April and May proved to be unusually busy months for Surrey Police and community safety partners in Epsom and Ewell, with a mixture of high-profile investigations, anti-social behaviour enforcement, retail crime initiatives and public engagement events.

The most significant policing story of the period centred on a reported serious sexual assault in Epsom during the early hours of 11 April. Surrey Police launched a major investigation following a report that a woman in her twenties had been assaulted after leaving a town centre nightclub. Extensive enquiries were carried out, including CCTV examination, witness interviews, forensic work and house-to-house enquiries. By mid-April, Assistant Chief Constable Sarah Grahame stated that investigators had not found evidence to support the offence as originally reported, although enquiries remained ongoing. The case attracted national media attention and prompted public demonstrations in Epsom town centre. Surrey Police repeatedly appealed for witnesses and urged the public not to speculate while investigations continued. (The Guardian)

The incident also led to a substantial police presence in the town as officers dealt with protests and concerns regarding public disorder. Local community leaders and elected representatives called for calm and urged residents to allow the investigation to proceed without interference. (The Guardian)

Away from the headlines, Surrey Police continued its borough-wide campaign against anti-social behaviour and organised criminality under the “Safer Epsom and Ewell” initiative launched earlier this year. The partnership between Surrey Police and Epsom & Ewell Borough Council has focused on tackling anti-social behaviour, serious organised crime and repeat offending in known hotspot locations. (Epsom and Ewell Borough Council)

Police teams also continued operations targeting nuisance and criminal use of motorcycles. According to local policing priorities published during the spring, officers have been using specialist teams, covert tactics, anti-social behaviour powers and multi-agency interventions to tackle riders involved in criminality and public nuisance. The strategy includes cooperation with housing providers and the use of borough-wide Public Space Protection Order powers. (Surrey Police)

Retail crime remained a major priority throughout April and May. Surrey Police’s Epsom Safer Neighbourhood Team reported that its zero-tolerance approach to shoplifting and offences against retailers was continuing to produce results. The initiative includes rapid investigation of known offenders, direct cooperation with retailers and remote CCTV operators, and proactive arrests aimed at reducing repeat offending in the town centre. (Surrey Police)

The wider “Safer Epsom and Ewell” operation reported notable results during the spring period. Police indicated that the partnership had led to more than 150 arrests, over 90 charges and the closure of ten county-lines drug networks, highlighting the continuing focus on organised criminal activity affecting local communities. (Facebook)

Community engagement remained a significant feature of local policing. Officers held a series of “Meet the Beat” events during April and May, including sessions in Epsom town centre, Ruxley Lane and at Epsom Hospital, giving residents opportunities to discuss local concerns directly with neighbourhood officers. Police also conducted public engagement work connected with violence against women and girls in the Ashley Centre area. (Surrey Police)

Latest published neighbourhood crime statistics continue to show violence and sexual offences, shoplifting and anti-social behaviour among the most frequently reported categories in parts of the borough. In Epsom & Ewell East, violence and sexual offences and shoplifting remained the most commonly recorded offences during March, the latest month for which detailed neighbourhood figures are available. (Police.uk)

Residents wishing to report crime can contact Surrey Police via 101 for non-emergencies or 999 in an emergency. Information can also be passed anonymously through Crimestoppers on 0800 555 111.

The Epsom and Ewell Times will continue to monitor local crime trends, policing initiatives and community safety developments throughout the summer.

Sam Jones – Reporter

A member of staff at the University of Surrey has been seriously injured following an incident on the University’s Manor Park campus in Guildford.

The University confirmed that the incident occurred at approximately 9.50am on Thursday morning. Surrey Police attended the scene and arrested a man shortly afterwards.

In a statement provided to the Epsom and Ewell Times, a University spokesperson said:

“At approximately 9.50 am this morning, an incident took place on our Manor Park campus. Police attended and a man was arrested. A member of our campus safety team was seriously injured and is receiving medical care. The police are not looking for anyone else in connection with this incident. Surrey Police are leading the investigation and we are giving them our full support.”

Subsequent statements issued by Surrey Police and national media reports indicate that the injured man, who is in his 50s, is a member of the University’s campus safety team. He was taken to hospital with serious injuries following what police describe as a crossbow shooting. A 21-year-old former University of Surrey student was arrested at the scene on suspicion of attempted murder and remains in police custody.

Chief Superintendent Jon Groenen of Surrey Police said officers were not seeking anyone else in connection with the incident and that a full investigation is under way. Police have appealed for witnesses or anyone with relevant information to come forward.

The incident took place at the University’s Manor Park campus, which includes student accommodation, teaching facilities and the Surrey Sports Park. Despite a significant emergency services presence, the University campus remained open during the police response.

The condition of the injured staff member has not been updated beyond police confirming that his injuries are serious. The University has said it is providing full support to the police investigation.

Anyone with information is asked to contact Surrey Police quoting reference PR/45260065706 or to contact Crimestoppers anonymously.

Sam Jones – Reporter

Updated release from Surrey University: We have been informed that our colleague is now in a stable condition and our entire community is relieved to hear this news. We wish him a full and speedy recovery. 

“We also want to take this opportunity to thank our Campus Safety team. They responded with professionalism and courage to this incident, and their commitment to keeping this community safe is something we are deeply proud of. Our thoughts are with all of them

The two Liberal Democrat councillors at Epsom & Ewell Borough Council appear to have played the decisive role in keeping Residents’ Association leader Cllr Hannah Dalton in her Council leadership role despite the dramatic collapse of the RA’s electoral position in the new East Surrey Unitary Council elections.

At the Borough Council’s annual meeting, Dalton survived a leadership challenge from former Residents’ Association councillor, now Independent, Alex Coley, by the narrowest possible margin — 15 votes to 14.

The arithmetic of the vote suggests that at least two RA councillors backed Coley against their own group leader. Equally significant, had just one of the two Liberal Democrat councillors voted with the wider opposition bloc, Coley would have been elected leader.

The Liberal Democrat councillors, College Ward councillor Julian Freeman and Stamford Ward councillor Alison Kelly, backed Dalton.

Their decision has attracted attention because the Residents’ Association’s dominant local position has been severely weakened following the East Surrey Unitary Council elections, in which the RA was effectively wiped out, retaining only two successful candidates.

Asked by Epsom and Ewell Times why he supported Dalton, Cllr Freeman said he objected to politicians leaving the group under whose banner they were elected.

He stated: “I do not support people who are elected as a representative of one political group and then decide to turn their back on those that voted for them. This is something that is happening with increasing regularity on the council at present.”

However, that explanation prompted questions about Freeman’s own political history.

Material reviewed by Epsom and Ewell Times records that in 2006, while a councillor in the London Borough of Sutton, Freeman resigned from the Liberal Democrat group and sat as an Independent councillor. A published council decision notice recorded: “Resolved: To note that Councillor Julian Freeman has resigned as a member of the Liberal Democrat Group and will sit as an Independent Councillor.”

When asked to explain the apparent inconsistency, Freeman disputed the comparison.

He replied that there was an “important distinction”, stating: “I was not approved as a candidate at the time due to an internal dispute with a ward colleague and stood as an independent at the following election. At no point did I willingly decide to change parties as this was not my decision.” He added: “Your facts are wrong as I did not leave during my term of office.”

After EET provided him with evidence of the Sutton council record showing him resigning from the Liberal Democrat group and continuing as an Independent councillor, Freeman refined his position, replying: “You can see that this was towards the end of my term of office and for just one full council meeting following deselection as a future candidate.”

Freeman also told EET that the decision to support Dalton was taken jointly between himself and Cllr Kelly. Kelly separately confirmed that account, stating that the leadership vote position followed discussions between the two councillors.

In a further explanation of his thinking, Freeman said he felt “some sympathy for Hannah (Dalton) and Clive (Woodbridge) in losing their seats” and argued that removing Dalton with just ten months left as leader would amount to “rubbing salt in the wound and would achieve nothing of substance.”

The narrow vote leaves unresolved questions about the future direction of politics at EEBC. Since the last Borough Elections there have been seven councillors who have changed their party or group affiliation. The Residents Association losing five councillors and the Liberal Democrats two out of four and those two both having been leaders of the LibDem Group on the Council.

Dalton remains leader — but only just. The voting numbers suggest a council chamber in which party loyalties and traditional group boundaries are under strain, with dissension inside the Residents’ Association itself and two Liberal Democrat votes proving decisive to the survival of an administration whose wider electoral base has been sharply diminished.

Sam Jones – Reporter

A fresh dispute has erupted over Epsom & Ewell Borough Council’s embattled Local Plan process after residents challenged the constitutional validity of the council’s latest planning consultation.

The row follows an email issued by the council’s Planning Policy Team reminding residents that consultation remains open until 15 June on “Additional Documents Submitted by the Council during the Local Plan Examination”, ahead of a further examination hearing scheduled for 2 July at Epsom Town Hall.

The consultation concerns documents submitted during the government inspector’s examination of the borough’s long-running Local Plan — a process that has already generated years of political controversy, debate over Green Belt development, and repeated questions about governance and committee oversight.

In one of a number of near-identical emails reportedly circulated by concerned residents to councillors and senior officers, resident Philip Brown argued that the current consultation “appears to have been launched in breach of the council’s constitution” and therefore could not be regarded as valid.

Mr Brown’s complaint centres on the role of the Licensing and Planning Policy Committee (LPPC), the council committee whose constitutional terms of reference include responsibility to “consider and approve” Local Plan documents for public consultation. According to the resident correspondence, there is no evidence in the published minutes of LPPC meetings in late 2025 and early 2026 that the seven consultation documents had been reviewed and approved by the committee before the consultation was launched.

The email goes further, alleging that at the LPPC meeting of 10 March 2026, “the Chair explicitly declined a request to allow the committee to review the Local Plan documents”.

On that basis, the resident contends that “the current consultation appears not to be constitutionally compliant and is therefore invalid”, adding that it would be “both inappropriate and pointless for consultees to comment on an invalid consultation”. The email asks the council to arrange for the documents to be considered by LPPC and then to issue what it terms a “constitutionally-compliant consultation”.

The issue touches on themes previously explored by the Epsom and Ewell Times during coverage of the borough’s Local Plan disputes.

The Local Plan has divided opinion sharply over housing targets, Green Belt release, infrastructure pressures and the extent of member oversight of the process. Recent EET reporting on the LPPC proceedings highlighted tensions over whether councillors were being afforded sufficient opportunity to scrutinise crucial planning material and the degree to which committee oversight was shaping the evolving plan.

The controversy arrives against a backdrop of political transition. Following local government reorganisation, powers will ultimately pass to the new East Surrey Council in 2027, although Epsom & Ewell Borough Council remains the planning authority for the present Local Plan process.

Among those responding to the resident correspondence was David Buxton OBE, Liberal Democrat Shadow Councillor for Epsom West and Shadow Cabinet Executive Member for Adult Social Care and Health on East Surrey Council.

Cllr Buxton stated that he was not involved in the current EEBC Local Plan process and therefore could not determine whether the consultation complies with the borough council’s constitutional requirements, saying those matters are for “the Borough Council, its officers and, where necessary, independent legal advice”.

However, he described the issues raised as “important matters” and said he would encourage relevant officers “to provide clarification so that residents can have confidence in the process and in any representations submitted”.

Cllr Buxton also cautioned elected members involved in future Local Plan deliberations against prejudging specific proposals, saying councillors should remain able to consider evidence, hear residents’ views and participate fully in future decision-making processes.

Restating the Liberal Democrats’ previously expressed planning position, he said development should prioritise brownfield sites first, “underused land second”, and only consider Green Belt land “as a last resort”, adding: “no GP provision, no infrastructure, no development.”

The latest consultation was initiated following a request by the government-appointed planning inspector in a letter dated 23 April 2026, according to the residents’ correspondence.

EEBC has advised that interested members of the public may attend the further examination hearing on 2 July as observers. Those wishing actively to participate must indicate this in their consultation response and notify the Programme Officer before the consultation closes.

Sam Jones – Reporter

Related reports:

Epsom and Ewell Local Plan next phase

Did Epsom and Ewell councillors approve more Green Belt release?

Persand parses the Local Plan process in Epsom

Next phase in the journey of the Epsom and Ewell Local Plan announced

Epsom and Ewell Local Plan tensions surface as committee debate curtailed by chair

Fresh Local Plan row as councillor questions Green Belt revisions and governance at Epsom and Ewell

Epsom & Ewell’s Council responds to Local Plan concerns

and many more ….. search “Local Plan”

An Epsom woman who says she left her job at a local hospital after experiencing workplace difficulties has turned an unexpected hobby into an award-recognised business exporting handmade products to customers in 26 countries.

Miriam Faragalla, Chief Executive and Co-Founder of Fragranced With Love Limited, runs the business from her home in Epsom, producing handmade soaps, candles and wax melts marketed as luxury personal and home fragrance products.

The business, founded in May 2024, has recently achieved a string of milestones, including becoming a finalist in the 2026 Small Business Awards UK, winning entrepreneur Theo Paphitis’ Small Business Sunday (SBS) award scheme, expanding into retail partnerships, and developing an international customer base.

Faragalla told the Epsom and Ewell Times that the company arose from difficult personal circumstances.

She said: “I started this venture completely by accident in May 2024. Prior to this, I was working as an HR Advisor and experienced severe workplace bullying that ultimately forced me to resign.”

“Rather than letting that traumatic experience defeat me, I channelled my pain and energy into building my own brand.”

Operating from a home workshop in Epsom, Fragranced With Love manufactures a range of scented soaps, candles and wax melts, with an emphasis on handmade production, fragrance combinations and gift presentation.

According to the company’s website, the brand describes itself as offering “luxury” handmade products created with careful attention to ingredients, fragrance and aesthetic design, aiming to provide “highly scented” home and personal care products.

One of the company’s recent achievements came in May 2026 when it was selected as a winner in Theo Paphitis’ Small Business Sunday initiative, a scheme founded by the former Dragon’s Den investor to promote small businesses through social media and business networking.

The business has also been named a finalist in the 2026 Small Business Awards UK in the “Best Small Business” category, with winners due to be announced later this year.

Faragalla said the company now dispatches products internationally to 26 countries and has secured its first physical retail supply agreements.

Those include arrangements with Ruxley Pharmacy in Surrey and OZA Chemist in Fulham Broadway.

Sam Jones – Reporter

On one of the hottest days of the year, with councillors and guests in Epsom Town Hall using agenda papers as improvised fans, Epsom & Ewell Borough Council held what was in effect the beginning of its final chapter — the Annual Council meeting that will oversee the borough’s last year before abolition under local government reorganisation.

The evening of 26th May combined civic ceremony, nostalgia, political tension and procedural wrangling, culminating in a knife-edge vote for Council leadership and a heated row over the Council’s constitution.

Councillor Lucy McIntyre (RA) was elected Mayor for what will be the borough’s final mayoral year, with veteran Independent councillor Julie Morris chosen as Deputy Mayor.

McIntyre, among the younger and longer-serving members of the chamber, described the appointment as “particularly special because this borough really has always been my home”, speaking movingly of family ties, her late brothers, and the borough’s impending disappearance into the new East Surrey Council.

“This will be the final mayoral year of Epsom and Ewell in its current form, as we know it,” she said. “It makes it even more of an honour and a privilege to serve you all.”

Her chosen charities include Fab for Epsom & Ewell, Girlguiding Epsom District and Sunnybank Trust, with ten principal events planned during the roughly ten months remaining before the borough’s end. “The countdown has already begun,” she told the chamber, “because after all, it’s the final countdown — so let’s make it unforgettable.”

Outgoing Mayor Councillor Robert Leach offered a characteristically humorous farewell, reflecting on a year that took him from the Derby and Buckingham Palace to community groups, Ukrainian refugees, disability charities and opening Primark.

“It has been a great honour to be the mayor of the borough for the last year,” he said. “This was a position I had not expected and… not one that I sought.” He praised the borough’s “more than 100 charities and voluntary groups”, remarking that a mayoral visit “means so much to the people”, and expressed hope that some civic role might survive local government reorganisation.

But the political temperature rose sharply when councillors turned to the appointment of Council Leader.

Councillor Hannah Dalton (RA), the incumbent leader, was nominated by Councillors Liz Frost and Christine Cleveland. Frost urged members to back continuity in the borough’s final year.

“This… is going to be the last year of the council,” she said. “It is really, really important that we all pull together… and leave the council in a good position.”

Cleveland praised Dalton’s work through “very turbulent times” in local government and added: “It would be really nice to end our time in Epsom with a female leader of the council as well.”

The challenge came from Independent councillor Alex Coley, once a prominent Residents’ Association figure before breaking away from the ruling group.

Nominating Coley, Councillor Kate Chinn (Labour Court) launched a stinging critique of the outgoing year.

“Last year this council agreed strategic priorities,” she said. “It’s safe to say these did not go according to plan.”

She referred to “a committee meeting where the leader of the council [was] absent from a vote to fund a strategic priority” and another where “an RA CIL (Community Infrastructure Levy) bid was proposed and not voted through by the RA members.”

“If the leader stays the same, these priorities will not be worth the paper they are written on,” she argued. “We need a new leader… one who will deliver and work across all political groups… As long as this ship is still afloat, we must look after it. But it’s time for a new captain.”

The most striking intervention came from RA Councillor Kim Spickett.

Visibly framing her choice as a painful one, she revealed the intensity of lobbying behind the scenes.

“The choice today… has been very difficult for me,” she said. “I’ve had a lot of calls, I’ve had a lot of messages, and I’ve had a lot of pressure put on me. I’m not happy about it. It’s made me very sad.”

Declaring pride in the borough and its people, she nevertheless backed Coley as the person to steer the authority through its closing months.

“We need the proven leadership of a councillor who’s dedicated to delivery and puts outcomes first… somebody I’m proud to call my friend.”

“Delivery is what we need to set this community up for success… and I believe Alex will deliver.”

The vote that followed demonstrated just how finely balanced the chamber had become.

Dalton survived — but only narrowly.

The official tally: 15 votes for Hannah Dalton, 14 for Alex Coley.

Having retained the leadership by a single vote, Dalton struck a conciliatory note.

“Being leader is never easy, and you’re not going to take everybody with you all of the time,” she said. “I’d say the last year to 18 months has been the hardest it has ever been.”

She acknowledged the challenge of leading a Residents’ Association group that, she insisted, operates without a formal whip: “Whatever they do say, they do not have a political whip, and they discuss everything.”

In remarks that reflected the strains of both local government reorganisation and evident political divisions inside the chamber, she appealed for unity.

“We’ve got to deliver a lot. We need stability. We need to get to the end of next March in one piece, without ripping each other apart, or leaving this council in a really bad way.”

“We’ve been here for 90 years, we’ve done an incredible job together. Let’s keep it together, just for the last ten months.”

If the leadership contest exposed the chamber’s political fault-lines, the next item — approval of the Council’s constitution — produced a procedural clash that left tempers noticeably frayed in the overheated room.

Mayor McIntyre announced that a late proposal concerning the constitution would not be accepted, ruling that substantive constitutional changes required proper routing through the Standards and Constitution Committee, officers, or a formal motion process.

Councillor Chris Ames (Labour) objected fiercely.

“As might have been predicted, the administration has sought to close down debate about this,” he said.

“We’re going to be asked to agree a constitution that we should know is defective.”

Denying that he had proposed a constitutional amendment, Ames said he had merely sought to highlight concerns. “The usual procedural shenanigans that we get here doesn’t surprise me one bit,” he said. “It’s absolutely disgraceful. It’s the typical corruption of this administration.”

Councillor James Lawrence (Independent) followed with his own criticism, citing what he said were deficiencies in the complaints process as described across the Council’s constitution, operating framework and website.

He argued that a councillor complaints procedure was either missing or unclear, describing a complaint against him that had remained unresolved for months.

But when Lawrence attempted to continue, the Mayor curtailed him.

“The meeting this evening is for a civic event,” she said, directing him instead toward the processes set out elsewhere in the Council framework.

Lawrence pushed back, asking: “Can you point in the constitution why I can’t speak?”

The exchange carried a certain irony: debate was being restricted on the basis of the meeting’s civic character while the approval of the constitution itself remained a formal agenda item before members.

When the vote finally came, the constitution was approved 15 votes to 9.

The meeting then moved on to committee appointments and other routine business without further fireworks.

Yet for a council entering its final year of existence, the evening had already revealed much: pride in civic tradition, uncertainty about the future, visible political strains — and a leadership retained by the narrowest of margins in a chamber made short-tempered by heat, history and the approaching end of the borough council era.

Sam Jones – Reporter

Image: Cllr Kim Spickett addresses the Council – Epsom and Ewell Borough Council YouTube

.

.

.

A row over media access to newly elected Liberal Democrat councillors has escalated after Epsom & Ewell MP Helen Maguire publicly challenged an Epsom and Ewell Times report – only for subsequent correspondence to confirm that a restriction on councillors speaking to the media did in fact exist.

The dispute centres on events at the Count for the East Surrey Unitary Council elections at Bourne Hall on 8 May.

In an earlier report, Epsom and Ewell Times’ (EET) Lionel Blackman described being in a media interview room speaking with a soon-to-be-elected Liberal Democrat candidate when Helen Maguire’s communications officer entered and stated that Lib Dem candidates were not to talk to the press and that journalists should speak only to the MP.

The report described the instruction as neither “liberal” nor “democratic” and criticised what it characterised as a “gag” on successful candidates.

Ten days later, at a reception at the Palace of Westminster hosted by Ms Maguire and attended by a couple of hundred leading figures from Epsom and Ewell’s business and voluntary sectors, the MP appeared to reference the controversy directly.

Introducing newly elected councillors present at the event, she said: “There are a number of our new Councillors present today and contrary to what you may have read in the press they are free to speak and if there are any members of the press here you may talk to them. Do not believe everything you read online.”

The remark prompted EET to challenge the implication that its reporting had been inaccurate.

In a subsequent email exchange, Helen Maguire’s communications officer, Esther Holland, denied that the MP had imposed any “gag” on councillors but acknowledged that a restriction on media engagement had indeed been in place.

Ms Holland wrote: “Helen can confirm that while she knew the East Surrey campaign team had asked for a pause in media engagement during the election week, this was entirely the East Surrey campaign team’s decision. Helen played no part in directing this; she did not ‘gag’ her new councillors.”

She later provided a statement attributed to an East Surrey Liberal Democrats spokesperson saying: “The pause in media engagement was a decision made by the central campaign team for the Liberal Democrats in East Surrey — not Helen Maguire MP — based on the advice to make the incoming leadership contest as democratic and fair as possible.”

That explanation narrows, but does not extinguish, the dispute.

EET’s original report did not merely allege that Helen Maguire personally invented the policy. It reported that the instruction was delivered by her communications officer, directing journalists away from councillors and towards the MP.

Mr Blackman replied that, in the circumstances, it had been entirely reasonable to report the matter as “Helen’s gag”, noting that the instruction had been communicated by an employee acting under the MP’s banner and that the strategy would have been ineffective without at least some degree of cooperation from the MP’s operation.

The exchange then moved into more sensitive territory concerning the role of MP’s parliamentary staff in party political activity.

Responding to questions raised by EET, Ms Holland stated she had been acting “in my capacity as local party communications, not as an employee of Helen Maguire MP” when communicating the media strategy at the Count, adding that her role was “split between parliamentary and local party work.”

That explanation may itself invite wider questions about the sometimes blurred boundary between parliamentary communications roles and local party political operations.

No evidence has been produced that any parliamentary or IPSA (Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority) rules were breached. However, parliamentary staffing arrangements are ordinarily expected to distinguish between parliamentary duties funded through MPs’ allowances and party political campaigning or organisation.

The issue here is not merely semantic.

If, as the correspondence confirms, a restriction on councillors speaking freely to journalists existed, then the remaining questions become who owned it, who delivered it, and whether the MP’s Westminster remark – “Do not believe everything you read online” – fairly represented EET’s reporting or risked leaving a large public audience with the impression that the newspaper had reported something untrue.

EET stands by the factual accuracy of its original report.

Sam Jones – Reporter

Related report:

Epsom’s LibDem MP gags her Party’s new councillors in their moment of triumph

Two elderly Epsom siblings lost around £148,000 after being repeatedly pressured into paying for unnecessary home repair work, as members of a criminal money-laundering network were sentenced at Guildford Crown Court.

The Epsom victims were among those targeted in a wider operation spanning Surrey, Essex and London between February and September 2019, according to Trading Standards investigators.

The case concluded this week with sentences being handed down to five defendants following a lengthy investigation involving Buckinghamshire and Surrey Trading Standards, Essex Police and the National Trading Standards Regional Investigations Team. Authorities said the network laundered a total of £331,223 taken from victims.

At the centre of the operation was Lee Cross, 54, originally from Romford, who was convicted of fraud and money laundering offences. Prosecutors said Cross provided banking infrastructure used to move and conceal criminal proceeds through numerous business accounts operating under different trading names, including “A-Z Repairs”.

Cross was sentenced to eight years and seven months’ imprisonment.

Others sentenced were:

• Sorise Richardson, 45, Romford – 12-month community order with rehabilitation activity requirement
• Zoe Hoskyn, 40, Hornchurch – two-year suspended sentence and 12-month rehabilitation order
• Jason Walker, 35, Blackburn – two-year suspended sentence and 180 hours’ unpaid work
• Pauline Walker, 70, Romford – 22-month suspended sentence

Trading Standards said victims were commonly approached by unsolicited callers claiming urgent repairs were needed to their properties. Homeowners were allegedly persuaded to pay substantial sums for unnecessary, poorly executed or uncompleted building works. Some were asked to fund equipment such as cranes and scaffolding that investigators said were never needed or supplied.

In Epsom, investigators said two elderly siblings were repeatedly pressured into paying for external works to their home that “didn’t need to be done”.

Amanda Poole, Buckinghamshire and Surrey Trading Standards Assistant Director, said: “Today’s sentencing marks the final step in bringing these fraudsters to justice, and most importantly, means the man at the heart of this operation — Lee Cross — will be behind bars.”

She added: “Today’s sentences are also a testament to the vital, diligent work undertaken by our Trading Standards officers, and those of our partners, in protecting our residents from harm.”

Lord Michael Bichard, Chair of National Trading Standards, said the case showed how organised criminals exploited elderly and vulnerable people, sometimes extracting “life-changing” sums for unnecessary or poor-quality work.

He said: “The harm caused by this type of fraud goes far beyond the money stolen, often leaving victims robbed of their confidence, independence and peace of mind.”

Trading Standards advises residents to be cautious of unsolicited traders, avoid agreeing to work on the spot, obtain multiple written quotations, and avoid paying cash or large sums upfront for building work.

Sam Jones – Reporter

The newly elected East Surrey Shadow Authority met for the first time on Wednesday 20 May, taking another formal step towards the creation of the new East Surrey Council due to replace existing county, borough and district councils on 1 April 2027.

The meeting marked the transition from the former East Surrey Joint Committee arrangements to the newly elected “shadow authority”, following this month’s elections to the new unitary council covering Elmbridge, Epsom & Ewell, Mole Valley, Reigate & Banstead and Tandridge.

With the Liberal Democrats holding a working majority on the 72-member authority after the May elections, councillors confirmed leadership and cabinet appointments that will oversee the transition year.

Councillor Steve Wotton was confirmed as Leader of the East Surrey Shadow Authority, with Councillor Kirsty Hewens appointed Deputy Leader.

Of particular local interest, two councillors representing Epsom & Ewell secured places in the shadow cabinet.

Councillor David Buxton, a Liberal Democrat councillor from Epsom & Ewell, was appointed Cabinet Executive Member for Adult Social Care and Health — one of the most substantial service portfolios in local government, covering responsibilities that currently account for major areas of county council expenditure and public concern.

Councillor Julian Freeman, LibDem also from Epsom & Ewell, was appointed Cabinet Executive Member for Housing. The appointment places an Epsom representative at the centre of housing policy discussions as the new authority prepares to assume responsibilities from existing councils amid continuing pressures around affordability, development and future planning arrangements across East Surrey.

The full cabinet allocation agreed by the authority included:

• Steve Wotton – Transformation, Digital and People
• Kirsty Hewens – Economy and Regeneration
• Andrew Burton – Finance and Resources
• Ashley Tilling – Children’s Services and Education
• David Buxton – Adult Social Care and Health
• Andrew Matthews – Transport, Highways and Infrastructure
• Bradley Nelson – Strategic Planning and Growth
• Julian Freeman – Housing
• Abhiram Magesh – Leisure, Culture and Communities
• Claire Malcomson – Climate, Environment and Waste

The cabinet roles are presently shadow positions linked to the local government reorganisation programme and will operate in that form until the new authority formally assumes full powers in April 2027.

The meeting also approved governance arrangements for the shadow council, endorsed initial transition priorities, and designated interim statutory officers to steer the authority through its establishment phase.

Among the appointments, Adam Chalmers, currently Chief Executive of Elmbridge Borough Council, was designated Interim Head of Paid Service. Nikki O’Connor, Assistant Director of Finance (Corporate) at Surrey County Council, was appointed Interim Chief Finance Officer, while Daniel Bainbridge, Head of Legal and Governance (Monitoring Officer) at Elmbridge, became Interim Monitoring Officer.

Speaking after his appointment, Cllr Steve Wotton said: “This is a significant moment as we work to bring services together under a single organisation. Our priority is to ensure residents see the benefits of the new East Surrey Council – one that is responsive, well run and able to deliver high-quality services from April 2027.”

He added: “We recognise the scale of the task ahead, but also the opportunity for a fresh start to shape a council that reflects and serves our communities.”

The new East Surrey Council forms part of Surrey’s wider local government reorganisation, under which the county’s existing councils are to be abolished and replaced by two large unitary authorities – East Surrey and West Surrey.

Until April 2027, existing county, borough and district councils will continue running day-to-day services. The shadow authority’s role is to prepare the structures, governance and leadership arrangements for the incoming council.

Sam Jones – Reporter

Photo right to left: Julian Freeman and David Buxton

Epsom and Ewell Borough Council’s special Licensing and Planning Policy Committee (“LPPC”) meeting on 19 May — convened after a motion by Cllrs Kieran Persand (Conservative – Horton), Rob Geleit (Labour – Court) and Julian Freeman (LibDem – College) — produced one clear answer to the question troubling many residents: LPPC did not itself vote to approve additional Green Belt land for development.

In summary the effect of the lengthy five-part motion was to ensure Council officers should not be sending revised Local Plan evidence and potentially significant Green Belt-related material to the Inspector without renewed political scrutiny and approval by LPPC / Full Council. All parts of the motion were defeated.

But the two-and-a-half-hour meeting revealed a deeper and increasingly bitter dispute over whether officers have already steered the Local Plan examination towards further Green Belt release without fresh political approval.

The meeting unfolded against the backdrop of continuing examination of EEBC’s Local Plan by the Planning Inspectorate and followed recent publication of officer work identifying additional sites “potentially suitable for allocation”, including five Green Belt sites, as part of the Inspector’s request for further work.

At the centre of the argument lay a constitutional question: once the Local Plan entered examination, did political control of substantive Green Belt decisions remain with councillors — or had delegated authority lawfully passed practical control to officers working under the Inspector’s direction?

The atmosphere in the chamber suggested members were debating much more than planning procedure.

Before debate even began, Cllr Shanice Goldman (Conservative Nonsuch) made an unusually direct statement from the public seating area challenging how the council had reached this stage. She said delegated authority granted in November 2024 had been understood to concern “small grammatical errors”, but had, in her view, later been exercised more broadly than members intended.

“These are not minor administrative matters,” she told the committee. “They are material decisions which properly fall within the remit of elected councillors who are accountable to the public.” She added: “This issue is bigger than one site or one submission. It goes to the heart of governance, transparency, constitutional process, and public confidence in decision making.”

Head of Planning Policy and Economic Development Ian Mawer then delivered a lengthy procedural update attempting to clarify what officers say has — and has not — happened.

Mawer stressed repeatedly that the Local Plan remains the version submitted in March 2025 and that no modifications have yet been made.

“I wish to emphasize that the Local Plan remains as submitted to the Planning Inspectorate in March 2025 as it stands — no changes have been made to it,” he said. “It is the Inspector alone that can make changes known as main modifications to address soundness issues.”

He explained that the Inspector had required additional work after October 2025 hearings, including revisiting part of the Green Belt Topic Paper and reassessing urban sites. That work, he said, eventually produced 17 sites considered “potentially suitable for allocation” — 12 urban and five Green Belt — but only as evidence to assist the examination.

He also cautioned against confusion over “Grey Belt”, noting EEBC’s plan is being examined under a pre-Grey-Belt version of national policy.

The procedural explanation did little to calm critics.

Persand opened by objecting that no legal officer was present, saying he had only been informed late in the day. “I feel that we should push this to another date, and then discuss it with a legal officer present,” he said. “This is about the delegation of power that was out of scope by officers in the submission of documents.”

His motion to defer was seconded by Freeman but failed.

From there the meeting descended into repeated procedural clashes.

When Persand attempted to play a recording from a previous meeting concerning how delegated authority had been described, Chair Peter O’Donovan (RA – Ewell Court) stopped him: “You can’t play recording… it’s not relevant to the motion.” Persand countered that recordings were permissible and argued earlier comments were directly relevant to understanding what members thought they had approved.

Freeman challenged the Chair’s ruling: “How is it not relevant? Comments that were made at a previous meeting of this committee… when you said something along the lines of… minor grammatical errors and omissions.” O’Donovan replied: “I said there were minor grammatical errors… it is not relevant to the motion in front of us.”

The core disagreement, however, concerned substance rather than theatre.

Persand argued that documents identifying additional Green Belt land had gone well beyond anything councillors believed officers were authorised to do.

“Submitting a document that has 40% extra Green Belt sites to be allocated, and you’re changing the evidence base, is not minor amendments,” he said. “That is major material changes. That is completely out of scope of this delegation of power.” He warned: “This will go to JR, this will go to Judicial Review.”

Freeman broadly backed that critique while distancing criticism from officers personally.

“With the greatest of respect to Mr Mawer, and I know he’s an officer doing his job… this plan is for councillors to review and approve, not for officers,” he said. “We are the councillors who have been elected to represent this community… and we should not be putting that on officers. I find that behaviour to be disgraceful and reprehensible.”

Mawer firmly rejected the suggestion that officers had independently redirected policy.

“We’ve prepared the documents… under the advice of the Inspector,” he said. “We’ve done the work that is necessary for the examination to proceed.” The documents, he stressed, are now published and subject to consultation. “It will be the Inspector ultimately who decides if any extra sites go into the Local Plan.”

Pressed by Persand on whether the Inspector had ever explicitly required more Green Belt allocations, Mawer drew a distinction between the Inspector’s concerns about unmet housing need and the work requested in response. The Inspector had asked for reassessment, he said; the resulting correspondence led to officers being asked to identify sites “potentially suitable for allocation”.

Vice-Chair Clive Woodbridge (RA – Ewell Village) attempted several times to steer discussion toward a pragmatic middle ground.

At one point he suggested the motion had been “overtaken by events” but that the committee might still usefully discuss the submitted material. “I don’t really see why this committee shouldn’t… have the chance to ask questions about the work they’ve done on the Green Belt.”

Later, seeking a compromise on future meetings, Woodbridge proposed softening one motion element so that further LPPC meetings would “update on the Local Plan examination” rather than purport to re-approve already-submitted documents. He acknowledged limits on councillors’ powers once the examination is underway but argued members should not face “a complete gap without the opportunity to ask questions.”

Labour councillor Rob Geleit was unconvinced by the dilution. “Surely that amendment really eviscerates the whole point, does it not?” he asked.

Substitute member Christine Howell (Independent Nonsuch) repeatedly returned the discussion to democratic legitimacy and Green Belt trust.

“If there is even the slightest doubt in anyone’s mind about the integrity of this process, it must be reviewed again thoroughly and transparently,” she argued, saying residents had expressed “serious concerns and lack of trust” regarding Green Belt inclusion.

In one of the evening’s more striking exchanges, Howell sought clarity about councillors’ practical role if the Inspector ultimately proposes extra sites.

“So… some [sites] have been identified, and at any set time the Inspector could put them all in… and then we don’t have any ability to question that?” she asked.

O’Donovan’s reply was blunt: “Yeah, basically, but you have ability to question it through the consultation.” He added that members would later be able to vote on the final modified plan. Howell observed that during consultation councillors would effectively be participating “just as a resident, as a neighbour, and not in any position of power or influence.” O’Donovan answered: “That’s right.”

In procedural terms, the committee rejected all five elements of the motion, including proposals to require LPPC review of documents before submission, tighten delegated authority wording, revisit earlier submissions and mandate additional scrutiny meetings.

So did LPPC approve more Green Belt release?

Not directly. The committee did not vote to allocate new Green Belt sites on 19 May. Officers maintained throughout that the Local Plan remains unchanged and that only the Inspector can propose “main modifications”. Critics, however, argue that by submitting revised evidence identifying additional “potentially suitable” Green Belt sites without renewed member approval, the council has already moved materially toward expanded Green Belt release during examination.

The public consultation on the new documents runs until 15 June, with a further Inspector’s hearing scheduled for 2 July.

For residents trying to understand the state of play, one point emerged clearly from an evening of procedural warfare: the argument is no longer simply about how much Green Belt land might be released, but about who, in practice, is making the decisions.

Sam Jones – Reporter

Related reports:

Persand parses the Local Plan process in Epsom

Next phase in the journey of the Epsom and Ewell Local Plan announced

Epsom and Ewell Local Plan tensions surface as committee debate curtailed by chair

Fresh Local Plan row as councillor questions Green Belt revisions and governance at Epsom and Ewell

Epsom & Ewell’s Council responds to Local Plan concerns

and many more ….. search “Local Plan”

Image: Cllrs Freeman, Persand and Geleit at the LPPC meeting – EEBC YouTube channel.

Epsom and Ewell Borough Council’s attempt to justify refusing answers to Epsom and Ewell Times before May’s elections has itself become the subject of a fresh transparency dispute.

The Council has now disclosed, following a Freedom of Information request, that the decision to rely on Section 2 of the Local Government Act 1986 (prohibition on Council promotion of political parties) involved the Council’s Chief Executive, Monitoring Officer, senior corporate and communications officers and Cllr Neil Dallen (RA Town), Chair of Strategy and Resources.

Yet the Council simultaneously claims it holds no legal advice, governance advice, briefing or equivalent guidance explaining why Section 2 supposedly prevented answers being given to press questions about the Rainbow Leisure Centre controversy.

The issue concerns Cllr Neil Dallen’s (RA Town Ward) refusal before the election to answer questions relating to the Rainbow Leisure Centre, where a confidential urgent decision warned of dilapidations potentially costing “up to £500k”.

He has post-election offered a response which is the subject of our report: No end to Epsom’s Rainbow Leisure Centre controversy

Guidance relied upon appears to undermine Council’s position

The Council disclosed a Surrey local government pre-election guidance document as the material relied upon. However, the guidance appears to say something rather different from the position adopted by Epsom and Ewell Borough Council.

The document emphasises political neutrality, impartiality and avoidance of electioneering by councils during election periods. But it also expressly states that councils may continue normal business and are allowed to “publish factual information to counteract misleading, controversial, or extreme information”.

It further stresses even-handed treatment of information requests and continuation of ordinary council business.

Epsom and Ewell Times’ questions to Cllr Dallen and others sought factual explanations of decisions already taken — not campaign material, political advocacy or commentary on electoral opponents.

“No advice held” raises further questions

The Council’s response identifies senior officers and a senior councillor as participants in the decision to invoke Section 2. However, when asked for legal advice, governance advice or internal briefing supporting the decision, the Council replied: “This information is not held by the Council.”

That response raises obvious questions. Was no legal or governance reasoning recorded despite involvement of the Monitoring Officer and senior management? Was advice given informally but not documented? Or has relevant information been withheld under another exemption?

The Council has separately relied on Section 36 of the Freedom of Information Act to refuse disclosure of internal communications concerning the decision-making process.

Neutrality — or protection from scrutiny?

The controversy touches on a sensitive constitutional question.

Pre-election restrictions exist to prevent councils using public resources to influence elections or support political parties. They are designed to preserve political neutrality.

But critics may ask whether refusing factual answers on controversial matters involving the ruling administration risks producing the opposite perception — namely that council machinery is being used to shield politically damaging issues from scrutiny immediately before voters go to the polls. That concern is sharpened by the context.

The Rainbow controversy involved questions about a confidential urgent decision, possible dilapidations of up to half a million pounds, the Council’s inspection responsibilities over a major public asset, and the role of the Chair of Strategy and Resources, Cllr Dallen, who was standing for election to the new East Surrey Council.

Whether the officers involved were properly protecting neutrality, or whether the interpretation adopted had the practical effect of protecting the ruling political group from uncomfortable questioning during an election campaign, is likely to remain contested.

Internal review sought

Epsom and Ewell Times has now requested an internal review by an officer independent of those involved in the original decision.

The review request challenges the Council’s use of Freedom of Information exemptions, the apparent absence of recorded legal reasoning, and the interpretation of the very guidance relied upon to justify pre-election silence.

Sam Jones – Reporter

Related reports

No end to Epsom’s Rainbow Leisure Centre controversy

“It’s my meeting”: Cllr Dallen stops questions about his role in alleged Rainbow “cover-up”

Cllr Dallen accused of £1/2 m Epsom & Ewell Council cover-up

Epsom’s Rainbow Leisure Centre Places new operators