Schools across Epsom and Ewell, along with Banstead, joined forces to support this year’s Children in Need appeal, raising impressive amounts through creative and engaging activities.

Danetree Primary School – Guess the Bear’s Name

At Danetree Primary School in West Ewell, children participated in a range of activities designed to both entertain and educate. Younger pupils in Early Years and Key Stage 1 enjoyed a “guess the name of the teddy” competition, while Key Stage 2 students took on the challenge of guessing the number of objects in a jar, with winners taking home the prize-filled jar.

The school also held a non-uniform day, contributing to a fundraising total expected to exceed £800. Reflecting on the event, Reception Class Teacher Tracy Willemse highlighted its broader significance:
“Events like this support teaching children about the importance of charities – how they help people in need and promote community values such as diversity, equality, and inclusion.”

The Vale Primary School – Spotty Fun and Coin Trails

Staff and pupils at The Vale Primary School embraced a spotty theme, donning polka-dotted outfits for their fundraising efforts. The school organised a variety of activities, including a coin trail created from donations brought in by pupils, and a raffle for Pudsey Bear toys donated by the PTA.

Year 6 pupils enthusiastically sold raffle tickets ahead of the event, with winners announced during a celebratory assembly. Classroom activities also helped pupils learn more about the work of Children in Need. The Vale aimed to raise over £500, a testament to the community’s generosity.
“Preparing children as active and empathic citizens is central to our ethos,” said Co-Headteacher Cathy Browne.

Warren Mead School, Banstead – Make Life Lighter

At Warren Mead School in Banstead, the theme “Make Life Lighter” inspired a vibrant day of fun-filled activities. Pupils and staff came dressed in costumes ranging from disco outfits to Pudsey Bear-inspired ensembles. The day began with an energetic assembly featuring a “fizzy drinking challenge,” setting the tone for the festivities.

Children participated in a Pudsey Maths Challenge, treasure hunts, and group art projects, with a focus on mental health and emotional resilience. Younger pupils enjoyed learning the Piggle-Wiggle dance and taking part in a school disco. An after-school fun run brought together staff, parents, and the local community, rounding off a memorable day.

Assistant Headteacher Jess Moylan expressed pride in the school’s efforts:
“The smiles and camaraderie displayed throughout the day reflected our commitment to fostering compassion, unity, and resilience.” Warren Mead aimed to raise £500, building on the success of previous years.

A Collective Effort

All three schools are part of the GLF Schools Multi-Academy Trust, which collectively raised thousands for the cause. The enthusiastic participation and creative approaches from Danetree, The Vale, and Warren Mead highlight the local commitment to supporting those in need, while also instilling important values in the next generation.

Community Spirit Shines

Across Epsom and Ewell, these Children in Need events have shown the power of community spirit, creativity, and compassion, making a real difference for children and families in need.

In a contentious meeting on 12th November, Epsom and Ewell Borough Council’s Strategy and Resources (S&R) Committee rejected a £161,250 funding bid for the Nam Yang Martial Arts Centre, reversing an earlier recommendation from the Licensing and Planning Policy Committee (LPPC). The decision has drawn sharp criticism, particularly as it highlights inconsistencies in the Council’s handling of Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) allocations.

The Debate: A Promised Replacement Deferred

Nam Yang’s facility, once a vibrant community hub in Alexandra Recreation Ground, was demolished by the Council three years ago after being deemed unsafe. The Council had promised a replacement, yet rising costs and funding delays have left the organisation without a home.

Councillor Kate Chinn (Labour Court) spoke passionately at the meeting, sharing her personal connection to the project. “My son was a member of Nam Yang and thoroughly enjoyed it,” she stated. “It’s more than just a martial arts centre. It reduced antisocial behaviour in the park and made the area feel safer for the whole community.”

Chinn added, “That building has been down for a long time, leaving a gap in what the park offers. The absence is felt by the community.”

A Moral Obligation?

The debate underscored tensions between financial prudence and moral responsibility. Councillor Phil Neale (RA Cuddington), who had seconded the motion to support Nam Yang at the LPPC meeting, expressed his continued belief in the project’s value. “I felt a moral obligation for us to help,” he said. “The existing building was condemned and taken down with the promise that it would be rebuilt. I believed it was the right thing to do to bring it forward for consideration at S&R.”

However, Neale ultimately voted against the funding, explaining, “It’s a difficult position. While I supported its inclusion for debate, the project didn’t score high enough under the CIL spending protocol. I hope it will return for consideration in the next round.”

Criticism of the Process

Councillor Julie Morris, (LibDem College) who had originally proposed Nam Yang’s inclusion at the LPPC, has criticised the Council’s approach. “The procedures for bidding for and spending CIL monies are unclear,” she said. “The scoring process needs reviewing, as does the information required from applicants.”

Morris has highlighted systemic issues, such as the fact that no CIL funding was allocated last year due to a protocol rewrite. “One scoring question asked if applicants had received CIL funding last year. Given none was awarded, the question was pointless.”

A Divided Vote

Despite passionate arguments from some councillors, the vote to fund Nam Yang failed by a margin of 4 to 3. Chair Neil Dallen (RA Town) emphasised the importance of respecting the CIL Member Working Group’s recommendations, stating, “The group spent a long time assessing bids. We should honour their decision.”

Community Impact

The rejection leaves Nam Yang’s future uncertain, and many in the community feel let down. “This isn’t just about martial arts—it’s about providing a safe and inclusive space for children, people with special educational needs, and older residents,” said a local supporter.

Other strategic and community projects were approved as recommended previously. See Epsom and Ewell Times report below.

Related reports:

Epsom & Ewell Council Greenlights Local Projects

The latest draft of the Local Plan has just been revealed. The headline news is that the housing target has been significantly reduced by omitting the Ewell East Station Green Belt site but the Horton Farm and Hook Road Arena Green Belt sites have been retained.

Decision time is coming with the key Council committee meeting to deliberate on the Local Plan on 20th November and Full Council due to meet on 10th December.

The campaigning group Epsom Green Belt has sent to the Epsom and Ewell Times a detailed analysis criticising delays, costs, and lack of transparency in the ongoing development of Epsom and Ewell Borough Council’s Local Plan. The findings highlight that a six-month “pause” in 2023, frequently cited by the ruling Residents’ Association councillors as the reason for the current tight schedule, didn’t halt progress entirely. During this period, some work continued, including transport assessments, suggesting that time lost was minimal and that the pause alone doesn’t fully explain the prolonged delays in the Local Plan’s timeline.

The study notes that, after work resumed in December 2023, the Council extended the Local Plan timetable by 11 months, meaning there was effectively a five-month gain rather than a loss. Statements made by Councillors Peter O’Donovan (Chair of the Licensing Planning and Policy Committee) and Hannah Dalton (Leader of the RA Group) that the pause led to delays which prevent the Council from accelerating the current timetable to avoid higher housing targets are challenged.

The review shows that delays have, in fact, compounded over years: since 2017, the Local Plan timeline has stretched by an additional seven and a half years, while budget overruns now exceed £1.7 million. A portion of this funding, nearly £742,000, was reallocated from the New Homes Bonus Grant—intended to reflect community priorities—without consulting residents.

Meanwhile, Epsom and Ewell Borough Council has issued a press release reaffirming its commitment to a comprehensive and balanced Local Plan, which will be discussed at the Licensing and Planning Policy Committee (LPPC) meeting on 20 November. At this meeting, the LPPC will make its recommendation to Full Council, which is scheduled to vote in December. Councillor O’Donovan, Chair of the LPPC, described the Local Plan as a “vital and cross-cutting document” that will influence all areas of local development, from supporting the economy and creating affordable housing to protecting the environment and enhancing biodiversity.

Acknowledging that residents may have mixed reactions, Councillor O’Donovan stated, “There is now a full suite of Evidence Base reports to support the Proposed Submission Local Plan, including feedback from last year’s Regulation 18 consultation.” He encouraged residents to review these reports and attend the LPPC meeting, highlighting the council’s aim to create a Local Plan that secures a “thriving future” for the borough.

The Epsom Green Belt analysis further reveals that reporting on Local Plan progress largely ceased after 2019, raising questions about accountability. A 2018 agreement to regularly update councillors on the Local Plan’s status appears to have lapsed, leaving minimal scrutiny over the plan’s extended timeline and growing costs. The Group urges the council to enhance transparency and engage more actively with the public, particularly on spending decisions like the New Homes Bonus Grant, which it is contended was reallocated without community input.

With the next public consultation (Regulation 19) anticipated to open following Full Council’s approval, residents have another chance to voice their opinions. Councillor O’Donovan encourages those interested to register for updates on the Council’s website.

The coming weeks will be critical in determining the future development and preservation of Epsom and Ewell.

Related reports:

Call to Epsom and Ewell Council to speed plan denied

Epsom Local Plan controversy heats up

Time to press the gas on Epsom’s Local Plan?

Epsom and Ewell Brace for Government Housing Targets

The decision by Epsom & Ewell Borough Council 7th November to approve three modular homes for temporary accommodation on Fairview Road has ignited a fierce debate. The council framed this decision as a compassionate and financially prudent response to an acute housing crisis, while residents, local leaders, and some council members aired strong concerns about road safety, infrastructure, and the integrity of the planning process.

A Much-Needed Solution, According to the Council

The council has justified the development as a crucial step in addressing homelessness in the borough, where families are often displaced to temporary accommodations outside Epsom, causing significant disruptions to their lives. With over 160 households in temporary housing and 90 more in costly nightly-paid accommodation outside the borough, the need for local temporary housing solutions is undeniable.

Councillor Clive Woodbridge, (RA Ewell Village) Chair of the Community and Wellbeing Committee, remarked in the council’s press release, “Epsom & Ewell has proportionately one of the highest numbers of homeless households living in temporary accommodation in England. Increasing temporary accommodation provision for local families will not only be life-changing for those being housed now and in the future but will also have a positive impact on the borough as a whole.”

The council also highlighted the economic benefits of the modular homes. According to their press release, the development could reduce the need for expensive nightly-paid accommodation, generating long-term savings. Funding for the project includes £75,000 from the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities’ Brownfield Land Relief Fund. “This project is a decent thing to do,” Councillor Humphrey Reynolds (RA West Ewell) noted during the meeting. “We need to find somewhere for families to live.”

Road Safety and Infrastructure Concerns Dominate the Meeting

The Planning Committee meeting, was chaired by Councillor Steven McCormick, (RA Woodcote and Langley) and the meeting revealed divisions on the issue. Many residents and councillors raised significant concerns about the state of Fairview Road, a narrow, privately maintained road with limited pedestrian pathways, which is already busy with schoolchildren and local traffic.

The Principal Planning Officer, introduced the application, clarifying that the site has existing access from Fairview Road and is currently overgrown, having previously served as a builder’s storage yard. She explained that the modular buildings would “meet a significantly higher standard of temporary accommodation” than current options in the borough.

However, Fairview Road residents, represented by Debbie Ransom, voiced fears about the impact of the development on local traffic and safety. “The road is already hazardous, narrow, and below minimum width standards,” Ransom asserted. “With this development, traffic on Fairview Road could increase by 50%, and the road simply cannot sustain that increase. It is already dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists due to insufficient lighting and narrow paths.”

This sentiment was echoed by Jo Garrod, Headteacher of nearby Glyn School. “Fairview Road is extremely narrow, with no dedicated pavement and poor lighting, which makes it difficult for our students to walk safely,” Garrod said in a formal objection. “Any increase in traffic will heighten the risk of accidents.”

Legal Challenges and Community Impact

The legal right of the council to use Fairview Road as an access point was also questioned. Residents claim that the council lost its legal right to access the site via Fairview Road when it sold an easement to Sainsbury’s for access through an adjacent car park. “The council no longer has the right of access through Fairview Road, and we as residents have refused to grant such an easement,” Ransom stated on behalf of residents. She argued that any additional wear and tear on the road, already funded by resident contributions, would be unacceptable.

Councillor Alison Kelly (Liberal Democrat Stamford) queried whether alternative access routes had been considered, such as Kiln Lane, but the officer responded that the council could only assess the application as submitted. “It’s up to the applicant to propose alternative access, not the council,” she said, adding that Surrey County Council had raised no objections based on road safety.

The discussion revealed frustrations among councillors who felt limited by what they saw as procedural obstacles. “If this was an adopted road, we’d be looking at solutions like yellow lines or even street lighting to improve safety,” Councillor Jan Mason (RA Ruxley) said. “But with this private road, we’re stymied. Surrey County Council has done nothing to mitigate these issues, and I find it difficult to believe that they wouldn’t see a problem here.”

Balancing Homelessness Needs and Community Safety

While the safety issues were widely acknowledged, some councillors, including Kate Chinn (Labour Court), stressed the need to consider the positive impact of the development on the borough’s homeless families. “For many families facing eviction through no fault of their own, the option to stay within the borough is critical,” said Chinn. “These modular homes could offer stability and security, allowing children to stay in their schools and families to keep local support systems.”

Councillor Lucy McIntyre (RA West Ewell) also voiced support, stating, “I understand the residents’ objections, but I believe these units represent a positive step for the borough overall, especially with the council’s focus on homelessness.”

However, other councillors, such as Jan Mason, remained sceptical. “It’s all very well to support homelessness initiatives, but this road simply isn’t suitable for further development,” Mason argued. “Adding three units to this unsuitable road will only make matters worse, and we’ve got no way to improve the infrastructure to make it safer.”

Conditions and Approval Amid Ongoing Concerns

The committee approved the development on a temporary five-year basis, subject to several conditions, including amendments to conditions to reflect a review of the scheme’s necessity and to ensure parking spaces were allocated to individual units. The council stipulated that after five years, a review would assess if there remained a need for such temporary accommodation.

During the discussion, Councillor Phil Neale (RA Cuddington) queried the proposed red colour of the modular units in the CAD drawings, expressing concerns that it might clash with the neighbourhood’s character. Planning officer clarified that the colour was a default setting in the drawings, not the intended final appearance, and that materials and finishes would be selected to harmonise as much as possible with the area.

In the end, the vote carried with seven members supporting the application, zero opposing, and one abstention. Councillor Phil Neale, reflecting on the vote, stated, “We know this is a tough decision, but as councillors, we live in the borough, we know the people, and we understand the difficulties of homelessness. We have to be both compassionate and professional in our decisions, and I believe this project warrants support.”

A Divisive Outcome

The approval of these modular homes highlights a difficult balancing act in Epsom & Ewell, where urgent social needs clash with established community concerns and limited local infrastructure. While the council aims to address a pressing homelessness crisis, residents worry that Fairview Road lacks the capacity and infrastructure to absorb additional traffic and maintain safety.

As this project proceeds, the council will need to navigate ongoing concerns about road access, safety improvements, and potential legal challenges from residents. For now, the decision stands as a testament to the challenges councils face in balancing local development with the needs of vulnerable populations.

Related reports:

Epsom’s homelessness crisis

What are the solutions to Epsom’s homeless crisis?

Last Friday saw the return of a singular missing hospital record book. The book contains the medical case book of women admitted to The Manor Hospital between 19 May 1900 and 11 July 1901. This was one of five psychiatric hospitals established by the London County Council at Horton near Epsom at the start of the twentieth century. A treasure trove for family and social historians, the volume records the names, family details and medical notes of 250 London women living with a range of mental illness, with their photographic portraits fixed to its fragile pages. These poignant records allow a precious glimpse of the lives and experiences of women admitted to these vast Victorian pauper asylums. Julian Pooley of the Surrey History Centre rescued many of The Manor’s records after its closure in 1995, case book number 4 was not among them. It’s discovery in an attic in the London Borough of Kingston gives hope that other missing records from Surrey’s former mental and learning disability hospitals may yet come to light. 

The couple who found the book in their attic realised its significance when watching Gemma Collins discover her family’s mental health history in a recent episode of ‘Who Do You Think You Are’. Having read the case histories and been fascinated by the patient photographs, they got in touch with Epsom based charity The Friends of Horton Cemetery.

Lead researcher for the charity, Kevin McDonnell said: “”This discovery of Manor Asylum – Case Book No. 4 is of immense historical value, especially for our project. I’m grateful to you for preserving it. It will now find a home at the Surrey History Centre in Woking, where it will be accessible to our team of volunteer genealogical researchers. This document is critical to our mission to protect Horton Cemetery in Epsom, where nearly 9,000 unclaimed mental health patients were laid to rest between 1899 and 1955. These graves, left unmarked and forgotten, tell stories that we’re working to bring back to life. The cemetery, sadly, has been neglected and mistreated since it was sold to a property speculator in 1983. It’s a disgraceful situation for such a sacred resting place, now overgrown and scattered with rubble, and this important find helps highlight the significance of the lives laid to rest there.”

Surrey History Centre was delighted to find that it filled such an important gap in the surviving records. Now preserved in the History Centre’s strong rooms, it can be made publicly available for research and a range of community engagement projects.  

Nine opposition councillors on Epsom and Ewell Borough Council are calling for an Emergency Full Council Meeting to fast-track the final stages of the borough’s Local Plan amid looming concerns over potential new housing targets set by the central government. The councillors—comprising members of the Liberal Democrats, Labour, and Conservative parties—are urging swift action, fearing that delays could lead to increased housing quotas that would place significant pressure on the borough’s cherished green spaces.

The councillors’ proposal, initially set out in a formal request dated 24th October, has stirred considerable debate across the council. They propose that the emergency meeting be held immediately following the Licensing and Planning Policy Committee (LPPC) meeting on 20th November or, failing that, on the evening of the 21st November. In doing so, they hope to expedite the draft Local Plan’s approval, enabling the next public consultation phase to commence before the year’s end.

The Case for Urgency: New Housing Targets and Local Development

At the heart of the opposition councillors’ concerns are potential changes to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which could soon enforce a higher housing target of 817 new homes annually—over double the borough’s existing requirement. One opposition councillor highlighted the urgency, warning, “If the Local Plan fails or is found unsound, we will be subject to the Labour government’s new targets, which are 817 dwellings per annum.”

These new targets, if implemented, could lead to development encroaching on the borough’s green spaces, a possibility that has mobilised both councillors and local residents. This anxiety is reflected in the recent appeals from local groups, including the Epsom Green Belt Group, which advocates for focusing on brownfield sites rather than encroaching on protected land.

Council’s Response: A Call for Procedural Compliance

In response, council leaders from the Residents’ Association majority group have expressed concerns about rushing the Local Plan process, citing the necessity of adhering to legal and procedural requirements. Chair of the LPPC, Councillor Peter O’Donovan, (RA Ewell Court) emphasised the importance of a comprehensive review process to ensure that any amendments to the draft Local Plan comply with regulations before it proceeds to public consultation. He stated, “The documents which will form the Regulation 19 consultation must be prepared in accordance with the regulations, including the legally required Sustainability Appraisal and Habitats Regulations Assessment.”

O’Donovan added that should any changes be proposed during the LPPC’s 20th November meeting, additional time would be necessary for council officers to update the documentation. Failure to address these requirements, he warned, could result in the plan being deemed “unsound” by government inspectors.

Residents’ Association View: Balancing Timeliness and Quality

Residents’ Association Leader Councillor Hannah Dalton (Stoneleigh), in her response to the opposition’s proposal, reiterated the council’s commitment to both transparency and quality in the Local Plan’s development. Dalton acknowledged the delay caused by a temporary halt in 2023 but argued that accelerating the current schedule could compromise the quality and legal robustness of the plan. “We can’t simply ‘speed up’ to replace six months of lost time,” she remarked, noting that the council remains committed to commencing the Regulation 19 public consultation “at the earliest possible opportunity after the November meeting of the LPPC.”

In a letter addressing a recent call from the Epsom Green Party, Dalton also noted that bypassing the LPPC’s role could undermine the Local Plan’s overall integrity. She explained, “Circumventing the LPP meeting… bypasses LPP, which has been tasked with the development of the Local Plan.” Any changes agreed upon by Full Council would still require further work to comply with legally mandated procedures, she added.

Epsom Green Party’s Intervention: Legal Pathways to Expedite Consultation

Meanwhile, Janice Baker, Chair of the Epsom Green Party, recently suggested an alternative approach. In a letter to Dalton, Baker proposed a legally permissible pathway for Full Council to assume the LPPC’s role, potentially scheduling a Full Council meeting in place of the LPPC’s 20th November session. This approach, she argued, could save several weeks and allow the Regulation 19 consultation to conclude by early January 2025, ahead of the potential NPPF changes.

“Many residents have been frustrated by the lack of open discussion,” Baker stated, adding that the proposed approach “provides a chance to avoid this disaster.” She further urged that any potential legal impediments to this plan be swiftly addressed by the council’s legal team, emphasising that delays could lead to increased housing requirements that would place “extremely significant environmental, financial, and social costs” on the borough.

Residents and Environmental Campaigners Express Growing Concern

The debate has galvanised local community groups and residents who are deeply invested in the borough’s planning future. The Epsom Green Belt Group has argued for prioritising brownfield sites to protect greenfield areas and prevent the urban sprawl that they fear could follow under new NPPF guidelines. Their concerns were echoed during the LPPC’s October meeting, where residents spoke passionately against any development that could jeopardise the area’s green spaces.

Adding further weight to the opposition’s argument, local Liberal Democrat leader Councillor Julie Morris (College) criticised Mayor Steven Bridger’s (RA Stamford) refusal to consider an Emergency Council Meeting (ECM) for 21st November. Bridger had stated that an ECM would not allow sufficient time for officers to finalise the necessary documentation and for councillors to adequately review it. However, Morris rebutted that the ECM was intended “to allow Council as a whole to sign off the draft Local Plan AND any amendments agreed on 20th November,” thus expediting the consultation’s start before the end of the year.

The opposition councillors are now considering other procedural avenues to press forward with the Local Plan, underscoring their commitment to avoid the looming 817-unit target.

What’s Next? A Community on Edge

The path forward for Epsom and Ewell’s Local Plan remains uncertain, as councillors and community members await the LPPC’s 20th November meeting. The stakes are high for the borough, with questions about housing supply, environmental conservation, and procedural integrity all coming to the fore. The decisions made in the coming weeks will not only determine the scale of future developments but will also shape the borough’s character for years to come.

In the words of Councillor Dalton, “Balancing development with the preservation of our borough’s character is challenging but essential.” With the pressure mounting from opposition members and concerned residents alike, Epsom and Ewell Borough Council faces critical choices as it navigates the complex and often conflicting demands of local governance and sustainable growth.

Related reports:

Opposition Calls for Emergency Council Meeting Over Epsom and Ewell Local Plan

Epsom Local Plan controversy heats up

Time to press the gas on Epsom’s Local Plan?

Epsom and Ewell Brace for Government Housing Targets

Controversy surrounded the appointment of the salaried Centre Manager of Epsom and Ewell’s new arts and exhibition venue, The Horton Arts Centre.

Documents obtained by the Epsom and Ewell Times under Freedom of Information Act requests reveal that the Charity Commission found that the trustees of the Horton Chapel Arts and Heritage Society did not seek its prior permission to employ the wife of a trustee.

A recently retired trustee, a trustee or a person connected to a trustee through marriage may not be given paid employment by their charity without prior Charity Commission approval.

The Commission found that Maria Reeves, the wife of founding chairman of the Charity, Ian Reeves, who was herself previously a trustee, was appointed to the manager role without its permission.

In these circumstances the Commission would normally order the trustees to pay the Charity the salary of the employee in question. However, in this case the Commission determined that the appointment had been hidden from the Commission for so long that such an order would be “disproportionate”.

The Commission also determined that the eventual appointment was “made in good faith”, but refused to answer how that finding was compatible with the failure to seek its permission. It has also refused to disclose the justification submitted to it by the trustees for the retrospective Commission approval.

Other documents obtained by the Epsom and Ewell Times show that an earlier recruitment exercise, described by an expert as “exemplary”,  was reversed on the intervention of trustees, including the then Chair Ian Reeves and his next door neighbour and trustee, Rupert Salmon.

That process had not short-listed the Chair’s wife Maria Reeves.

One former short-listed candidate who asked not to be named said: “I was of course disappointed that the recruitment process for The Horton Centre Director role was aborted as I had been shortlisted to the second round and was expecting to attend a second interview.

With regards to the Charity Commission’s role – it is disappointing that the Charity Commission’s own guidelines were difficult to enforce in this instance.”

None of the short-listed candidates from the aborted recruitment process were invited to re-apply and it appears that the recruitment process that led to the appointment of Maria Reeves was from a candidate list of one.

Ian Reeves and Rupert Salmon have been requested on a number of occasions to provide their response. Our press regulator confirmed that they had been provided with a reasonable opportunity to do so.

One former trustee stated: “Mr and Mrs Reeves deserved a reward for all the unpaid effort they had put into converting this disused chapel into a beautiful arts centre”.

Lionel Blackman, a former trustee and chair of the initial 6 strong recruitment committee, that consisted of three independent trustees and three independent external experts, said “I only wish to make a general observation that trustees of charities should comply with the rules. That expectation is somewhat heightened when a charity has been given £3 million of public money.”

A clash between environmental advocates and oil developers at Horse Hill in Surrey has resurfaced as local campaigners question why oil production continues despite a lack of planning permission. The Weald Action Group, which represents numerous community groups opposing fossil fuel extraction across Southeast England, has raised concerns over ongoing operations by Horse Hill Developments Ltd (HHDL). The site, located in the Surrey Hills, is still producing oil even though the Supreme Court recently ruled that planning permission was granted unlawfully, citing omissions in the environmental impact assessment.

This summer, the UK Supreme Court upheld a challenge brought by environmentalist Sarah Finch on behalf of the Weald Action Group. The ruling faulted Surrey County Council for not considering indirect greenhouse gas emissions linked to the burning of the oil produced at Horse Hill when they approved the application. Consequently, the planning approval was nullified, marking a significant win for the environmental action group and setting a precedent that has since impacted other oil and gas sites across the UK.

In response to continued production at Horse Hill, the Weald Action Group’s legal team has written to Surrey County Council, requesting clarity on whether HHDL’s operations are indeed unauthorized and if the council intends to enforce a halt to production until retrospective planning permissions are secured. “It’s not clear why UKOG are still producing oil at Horse Hill despite having no planning permission to do so,” the group’s spokesperson stated. Meanwhile, Chris Coghlan, the newly elected MP for Dorking and Horley, has also pressed the council for answers.

The council’s statement confirmed it is aware of the issue, stressing that without planning permission, HHDL’s production activities may indeed be unlawful. It stated: “Following the Supreme Court decision, there is no planning permission for oil production at the site… The County Council is continuing its enforcement investigation and will determine whether formal enforcement action is expedient.” While the council refrained from offering a definitive timeline, it confirmed that formal enforcement remains a possibility, pending the ongoing investigation.

For the Weald Action Group and concerned residents, the situation underscores broader frustrations with fossil fuel projects in rural areas. Their efforts highlight a commitment to maintaining local accountability and environmental protections, especially in ecologically sensitive areas like the Surrey Hills.

UPDATE:

In a major development in the ongoing Horse Hill oil drilling controversy, UK Oil & Gas PLC (UKOG) has ordered the cessation of oil production at its Horse Hill site following intense public and political pressure. The decision comes after weeks of scrutiny, with mounting calls from local activists, national environmental groups, media outlets, and the newly elected MP for Dorking and Horley, Chris Coghlan, urging an end to operations that lacked valid planning permission.

The Weald Action Group, which represents a network of community groups opposed to oil and gas development in the Southeast, welcomed the decision but condemned the circumstances that led to it. “We are pleased that they have now suspended operations,” they stated, “but we are appalled that it took protests by Extinction Rebellion, news coverage, questions from the local MP, and the threat of legal action by Friends of the Earth to bring them to this conclusion.” According to the group, the suspension followed sustained pressure and widespread public outrage over UKOG’s ongoing activities despite the Supreme Court’s ruling that rendered Horse Hill’s planning permission invalid.

Brian Alexander, Communications Director for UKOG, initially defended the company’s position, claiming on Channel 4 that production at Horse Hill was compliant. “It’s not unlawful. We would not be doing it if it was unlawful… We are of the understanding, certainly from Surrey, that we are doing what we should be doing,” Alexander told the media.

In a statement issued after halting production, UKOG announced: “After recent discussions with Surrey County Council (SCC) and in keeping with the Company’s strategic move from oil & gas into material scale clean hydrogen storage projects, we instructed our subsidiary Horse Hill Developments Ltd (HHDL) to voluntarily suspend oil production at the Horse Hill site.” The suspension, effective as of Friday, October 25, reportedly aligns with the company’s new focus on hydrogen storage projects, reflecting a shift away from oil and gas.

UKOG emphasized that its actions regarding Horse Hill had been lawful, adding that HHDL has maintained regulatory compliance throughout its six years of operations. The company noted that discussions with Surrey County Council had been ongoing since June 2024 and included a recent site visit by council officials on October 16. UKOG stated it will now work closely with Surrey County Council to ensure a thorough suspension process and to support the planning redetermination process. This includes safely securing and decommissioning the Horse Hill site in compliance with environmental regulations.

The Weald Action Group, meanwhile, remains vigilant, stressing that it will continue to monitor UKOG’s activities and press for accountability at Horse Hill and other oil sites across the region. The group’s focus now turns to ensuring that any future decisions align with environmental protections and the community’s demands for transparency and local oversight.

Related reports:

The Hills Are Alive With the Sound of Drilling… ?

Justice Stops Oil

Image is AI generated imaginary picture of oil drilling in hills.

In a move that underscores growing concerns over the future of development in Epsom and Ewell, nine opposition councillors from the borough council have requested an Emergency Full Council Meeting to accelerate the adoption of the Local Plan. The councillors—comprising four Liberal Democrats, three Labour members, and two Conservatives—are calling for the meeting to take place immediately after the Licensing and Planning Policy Committee (LPPC) on 20th November, or alternatively, on the evening of 21st November.

The opposition’s objective is clear: to expedite the council’s voting on the draft Local Plan to ensure that the next round of public consultation can proceed swiftly. Councillors are particularly concerned that any delays in finalising the plan could subject Epsom and Ewell to new government-imposed housing targets. These targets, outlined by the current Labour government, could increase the borough’s required new dwellings to 817 per year, a significant rise from the existing figure.

One opposition councillor stated, “We all know that if the Local Plan fails or is found unsound or non-compliant, we will be subject to the Labour government’s new targets, which are 817 dwellings per annum.” The councillors are urging the council leadership to act now to avoid this outcome.

Council’s Position: Balancing Housing Needs and Green Space

In response, the leadership of Epsom and Ewell Borough Council, led by the Residents’ Association, has emphasised the importance of balancing development with the preservation of the borough’s character. Councillor Hannah Dalton, Chair of the Residents’ Association, spoke recently about the challenge of providing much-needed housing—particularly affordable housing—while safeguarding the borough’s treasured green spaces.

Councillor Peter O’Donovan, Chair of the Licensing and Planning Policy Committee, has reiterated that the council is adhering to a clear timetable. The LPPC is expected to review the Pre-Submission Local Plan at its November meeting, following which the next public consultation phase will commence. O’Donovan stressed the need for a robust evidence base to ensure the Local Plan withstands scrutiny and avoids challenges that could delay or derail the process.

The council is also grappling with an increase in homelessness, which has risen by 95% over the past year, further highlighting the need for new housing, particularly for families. Councillor Clive Woodbridge, Chair of the Community & Wellbeing Committee, outlined the council’s efforts to mitigate homelessness, including working with private landlords and providing support to those at risk.

The Stakes: Higher Housing Targets and Green Belt at Risk

The backdrop to this debate is the government’s proposed revision to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which includes higher housing targets and reduced protections for Green Belt land. If the Local Plan is not submitted for approval before these changes come into effect, the borough could face the new target of 817 homes per year. For many residents, this raises the spectre of large-scale developments encroaching on green spaces that are integral to the borough’s identity.

At a previous LPPC meeting in October, tensions ran high as residents voiced concerns about the potential loss of Green Belt land. The Epsom Green Belt Group, a local campaign organisation, has proposed an alternative plan that focuses on developing brownfield sites instead. They argue that this approach would meet housing targets without sacrificing green spaces.

What Next?

The requested Emergency Full Council Meeting, if granted, would allow all councillors to debate and vote on the draft Local Plan. Whether the meeting will be scheduled remains to be seen, but with growing pressure from both the opposition and the public, the council’s next steps will be closely watched.

The stakes are high for Epsom and Ewell. The decisions made in the coming weeks will shape the borough’s future, determining how it meets housing demands while preserving the community’s much-loved green spaces.

Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals are in need of urgent repairs, with more than £150 million required to address crumbling infrastructure, according to the latest NHS data. Epsom and Ewell MP Helen Maguire has urged the Government to prioritise investment in the upcoming Budget to tackle these issues.

The data highlights that nearly £70 million of the required repairs are classified as ‘high risk,’ meaning a failure to address them promptly could lead to serious injury and significant disruption to healthcare services. Both hospitals have been struggling with deteriorating facilities for years, with St Helier Hospital facing particularly severe challenges, such as falling ceilings and condemned buildings.

One major issue is the division of emergency care teams across both sites, a problem that the proposed specialist emergency care hospital in Sutton is intended to resolve. However, delays in funding mean that these plans have not yet come to fruition, leaving local residents reliant on facilities that are increasingly unable to meet modern healthcare needs.

Ahead of the Autumn Budget, Liberal Democrat MP Helen Maguire has renewed her call for urgent financial support to clear the backlog of repairs and ensure that the hospitals can provide safe and effective care for local communities.

“It is scandalous that people in Epsom, Ewell, Ashtead, and Leatherhead are being treated in hospitals that need millions of pounds in repairs,” said Maguire. “When someone goes to the hospital, they should expect to be treated in a building that is safe. This is the bare minimum. We need to do far better. It is now down to this Government to rescue our NHS, which is why, at the Budget, the Chancellor must urgently use any changes to the borrowing rules to invest in hospitals here in Epsom and Ewell.”

NHS Response

A spokesperson for the Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust acknowledged the extent of the challenges, stating: “We’ve spent £60 million in the past five years improving the facilities in our ageing hospitals, which are deteriorating faster than we can fix them. Local people deserve better, and we’re ready to build a new state-of-the-art hospital and upgrade our existing sites, but urgently need investment to make this a reality.”

The spokesperson also highlighted the outdated nature of parts of the hospital infrastructure, some of which predate the founding of the NHS. “The age of our buildings means they flood regularly, and when our lifts break down, we can’t fix them because they don’t make the parts anymore.”

Plans for the new specialist emergency care hospital in Sutton aim to address these issues by consolidating highly skilled medical teams, providing round-the-clock care. This would alleviate the strain on the existing Epsom and St Helier hospitals, which will continue to provide 85% of local services, including outpatient appointments and scans.

The Way Forward

The pressing need for investment in the local NHS infrastructure is clear, with both the MP and the hospital trust calling for urgent action. As the Budget approaches, the focus will be on whether the Government will step up and provide the necessary funds to ensure that residents of Epsom and surrounding areas receive the healthcare services they deserve in safe and modern facilities.

Local residents will be closely watching developments in the Budget announcement, hoping that long-awaited improvements to the area’s hospitals will finally become a reality.