Epsom and Ewell’s Council tax is to be increased by 2.99% for 2023/2024. At a meeting of the Full Council last night the budget for 2023/2024 was approved.

Chair of the Strategy and Resources Committee, Cllr Neil Dallen (RA Town Ward) proposed the budget with a wide-ranging speech. The Residents’ Association led Borough Council was succeeding in balancing the budget despite many challenges. He made a number of points including:

1. The Government’s “disastrous mini-budget” of September 2022 that led to increases in interest rates.
2. The increase in home-working of Council staff arising from Co-Vid.
3. The frequency of resignations of senior staff.
4. The “meddling” of Surrey County Council. The failure to consult over the abolition of Local Committees (a forum that brought County and Borough representatives together), the decisions to bring back to County parking enforcement and verge cutting etc.
5. The invasion of Ukraine and increase in energy bills.
6. Negative rate support grant – meaning Epsom and Ewell Council pays central Government not the other way around.
7. The lack of Surrey police resources to patrol Epsom and Ewell.
8. The challenge of homelessness “over which we have no control”.
9. The unqualified audit acceptance of the last budget.
10. The success of the Council owned Epsom Playhouse’s pantomime season.
11. The success of the Council’s recycling programmes.
12. The Council’s support for Epsom’s Business Improvement District company.
13. The work done in bringing the draft Local Plan to its consultation stage.

He explained: “The council would be spending £29.5million in the coming year, with £7.4m of the borough’s £28.8m income coming from council tax.

He said that the Council was now entering a phase of stability and he referred to the preceding item on the meeting’s agenda that approved the permanent appointment of Jackie King as Chief Executive Officer of the Council. On that earlier item there was some controversy when Cllr Debbie Monskfield (Labour – Court Ward) asked how Councillors could vote to approve a new pay scale when the figures were not apparent? It was stated that senior staff, including the new CEO, were to get pay rises up to possibly 17% compared with the 3% for other staff. The new pay rates were nevertheless approved.

In reply to the budget speech Leader of the Opposition Cllr Kate Chinn (Labour – Court Ward) opposed an increase in Council Tax at this time of crisis for the many who have to “choose between heating or eating.” “Residents who lie awake at night wondering how they can possibly pay their bills, their rents or mortgage and their increased council tax.” She accused the ruling RA Group of “Wanting to keep their precious venues forever the same. Bourne Hall must provide the most subsidised Zumba classes in the country.”

She suggested there were other ways to raise revenue and save money. Community driven litter picking with free skips reducing the expense of dealing with fly-tipping. Not to provide free pre-Christmas parking again. The amalgamation of backroom services with other Councils. Reducing homelessness.

Later Cllr Eber Kington (RA Ewell Court) fired back at Labour stating that years in a row Labour had objected to increases in Council tax and if they had had their way cumulatively the losses would be millions. Jan Mason (RA Ruxley) chipped in “Who would want to live in Croydon where isn’t it Labour who have ruled it for ages and their taxes are increasing by how much?”

Cllr David Gulland (Lib Dem – College) said that he supported the increase in Council Tax but would vote against the budget as it failed to address two significant failures of the Residents’ Association led Council. Firstly, the failure to adequately address the nuisance going on at the Chalk Pit waste site. Was Epsom to become “skip-city”? he asked. Secondly, the failure to inform Councillors of the adverse findings of both the Local Government Ombudsman and the Information Commissioner in relation to the complaints of a resident. He didn’t like the overall direction of the RA.

23 Residents’ Association Councillors voted in favour of the budget and increase in Epsom and Ewell’s Council tax. The 3 Labour and 2 Liberal Democrat councillors voted against and there was one abstention. The single Conservative Councillor, Bernie Muir, (Stamford Ward) was not present.

Epsom and Ewell’s Council Tax Bands are as follows:

Related reports:

Surrey County Council sets 23/24 budget

Surrey County Council proposes 2023/24 budget

Senior local Councillor slams Surrey’s budget consultation

Budget Report: More council tax for Epsom and Ewell re 2022/2023 budget

Is the Town Hall Parade over? For some 90 years the residents of Epsom and Ewell have been accustomed to visiting the local council in the Town Hall in The Parade, Epsom. The building has not been maintained sufficiently and to bring it to a proper standard, including modern energy efficiency standards, would cost many millions of pounds.

In a move that seeks to “kill two birds with one stone” the Council intend to sell the Town Hall in the Parade permitting it to be converted to housing and move into the Council owned and vacant Number 70, East Street, Epsom. Helping to meet housing targets and saving Council money and raising capital.

It was indicated that the Surrey Police office in the Town Hall would move with the Council.

A sum of £25,000 was approved at last night’s Full Council meeting to study the option further. Jan Mason (RA Ruxley Ward) spoke from her heart in objecting to the move. She said The Town Hall in The Parade was “treasured”. However, hers was a lone voice as the decision was overwhelmingly carried.

Epsom and Ewell Borough Council has taken a significant step forward in opening up its committees to public participation. Under a new constitution the public now have the right to ask questions at committees on topics on the agenda! The previous constitution prohibited this.

Last night at a meeting of the Full Council a new constitution was adopted. After a year of weekly Friday night meetings and a Byzantine network of committees and sub-committees beavering away, the fruits of a cross-party effort were approved. Cllr Liz Frost (RA Woodcote Ward) was widely credited for her leadership of the initiative.

The end result is admittedly a somewhat labyrinthine set of documents: annexes within appendices within operating frameworks within a constitution. But, hey ho – the public now have clearer rights and Epsom and Ewell Times has extracted what you really need to know:

CLICK HERE for the key rules about public questions and public statements allowed at most committees of the Council. Note that these rules do not apply to meetings of the Full Council.

Will we now see more public participation at Council meetings, as illustrated in our accompanying image from Conneticut USA? (Happens to bear a slight resemblance to our own Town Hall Chamber). In contrast there were no members of the public attending last night’s Council meeting.

_{Image: Sage Ross CC BY-SA 3.0}

Related reports:

Local Audit meet: unexpectedly interesting…

Council Committees: Everything you need to know

Exclusive to the Epsom and Ewell Times we report on the housing targets of every Surrey borough council. Epsom and Ewell is the smallest borough in Surrey with the highest density of population. Yet aims to have the highest density of new housing, according to the draft Local Plan, out now for consultation.

The table below contains the population stated in a Local Plan, if evident in the document. Otherwise the latest population figure from Wikipedia is used.

The Local Plans vary in the period covered and some are in drafting flux. The table provides the average per annum new build over a 15 year period for each Council as far as stated or indicated.

Many plans were submitted or adopted before Michael Gove, Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, indicated November 2022 that “Housing targets remain, but are a starting point with new flexibilities to reflect local circumstances” and “If we are to deliver the new homes this country needs, new development must have the support of local communities. That requires people to know it will be beautiful, accompanied by the right infrastructure, approved democratically, that it will enhance the environment and create proper neighbourhoods. These principles have always been key to our reforms and we are now going further by strengthening our commitment to build the right homes in the right places and put local people at the heart of decision-making.”

The table above does not reflect many variables that may justify different housing targets. For example areas designated as areas of special scientific interest or areas of outstanding natural beauty. Also, there are many demographic variables: distribution of the ages of populations, family sizes and average incomes.

Furthermore, the mix of different housing types of the new builds envisaged in the plans vary from one Council to another. Big houses, small houses or flats etc.

However, the table does provide a broad overview.

_{Epsom and Ewell’s Draft Local Plan states: “The housing need for Epsom and Ewell generated by the standard method is 576 dwelling per annum, which equates to 10,368 dwellings over the Local plan period. The Councils Housing and Economic Development Needs Assessment (2022) confirms there is no justification to increase the housing need figure over that generated by the standard method.”}

_{“The council considers that the scale of unmet development / housing needs in the borough that would result from pursuing a brownfield only approach provides the exceptional circumstances and justification to make changes to the Green Belt boundaries in the borough.”}

You can meet planning officers of Epsom and Ewell Council at the following times and discuss the draft Local Plan.

Monday 13 February 14:30 – 19:30 Bourne Hall, Azalea Room

Thursday 16 February 12:00 – 17:00, Ashley Centre, Central Square

Tuesday 21 February 14:30 – 19:30, Bourne Hall, Azalea room

Wednesday 22 February 10:30 – 15:30, Community & Wellbeing Centre, Sefton Road

Saturday 25 February 11:00 – 16:00, Ashley Centre, Central Square

Tuesday 28 February 10:30 – 15:30, Community & Wellbeing Centre, Sefton Road

How you can express your views on the Local Plan can be seen HERE.

See today’s editorial

Related reports:

Green-belters belted up and beltless

Local Plan battle heating up?

Green-belters seeing red on Local Plan?

Lessons for Epsom in Mole Valley’s “shouty” Local Plan struggle?

Crucial month for local Local Plans?

Gove gives pause for thought on Local Plans?

Local Plan Battle: early skirmishes on Downs Farm

MP’s housing solution for Epsom and Ewell

Creative Businesses in and around Epsom are being encouraged to sign-up to Surrey’s first Creative Growth and Business Summit. Taking place on March 1 and set-up by the University for the Creative Arts, the free-to-attend event will bring together the region’s creative trailblazers, entrepreneurs, and creative academic experts to look at how Surrey can build on its global reputation in the sector.  

Part of a £450,000 project to fund collaborations and innovation in Surrey’s creative sector, the summit will also see the launch of the Creative Industries Network.  

Professor Simon Macklin, Deputy Vice-Chancellor at UCA, said:

“Surrey is home to some of the world’s most innovative companies, practitioners, and entrepreneurs in the creative industries. This summit is all about bringing the creative sector together so that we can look at how we can share the University’s research, expertise and international connections to turbo-charge growth in the sector across Surrey.”

As well as providing opportunities to network, the summit will also provide information on how businesses can access the University’s expertise in securing funding to develop new opportunities. 

The summit takes place on March 1 at UCA’s Farnham campus. Visit uca.ac.uk/growth for more information and to sign up.

The University for the Creative Arts is a specialist art and design university in the south of England. It was formed in 2005 as University College for the Creative Arts at Canterbury, Epsom, Farnham, Maidstone and Rochester when the Kent Institute of Art and Design was merged into the Surrey Institute of Art & Design, which already had degree-awarding status;[4] both constituent schools had been formed by merging the local art schools, in Kent and Surrey respectively. It was granted university status in 2008, and the name changed to the present one. In 2016, it merged with the Open College of the Arts

A Surrey County Councillor has criticised the reduction in the number of Police Community Support Officers in recent years. PCSOs are non-warranted but provided with a variety of police powers and the power of a constable in various instances by the forty-three territorial police forces in England and Wales and the British Transport. Surrey Police employ about 2,153 warranted officers.

Analysis of new Home Office statistics commissioned by the Liberal Democrats from the House of Commons Library has shown the drastic cuts to PCSOs in Surrey. They claim a total of 88 full-time equivalent PCSOs were employed in Surrey as of September 2022. This is in stark contrast to the 123 that were employed in March 2015 – meaning there have been 35 PCSOs cut from Surrey Police in that time.

Epsom and Ewell Times asked Surrey Police for their take on the figures and a spokesperson said: “In 2022, to contribute to savings across the force, we reduced the number of Police Community Support Officers in Surrey Police to 96, 22 posts fewer than our previous staffing level of 118 full-time equivalent PCSOs. This reduction did not involve redundancies and achieving this staffing level did not result in a reduction in overall numbers in our Safer Neighbourhood Teams; we maintain a strong blended mix of police officers and PCSOs in these key frontline posts.

In September 2022, Surrey Police employed 88 PCSOs. This is lower than our desired number of PCSOs, so it is inaccurate to say that 35 PCSO roles have been cut by the Force. We are actively recruiting to bring our establishment level back up to 96.

We know how important a visible police team with local knowledge is to residents in each of our boroughs. A trusted, knowledgeable, and proactive local policing presence is just as important to us, and PCSOs are a valued and integral part of that.”

What is you view about visible policing in Epsom and Ewell? Write in to Epsom and Ewell Times.

Image West Midlands Police – https://www.flickr.com/photos/westmidlandspolice/7042127963/ CC BY-SA 2.0

A draft Local Plan, that will delineate Epsom and Ewell Borough‘s planning framework for decisions on planning applications and development for the years ahead, has been published on the Council’s website. Out of 5,400 new homes proposed in the Draft Local Plan (2023-20240), some 2,175 homes (almost 41%) are earmarked to be built on the borough’s Green Belt land. EEBC councillors are due to take a final Section 18 publication decision on 30 January,

Of nine “Preferred Option” development sites proposed, five are Green Belt – with Downs Farm, where 650 homes were proposed, only narrowly missing the cut after a campaign by residents. Over 55 hectares – or some 137 acres – of Green Belt land could be sacrificed. The plans include one gigantic estate of some 1,500 homes on land around Horton Farm, which will have its Green Belt status stripped away.
The “Preferred Options” for Green Belt development are:

• 150 homes around West Park Hospital
• 1,500 homes around Horton Farm
• 25 homes next to Chantilly Way
• 350 homes on the sports fields by Ewell East Station
• 150 homes on sports pitches at Hook Road Arena (land owned by the Council)

A spokesperson for a local campaign group seeking to protect green belt land has responded: “Given the Government’s “brownfield first” brief, it looks like the planners did not get the memo. They certainly did not get the new memo from Government saying that it is not necessary to review Green Belt for housing. And they appear not to have taken the hint from neighbouring Elmbridge, who creatively avoided any Green Belt destruction, and Mole Valley, whose councillors this month voted unanimously to remove all Green Belt sites from its Local Plan.”

“Only on its own land can the Council specify 100% affordable homes – the rest will be about 40% , as developers have many canny ways to get round this stipulation and build more profitable higher end housing. The Plan is offering just around 1,000 homes in Epsom Town Centre until year 2040, with a similar number only on other brownfield spaces, plus also around 1,000 for planning permissions in the Borough already in the pipeline “

Appendix 4 of the draft Local Plan reveal other Green Belt sites that have been offered up by developers in a “ Call for Sites.”

Yufan Si, campaign leader for Keep Epsom & Ewell’s Green Belt stated: “So where is the real challenge taken up, to redevelop Epsom Town surroundings, which most commentators agree could do with some rejuvenation? The Kiln Lane and Longmead industrial areas are said to be off limits, according to consultants for EEBC, because of the 1,800 jobs there. So not a single new brownfield affordable home is put forward here, with no imaginative plan to mix housing with job creation and revitalise an area close to the station, shops and entertainment facilities that many people prefer.”

“We are left with the conclusion that the planners – and by extension our ruling Councillors – are in a “Call for Sites” trap. This has inhibited visionary thinking and pro-active engagement with urban developers on how much-needed affordable housing might be built in tandem with an exciting redevelopment programme that Epsom’s brownfield areas so desperately need. All they seem able to do about it is to bulldozer yet another field of our Green Belt heritage” said Ms Si.

If Councillors vote at the special meeting of the Licensing, Planning and Policy Committee on January 30 for the Draft Local Plan (Section 18) to proceed, then it will be formally published by EEBC on February 1, followed by a six-week Public Consultation stage.

Related reports:

Green-belters seeing red on Local Plan?

Lessons for Epsom in Mole Valley’s “shouty” Local Plan struggle?

Crucial month for local Local Plans?

Gove gives pause for thought on Local Plans?

Local Plan Battle: early skirmishes on Downs Farm

MP’s housing solution for Epsom and Ewell

A determined group of Epsom & Ewell residents, representing over 1,700 petitioners , took to the podium at last night’s meeting of the Council’s Licensing, Planning and Policy Committee (January 19th). They asked Councillors eleven questions about the threat of Green Belt sites being included as “Preferred Options” in the imminent Draft Local Plan.

[Official Council record: The Chair (Cllr Steven McCormick – RA Woodcote Ward)provided an oral response to each question. Eight supplementary oral questions were asked. The Chair, the Interim Director of Environment, Housing and Regeneration, and the Planning Policy Manager provided oral responses to seven of the supplementary questions. The Chair confirmed a written reply would be provided for one of the supplementary questions.]

Otherwise the business of the meeting was confined to approving increases between 6 and 10 % for 2023/2024 on a range of Council charges relating to Planning matters, private hire vehicle licensing, animals and scrap metal.

Given every indication that the Government no longer thinks Green Belt reviews are necessary with housing targets advisory only, and fresh from Mole Valley District Coucil’s unanimous vote to remove Green Belt sites from its Local Plan, residents challenged the councillors and planners to seize the opportunity to save the Green Belt now and focus on brownfield sites for new affordable homes. 

In answer to one question about whether planners had consulted HM Inspectors about Green Belt removal, council officers confirmed that, as EEBC was at an initial stage of decision taking , they had no need to consult the Inspectorate at this time, unlike Mole Valley are now required to do.

Given this difference, residents believe that it will now be entirely the responsibility of Councillors – the majority of whom are Residents Association, if Green Belt land ends up being developed. According to the Council for the Protection of Rural England, over 99% of sites earmarked for development by local authorities eventually get built upon, so the campaigners say it is both crucial and necessary to ensure no Green Belt sites are included at the outset.

The group intend to return to make more representations at the final decision-taking meeting on January 30 before the EEBC Draft Plan is published on February 1.

Further details of this residents’ campaign petition can be seen on epsomgreenbelt.org

Chris Grayling MP for Epsom and Ewell has written to constituents: “There have been two new developments on the Local Plans which shape the future of housing development in our area – in Epsom and Ewell and Mole Valley.
Epsom and Ewell Borough Council is due to publish its draft plan in the next few days (sic), and this will show the degree to which it has decided to push for development on local green belt land. I very much hope they have chosen to focus on brown field sites and particularly on the potential for the Kiln Lane and Longmead areas.
Meanwhile in Mole Valley, the Council has asked the Planning Inspector to delay consideration of their plans, following the Government’s revision of its national planning policies. It is too early to know if this may affect the plans for Ashtead, but I will keep you posted.”

Related reports:

Lessons for Epsom in Mole Valley’s “shouty” Local Plan struggle?

Crucial month for local Local Plans?

Gove gives pause for thought on Local Plans?

Local Plan Battle: early skirmishes on Downs Farm

MP’s housing solution for Epsom and Ewell

Surrey Police received more complaints per officer in its force than any other in England and Wales. The Home Office recently published the statistics for the year end 31st March 2022.

Epsom and Ewell Times has analysed the tables and the top forces are as follows:

Lisa Townsend, Police and Crime Commissioner for Surrey, said: “My office has been in detailed discussion with Surrey Police following the understandable concerns that the public may have following the national news this week. There is no place for misogyny or abuse of any type in Surrey Police and I have been clear with the Force that I have the highest expectations of our police officers.

“I am pleased that Surrey Police have rigorous processes in place to discourage all forms of behaviour that fall below the standards we have of every officer, and I am confident that all cases of misconduct are carried out with the utmost seriousness when an allegation is made either externally or internally. The latest quarterly data from the IOPC to last September shows a reduction in complaint cases against police officers in Surrey. However it is important to note that while every case is taken seriously, the total number of complaints received relates to a wide variety of themes. Many complaint cases are resolved to the satisfaction of the complainant.

“My office continues to play an important role in scrutinising the Force in all areas of performance, including regular meetings with Surrey Police’s Professional Standards Team and the IOPC. This includes identifying trends and working to improve the timeliness and quality of the service that every complaint receives.”

Helen Maguire Liberal Democrat PPC for Epsom and Ewell said: “As a former Royal Military Police Officer, it goes without saying that I fully support the difficult work that Surrey Police do. However, following the conviction of David Carrick, these Surrey figures will be seen locally as being very disturbing and so the public needs reassurance. Therefore Surrey Police Force must ask themselves why they are top of the table and how do they investigate internal complaints against their own police officers. That can only be achieved if there is external scrutiny of the figures – the public will not take kindly to seeing Surrey Police marking their own homework!”

Mark Todd, Chair of Epsom and Ewell Labour Party said: “In Epsom & Ewell we get a terrible deal on policing, so it’s no wonder that complaints are so high; and the huge problems at the Met show that the problems go wider still. During austerity the Conservative Government cut our police funding by 20% and Epsom’s police station was closed. It lies derelict on Church Street with just a small base during working hours at the town hall. We need a properly resourced, trained and managed police force and that’s what a Labour Government would provide. Currently our police force is not fit for purpose and it’s all the Government’s fault.”

A full table of complaints against officers in each police force is available from Epsom and Ewell Times HERE

Surrey Police have hit back: “The Home Office figures quoted by some outlets are for overall public complaints to the force. These capture dissatisfaction with the service provided by police. The figures do not reflect misconduct investigations. This is a really important distinction to make. “

Epsom and Ewell Times has extrapolated the figures above from the Home Office table: “Number of individuals (officers) subject to a complaint”. Readers may explore for themselves via this Home Office website page.