a wildlife sanctuary, as well as helping the residents of many roads in College ward deal with commuter parking problems.

“The Liberal Democrat group will continue to work closely with Julie for the residents of the college ward,” the spokesperson added. 

Cllr Morris declined to make a statement at this time.

Related reports:

Prominent Residents Association Councillor leaves the fold

Plans for what Surrey could look like in local government reorganisation have been agreed  but questions remain over looming debt. Councillors demanded to know how debt would be managed before the county is divided up.

The government outlined plans for a major reorganisation of local government in December. Two tier councils will be dissolved into unitary authorities which will carry out all local government functions like planning, bin collections as well as education and social care. 

Members of the County Council have agreed on March 18 two proposals for how Surrey could be carved up in the most dramatic reorganisation of local services in 50 years. Serving 1.2m people, Surrey’s current matrix – consisting of 12 borough and district councils and one county council – could be split into two or three new local authorities. 

Leader of Surrey County Council, Tim Oliver, said he believes reorganisation is the “opportunity to turbo charge localism”. He said: “Single councils are clearer for residents, have greater accountability, are more efficient and effective for delivery and strip out unnecessary bureaucracy and duplication.”

Option 1, and the Conservative-run cabinet’s preference, is to cut Surrey in half to create an east and west, or north and south. Exactly which councils will be included in the new authority are still yet to be determined, for instance whether Spelthorne borough is either on the east or west side.

Option 2, put forward by the majority of district and borough councils, consists of three new local authorities in the form of north-west, south-west and south-east Surrey. Again, full details of which councils would be included is still in the draft stages. 

The two outline plans will be submitted to the central government on Friday March 21, who will ultimately have the deciding power on the new face of Surrey. Meanwhile, the local authorities will keep working to produce a final proposal by May 9.

With over £5.5bn worth of crushing debt across the county, members publicly urged the government to solve Surrey’s financial issues before reorganisation. Cllr Catherine Powell said there needs to be “a clear path on the £5.5bn of debt” as it could create “significant imbalances” leading one council “more likely to fail”. The Residents’ Association and Independent Group Leader said she does not feel Surrey can propose new authorities without a solution.

Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group, Cllr Paul Follows, said the councils’ debt is “so toxic it will pollute the rest of this county”. He lamented that reorganisation will not be about what is best for residents but about how money will be spent. 

Speaking to the council, the leader said the government has “made it clear it does not intend to write off all of Woking’s debt”. Cllr Oliver said he will be having detailed conversations and Surrey will “have to come up with plan B”. 

Creating two councils in Surrey could save £27m after five years but three authorities could potentially make a loss of £8m, according to the county council’s report. But the district and borough councils argue three unitary authorities would only save slightly less money than two and not be in a deficit. 

However, Cllr Oliver said they have not taken into account the cost of reorganising services, such as adult social care, which could add substantial added costs. The leader claimed splitting into two is the best value for money for residents.

“There is no desire for Ashford to sink in with Godstone should the boundaries be cut [one] way,” said Cllr Robert Evans OBE. He explained slicing Surrey into two would only reveal some towns would have little in common with villages they may have not even heard of.

Creating two unitary councils with a population of around 600,000 each, opponents slammed the proposal as bad for local democracy and eroding distinctive community identities. Members also flagged there would be significantly less councillors looking after greater areas.

But those batting for a dual council-led Surrey said few residents even identify with the council and local identity would be strengthened by working with community groups and local healthcare networks.

Questions about services like adult social care as well as children and education services were raised as major issues. Cllr Sinead Mooney said splitting the adult social care beyond two units would complicate the service and people could “fall through the gaps”. Cllr Clare Curran highlighted the potential difficulties in retaining and splitting staff to more than two councils, meaning experienced teams could leave. 

Cllr Fiona Davidson called for a need to assess how many children homes, specialist school places and demand for foster children to ensure Surrey is covered with the right services. Members agreed it was not just about making services cheaper and simpler- they had to be run better than currently.

Related reports:

Who will be saddled with Spelthorne’s and Woking’s £3 billion debts?

Could Woking’s debt be shared by you after reorganisation?

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

The Surrey Borough of Spelthorne’s financial crisis is “even more critical”, with millions in cuts needed to avoid catastrophic bankruptcy, says new report.

Best value inspectors were called in to review the council’s finances in May 2024 in light of extremely high levels of debt and borrowing. Spelthorne’s debt reached £1.096 billion in March 2023 – the second highest level of debt for a district council in England at the time.

The findings of the inspection have been published today (March 17). The report highlights that the council “is in a critical financial position, burdened by unsustainable debt levels, significant investment risks, and systemic governance weaknesses”.

Between 2016 and 2018, Spelthorne Borough Council borrowed around £1 billion to invest in a commercial portfolio of Grade A office buildings and residential land in and around the borough. But slow progress on regeneration and housing projects highlights a limited understanding of regeneration delivery as well as finance and risk, the inspectors said.

Best Value Inspectors concluded: “The council’s use of its resources is inadequate”. In the damning report, they said Spelthorne’s approach to property acquisitions “lacked due regard to long-term planning and risk management” and had an “overly-optimistic reliance on consistency” of the market that the Council first entered. 

The report said: “The combination of voids, expiring leases, and falling income streams from the investment portfolio threatens the stability of its budget. Adding to the strain are the ongoing revenue costs of housing and regeneration projects, which were suspended in late 2023. Despite these mounting financial pressures, no clear path forward has been outlined to address them.”

The recovery process will be overseen by government-appointed commissioners. Minister of State for Local Government and English Devolution, Jim McMahon, wrote to leader Cllr Joanne Sexton to say the local authority is failing in its ‘best value’ duty to residents, essentially meaning the authority is defecting on its ability to make decisions that are economic, efficient and effective and work towards continuous improvement. 

Inspectors said the council has a “poor record” of fully and effectively implementing recommendations from external reviews. The report read: “Senior officers display an optimism bias and a lack of awareness of the true situation facing the council. We do not believe the council has the capacity and capability to make the urgent changes needed without significant external support.”

Both the inspection and the recent external audit found errors in the council’s financial practices including the miscalculating the minimum amount Spelthorne needs to keep paying back its debt, incorrectly classifying expenses as assets, further undermining the revenue budget. 

“The outline budget report for 2025/26 to 2028/29 presented to members on December 9, 2024 shows the need to deliver £8.6 million in savings by 2028/29, equating to 64 per cent of the council’s core spending power for 2024/25, or 33 per cent of the net budget, assuming contributions from commercial income. In our view, even these projections are understated. Despite this, we have seen no credible strategy in place to achieve savings of this level,” said the report.

Leader of Spelthorne Borough Council, Cllr Joanne Sexton, said, “This Group Administration has faced a challenging time and has been actively pursuing the right solution to manage the historical debt that it has inherited. We have met with the Local Government Minister from central government, and we have agreed to work in partnership to take decisive action in the remaining time we have before local government reorganisation is implemented. Our pledge remains that we will always put residents at the heart of everything we do.”

The council’s senior management team also came in for criticism in the report. Inspectors said the team seemed “overly confident” and “appear to underestimate the scale of the financial risks”. Member challenges remain “limited” according to the report, with many councillors not fully understanding the risks at hand. Inspectors highlighted there was a “wider breakdown” of relationships between senior management and the political leadership.

The findings of the inspection highlight the council is failing to meet best value standards in five critical areas:

• Use of Resources;
• Continuous Improvement;
• Governance;
• Leadership;
• Culture. 

Inspectors have published thirteen recommendations for Spelthorne: 

1. Commissioner-led intervention
2. Comprehensive commercial strategy
3.  Review and strengthen asset management
4. Review of the Council’s Minimum Revenue Provision
5. Revised Medium-Term Financial strategy
6. Debt reduction strategy
7. Transformation strategy development
8. Review and strengthen finance function
9. Improvement and recovery plan
10. Revised Corporate Plan
11. Audit Committee structure
12. Culture and relationship building
13. Housing delivery

Emily Dalton

Spelthorne Borough Council offices in Knowle Green, Staines. Credit: Emily Coady-Stemp

Chris Caulfield compares Woking and Spelthorne:

The “critical” state of Spelthorne Borough Council’s finances means it must cut at least £8.6 million from its budget by 2028. To put that into perspective, bankrupt Woking Borough Council made £8.4  million in cuts last year in an effort to right its own mess. It managed it by cutting 20 per cent of its workforce, scrapping all grant funding to community groups, and shutting services such as public toilets.

Spelthorne Borough Council’s finances  are “unsustainable”, with a £1 billion pound debt  and a falling income stream. It means the authority must also cut millions in services to avoid the catastrophe of bankruptcy. The damning critique of the north Surrey council’s sitation was published today, Monday, March 17, on the back of a best value review into the way the borough has been managed.

Spelthorne Borough Council, like Woking, borrowed heavily to invest in property and used the income to pay for services above and beyond what it could have otherwise afforded. And, again like Woking,  it failed to put enough money aside to cover the cost of debt interest repayments.

“In essence, the council’s revenue budget is under far greater pressure than recognised by the council. Inherent risks are beginning to materialise, and could accelerate rapidly”, the Spelthorne Borough Council: Best Value Inspection report read.

It comes as the government confirmed it was proposing an intervention package, including appointing commissioners to oversee changes in how Spelthorne Borough Council is run because the borough lacks experience needed to make the cuts and had “no credible strategy in place to achieve savings of this level.”

Spelthorne has to shed £8.6 million from 2028/29 budget. Last year Woking Borough Council  – the only local authority with a higher per capita debt than Spelthorne – achieved £8.4 million in savings. 

This is how residents and commuinty groups in Woking were affected. It is being used to paint a picture of what cuts at that scale look and feel like

How Woking achieved its savings.

• Centres for the community and day care facilities closed and merged
• Sports pavilions transferred to sports clubs to take over and “ensure as many of these facilities can remain open”.
• Grants to voluntary and community groups stopped
• Woking Community Transport reduced but reviewed annually as part of the council’s Medium-Term Financial Strategy.
• Grounds maintenance and street cleaning services scaled back to statutory levels. 
• Independent living and family services transferred to Surrey County Council or other boroughs, which means they will continue to operate as normal with no impact to services users.
• Business liaison and support services will be scaled back
• All public toilets closed, except those located in Victoria Place and Wolsey Walk in Woking Town Centre.
• Fees and charges increased
• Loss of up to 60 council staff
• Council tax was also increased that year by 10 per cent. Since then it has risen by a further 2.99 per cent.

Related reports:

Who will be saddled with Spelthorne’s and Woking’s £3 billion debts?

Could Woking’s debt be shared by you after reorganisation?

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