The UK Government is preparing to release a new National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) that could impose mandatory targets for housebuilding, including on Green Belt land, sparking concern among local councils. The revised framework, expected in December 2024, may dramatically increase housing targets for local planning authorities.

A recent consultation on the proposed changes, led by Angela Rayner MP, Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, closed on 24 September 2024. One of the most significant changes being considered is a new “Standard Method” for calculating housing targets. For boroughs like Epsom & Ewell, this could have major implications.

Currently, Epsom & Ewell builds around 189 new homes per year. Under the borough’s developing Local Plan, this would increase to about 300 homes annually, which would result in the loss of around 57 hectares of Green Belt land. However, the new NPPF could demand the construction of 817 homes per year. Any local authority whose housing target falls more than 200 homes per year below this number would be forced to revise its plans. Epsom & Ewell’s current proposal falls short of this target.

Transitional arrangements proposed in the draft NPPF state that the new rules will not apply to Local Plans submitted before one month after the framework’s publication, likely 20 January 2025. Therefore, Epsom & Ewell has a narrow window to submit its Local Plan and avoid being subject to the new higher housing targets.

However, the borough faces time constraints. The Local Plan consultation process takes about two months, and the council will need additional time to compile and respond to feedback. With meetings scheduled for late November and early December, there is concern that the borough may miss the deadline to avoid the higher targets, which would result in the loss of an estimated 21 hectares of Green Belt per year.

Other councils are moving quickly to avoid being caught by these new regulations. St Albans, for example, has begun a public consultation on its Local Plan even before receiving full council approval, to ensure it stays ahead of the anticipated NPPF changes.

If many Councils beat the deadline and enjoy lower targets, will their Government preferred share then be redistributed to those Councils tardy in submitting their plans?

---

Response from Epsom & Ewell Borough Council

Cllr Peter O’Donovan, (RA Ewell Court) Chair of the Licensing, Planning and Policy Committee (LPPC), issued the following statement:

“The Council is preparing its Local Plan in accordance with the timetable set out within its approved Local Development Scheme, this is to ensure that the Regulation 19 Local Plan document is supported by the necessary evidence when it is considered by the Licensing and Planning Committee (LPPC) in November.

The LPPC will debate the Local Plan and make a recommendation to full Council, who will make the final decision on how it wishes to proceed with the Local Plan. This process is required by our constitution.

The Council has submitted a response to the recent ‘proposed reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework and other changes to the planning system,’ which was recently approved by the Licensing and Planning Policy Committee (24 September 2024). We understand that a significant number of responses have been submitted to this consultation and that there may be delays in the revised NPPF being published by the government.

It will only be once the revised NPPF is published that we will know what the details are and what the implications are for the borough and our emerging Local Plan. This includes the transitional arrangements that will apply for Local Plans.

Subject to approval by Council, we intend to commence consultation on our Proposed Submission (Regulation 19) Local Plan in mid-January 2025.”

---

Katherine Alexander of Epsom Green Belt raised serious concerns about the future of the borough, highlighting the delays in renewing the Local Plan, which dates back to 2007. In a statement, she said:

“Epsom & Ewell Borough Council has one of the 10 oldest, and most out-of-date local plans in the country. If Angela Rayner’s proposals are rolled out, the borough’s housing targets will more than quadruple to 817 dwellings per annum. This would fundamentally change Epsom, leading to increased traffic, strained infrastructure, and the loss of over 20 hectares of Green Belt land each year, equivalent to more than 50 football pitches.

Councillors have recognised that the proposed housing target is much too high, writing to Angela Rayner on 13 September 2024 stating ‘these new numbers are immense and could destroy our historic district and market town.’

There is a solution, or at least a stay of execution, if the council accelerates the public consultation and submits the Local Plan to the planning inspector by early January 2025. Otherwise, none of the Green Belt would be safe, and the cost of the Local Plan could rise significantly as the council works to meet these targets.”

Alexander also pointed to other councils, like Winchester and St Albans, that have expedited their processes in order to avoid being caught by the incoming planning reforms.

Related reports:

Epsom Local Plan controversy heats up

Challenges to Epsom and Ewell Council’s Handling of Local Plan

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

Epsom and Ewell Brace for Government Housing Targets

Here we go again on the Local Plan?

and many more. Search “Local Plan.”

Thousands of pensioners across Epsom, Ewell, Ashtead, and Leatherhead are facing the loss of vital winter fuel payments following cuts by the UK government, sparking fears that many will struggle to keep warm this winter.

Helen Maguire, the Liberal Democrat MP for Epsom and Ewell, has urged the government to reconsider its decision, warning that vulnerable pensioners could be left choosing between “heating and eating” during the colder months. Maguire opposed the cuts when they were voted on in the House of Commons on 10th September, but the measures were passed despite her concerns.

The cuts primarily affect pensioners over the age of 80 who are not in receipt of pension credit. Previously, these pensioners were automatically entitled to an additional £300 to help cover their energy bills in the winter. Now, many will lose this support unless they qualify for other benefits.

Data released earlier this week shows that in Epsom and surrounding areas, 5,788 pensioners aged over 80 who do not receive pension credit are at risk of losing their Winter Fuel Payment. In total, 18,261 pensioners in Epsom and Ewell could be affected by the government’s decision.

Last winter, over £3.3 million in support was distributed to pensioners in the constituency, with £1,525,800 going to those aged over 80. These figures are expected to fall significantly this year due to the cuts.

“Thousands of pensioners here in Epsom and Ewell are desperately worried about how they will make it through this winter,” said Ms Maguire. “These latest figures are deeply concerning. It is not too late for this government to change course, reverse their plans, and protect vulnerable pensioners here in Epsom.”

In response, Chancellor Rachel Reeves has defended the government’s decision, framing it as part of a broader strategy to stabilise public finances. “We are facing challenging economic times, and difficult choices must be made to ensure the sustainability of our public services,” Reeves said in a recent statement. “However, we remain committed to supporting those most in need, and we have maintained targeted assistance for the poorest households.”

Reeves also pointed to ongoing support measures, including the Energy Price Guarantee, which she says will help alleviate pressure on households most at risk. “We recognise the importance of protecting our pensioners, and our policies are designed to ensure that no one is left behind. But we must also take steps to manage public expenditure responsibly.”

Despite this, charities and local advocacy groups have voiced concerns about the potential impact on older residents. Many fear an increase in demand for services such as food banks and emergency heating grants as pensioners struggle to afford rising energy bills without the additional winter fuel support.

As winter approaches, the situation remains uncertain, with many pensioners hoping for a reversal of the cuts or further government action to protect those most affected.

_{Image: Richard Peter Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 German}

Epsom & Ewell Council’s Tense Debate Over Green Belt Protections and Housing Targets: Key Decisions from the Licensing Planning and Policy Committee Meeting

On Tuesday, 24th September 2024, the LPPC of Epsom & Ewell Borough Council convened to deliberate on a highly contentious matter: changes to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and their potential impact on the borough’s Green Belt and housing targets. Chaired by Councillor Peter O’Donovan, (RA Ewell Court) the meeting attracted public attention, with many residents filling the gallery, reflecting the importance of the issues under discussion. At the heart of the debate was the question of whether the council should uphold strict protections for the borough’s Green Belt or adapt to the government’s increasing pressure to meet housing demands.

Councillor Peter O’Donovan began by welcoming the public to the meeting, acknowledging the deep concerns of residents. He then proceeded with the formalities, including the adoption of the minutes from the previous meeting and a roll call of councillors and officials present. O’Donovan stressed the gravity of the evening’s discussions:

“We have important decisions to make this evening that will shape the future of our borough for years to come. The government’s proposed reforms to the NPPF are significant, and while we recognize the need for housing, we must balance this against our responsibility to protect the Green Belt, which is vital to both the environment and the identity of Epsom & Ewell.”

Following his introduction, Ian Mawer, the council’s Planning Policy Manager, provided an overview of the NPPF changes, particularly the impact on housing targets and Green Belt land. He noted that the consultation on these changes was closing later that evening, and the council needed to finalize its draft response.

“We are looking at a proposed increase in our housing needs,” Mawer explained. “Based on changes to the standard method for calculating housing needs, our target could increase from 576 homes per year to 817. This would place significant pressure on both brownfield and Green Belt land, and we must carefully consider the implications of these changes.”

A Call for Fair Tree Protection

One of the first substantive discussions centered on a seemingly smaller but crucial issue: tree protection applications. Councillor Clive Woodbridge (RA Ewell Village) argued that the council’s response to the NPPF changes downplayed the importance of adequate funding for tree protection measures.

“We have always struggled with the resources to meet our tree protection needs,” Woodbridge began. “Our current response underplays this issue. I think tree applications, especially those related to trees in conservation areas or subject to Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs), should be subject to a fee process that helps recover our costs. This would ensure we can meet our obligations without burdening the public purse too heavily.”

Woodbridge’s remarks sparked a broader conversation about local authority resources and the need for a sustainable fee structure that would help finance these vital environmental protections. “We must be tougher on this,” he added. “It’s not just about protecting trees—it’s about ensuring we have the resources to do so effectively.”

A Sharp Critique of Housing Targets

As the discussion turned to housing targets, Councillor Robert Leach (RA Nonsuch) made an impassioned and controversial statement against further development in the borough, particularly on Green Belt land. Leach took a hardline stance, asserting that the borough had no need for additional housing.

“In my view, the housing need for this borough is zero,” Leach declared, “We don’t need more homes on Brownfield, Green Belt, or any other kind of land. The housing numbers we’ve been given are based on flawed calculations—a case of multiplying one wrong number by another wrong number and somehow thinking we’ve arrived at the right answer. But we all know that number is wrong. Our Green Belt is not negotiable.”

Leach’s speech took an unexpected turn when he criticized both the current Labour government and previous Conservative governments for their handling of migration policies, which he blamed for the housing crisis. “The population of the UK has risen from 45 million to 67 million in my lifetime, and almost all of that is due to migration,” he said. “This housing crisis is a direct result of the government’s failure to control immigration, and now we are being asked to sacrifice our green spaces to accommodate more people.”

Leach’s remarks met with mixed reactions. While some in the public gallery nodded in agreement, other councillors were quick to counter his assertions.

A Call for Balance and Realism

Councillor Phil Neale (RA Cuddington) was among those who pushed back against Leach’s extreme stance, advocating for a more balanced approach. Neale acknowledged the challenges posed by increasing housing targets but emphasized the need for the council to take a pragmatic view.

“I understand the passion behind Councillor Leach’s remarks,” Neale said, “but the reality is that we do have a housing crisis in this borough. I have two sons who have had to move out of the area because they simply cannot afford to live here. And we have a growing homeless population that we are struggling to accommodate. To say we have no need for more housing just doesn’t reflect the reality on the ground.”

Neale went on to argue that while the Green Belt must be protected, the council must also find ways to meet its housing obligations. “We need to strike a balance. We can’t just say ‘no’ to everything. If we do, we risk losing control of our local planning decisions altogether.”

Addressing Climate Change and Housing Needs

Councillor Julie Morris (Lib Dem College) brought another crucial issue to the fore: the intersection of housing development and climate change. She criticized the NPPF reforms for failing to place sufficient emphasis on sustainable development and renewable energy.

“We’re facing a climate crisis, and yet, when I look at the government’s proposed changes to the NPPF, there is very little focus on sustainability,” Morris lamented. “We should be pushing for stronger commitments to renewable energy and green building standards. Our response should reflect this urgency. I’m disappointed that the government has missed an opportunity to make these reforms about more than just numbers.”

Morris also raised concerns about the type of housing being built, arguing that the borough’s needs were not just about quantity but also quality. “It’s not just about meeting a target of 817 homes per year,” she said. “We need to be building homes that meet the actual needs of our community, particularly affordable housing for young families and the elderly.”

The Question of Local Democracy and Transparency

As the meeting continued, the issue of transparency and local democracy emerged as a critical point of contention. Councillor Kieran Persand, (Conservative Horton) a vocal advocate for greater openness in the local plan process, questioned whether the council was doing enough to involve the public and ensure their concerns were heard.

“Residents have been left in the dark for too long,” Persand argued. “We’ve had consultations, but have we really listened? I’m hearing from residents across the borough that they feel shut out of this process. They want more say in what happens to their Green Belt, and they deserve that say. We should be leading the charge for more transparency, not hiding behind bureaucratic processes.”

Councillor Julie Morris echoed Persand’s concerns, adding that the council had missed opportunities to engage the public more effectively. “We’ve had chances to talk about this—whether it’s Green Belt protections or housing targets—but we haven’t taken them,” she said. “We could have held more public meetings, we could have been more open about the challenges we’re facing. Instead, we’ve been too closed off. That needs to change.”

Green Belt Protections: A Divisive Issue

As the meeting drew to a close, the committee faced a critical decision: whether to adopt the council’s draft response to the NPPF consultation, which supported increased housing targets while maintaining a cautious approach to Green Belt development.

Councillor Robert Leach made one last impassioned plea to protect the Green Belt: “I believe the housing need for this borough is zero, and I will say it again. We cannot afford to lose our Green Belt. It’s what makes Epsom & Ewell special, and we should be fighting to protect it, not handing it over for development.”

In contrast, Councillor Phil Neale urged his colleagues to think practically: “None of us want to build on the Green Belt. But if we don’t submit a local plan that meets the government’s requirements, we risk losing control over the process entirely. That’s a real danger. We have to be pragmatic here.”

The Decision: Moving Forward with Caution

In the end, the committee voted to approve the draft response to the NPPF consultation, which included support for increased housing targets but emphasized the importance of protecting high-performing Green Belt land. The decision was met with mixed reactions, with some councillors and members of the public feeling that more could have been done to safeguard the borough’s green spaces.

Councillor Peter O’Donovan closed the meeting by reassuring the public that the council would continue to fight for the best interests of the borough. “We’ve made a decision tonight, but this is not the end of the process,” he said. “There will be further opportunities for public input, and we will continue to work hard to protect what makes Epsom & Ewell such a special place to live.”

As the government’s NPPF consultation comes to a close, the residents of Epsom & Ewell will be watching closely to see how their council balances the need for housing with the imperative to protect their cherished Green Belt land. For now, the battle between development and preservation continues.

26th September Epsom and Ewell Council issued a press release stating its responses to the consultation on the NPPF. You may read it HERE.

The Surrey Campaign for the Protection of Rural England also issued a press release you may read HERE

Related reports:

Challenges to Epsom and Ewell Council’s Handling of Local Plan

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

Epsom and Ewell Brace for Government Housing Targets

Here we go again on the Local Plan?

Minister gets heavy on a Local Plan delay

Mystery Local Plan critic revealed

Local Plan costs eat into Council reserves

Local Plan to move forward after passionate debate

and many many more. Search “local plan”

In a scathing critique of Epsom and Ewell Borough Council’s approach to its Local Plan, the campaign group Epsom Green Belt has raised serious concerns over the Council’s progress and commitment to protecting the borough’s Green Belt. At the heart of the dispute is the Local Plan, a critical document that will guide housing development in the borough for years to come.

The Local Plan, which is due to be discussed by the Council’s Licensing and Planning Policy Committee (LPPC) in November, has already seen delays and escalating costs, with the process becoming increasingly opaque. Epsom Green Belt has criticised what it describes as a lack of meaningful debate and oversight by councillors, with much of the decision-making seemingly in the hands of unelected officers.

“Local democracy has been sidelined,” claimed the group, pointing to cancelled LPPC meetings and limited discussion on key issues. Despite requests from councillors for further debate on the plan, many of these have gone unaddressed, the group alleges. As one councillor noted, “essential discussions have been absent from the Licensing and Planning Policy Committee agendas.”

In an LPPC meeting on 24th September, the situation escalated when RA councillors unanimously voted down two motions that sought to debate the Local Plan’s contents ahead of November and protect high-performing Green Belt sites. Only a single councillor, Cllr Kieran Persand (Conservative Horton), voted in favour of protecting Green Belt boundaries. “This touches on the very essence of democratic accountability,” Cllr Persand remarked, expressing his frustration at the lack of debate.

The Council’s CEO, Jackie King, added further concern by indicating that significant changes to the Local Plan at this stage could lead to delays and risk the transitional arrangements deadline being missed. This has left many questioning whether the Council will have sufficient time to incorporate any feedback from councillors or the public before the plan goes to the Planning Inspector for review. As Cllr Julie Morris (Lib Dem College) put it, the Council’s conduct has been “absolutely appalling” and the timeline leaves “no time really sensibly to make any change” by November.

The Epsom Green Belt group is particularly alarmed by the potential threat to Green Belt land. The group argues that while all councillors claim to support Green Belt protection, the voting record tells a different story. If high-performing sites such as Horton Farm, Priest Hill, and the field to the East of Noble Park are included in the Local Plan, it warns, “that trust will be lost.”

The November meeting will be a decisive moment for the future of Epsom’s Green Belt and the wider development strategy. “Residents are in the dark,” says the group, adding that it remains unclear what exactly will be included in the Local Plan. Time, it seems, is running out.

Time will tell whether residents’ concerns are reflected in the final Local Plan or if, as one councillor warned, it will be “too late to make a difference.”

See press release of Epsom Green Belt

Tuesday 17th September Epsom and Ewell Borough Council gave one minute of its time before discarding a motion to take steps to recover an Epsom cemetery of 9000 souls from a private property speculator. The matter came before Councillors sitting on the Strategy and Resources Committee.

Horton Cemetery Hook Road in Epsom, between 1899 and 1955, received the bodies of patient paupers from the Epsom cluster of five psychiatric hospitals. Sold in mysterious circumstances to Marque Securities in 1983 the five acre site has been neglected ever since. Relatives have travelled from as far as Australia to pay respects but cannot enter the private land that is now hazardous to tread. Surrounded by twisted iron railings, unkempt undergrowth and fallen trees.

In an officer’s report to the Councillors it was argued that a compulsory purchase order (CPO) could not be legally obtained.

The officer’s report acknowledged the status of the site as a Cemetery and the prohibition on its development. However, in the opinion of the report author the fact that the owner could walk about the Cemetery and enjoy it as a wood gives it an “amenity woodland ” value. Comparative valuations were provided to Councillors based on sales of woodlands (not cemeteries) in the South-East.

Lionel Blackman, Honorary Secretary to the Friends of Horton Cemetery responded to the latest setback to the aims of the Charity. “Some progress has been made. The “amenity woodland” description now sits alongside the Council’s recognition that the land is a cemetery. On the occasion of the Council’s previous refusal to contemplate a CPO “amenity woodland” dominated the thinking. Nevertheless, it is regrettable that Councillors were not advised of previous cases where CPOs have been used to acquire neglected cemeteries, including Arnos Vale in Bristol and West Norwood.”

He added: “It is in large part a question of money. Pure woodland valuations include the element of speculative development value. That cannot apply to a cemetery the report acknowledges cannot be developed. Where there is a will there is a way. One day the Council will find the will to correct this historic outrage.”

Related reports:

Petition to reclaim Horton Cemetery from property speculator

Local community gathered at Horton Cemetery

You are invited to commemorate the 9000 souls in Epsom’s forgotten cemetery

Council: Horton CPO debate shelved

Image: Horton Cemetery in 1952

New Government proposals for housing targets have prompted a passionate response from local officials, community groups, and residents. The Government’s recent consultation on planning reform suggests a dramatic 41% increase in the number of homes to be built in Epsom and Ewell, a figure that has alarmed many and sparked fears of irreversible damage to the borough’s unique character and environment.

Councillor Neil Dallen MBE (RA Town Ward), Vice Chair of Licensing and Planning Policy, led the charge in voicing opposition to the Government’s proposals in a letter addressed to Angela Rayner MP, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government. Cllr Dallen’s letter paints a dire picture of the potential impact of the housing increase, emphasising that the proposed rise from 576 to 817 homes per year would place immense pressure on the borough’s already-stretched infrastructure and services.

“We are happy to ‘play our part’ and accept that some new housing is needed,” Dallen writes, acknowledging the need for development in line with local plans. However, he warned that the scale of the increase could “destroy our historic district and market town if they come to fruition.” According to Dallen, the increased housing numbers would lead to “endless planning by appeal, change the character of the district, and entirely undermine the plan-led system of Local Plans.”

Dallen also pointed to the significant challenges posed by the geography and heritage of Epsom and Ewell. “With around 50 per cent of the district as Green Belt,” he noted, there is already limited space for development. Protected areas such as Epsom Downs, Epsom Common, and Horton Country Park add further constraints, leaving “few available sites” for development. Dallen concluded his letter with a plea for the Government to consider the borough’s unique challenges and ensure that the final version of the new National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) “does not do irreparable damage to valuable and historic parts of the Country.”

The sentiment expressed by Cllr Dallen has resonated with local residents and community groups, particularly the Epsom Green Belt Group, who have been vocal in their opposition to the housing targets. In a letter to the Epsom and Ewell Times, the group echoed Dallen’s concerns, calling the proposed target of 817 homes per year “undeliverable” and warning that the borough could face severe consequences if the plans proceed unchecked.

“Once it’s gone, it’s gone forever,” the group writes, referring to the potential loss of Green Belt land. They argue that the mandatory housing target would require building on 21 hectares of Green Belt land per year to achieve, an act that would “increase the housing in the Borough by 50% over the plan period,” bringing with it traffic problems, pressure on schools, and strain on local healthcare services.

The group points to the example of Elmbridge, another borough facing similar housing pressures, as a potential model for Epsom and Ewell to follow. In Elmbridge, the council submitted a draft local plan that restricted development to brownfield sites only, with no Green Belt sites included. Although the planning inspector raised concerns about Elmbridge’s plan, the Epsom Green Belt Group believes there are lessons to be learned. “Our draft Local Plan should be more prescriptive about what affordable and social housing is required from each site,” the group argues, suggesting that council-owned sites like Hook Road Car Park could be earmarked for 100% affordable housing.

The group’s letter also highlighted the importance of protecting the borough’s Green Belt, arguing that there are “no exceptional circumstances” that justify the release of Green Belt land for development. They urge the council to resist any voluntary agreements that would allow Green Belt development, emphasising that planning officers should be guided by a strategy put together by elected councillors.

The open letter from Epsom and Ewell BC, addressed to all residents of Epsom and Ewell, calls on the community to unite in opposition to the Government’s proposals. The group stresses that the scale of the housing increase could have devastating effects on the borough’s heritage and environment, and they urge residents to take action before it is too late. “We need your help to meet this threat to the historic and market town of Epsom & Ewell,” the letter states, encouraging local organisations and residents to respond to the Government consultation before it closes on 24th September.

Cllr Hannah Dalton, Chair of the Residents’ Association (RA) Group, which currently leads the council, has also spoken out against the Government’s housing proposals. Echoing the concerns raised by Dallen and the Epsom Green Belt Group, Dalton warned that the increased housing targets could “destroy our historic district and market town if they come to fruition.” She acknowledged the need for new housing but described the proposed numbers as “immense” and unsustainable. “The previous housing figures were already difficult to achieve and unfairly distributed across the country,” she said. “These new proposals make that even more difficult.”

Hannah Dalton also pointed to the borough’s high population density, noting that Epsom and Ewell is “over five times denser than the average in England.” With half of the district protected as Green Belt or other types of protected land, the scope for development is extremely limited. She stressed the importance of submitting a strong response to the Government’s consultation, outlining the “serious harm this scale of development will bring.”

The Council’s letter to residents, and the voices of councillors like Dallen and Dalton, underline the growing anxiety within Epsom and Ewell about the future of the borough. With the Government planning to publish a revised NPPF by Christmas, there is a palpable sense of urgency to the debate. The window for public consultation closes on 24th September, leaving little time for local residents and officials to make their voices heard.

As the consultation deadline approaches, many in the borough are calling for the Government to reconsider its housing targets and take a more measured approach to development. “You cannot squeeze a quart into a pint pot,” Cllr O’Donovan remarked, a sentiment that seems to encapsulate the feelings of many in the community. The next few months will be crucial in determining whether Epsom and Ewell can preserve its unique character while still accommodating the need for new homes.

Related reports:

Epsom and Ewell Brace for Government Housing Targets

Anchored in reason on local housing need?

The Assembly Rooms pub, in Epsom, is reopening at 8am on Tuesday 3 September, following an extensive refurbishment project, costing £1.375 million. The Mayor of Epsom and Ewell Councillor Steve Bridger (RA Stamford) will officially open the pub on the day.

The Assembly Rooms is a Grade II listed building. It was built around 1692, during a period when Epsom was renowned for its spa and as a fashionable retreat for the wealthy and aristocratic. The original purpose of the Assembly Rooms was to provide a venue for social gatherings, balls, and entertainment for those visiting the town to enjoy its spa waters.

The building is noted for its classical architectural style, which reflects the aesthetics of its time. It features a symmetrical façade and large windows, typical of Georgian architecture, intended to create an elegant and welcoming space. Inside, the building originally boasted a grand ballroom, which would have been used for dances and social events.

The Epsom Protection Society was active in ensuring the survival of one of the Borough’s premier historic buildings.

With the decline in the popularity of Epsom’s spa by the mid-18th century, the Assembly Rooms underwent several changes in usage. It adapted to meet the evolving needs of the local community and continued to serve as a venue for various events, including public meetings, concerts, and theatrical performances. There followed a period of retailing uses and emptiness until 1966 when it served as the offices of the National Counties Building Society.

Now a pub, first opened as a Wetherspoon in April 2002, it has been completely refurbished over the Summer months. The customer area has also undergone a full refurbishment, as well as the relocation and upgrade to the bar area, including an upgrade to the drinks dispense equipment.

Behind the scenes, the kitchen facilities and equipment has been upgraded, with an open gantry food hoist room, as well as new staff facilities created.

The Assembly Rooms pub will be open from 8am until 12 midnight Sunday to Thursday, and 8am until 1am Friday and Saturday.  Food will be served throughout the day, from opening until 11pm every day.

The pub will be open for family dining, with children, accompanied by an adult, welcome in the pub until 9pm, throughout the week.

Pub manager Sel Devecioglu said: “The £1.375 million investment highlights Wetherspoon’s commitment to the pub and its staff and customers, as well as to Epsom itself. We are delighted that we have also been able to create 15 new jobs for local people. The team are looking forward to welcoming customers back into The Assembly Rooms and we’re confident that they will be impressed by the new-look, upgraded pub.”

Epsom Playhouse opened in 1984 as part of the development of The Ashley Centre and since opening has hosted a wide and varied programme of events featuring both professional and community productions. Highlights including The Royal Phihamonic Orchestra, Stephane Grappelli, Kenny Ball and his Jazzmen, the James Last Orchestra, Instant Sunshine, Jack Dee, Harry Hill and many many more.

At the beginning the Council head hunted Graham Stansfield (deceased 2018) for his contacts in the entertainment world which helped establish the Playhouse’s reputation early on. Then all the theatre seats could concertina into the back wall, opening the space for balls and exhibitions. Expensive to maintain and service these seats were replaced by the comfortable fixed seating that remains today.

The Playhouse is home to a variety of local amatuer ensembles including the Epsom Sympony Orchestra and the Epsom Players.

The former “members bar” or “upstairs area” has been defunct for many years and is getting a long overdue facelift and repurposing. It will become available for private hire for functions.

A spokesperson for EEBC said “We are currently working on improvements to Epsom Playhouse using an allocation of monies from the UK Shared Prosperity Fund.

One of the first areas for development is the bar on the ground floor. Soon, this will split into two – there will be one bar for bottled drinks and one area for draught – alleviating some of the queues that can happen at busy times. The ground floor bar will also benefit aesthetically from a new artistic mural, depicting singer and actress, Evelyn Dove. As well as this, there are also plans to add a new platform lift to aid accessibility to the upstairs area, which will itself be transformed with a mezzanine overlooking the foyer, improved seating, new flooring, another artistic mural and a refurbished bar area.”

Speaking of the upcoming plans to develop facilities, Councillor Clive Woodbridge, (RA Ewell Village) Chair of the Community and Wellbeing Committee said, “Epsom Playhouse is a wonderful entertainment venue for the borough, and I am delighted that it is now benefitting from a much-needed uplift, which will help it to reach its full potential as a place for creatives to gather, perform and spectate!”

Epsom Playhouse’s programme of events and successes are under the management of Elaine Teague.

UK SPF funds were allocated to help places around the country deliver enhanced outcomes, in recognition that even affluent areas contain pockets of deprivation and need assistance.

The main Auditorium seats 450 and plays host to major leading theatrical companies, including opera, dance, drama, comedy, light entertainment, variety, popular children’s shows and more.

The Myers Studio within the Playhouse seats up to 80 and is used as a regular venue for professional productions, and community events. Both the Auditorium and the Myers Studio are available for both corporate hire and private hire.

For more information visit www.epsomplayhouse.co.uk

On Saturday, 3rd August, visitors to Box Hill from Epsom, Ewell, and surrounding areas held a peaceful demonstration, urging The National Trust to cease banking with Barclays.

The group organised a picnic protest at the iconic Box Hill viewpoint, displaying banners and placards to appeal to the charity to drop Barclays, which is Europe’s largest financier of fossil fuels.

Box Hill, renowned for its stunning views across Surrey, is one of the hundreds of sites owned by the National Trust. The organisation is a guardian of nature reserves, national parks, coastlines, historic buildings, and estates across the country.

The demonstrators carried banners and placards with messages such as ‘Love National Trust, Not Barclays’. They engaged with families, distributing leaflets and collecting signatures for a petition that calls on the charity to switch to a bank that does not fund fossil fuels.

Kristine, an NHS doctor from Epsom and mother of four, expressed her concerns: “I have been visiting Box Hill and other National Trust sites with my four boys since they were babies. Exploring nature as a family is invaluable, and I am very disappointed that an organisation like the National Trust does not prioritise the natural world we are leaving for our children in its banking choices.

“Barclays is destroying nature with its horrific lending and investments in unethical industries. Knowing that I am indirectly supporting Barclays spoils my visits to National Trust sites. Since realising the impact our choice of bank can have on the climate, I switched to an ethical bank last year. I see no reason why the National Trust cannot do the same.”

The demonstration was part of a week of vibrant actions by campaigners across the country, aimed at urging the National Trust to cut ties with Barclays, which has invested $235.2 billion in fossil fuels over the past seven years.

Despite publishing a new energy policy earlier this year, which it hailed as a step towards a “science-based” approach to “financing the transition”, Barclays continues to finance notorious fossil fuel companies such as ExxonMobil and Royal Dutch Shell. In 2023 alone, Barclays provided $24.221 billion in financing to fossil fuel companies.

The bank’s new energy policy has faced widespread criticism for loopholes that allow it to continue supporting carbon-intensive industries such as fracking. Meanwhile, investigative journalists have revealed that Barclays’ “sustainable finance” is being used to fund pipelines and oil expansion projects.

Recently, other institutions have announced their intentions to sever ties with Barclays for ethical reasons. Christian Aid and Oxfam have already withdrawn their funds from Barclays.

Cambridge University is also in the process of withdrawing its support for Barclays and is leading a group of universities and colleges that are investigating more sustainable financial products. Despite its commitment to natural conservation, the National Trust is lagging behind other charities and thought leaders within its sector.

Alice, a mother of one from Sutton, who participated in the demonstration, said: “I have been donating to the National Trust for years and even used to work in the tea shop at another local property.

“But I never realised that all this time my money was going directly to Barclays Bank, a bank that funds fossil fuels and arms—both of which I am completely opposed to. I don’t want my money to support such a horrific business, and I wish the National Trust would make much more of an effort to cut ties with Barclays.

“They have been aware of their members’ ethical concerns for years now, yet they seem to be doing very little about it.”

Euronews reported in February: “Addressing climate change is a critical and complex challenge,” said Laura Barlow, group head of sustainability at Barclays. “We continue to work with our energy clients as they decarbonise and support their efforts to transition in a manner that is just, orderly and addresses energy security.”

Barclays announced that it will no longer provide direct financing for new oil and gas projects, starting in 2024. This policy change is part of a broader strategy where the bank has committed to mobilizing $1 trillion in sustainable and transition finance by 2030 to help facilitate the energy transition. Additionally, Barclays has introduced a Transition Finance Framework and placed restrictions on financing for companies heavily involved in oil and gas expansion.

Barclays’ representatives have defended their approach by stating that the bank’s role is to support an energy sector in transition, focusing on companies that are actively investing in low-carbon technologies. They argue that their large-scale operations enable them to be instrumental in financing the global shift towards more sustainable energy sources. The bank has also set stringent expectations for its energy clients, requiring them to have decarbonization plans in place by 2025, along with specific emission reduction targets.

This approach has been described by Barclays as a balanced effort to meet the dual challenges of addressing climate change while ensuring energy security and affordability. However, this stance has received mixed reactions, with some campaigners arguing that the bank’s policies do not go far enough in curbing support for the fossil fuel industry.

Noise and dust pollution from the Chalk Pit waste recycling centre in Epsom continues to exacerbate the Council as residents’ complaints continue unabated.

On 26th March 2024 Epsom and Ewell Council decided to allocate funds to address the issue. £40,000 was reserved for independent noise investigation, and £100,000 was allocated for potential enforcement and litigation work. The Environment Committee was directed to identify equivalent savings or income to replenish the reserve by the end of the financial year 2025-2026.

Questions were raised at the Full Council 30th July on progress.

Cllr Steve McCormick (RA Woodcote and Langley) asked his fellow RA ward Councillor Liz Frost (Chair of the Environment Committee) “The Chalk Pit site is still causing many of our residents noise and dust nuisance with several complaints being logged daily to this council, Surrey County Council and the Environment Agency. There are planning applications in process with Surrey County Council but in the meantime, residents are experiencing regular disturbance to the unencumbered enjoyment of their homes and gardens. What actions are this council taking to address these statutory issues that this council is responsible for?”

Cllr Frost responded: “The Council has proceeded in line with its statutory duties to take such steps as are reasonably practicable to investigate complaints of nuisance. This has included an early morning visit to characterise and witness the noise at that time. Further, and as a consequence of a temporary diversion of resource away from a separate statutory service, the council intends to deploy a dedicated officer for Chalk Pit work alone for a limited number of hours per week over the summer period.”

Cllr McCormick pressed the matter: “Can Councillor Frost confirm details for the dedicated officer mentioned, specifically how many hours per week, confirmation on the role of the officer resource, i.e., additional monitoring, for example? And why is the summer period only in scope? Why not a longer period until statutory nuisance is resolved?”

Cllr Frost replied: “The number of hours is not yet known. We are working with somebody who we are hoping to engage, who has a lot of experience in this type of work. So we will be having an expert who is used to investigating noise nuisance and knows what they’re looking for. We’re hoping that the work will start in August. I can’t really tell you how long it will go on for or exactly how many hours; it depends on how much is needed, and the contract has yet to be signed, so it’s difficult to answer that.”

Cllr James Lawrence (LibDem College) pursued the matter further: “It’s very useful to hear that we’ve got some form of plan for a dedicated officer time and resource to focus on the Chalk Pit. Would the Chair agree that it is unacceptable for residents to be woken up at 5:40 a.m. due to the repeated banging and experience repeated disruption throughout the day? Has this experience influenced your decision to give this dedicated officer resource?”

Councillor Frost responded: “I do agree this is not a good situation with people being woken up at this time. I think we would all agree with that. The difficulty comes with finding the actual evidence and identifying exactly who is responsible. That is something we are hoping to get more information on, but yes, it is not a good situation.”

---

Meanwhile local residents complain they are suffering and the Council and other agencies are not doing enough quickly enough.

Related reports:

Chalk Pit action – a tale of two committees

“Heat and Dust” epic in Epsom

Chalk Pit debate deferred by late abatement

Will the dust ever settle on Chalk Pit conflict?