Epsom and Ewell Borough Council’s Audit and Scrutiny Committee has formally concluded that the process used for the confidential £500K Rainbow Leisure Centre urgent decision did not follow the Council’s stated procedure and was not justified by the information presented to councillors.

The finding came at the end of a lengthy and at times heated debate on Thursday 16 July over Urgent Decision 158, which was signed off by Cllr Neil Dallen (RA Town) as chair of the Strategy and Resources Committee, in December 2025 without first obtaining the approval of his Committee.

Councillor Chris Ames (Labour Court) proposed that the committee record:

“The process followed for Urgent Decision 158 did not follow the correct stated procedure and was not justified according to the information put before this committee.”

The proposal was carried.

The committee separately backed a recommendation from Councillor Alex Coley (Independent Ruxley) that, where a matter of significance is known about in advance — such as proposed expenditure exceeding £50,000 or a change to the Council’s constitution — the first action should be to schedule a committee meeting.

As Audit and Scrutiny cannot itself alter the constitution, the proposal is expected to go to the Standards and Constitution Committee.

Months of warning or sudden urgency?

The Council’s report stated that a decision was needed by 17 December to progress negotiations with the new Rainbow Leisure Centre operator. The next scheduled Strategy and Resources Committee meeting was not until 27 January 2026.

Officers said that failure to resolve the matter could have caused the contract to collapse, leading to the loss of management fees, a need to retender, the Council having to maintain the centre without an operator and uncertainty for staff.

However, the Council’s constitutional test is not simply whether a decision is required before the next scheduled committee meeting. An urgent decision may be used only where delay would seriously prejudice the Council or public interest and it is not practicable to convene a quorate meeting in time.

Cllr Ames said the same problem could be seen in the explanations given for several other urgent decisions.

“The next scheduled meeting is irrelevant,” he said. “What matters is: could a quorate meeting of the relevant decision-making body be brought forward to take this decision?”

Assistant Director of Corporate Services Andrew Bircher acknowledged that some of the explanations in the annual report did not fully reflect the constitutional test.

“It would be better on this report had we been able to identify that,” he said, adding that future reports would set out the position more clearly.

Cllr Coley said the Rainbow difficulties had been apparent months before UD158 was signed and that there had been ample opportunity to arrange a special committee meeting.

He described what had happened instead as “sofa-style governance”, with discussions taking place among senior officers, lead councillors and the Residents’ Association group before opposition councillors were informed.

“The process here is a committee meeting should have been organised,” he said. “Instead, what happened was a lot of talking behind closed doors.”

He said RA councillors had been shown the issue in early December, approximately four weeks before opposition councillors were given access to it.

Cllr Ames said the timetable appeared to have been “artificially managed” to create urgency and avoid a committee decision.

Chair Cllr Steve Bridger (RA Stamford) repeatedly attempted to restrict discussion to the decision-making process rather than the underlying Rainbow dispute. He also said the officers needed to answer many of the questions were not present and asked members to submit further questions in writing.

Cllr Ames sought a commitment that the answers would be published, arguing that otherwise residents might conclude that the Council was trying to avoid explaining what had happened to public money.

Who decided the document was exempt?

A second dispute concerned who decided that UD158 and its contents should be withheld from the public.

The committee report stated that Chief Executive Jackie King, acting as the Council’s “proper officer”, had made the exemption decision after considering its commercial sensitivity.

Cllr Ames repeatedly asked whether there was any contemporaneous written record of that decision or of the required balancing of the public interest in secrecy against disclosure.

Mr Bircher said the Chief Executive had confirmed by email that she authorised the exempt treatment and that the matter had been discussed at meetings of the Strategic Leadership Team.

He acknowledged that there was no separate record in the leadership team’s meeting notes, but said the Chief Executive had agreed that future exemption decisions would be evidenced on the relevant committee report or urgent decision form.

The Council’s legal adviser, Deborah Davis, said the exemption decision did not necessarily have to be recorded in writing. Someone did, however, need to have made the decision after considering both the relevant legal exemption and the public-interest test. Recording the decision and naming the proper officer would be good practice, she said.

Cllr Coley told the committee that, at a group leaders’ meeting in early January, the Chief Executive had said she had been on leave and that Deputy Chief Executive Vicky Potts had prepared and signed the urgent decision.

He questioned when the Chief Executive had subsequently decided that the document should be exempt and whether an exemption could properly be applied retrospectively.

Mr Bircher responded that the Chief Executive had been aware of the circumstances through leadership team discussions and was satisfied that the matter should be treated as commercially sensitive.

Ms Davis advised that leaked information does not automatically cease to be exempt. The Council could continue to treat it as confidential until an authorised decision was made that disclosure was now in the public interest.

£500,000 Rainbow background

Epsom and Ewell Times has previously reported that the confidential urgent decision approved by Cllr Neil Dallen (RA Town) authorised access to Council reserves of up to £500,000 in connection with disputed dilapidations discovered during the change of leisure centre operator.

Former operator GLL has said it was unaware of any legal claim and handed the building back in the condition required by its agreement. The Council has acknowledged that it holds no record of routine landlord inspections over the operator’s lengthy tenure.

UD158 has therefore become central not only to the financial dispute but also to questions over how the Council monitored one of its largest public assets and why councillors and residents were given so little contemporaneous information.

A written public statement read at the start of Thursday’s meeting accused the Council of six months of “procedural silence” and urged the committee to demand answers over whether defects had been concealed, missed by consultants or allowed to develop through a failure of landlord oversight.

Despite the Audit and Scrutiny committee’s investigation and debate on the Urgent Decision on the Rainbow Leisure Centre the public are still in the dark about how the dilapidations estimate (if accurate) arose in the first place.

Wider transparency failures

The Rainbow discussion was not the meeting’s only dispute over withheld information.

At the beginning of proceedings, Cllr Ames challenged an exempt internal-audit appendix because the agenda did not state that the public-interest test had been applied.

Ms Davis agreed that such a statement should have appeared. Mr Bircher apologised for the omission, and the restricted appendix was withdrawn because neither the Chief Executive nor Monitoring Officer was present to confirm the exemption decision.

Cllr Ames noted that he had raised exactly the same problem four months earlier.

The committee later amended the Council’s Annual Governance Statement to recognise the “urgent need” to deliver a previous Full Council resolution establishing a process for publishing urgent decisions.

Cllr Coley said the Council had reduced its use of urgent decisions from 22 in the previous reporting year to six, but that uploading six decision forms should not present an insurmountable resource problem.

“We have agreed it is going to be delivered,” he said. “The decision is to do it, not to investigate it.”

Sam Jones – Reporter

.

Related reports

The Man Who Signed It, Chaired It, and Wouldn’t Explain It: Six Months of Silence Over Rainbow’s £500,000 Bill

Epsom & Ewell Council blocks release of Rainbow Leisure Centre condition papers

Epsom Council Rainbow Centre secrecy row deepens over “pre-election silence” advice

No end to Epsom’s Rainbow Leisure Centre controversy

Dalton and Dallen double-down disclosure denial

Epsom and Ewell Council transparency row erupts as Council backs publication of urgent decisions

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

Cllr Dallen accused of £1/2m Epsom and Ewell Council “cover-up”

Epsom’s Rainbow Leisure Centre Places new operators

Nearly £4.92 million of infrastructure and community-project funding has been approved by Epsom and Ewell Borough Council despite a resident’s detailed appeal for the decision—or at least funding for a new Hogsmill footbridge—to be deferred.

The Strategy and Resources Committee approved five strategic Community Infrastructure Levy projects and eight neighbourhood schemes by six votes to one abstention at its meeting on Tuesday 14th July.

CIL is money raised from property development and intended to provide infrastructure required to support growth. The Council had approximately £5.04 million of unallocated strategic CIL and £1.13 million of unallocated neighbourhood CIL available at the beginning of the process.

The projects funded

The strategic allocations were:

£1 million for the Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan, conditional upon at least £1 million in match funding;

£114,000 for earth bunding and green-infrastructure work at ten open-space sites vulnerable to unauthorised vehicle access;

£144,000 for a new footbridge across the Hogsmill River;

£1 million for initial community sports infrastructure at Hook Road Arena, conditional upon at least £1 million match funding; and

£2 million for Ewell Village public-realm improvements.

The neighbourhood awards included improvements to Ebbisham Sports and Social Club; tennis and pickleball courts at Poole Road and Gibraltar Recreation Ground; play equipment at St Martin’s School; a Scout tomahawk range; modernisation of the Epsom Beekeepers’ classroom; the Glyn Hall replacement project; and the final phase of a Scout headquarters redevelopment.

A correction made during the meeting reduced the published neighbourhood total from £668,871 to £660,911. Together with the £4.258 million strategic allocation, the corrected package amounted to £4,918,911.

The Council stressed that funding would ordinarily be released only after projects had been completed and that applicants remained responsible for obtaining planning permission, landowner approval and other necessary consents.

Stovell asks councillors to wait

Resident Kristy Stovell had sent councillors and Epsom and Ewell Times an eight-page evidence review before the meeting.

Her primary request was for the whole CIL item to be deferred until the next ordinary committee meeting. As a minimum, she asked councillors to remove the £144,000 Hogsmill bridge allocation from the package pending publication of further information.

Her analysis did not allege that every scheme was unsuitable. Instead, it argued that councillors were being asked to approve almost £4.93 million without complete applications, comparable cost plans, individual scoring, supporting assessments or CIL Working Group records being publicly available in one accessible place.

She noted that all five strategic schemes had been classified as “essential but not time critical”, which she argued allowed time for a short deferment.

Among the concerns raised were the absence from the public pack of full applications and supporting evidence; a lack of published Working Group papers and minutes; inconsistent identification of applicants; incomplete financial comparisons; and reports recording no equality, environmental, safeguarding or crime-and-disorder implications for projects that included a river crossing, earthworks, highways schemes, school play equipment and a Scout tomahawk range.

She asked for the full applications, detailed project costs, previous awards, match funding, Stage One assessments, point-by-point Stage Two scores and Working Group attendance, voting and declarations to be published before a final decision.

Bridge evidence questioned

Ms Stovell’s three-minute public statement concentrated on the proposed Hogsmill footbridge.

She said: “I am not opposing accessibility or the principle of providing safe and inclusive routes. I am asking the committee not to approve a substantial award before the proposal’s financial, environmental, accessibility and delivery evidence has been published and properly examined.”

She said the public documents did not clearly identify the applicant, the precise bridge location, a completed design, the full project cost or the additional design and planning funding required.

She also questioned whether the published material demonstrated a continuous accessible route for wheelchair and mobility-scooter users.

“The project was assessed as essential but not time critical,” she said. “There is therefore no demonstrated need to approve it tonight before the missing information has been supplied.”

She asked councillors to decline the recommendation or defer it until the location, design, complete costs, dependencies, environmental effects and whole-route accessibility had been evidenced and published.

Her longer review noted that the bridge application had been submitted before the Environment Committee selected a bridge option on 30th June. It also questioned the absence of an exact location plan, completed design, environmental and hydrological evidence, and clear maintenance and liability arrangements.

Members asked to trust the Working Group

In the Chair, Cllr Hannah Dalton (RA Stoneleigh) told the committee that it was the final CIL funding round and warned: “If we remove this item, we also lose the funding.”

She said councillors had appointed a cross-party Working Group to examine the applications and “there’s got to be some trust that our colleagues took the time to go through that detail”.

An officer said the Working Group had access to the full bids and supporting information and held four meetings during June to undertake the Stage Two assessments.

Councillor Steve McCormick (Conservative Woodcote and Langley) asked where the minutes of those meetings were and whether members could review them. The officer replied that the scores and decision-making were recorded in what he described as a comprehensive spreadsheet.

Councillor Kate Chinn (Labour Court) said that although councillors were being asked to trust the Working Group, it would have been helpful to see more detail, including the locations of the ten sites covered by the £114,000 green-infrastructure bid.

She also questioned why neighbourhood bids could fail where planning permission was missing while the strategic bridge bid could proceed without permission.

An officer explained that the adopted protocol did not require strategic applicants to have all permissions in place at the application stage, although no project could begin and no money would be released without the necessary approvals.

“A rock and a stepping stone”

The committee also wrestled with whether the proposed footbridge was intended to replace the existing stepping stones.

The published project description stated that the bridge would “replace unsafe stepping stones”. Yet Cllr Dalton said at the meeting that the two issues should be treated separately and proposed removing those words.

Councillor James Lawrence (Independent College) pointed out that the Environment Committee had acknowledged that the Environment Agency would remove the stones and had approved a new bridge as an alternative crossing.

“That reads like ‘replace’ to me,” he said.

Councillor Phil Neale (RA Cuddington) said the Working Group had considered only the bridge but had found itself “between a rock and a hard place—or a rock and a stepping stone”.

He strongly supported the bridge, while suggesting that if the Environment Agency removed the stones, campaigners might put new ones back.

Chief Executive Jackie King clarified that the Environment Agency owned the riverbed and banks but apparently not the stepping stones themselves. Their ownership—and therefore liability—remained uncertain.

She said members had responded to the strength of public feeling by separating construction of the bridge from decisions about the stones.

The committee amended the description to read: “Construction of a new footbridge across the Hogsmill River, providing a safer, more inclusive river crossing.” The words saying it would replace the stones were deleted.

The £144,000 figure was also clarified as including a 20 per cent contingency on an estimated £120,000 construction cost.

Questions over Surrey funding

Several councillors questioned how much Surrey County Council was contributing to the larger schemes.

Councillor John Beckett (RA Auroil) said the Council was being asked to fund £1 million towards cycling and walking infrastructure even though highways were a county responsibility.

He said Surrey appeared not to have “any skin in the game”, although officers explained that Surrey had funded much of an earlier phase and that the Epsom and Ewell contribution was intended to unlock funding from bodies such as Active Travel England.

On the £2 million Ewell Village scheme, Cllr Beckett described Surrey’s approach as presenting the borough with “this kind of fait accompli”.

Officers said Surrey had already spent money progressing the design, while rising material costs had increased the sum required.

Funding approved

No councillor formally moved Ms Stovell’s requested deferment, either for the full package or for the Hogsmill bridge alone.

The committee approved all thirteen recommended awards by six votes to one abstention, subject to the revised bridge wording and corrections to the published figures.

The decision commits the CIL money to the projects, but applicants will still have to secure the relevant permissions and deliver their schemes before receiving payment. The new East Surrey authority will assume responsibility for administering and monitoring CIL expenditure from April 2027.

Sam Jones – Reporter

.

Related reports

Last round of developers’ funds in Epsom and Ewell to be spent

Epsom & Ewell Borough Council invites bids for local infrastructure projects

Ewell village set to improve

Ewell’s sporting ambition for Gibraltar Rec hits the rocks

Epsom & Ewell Council greenlights local projects

“Garden of Eden” coming to West Ewell as wetlands plan is approved

Six months after Epsom and Ewell Borough Council quietly authorised the use of its reserves to cover a dilapidations bill of up to £500,000 at the Rainbow Leisure Centre, the six basic questions this paper put to the Councillor who approved that decision remain unanswered. Not because the council disputes the facts. Not because litigation prevents comment. But because, first, it said the matter was commercially sensitive; then, once an election was called, it said the law forbade a response; and now that the election is over, it has offered residents a statement about gym upgrades instead.

The common thread through every stage of this story is one councillor: Neil Dallen (RA Town), Chair of the Strategy and Resources Committee, who signed off the original urgent decision, chaired the meeting where questions about it were cut off, and has twice found a procedural reason not to say how the bill arose.

A smooth handover, on paper

Rainbow Leisure Centre transferred from its operator of 22 years, GLL, to Places Leisure on 1 October 2025. The council’s own account, recorded in the Urgent Decision document later obtained by this paper, describes an unremarkable changeover: no break in service, a deal offering “significantly more income than the Council had been receiving,” and a pre-handover check by an external consultant intended to confirm the building “would be handed back in good condition.” That check, the document specifies, “was not an invasive analysis.”

Within weeks, Places identified a long list of problems: faults in fire alarms, lifts, seating, glazing, sanitaryware, ventilation, damp, possible roof cracks, and machinery officers now describe as at “end of life.” Some were flagged as health and safety risks requiring immediate action.

December: a £500,000 estimate, marked not for publication

On 17 December 2025, under the reference DEC 158, the council took an Urgent Decision — a mechanism used when a matter cannot wait for the ordinary committee cycle — authorising its Section 151 officer to finalise dilapidations negotiations with Places. The document, marked “OFFICIAL SENSITIVE – NOT FOR PUBLICATION” and exempted under paragraph 3 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972, put the likely cost at up to £500,000, to be met initially from the council’s dilapidations reserve and recovered from GLL only “in due course” — with the same document conceding the council “must accept that it will not be able to recover the Places claim in its entirety.” Cllr Dallen was consulted as committee chair and recorded his view in two words: “Happy to support.”

The decision stayed confidential until this paper obtained and published it in January.

January to March: leak, backlash, and the first stonewall

The story prompted sharp criticism from opposition councillors, who accused the ruling Residents’ Association of secrecy and complacency. The council’s public response — attributed to Dallen and Cllr Clive Woodbridge (RA Ewell Village)— framed the transfer as “an exciting new chapter” and declined to discuss “terms and financial arrangements” as commercially sensitive. GLL, for its part, maintained it had fixed everything flagged by the pre-handover survey and handed the building back to the required standard.

This paper submitted a Freedom of Information request on 13 January seeking the lease’s inspection clauses, any log of landlord inspections or condition surveys since 2003, records identifying the backlog and its cost, and evidence of when councillors were first told. The council took over two months to respond, and released only a handful of lease clauses.

At the Strategy and Resources Committee on 27 January, Cllr Chris Ames (Labour Court) pressed Dallen, as chair, on why the decision had been kept confidential and whether a public-interest test had ever been carried out. Dallen confirmed he had supported both the decision and its confidential status, then closed the matter down: “It is my meeting… I have made a decision there is going to be no further comments.”

The survey that two accounts can’t both describe

A letter to this paper from Cllrs Ames and James Lawrence (Independent College), following the Audit and Scrutiny Committee’s March meeting, surfaced a direct conflict in how the council has characterised the pre-handover survey. The Assistant Director for Corporate Services told that committee that consultants Carter Jonas had been commissioned to carry out “a very detailed survey of the whole leisure centre.” But in June 2025, recommending the Places contract to the Strategy and Resources Committee, the same officer described the exercise as a stock condition report commissioned merely to “inform the procurement process,” on the basis that the council “has been very satisfied” with how the centre had been run and that it was, “overall,” in good condition.

Both descriptions cannot comfortably be true of the same piece of work — and neither sits easily with the Urgent Decision document’s own characterisation of the survey as “not an invasive analysis.” This paper has been unable to establish which account is accurate, because the council has refused to release the survey itself, citing legal professional privilege.

April and May: an election as a shield

As the 7th May East Surrey Unitary Council elections approached — in which Dallen was himself a candidate — the council declined to answer a detailed list of questions this paper put to him on 24 March, citing Section 2 of the Local Government Act 1986, which bars councils from publishing material designed to influence political support. Independent expert opinion obtained by this paper, from Nathan Elvery, former Chief Executive of Croydon Council, concluded the questions posed were “factual in character” and that a response “would not constitute political publicity within the meaning of the Act” — the council, he noted, was “not being asked to promote a political position; it is being asked to account for its stewardship of public funds.” Cllr Hannah Dalton (RA Stoneleigh) relied on the same provision to avoid unrelated questions about a separate governance matter.

A subsequent FOI request established that the decision to invoke Section 2 in Dallen’s case involved the Chief Executive, the Monitoring Officer, senior communications officers, and Dallen himself — yet the council said it held no record of the legal or governance advice behind that decision. The guidance document it pointed to as its basis, meanwhile, explicitly permits councils to continue normal business and to publish factual information during an election period.

Dallen finally responded on 18 May, twelve days after polling. The response answered none of the substantive questions this paper had posed two months earlier about how the dilapidations arose; it repeated that “details relating to terms and financial arrangements are commercially sensitive.”

June: privilege claimed, release refused

On 18 June the council upheld its refusal to disclose the 2025 inspection report or any related backlog, dilapidation or financial exposure documents, now citing Section 42 of the Freedom of Information Act — legal professional privilege — on the basis that litigation was “a live issue” and the council was “already talking to our lawyers.” This paper’s request for internal review had argued the exemption was being applied as a blanket, rather than document by document, and that routine inspection and survey material does not become privileged merely because litigation is later contemplated. The council’s review upheld the original refusal in full. This paper is now preparing a complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office.

29 June to 6 July: the same six questions, and no answers

With the election well behind it, this paper wrote to Dallen again on 29 June, posing six direct questions: did GLL hide the dilapidations; did the handover survey fail to report them accurately; is the scale of the dilapidations agreed by the council; did they arise in the gap between survey and occupation; is there another explanation; and which parties are under consideration for legal action. The council’s communications team acknowledged the request that evening and asked for a deadline — a response was received on 6 July, attributed to Dallen. It addressed none of the six questions. It described the transfer as “the beginning of an exciting new chapter,” referenced planned investment in the gym, studios and changing rooms, and reiterated that financial arrangements remain commercially sensitive.

Ames states: “”The holes in the administration’s story are so big they do not need an expert survey to locate them. It is obvious that it used the urgent decision process to cover up its own incompetence and negligence and that it has continued the cover-up ever since. When the issue comes before the Audit and Scrutiny Committee next week, I expect the administration to use every trick in the book – plus a few new ones – to hide the truth from residents, but I and other councillors are determined not to let this happen.”

Where this stands

Four explanations remain on the table for how a “very detailed” — or, on the council’s alternative account, non-invasive — pre-handover survey and an uneventful transfer became a £500,000 liability within three months: that GLL was not straight about the building’s condition; that the council failed to inspect or enforce its rights as landlord across more than two decades; that the survey’s scope was too narrow to catch what mattered; or that Places has overstated what it found. Each implicates a different party, and each is precisely why the underlying documents matter.

What is not contested is the pattern: a councillor who authorised the spending, chaired the meeting where it was challenged, and has since given two different procedural reasons — commercial sensitivity, then election law — for not answering the same six questions about how it happened.

Residents who ultimately fund the shortfall are still waiting for a plain account of why.

Sam Jones – Reporter

.

Related reports:

Epsom & Ewell Council blocks release of Rainbow Leisure Centre condition papers – 2 July 2026

Epsom Council Rainbow Centre secrecy row deepens over “pre-election silence” advice – 23 June 2026

No end to Epsom’s Rainbow Leisure Centre controversy – May 2026

Dalton and Dallen double-down disclosure denial – 30 April 2026

Epsom and Ewell Council transparency row erupts as council backs publication of urgent decisions – 17 March 2026

“It’s my meeting”: Cllr Dallen stops questions about his role in alleged Rainbow “cover-up” – 23 February 2026

Cllr Dallen accused of £1/2m Epsom & Ewell Council cover-up – 14 January 2026

Major financial decisions across Surrey must now be taken by the newly formed councils – despite the fact they will not take over for almost a year.

Elections held in May voted in two new authorities, East and West Surrey. In April 2027 they will take over the running of public services in the county, and all existing councils will be dissolved.

As part of the process the Government has written to the outgoing bodies to say key monetary decisions now need to be approved by the incoming authorities.

This means land sales or contracts over £100,000 must be kicked up the ladder – as well as capital contracts of more than  £1m. It also covers staff contracts. 

The order covers Surrey County Council and all the boroughs and districts except for Woking and Spelthorne as they are under the control of Government appointed commissioners due to the state of their finances and need to rapidly improve bottom lines to reduce the huge debt West Surrey will be lumbered with.

The Secretary of State for the Ministry of Housing, Communities, and Local Government, said  East and West Surrey should have a say on agreements to be entered to ensure they were in the best interests of the new councils or the residents of the areas they serve.

It would also ensure that any agreements do not undermine or diminish the anticipated benefits or savings as a result of unitarisation or have an effect on the financial position of the new councils.

In practice the old councils have already been operating under this model with the understanding that it would be formalised.

East and West Surrey Councils are expected to publish reports in the next few days that include recommendations into how services across two bodies will  be run from next year.

These will come to their respective shadow executives on July 20 and 21 for approval.

Chris Caulfield Local Democracy Reporter

Ministry of Housing, Communities, and Local Government (image Google)

News that the Government could end the controversial house-extension taxes that slapped Waverley homeowners with huge fines or even the prospect of jail has been welcomed.

The Community Infrastructure Levy was first introduced in 2010 to enable councils to fund projects such as new schools, green spaces and health facilities. The idea was to balance the impact that new developments had on existing communities.

In 2014, exemptions for people building their own homes or smaller extensions were introduced. However, these had to be applied for in advance, creating a ticking time bomb for residents caught out in a labyrinth of paperwork.

It soon became clear that some householders were slipping through the cracks, creating inadvertent or unintentional charges despite qualifying for exemptions. This left them facing huge and unexpected bills, with many Waverley residents directly impacted.

The Government has now said it will look to change the system and launch a consultation in due course. This has been welcomed by action groups and politicians alike. However, until that becomes law, Waverley Borough Council remains bound by the existing system.

For example, liability notices, where a charge is placed against a property, still cannot be lifted. Any changes will have to wait until the Government adopts its new policy.

In a statement following the Government’s announcement, Waverley Borough Council recognised the difficulties some homeowners had faced and said it had written to Ministers highlighting concerns.

Councillor Liz Townsend, Waverley Borough Council’s portfolio holder for planning, said that while the announcement laid out a path forward, there were still limits on what the authority was able to do.

The law still prevents councils from repaying money collected in CIL charges from the so-called CIL pot. Any payment must instead come from general funds, at either the taxpayers’ expense or a cost to services. Equally, while the Government has said it will consult on reform, no dates have been set.

Cllr Townsend said: “We still cannot refund CIL from the CIL pot. We have always been clear that we couldn’t refund from the CIL pot; it will be from the general fund under discretionary review.

“That’s what we’ve already done and we’ve already made a payment, and that was where that was from. It hasn’t changed, as we could make ex-gratia payments under exceptional circumstances.

“Removal of liability notices still can’t be done, and that is so critical for our residents. It’s currently black and white at the moment and we can’t use our discretion. It’s desperately important for residents that this is resolved. That needs to be done through an Act of Parliament.

“The consultation is very welcome. Hopefully it will put things right. We’ve been lobbying the Government for this; it desperately needs to be changed. It’s too inflexible in its current state. We hope there are fundamental changes to housebuilder and self-builds.”

CIL is a set charge on most new developments of 100 square metres or more, as well as on new dwellings of any size. It applies only in areas where a local authority has consulted on and approved a charging schedule setting out its levy rates, and has published that on its website.

It was adopted by Waverley Borough Council on October 31, 2018, and implemented on March 1, 2019.

The Government is now looking to change the system “to ensure that these issues do not arise again in the future – recognising the need to improve the operation of the CIL regime going forwards”.

Its aim is to make CIL clearer and more proportionate for householders and self-builders.

Matthew Pennycook, Minister of State for Housing and Planning, said: “We are confident that these proposed changes will ensure that householders and self-builders who would otherwise be eligible for a CIL exemption are not faced with unexpected liability charges as a result of procedural errors in future.

“We are working to publish the consultation as soon as possible.”

Waverley’s Conservative opposition group has called for the council to go a step further and be proactive in making compensation payments from its general fund to those caught out by administrative errors.

Councillor Jane Austin, leader of the Waverley Conservative Group, said: “This is an important moment for residents hit by huge bills for self-builds and home extensions.

“Government has now confirmed councils are not powerless. Authorities retain discretion over enforcement and may consider ex-gratia compensation in exceptional cases. Let us get on with delivering justice for those hit – no more excuses.”

CIL campaigners described the process to get here as long, challenging and emotionally draining. They said they felt vindicated by the Government’s acknowledgement of the injustice and added: “What has seemed on many occasions impossible has today been made possible.”

A statement from the group said: “After a long, challenging and emotionally draining campaign, the victims of disproportionate Community Infrastructure Levy charges have finally been heard.

“The Government has now acknowledged the injustice faced by homeowners who have been subjected to substantial CIL liabilities as a result of procedural or administrative errors while simply seeking to improve their homes.”

Chris Caulfield Local Democracy Reporter

Related reports:

Waverley not waiving planning fees spark protests

Planning a house extension in Epsom and Ewell? A hard lesson from Waverley

Ministry of Housing, Communities, and Local Government (image Google)

Epsom and Ewell Times to appeal to Information Commissioner after EEBC withholds inspection and dilapidation records linked to reported £500,000 repair exposure.

Epsom and Ewell Borough Council has upheld its refusal to disclose key papers concerning the condition of the Rainbow Leisure Centre, despite continuing questions over how the public facility came to face a reported repair and dilapidations bill of up to £500,000.

The Council has confirmed that it is withholding the 2025 inspection report and related information about backlog maintenance, dilapidations and financial exposure. It says the material is covered by legal professional privilege because litigation is now a live issue and the Council is already consulting lawyers.

The decision follows a Freedom of Information request by Epsom and Ewell Times seeking documents about the Council’s landlord inspection rights, use of inspection powers, condition surveys, backlog repairs, financial exposure and committee consideration of the Rainbow Leisure Centre.

The Rainbow Leisure Centre, one of the borough’s major public leisure assets, changed operator in October 2025. The issue later became controversial after it emerged that urgent works and dilapidation issues had been identified, with a confidential urgent decision reportedly warning that the final cost was not yet known but could be up to £500,000.

Epsom and Ewell Times asked the Council to disclose what it knew, when it knew it, and what inspection or condition records had been kept over the life of the previous contractual arrangements.

The Council did provide some contractual clauses showing that the operator was required to allow the Council’s representative to inspect assets, equipment or materials used in the provision of leisure services. But it refused to release the 2025 inspection report, any related backlog or dilapidation assessments, and financial liability estimates.

In its original refusal, the Council said the withheld information fell under section 42 of the Freedom of Information Act, which protects information covered by legal professional privilege. The Council argued that releasing the material could undermine its legal position and affect recovery of public funds from the former operator.

Epsom and Ewell Times sought an internal review, arguing that the exemption had been applied too broadly. The review request pointed out that routine inspection records, condition surveys and factual reports do not automatically become privileged merely because litigation is later contemplated. It also asked the Council to consider partial disclosure, with any genuinely privileged legal advice or litigation strategy redacted.

The Council has now upheld its refusal.

In its internal review response, the Council stated: “We take the point that the survey reports would not normally be withheld, but that was a long time ago and under different circumstances. It is not the case that litigation is possibly contemplated, we are already talking to our lawyers about progressing this, so it is a live issue.”

The Council also said it believed the public interest arguments in its original response were sufficient.

That leaves residents with limited public information about a central question: whether the Rainbow Leisure Centre’s condition arose from recent events, historic under-maintenance, inadequate inspection, failures by the previous operator, failures by the Council as landlord, or some combination of those possibilities.

The refusal also raises a further issue. The Council has stated that inspection and survey reports prior to 2025 are not held. If correct, that may prompt questions about how the Council monitored the condition of a major public asset over more than two decades of external operation.

The Council has also stated that it does not hold the dates on which councillors, committee chairs or Cabinet/Committee members were first informed that the Rainbow Leisure Centre required significant remedial or dilapidation works, or that the cost might be material to Council finances.

The Freedom of Information Act does allow public authorities to withhold legally privileged material. However, the exemption is not absolute. Authorities must show that the material is genuinely privileged and, where the exemption is qualified, must weigh the public interest in maintaining the exemption against the public interest in disclosure.

The paradox being that if there were to be litigation then under the rules these documents would be disclosable to all parties involved. “The truth will out”.

Epsom and Ewell Times is now preparing a complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office. The appeal will argue that the Council has not shown, document by document, that all the withheld information is privileged; that it has not properly considered partial disclosure; and that the public interest in understanding the management of a major public facility and potential exposure of public funds is substantial.

The newspaper will also ask the Information Commissioner to consider whether the request should have been dealt with, at least in part, under the Environmental Information Regulations, because the withheld material concerns the condition of a public building, plant, fabric and remedial works.

The dispute is not simply about one report. It goes to the wider question of how the borough’s public assets are monitored, how risks are reported to councillors, and how much residents are entitled to know when public money may be at stake.

Epsom and Ewell Times will report the outcome of the appeal when the Information Commissioner has considered the complaint.

Sam Jones – Reporter

Related reports:

Epsom Council Rainbow Centre secrecy row deepens over “pre-election silence” advice

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”.

Dalton and Dallen double-down disclosure denial

Epsom and Ewell councillors have backed a proposal to invest £250,000 over two years in Bourne Hall Museum, but only after another bruising debate over transparency, councillors’ access to information and the continuing fallout from the withheld museum service review.

At a special meeting of Epsom and Ewell Borough Council’s Community and Wellbeing Committee on 9 June, members voted by six votes to none, with one abstention, to support “Option 2” — investment in improvement of the museum. A funding request and business case will now go to the Strategy and Resources Committee in July.

The alternatives before councillors were to continue with business as usual, with no additional funding, or to close the museum.

In a media release supplied after the meeting, the council described the decision as “a significant step forward” and said the investment would help the museum remain “relevant and sustainable”. Committee chair Cllr Clive Woodbridge (RA Ewell Village) said Bourne Hall Museum was “a much-valued cultural asset” and that, with Local Government Reorganisation approaching, “ensuring a lasting legacy is more important than ever”.

Yet the meeting showed that the question of Bourne Hall Museum’s future has become inseparable from a wider dispute over how much information councillors and the public should be allowed to see before decisions are made.

The report before the committee referred to two 2025 reviews: the Bourne Hall Museum Service Review and the Local Government Association Cultural Peer Challenge. It stated that the reviews were relevant to all three options, including maintaining, developing or closing the service. However, the full Service Review was still not included in the public committee papers.

The report said the council’s Proper Officer had been invited to reconsider attaching the redacted service review, but had concluded that it would “not be appropriate” in order to “ensure the impartiality of information presented to members as the decision-making body”.

That explanation was fiercely challenged.

Cllr Chris Ames (Labour Court), who is not a member of the committee but addressed the meeting with the chair’s permission, argued that councillors had a right under section 100F of the Local Government Act 1972 to inspect documents containing material relating to business before a committee unless they disclosed exempt information.

He told the meeting that “impartiality” was not a lawful exemption. He said councillors were “elected adults capable of weighing evidence” and accused the council of operating in an “Alice in Wonderland world” in which selected councillors were given a report but, he said, were being required to act as though they had not seen it.

Cllr Ames also raised the question of public access, saying that section 100B of the same Act required relevant background papers to be published unless a legal exemption applied. He said no such exemption had been claimed and warned that the decision could be vulnerable to call-in or legal challenge.

Cllr Woodbridge said members had “all had a chance to read the report” and tried to steer the discussion back to the future of the museum. But the disclosure issue repeatedly resurfaced.

Cllr Bernie Muir (Conservative Horton) said that, having now seen the information, she could not understand why it had not been provided in the first place. She described the situation as “appalling” and said councillors should be trusted unless they had demonstrated otherwise.

She then turned to the substance of the review, saying that if the document seen by councillors was the full consultant’s report, “they’ve completely wasted their money”, because much of it amounted to basic organisational advice.

Cllr Kate Chinn (Labour Court) also expressed concern about what councillors were or were not allowed to say about the service review. She said she had left a pre-meeting briefing “more confused” about what she could quote or refer to. When she asked whether “bias” was a lawful reason for withholding material, she said she had been told it was “not about the law” but about the Proper Officer’s decision-making.

The chair said he was sure legal advice had been taken, but that the decision was one for the Proper Officer, made on her own judgment.

Epsom and Ewell Times has seen a confidential email sent by Chief Executive Jackie King to members of the committee before the meeting. In it she said it was “not about confidentiality, sensitivity or lack of transparency” but about “impartiality of information presented to members as the decision making body”.

The Chief Executive wrote that the Service Review was “not unbiased” and would not be suitable in its “raw” form for inclusion in a committee report comparing options, because it “repeatedly emphasises the need for continued investment in the existing museum” and could steer readers towards a preferred conclusion. She said she was willing to share the operational report with committee members, with sensitive data such as names redacted, but maintained that it was not suitable to append it to the public options appraisal.

The council’s public agenda for the special meeting stated that no matters were scheduled which would appear to disclose confidential or exempt information under Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

Financial questions also dominated the meeting.

The committee papers put the museum’s current annual budget at around £232,168. Of that, £65,785 related to employee costs for 1.5 full-time equivalent staff, while £123,840 was listed as “accommodation” — described in the papers as a central recharge for use of the space. Central services charges were £32,110, insurance recharges £2,292, other costs £12,180, and income from museum activities £4,039.

The “recharge” point was important because it raised doubts about what the museum really costs and what closure would actually save.

In simple terms, a recharge is an internal accounting allocation. The council incurs general costs for buildings, management, support services and overheads. It then spreads those costs across different services, so that each service appears in the accounts as bearing a share of the council’s wider running costs. That does not necessarily mean the museum is paying rent to an outside landlord, or that closing the museum would save the whole sum shown against it.

Cllr Woodbridge described these as “accountancy charges rather than real charges” and said that if the museum closed the council would not necessarily save that cost, because it was not a cost generated only by the museum.

That distinction matters. On the face of the papers, the museum appears to cost the council £232,168 a year. But more than half of that figure is the £123,840 accommodation recharge, and another £32,110 is central services charges. If those sums are mainly internal allocations of overheads which would remain elsewhere in the council’s budget, the direct cash saving from closing the museum could be far lower than the headline budget suggests.

Cllr Muir queried why such a large accommodation cost was charged to a free public museum located in a council-owned building. She asked why the museum had been put in that position when it was a public service occupying space within Bourne Hall. Ian Dyer, Head of Operational Services, accepted that the charge was historic and “would need to be challenged”.

Cllr Alex Coley (Independent Ruxley) said the recharge model could also make it “extremely unlikely” that the museum would succeed in major external funding applications, because funders would not want their money effectively being used to support internal council recharges. He said the LGA Cultural Peer Challenge had identified this issue.

Cllr Coley also questioned whether councillors were being asked to approve a meaningful investment or simply a process. He said some of the proposed actions — such as replacing long-form text in displays, creating strategies, branding work and social media planning — sounded like business as usual rather than a major transformation. He called for “concrete, tangible” outcomes rather than more paperwork.

Mr Dyer said some short and medium-term recommendations had already been completed by museum staff and that the next stage would be to bring back a business plan setting out what changes would be made with the proposed £125,000 per year.

Cllr Chinn, who proposed supporting Option 2, said any report to Strategy and Resources would need much more detail, including timescales, costs and the implications of Local Government Reorganisation. Cllr Woodbridge agreed that the committee was being asked to decide the principle, not the full business case.

There was little appetite in the room for closing the museum. Before the vote, Cllr Woodbridge said he sensed members appreciated the value of the museum and noted that Option 3 — closure — had not been pursued in the debate.

The committee’s decision does not itself release the £250,000. That decision now passes to Strategy and Resources, where councillors will have to decide whether the business case is strong enough, whether the museum’s accounting model is sustainable, and whether the long-running argument over the service review has been resolved or merely postponed.

For now, Bourne Hall Museum has survived another political test. But the controversy over who gets to see the evidence, and when, remains very much alive.

Sam Jones – Reporter

Related reports:

Epsom Councillor’s disclosure claims Bourne out on review

Bourne Hall row escalates as Chief Executive suspends councillors’ decision

Ewell’s Bourne Hall plans knocked back by scrutiny

Independent view of Ewell’s Bourne Hall

Ewell’s “UFO” shaped Bourne Hall to take off anew

The future of Bourne Hall and its museum has become one of the most contentious issues in Epsom & Ewell local politics in recent months. Debate has ranged from ambitious proposals for the landmark “UFO-shaped” building’s revival to sharp disagreements over governance, transparency and access to information. Earlier this year, councillors on the Community & Wellbeing Committee challenged elements of the Council’s approach, while a decision connected with the matter was later suspended by the Council’s Chief Executive acting in her statutory capacity. Central to the dispute has been a service review of Bourne Hall Museum, parts of which were initially withheld from councillors and the public.

In the following letter, Independent councillor Alex Coley sets out his view following a review and the subsequent disclosure of much of the report’s contents.

A fuller background is provided in the following Epsom and Ewell Times reports:

Bourne Hall row escalates as Chief Executive suspends councillors’ decision

Ewell’s Bourne Hall plans knocked back by scrutiny

Independent view of Ewell’s Bourne Hall

Ewell’s “UFO” shaped Bourne Hall to take off anew

---

Letter to the Editor — Cllr Alex Coley

Dear Editor,

Amidst all the excitement of the Annual Council meeting on Tuesday 26 May, I received the outcome of an internal review into the FOI request that I submitted for the Service Review of Bourne Hall Museum at the beginning of February.

We should be very grateful to the service review author for the depth of understanding and breadth of appreciation for the questions they were asked to explore. This document is absolutely fundamental for elected members to deliberate the future of the museum. It should never have been withheld.

Comparing the redacted and unredacted versions side by side, it becomes apparent that an almost paranoid sensitivity to potential embarrassment has played a part in non-disclosure.

Unredacted sections describe the absence of any visitor data or visitor research, siloed working at EEBC, and the lack of structured objectives for the museum. Yet all these were laid bare in the LGA Cultural Peer Challenge and disclosed in full.

Recognising and acknowledging these issues are crucial to assuring councillors that the issues are understood sufficiently and that an injection of new funding will be used appropriately and effectively. This cannot be achieved behind a veil of secrecy. Trust must be earned rather than demanded.

From the original FOI request to the delayed response took 109 days — almost four months. The normal expectation is 20 days. The initial response was a mish-mash of erroneous case law and political deflection disguised by the application of Section 43(2) of the Freedom of Information Act — “to prejudice commercial interests”.

I had to make a formal complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office when our Council failed to conduct an internal review within 40 days. The resulting correspondence makes it clear that it was ICO intervention which led to the information being disclosed properly.

Subsequently, the Council has disclosed most of the information unredacted.

However, the belated introduction of Section 36 of FOI in the response is an intriguing piece of code-switching. This relates to the “effective conduct of public affairs” and was not used in the original response. In layman’s terms, this concerns the ability of council officers to give free and frank advice.

Section 36 was engaged as a reason not to disclose advice given by a consultant to council officers. While I agree that it is important for such advice to be given freely, the need to do so openly, honestly and transparently is critical when spending public money — not least to the decision-makers who are accountable for public expenditure.

Fortunately, with ICO involvement, a strong public interest has been shown to outweigh concerns.

For those who explore the response in full, you will note that the respondent decides: “the majority of the report contains high-level, non-controversial analysis and recommendations that do not meet the threshold of demonstrating a likelihood of prejudice.”

Well, hurray!

I must conclude that significant effort and energy is being expended by both officers and councillors in battles over secrecy. This is a waste of public money and an affront to the representation of electors. Councillors should not have to become investigative journalists to know what is going on in the organisation they have been appointed to run.

Transparency is significantly better value for money and, as the unredacted contents of the service review reveal, a far better means for deciding how public money should be spent in future. Democracy should be done and seen to be done.

I hoped that this item would be brought back to the Community & Wellbeing Committee to be determined in the manner it always should have been — openly and with all the information available.

However, recent correspondence to councillors on Thursday 28 May seems disconnected from the FOI request. It refers to a Special Community & Wellbeing Committee on 9 June and states:

“Following the invitation to revisit the non-inclusion of the Bourne Hall Service Review in the previous committee papers, it is the decision of the Council’s Proper Officer for access to information that the decision will not be overturned.”

The missive goes on to say:

“However, in order to move this item forward, the Council’s Proper Officer proposes to limit access to the Bourne Hall Service Review to the voting members of the Community & Wellbeing Committee that shall be in attendance at the 9 June special meeting and she will be present to discuss why the information will remain restricted.”

Finally, the message concludes:

“Please note that no photographs or copies of the exempt document are permitted to be taken.”

Readers of a certain vintage may recall sitcoms of the 1970s and 1980s — Dad’s Army, ’Allo ’Allo and, of course, Yes Minister. What a pity the writers never delved deeper into local government. There is a richness of material for satire and farce that is unmatched.

Perhaps we should reach for some of that Sir Humphrey comedy wisdom:

“If the right people don’t have power, do you know what happens? The wrong people get it. Politicians, councillors, ordinary voters!”

As we say in Epsom & Ewell: None Such.

Alex Coley
Independent Councillor – Ruxley

Rainbow reply from Dallen leaves key questions unanswered.

Epsom and Ewell Borough Council’s Chair of Strategy and Resources, Cllr Neil Dallen (RA Town), has finally responded to questions from Epsom and Ewell Times about the Rainbow Leisure Centre dilapidations controversy — nearly two months after first declining to do so while citing “pre-election” restrictions under Section 2 of the Local Government Act 1986.

Readers will recall that the controversy arose after disclosure of a confidential “urgent decision” approved in December 2025 which stated: “The costs of the dilapidations are not yet fully known… However, an estimate is that this could cost up to £500k.”

The same document referred to issues affecting fire alarms, ventilation, damp, glazing, lifts and possible roof defects, with some matters said to raise health and safety concerns.

The issue quickly developed into wider questions about governance and transparency after Epsom and Ewell Times established that:

• the former operator, Greenwich Leisure Limited (GLL), maintained the building had been handed back in satisfactory condition following survey and sign-off;
• the Council possessed contractual inspection rights throughout GLL’s 22-year tenure;
• the Council nevertheless stated in Freedom of Information responses that it held no historic inspection reports prior to 2025;
• the Council refused to disclose the handover condition survey while simultaneously asserting legal privilege over it;
• GLL confirmed the same survey had been provided by the Council to all tenderers during the procurement process;
• and the Council relied on Section 2 of the Local Government Act 1986 to avoid answering further questions before the May elections.

The original questions sent to Cllr Dallen by Epsom and Ewell Times on 24th March stated:

---

“Dear Cllr Dallen,

Further to recent reporting and the Council’s FOI response (attached) concerning the Rainbow Leisure Centre, I am seeking your view on the underlying explanation for the position that has now emerged.

As you will be aware, there are a number of possible interpretations arising from the material in the public domain and the Council’s response. In short form, these appear to include:

That the former operator (GLL) is correct in its position that the building was handed back in the condition required following survey and sign-off;

That the Council did not, over a prolonged period, exercise its inspection and enforcement rights in a way that would have identified and addressed accumulating dilapidations;

That the incoming operator has identified defects not previously recorded and is now addressing these with the Council accepting a reduced management fee as part of the commercial resolution;

That the survey relied upon at handover is subject to differing interpretations as between the parties;

Or any other explanation you consider to be the correct one.

I would be grateful if you could indicate which of these (or any alternative) you consider most accurately reflects the situation.

I would also welcome any clarification you wish to provide regarding the basis on which the urgent decision was treated as confidential, and whether you consider that a public interest assessment was undertaken.

I will, of course, reflect your response fairly in any further reporting.

With thanks in advance,

Sam Jones – Reporter.”

---

At the time, the Council declined to answer, stating that pre-election restrictions prevented further comment.

Now, following the elections, Epsom and Ewell Times has finally received the following response from the Council, attributed to Cllr Dallen:

---

“Rainbow Leisure Centre transferred to a new operator, Places Leisure, on 1 October 2025. Since then, we’ve been pleased to see a number of improvements at the centre. This marks the beginning of an exciting new chapter for the leisure centre, and Places Leisure has ambitious plans, including significant investment to upgrade the gym, studios, swimming changing rooms and more, which are already underway, with a new gym already open.

The confidential negotiations have resulted not only in an improved facility but also an improved financial position for the Council and therefore residents. With any handover, it is normal practice for there to be negotiations around works to be carried out which form part of the contract finalisation. Details relating to terms and financial arrangements are commercially sensitive and therefore not in the public domain.

We look forward to seeing the plans for Rainbow Leisure Centre come to fruition, as it continues to serve communities in Epsom & Ewell and the surrounding areas, offering superb leisure facilities and innovative opportunities for residents of all ages to improve their health and wellbeing.”

---

The response notably does not directly answer any of the central questions posed.

No explanation is offered for how a potential £500,000 dilapidations liability apparently emerged so soon after handover. The response does not address whether the building was or was not handed over in satisfactory condition, whether inspections were carried out during the previous 22 years, why no historic inspection records are held, whether the handover survey identified the defects now being asserted, or why the survey itself remains undisclosed.

The statement instead emphasises future investment and commercial confidentiality while avoiding the underlying issue: how a building apparently considered acceptable at handover could within weeks become associated with extensive defects, some allegedly serious enough to threaten continued operation on health and safety grounds.

That leaves unresolved the same competing possibilities previously identified by Epsom and Ewell Times. Either the former operator’s account is substantially correct and the current concerns arise from differing assessments or commercial negotiations; or significant defects accumulated over many years without effective intervention; or the handover survey failed to identify the building’s true condition; or the scale of the dilapidations has itself been overstated or differently interpreted.

Whether Cllr Dallen’s response genuinely clarifies matters, or simply restates the Council’s preference for confidentiality while avoiding difficult questions, readers will judge for themselves.

Sam Jones – Reporter

Related reports:

“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

Surrey residents could face rising council tax bills and deep financial uncertainty under plans to overhaul local government and councillors say people are already “really angry” about it.

At a West Surrey joint committee meeting on April 14, politicians warned that changes to council tax under the new system could hit some households harder than others, at a time when many are already struggling with the cost of living.

Plans to “harmonise” council tax across the two new authorities (East and West Surrey) mean some areas could see increases above the usual 5 per cent cap. Cllr Joanne Sexton said the issue is coming up “all the time” on the doorstep and asked what protections would be in place for residents facing sharp rises.

Finance chief Andy Brown confirmed some households could pay more than 5 per cent increases to bring different council tax rates into line. “What you won’t see is an average increase across West Surrey that breaches the referendum principles,” he said. “But within that you may see areas… higher than the 5 per cent  and some lower.”

Modelling has already been done and could be published, but the final call will be made by new “shadow councils” elected in May, ahead of the new system going live in 2027.

West Surrey ‘worse off’

Behind the council tax fears is a bigger concern: that West Surrey is heading into the new system in a much weaker financial position.

Councillors repeatedly warned the west could end up the “poor relation”, inheriting higher debt, greater infrastructure needs and more financial risk.

Cllr Liz Townsend said the scale of the problem is not being taken seriously enough. She said: “I still feel we haven’t emphasised the disparity between East and West and how by virtue of an arbitrary line drawn on a map the people in West Surrey are far more disadvantaged.”.

The Liberal Democrat councillor added: “I’ve been knocking on doors recently and people are really angry about it. I don’t think we’re emphasising how critical the situation is.”

Cllr Catherine Powell echoed those concerns, warning West Surrey is set to inherit “a much worse financial situation” than the east, something she said was not clearly reflected in official papers. The Farnham Residents councillor also raised concerns about infrastructure, saying the west faces specific challenges that are not being properly accounted for.

Debt mountain and government bailout

A major factor is the huge debt linked to Woking Borough Council. The government has already stepped in, promising £500m to help reduce Woking’s borrowing. But even after that, the council is still expected to carry around £1.7bn in debt.

The government, through the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, has said there is “no reasonable means” for Woking to manage this on its own. So, ongoing national support will be needed. This creates a major risk for the new West Surrey authority which will inherit the problem.

Inequality fears and vulnerable residents

Councillors also raised concerns about how the changes could hit the most vulnerable. Cllr Powell warned that people on lower incomes are likely to be hardest affected by financial pressures but said current equality impact assessments do not fully reflect that.

Cllr Powell also called for a clearer breakdown of how decisions could affect different areas, warning the divide between east and west must not be hidden in “generic statements”. Officials said more detailed equality assessments will be produced alongside future decisions, including budgets.

Confusion over what has been agreed

Adding to concerns, councillors warned official documents risk misleading residents about what has already been decided. Minutes from previous meetings appeared to suggest councillors had agreed to split assets geographically, something members insisted is not the case. They said they had only agreed that assets would need to be split, not how.

With local elections coming up on May 7, councillors called for clearer language to avoid confusion about who is making decisions and when. Officials agreed to tighten up the wording.

“Just a starting point”

Lead council officers stressed that nothing is final yet. Current proposals were described as a “starting point”, with work ongoing to figure out how services, staff and assets will be divided between the two new councils.

Final decisions will be taken by the shadow authorities after the elections, with the new system due to launch in 2027.

Emily Dalton LDRS

Related reports:

West Surrey debt mountain – teenage fears

Strip Woking’s debt-man of his OBE MP says

Government bailout to ease Woking’s debt burden

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

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

---

Epsom and Ewell Times adds: Epsom and Ewell will come under the EAST Surrey Unitary Council. The promised £500 million debt repayment support from central Government falls far short of the overall debt accumulated in Woking, Spelthorne and other WEST Surrey districts.

---

A 16-year-old from Ash has urged ministers not to “lumber” his generation with billions of pounds of debt. He said it is not fair that people have to pay off debts when they have never been to Woking. 

Harley Davey-Harper, who lives just a short walk from Aldershot town centre, said plans to merge borough councils into a new ‘West Surrey’ authority would tie his community to around £4.5bn in legacy debt. 

Harley said: “As someone who will be starting my adult life and paying council tax in just two years, it is terrifying to know that my money will be sucked into a black hole to pay for Woking’s failed skyscraper projects and Spelthorne’s commercial property debts.”

Woking Borough Council is battling with debts of about £2.6bn after the former administration borrowed heavily to fund commercial development. Spelthorne Borough Council is also facing financial distress with over £1bn in debt from risky commercial investment.

Harley has written to ex-Chancellor Jeremy Hunt and local MP Alex Baker warning the shake-up could leave young people footing the bill for historic borrowing elsewhere in Surrey. He said: “I think it is important for MPs to know how the people are feeling.”

In his letter to the MPs, Harley wrote: “Being dumped into this new West Surrey mega-council feels like the final betrayal; we are being used as a piggy bank to fix mistakes made in towns 20 miles away that have nothing to do with us.

“Where I live is a mere 10-minute walk from Aldershot town centre. I am physically part of the Aldershot community, yet I am being forced into a council that stretches as far as Staines-upon-Thames.”

The college student has branded the decision as a “massive mistake” for the people of Ash. He said: “I don’t see why we should be paying for roads all the way over in Thorpe Park.” Harley said it is not fair that a certain group of people have to pay off the debts when some of the people have probably not been to Woking. 

Harley said it is “heartbreaking” to see his home “dragged into a bankrupt Surrey merger”. He wrote: “My life is already entirely in Hampshire: my housing provider, Vivid, is Hampshire based; my post is processed in Aldershot; and the most local police force is Hampshire, who when I have called the police in the past Aldershot police have come as they are the closest in an emergency.”

Harley said he believes Ash is often overlooked compared to wealthier or more central parts of the county. “All the focus seems to go into Guildford,” he said. “Ash is forgotten. They only remember us when we need to pay our council tax- not much goes on there.”

Harley said: “It will be better for everyone if we are in the Hampshire region because the council tax will be lower.” So far, he has yet to receive a full response from MPs, though acknowledgements have been sent.

A Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government spokesperson said: “Proposals for local government reorganisation in Surrey were locally led and all the proposals received included Ash within a new West Surrey council.

“We recognise that Woking Borough Council holds significant debt that cannot all be managed locally, which is why we have committed to unprecedented debt repayment support of £500m.

“We will continue to support councils to deliver reorganisation in a way that protects services and reflects the needs of communities.”

Emily Dalton LDRS

Related reports:

Strip Woking’s debt-man of his OBE MP says

Government bailout to ease Woking’s debt burden

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

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

---

Epsom and Ewell Times adds: Epsom and Ewell will come under the EAST Surrey Unitary Council. The promised £500 million debt repayment support from central Government falls far short of the overall debt accumulated in Woking, Spelthorne and other WEST Surrey districts.

---

Woking Borough Council is selling off its flagship regeneration projects – including the town’s new Hilton Hotel and shopping centres to private investors to claw back public money – branded a “sad” and “sobering” reality of the bankruptcy. The small council gained infamy when it went bust in 2023 as the most heavily indebted borough in the country. It has dragged itself through huge job cuts and service reductions to address its £2.6 billion black hole and now come some of its costliest investments.

It’s leadership has agreed to market Victoria Square, Wolsey Place, Alexander House and energy company Thameswey Milton Keynes Ltd, in an effort to claw back some of the public money torpedoed into its doomed ventures between 2016 and 2019. Speaking at the Wednesday, March 18 executive committee was the portfolio holder for finance, Councillor Dale Roberts. He said: “The work of understanding and unravelling the council’s commercial structures has weighed heavily at times and that is in large part because of the scale of what we inherited. Hundreds of millions of pounds of public money invested through complex commercial structures. At times it has felt like we’ve been asked to work on the world’s most expensive jigsaw puzzle. Being able to bring these matters forward openly, with proper governance and transparency is therefore both a relief and a sign of the progress the council has made. It quickly became clear the first task was not to make immediate decisions about assets and companies but to ensure we had the right governance, reporting, controls in place to understand what we owned and how those companies and those assets were performing.”

Victoria Square Woking, including the Hilton Hotel where the council paid for its cutlery, will be sold off – although the car parks will be split off and retained by the council. Wolsey Place Shopping Centre, together with Wolsey Walk residential units, Alexander House and Export House, and units owned by Victoria Square will be combined into another single entity to maximise value. The council’s energy company – which supplies exclusive power to Victoria Square – will also be sold, with officers confident a specialist company could successfully fold the firm into an existing operation. A key element in the Thameswey sale is a debt for equity swap that will convert the council’s existing loans into shares but banks a historic loss of about £42m associated with the investment.

Cllr Steve Greentree (Liberal Democrats: Knaphill) said: “It’s sad to see the £42m loss in a venture that should never have been put at risk by a local borough council in a geography that is no way related to Woking.” Cllr Ian Johnson, portfolio holder for housing said: “My overwhelming feeling is that of disappointment. Finally we will rid ourselves of something that has been a drain on our resources.” He added: “It’s fairly sobering isn’t it but it’s the right thing to do.”

The sales had long been expected as part of the Government’s effective bailout programme where it has already pledged about £500m to the borough. Further help has been held back until the Government knows what the council banks in asset sales. Borough leader, Cllr Ann-Marie Barker said: “It’s been a very long-term ambition of this administration to sell Thameswey. It’s costing us money, it’s not contributing to our role as a council to deliver services for local people.” Final approval of any deals will need the approval of full council.

Chris Caulfield LDRS

Image: Hilton in Woking (Google)

Related reports:

Residents sigh of relief if Government bail out bankrupt Woking

Strip Woking’s debt-man of his OBE MP says

Government bailout to ease Woking’s debt burden

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