Epsom and Ewell Borough Council says it has addressed an audit finding on transparency. Yet a straightforward question about one of its largest public assets remains unanswered: how did the Rainbow Leisure Centre come to face apparent dilapidations costs of up to £500,000?

At the Council’s Audit and Scrutiny Committee on 29 September, Chief Executive Jackie King defended improvements to governance and communication with external auditors.

“This council does not have a governance issue,” she told members.

But for residents, transparency can be measured more simply than through meetings with auditors, constitutional amendments or changes to committee reporting. Can the public find out what happened to a building they own, why substantial expenditure became necessary, and whether anyone is being held responsible?

On the Rainbow Centre, those questions remain unresolved.

A public building, an unexplained liability

Epsom and Ewell Times has repeatedly sought an explanation of the circumstances behind a confidential urgent decision authorising access to Council reserves of up to £500,000 in connection with the leisure centre’s condition and disputed dilapidations.

That figure represents an authorised provision, rather than an established final bill. Nevertheless, the potential exposure is substantial.

The Council has previously acknowledged that it holds no records of routine landlord inspections over the former operator’s lengthy tenure. It has withheld condition papers, relying on claims of legal professional privilege and commercial sensitivity.

Neither position explains how the apparent liability arose.

Were defects identified before the change of operator? Were they reported and left unresolved? Did the Council adequately monitor the condition of its building? What obligations rested with the operator, and what steps did the Council take to enforce them?

Former operator GLL has said it returned the building in the condition required by its agreement and was unaware of any legal claim. EET’s recent requests for clarity on whether proceedings against the previous operator are contemplated have received no response.

The absence of an answer leaves residents unable to assess whether the Council is pursuing recovery, negotiating a settlement, or expecting public funds to meet the costs.

What the committee was told

The September meeting concerned an External Audit Transparency Report arising from Grant Thornton’s earlier finding of a significant governance weakness.

Officers said the problem concerned a failure to inform the auditors promptly about changes to governance arrangements. The report stated that subsequent improvements had satisfied the auditors and that the previous recommendation had been closed.

Cllr Chris Ames (Labour, Court) challenged that account. He argued that the auditors’ published findings covered wider concerns about openness, including changes to the constitution and scheme of delegation that had not been fully discussed publicly.

“This is a question of transparency, and we have a mismatch between what’s being said publicly and what was said privately, and that should concern us all,” he said.

Ms King rejected his interpretation and pointed to the more favourable subsequent audit assessment.

She also described improvements to urgent-decision reporting, including attaching decision forms to committee papers.

Cllr Steven McCormick (Conservative, Woodcote and Langley Vale), a former committee chair, said his written questions had been answered as fully as possible and that he had no supplementary questions.

The committee voted to note the report.

Publishing a decision is only the beginning

Better publication of urgent decisions is welcome. But publishing a form does not, by itself, explain the events that made the decision necessary.

The Rainbow controversy illustrates the difference.

On 16 July, the Audit and Scrutiny Committee concluded that the process followed for the Rainbow urgent decision had not complied with the Council’s stated procedure and was not justified by the information presented to members.

That finding concerned how the decision was taken. It did not establish how the building’s condition had been monitored, why the potential costs arose or who should bear them.

Those are questions about stewardship of a public asset, rather than simply the administration of committee business.

Claims of privilege or commercial sensitivity may protect particular documents or negotiating details. They do not give residents a substantive explanation of whether the Council fulfilled its responsibilities as landlord.

Who is protecting the public interest?

The unanswered questions also concern the role of elected councillors.

Their responsibility is to scrutinise the use of public money and the management of public property. Where possible failures of inspection or maintenance oversight arise, residents should be able to expect councillors to demand an explanation.

There is presently insufficient disclosed evidence to conclude that incompetence caused the Rainbow liability, or that officers are being deliberately protected from accountability. The continuing lack of information prevents those possibilities from being properly examined — and prevents the Council from demonstrating that they are unfounded.

That is why the unanswered requests matter.

A satisfactory audit assessment is relevant evidence of improved arrangements. It does not answer every outstanding question about a particular building or financial decision.

The Council says lessons have been learned. On the Rainbow Centre, the public still needs to know what happened, what the Council is doing about it, and whether taxpayers will ultimately pay.

Until those answers are provided, declarations of transparency remain difficult to reconcile with residents’ experience of trying to obtain information.

Sam Jones – Reporter

.

Related reports

• Epsom’s scrutiny committee slams Dallen’s urgent £500K Rainbow approval — 17 July 2026.
• Epsom Council Rainbow Centre secrecy row deepens over “pre-election silence” advice.
• 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”.
• Epsom and Ewell Council CEO contests ‘culture of secrecy’ claim and outlines fixes — 1 October 2025.
• Epsom & Ewell Council not much in the red but too much in the pink! — 11 February 2025.

Places Leisure has detailed improvements at Epsom’s Rainbow Leisure Centre but questions remain over the discovery of substantial dilapidations at the end of the previous operator’s tenure – and who will ultimately meet the cost.

Places Leisure took over the Council-owned centre from Greenwich Leisure Limited (GLL), which trades as Better, on 1 October 2025.

Shortly afterwards, Epsom and Ewell Borough Council authorised potential expenditure of up to £500,000 on works allegedly arising from the condition in which the centre was handed back. The decision was taken under the Council’s urgent-decision procedure and much of the supporting information, including a survey of the building, has remained confidential.

The controversy was intensified by confirmation that no formal condition surveys or inspection records could be found covering much of GLL’s approximately 20-year operation of the centre.

The Council has relied upon “legal professional privilege” and “commercial confidentiality” in declining to disclose the survey and related advice. It has not yet even acknowledged the Epsom and Ewell Times’ latest questions since 3rd September asking whether it has sent GLL a letter before action, begun legal proceedings or asserted any claim for failure to maintain the centre or breach of its contractual obligations.

GLL told the Times on 3 September that it had heard nothing further from the Council since its earlier correspondence and that its position had not changed: “the Council undertook, via specialist contractors, a full survey of the building prior to GLL exiting.  As is normal in all leisure transfers, items that were identified in that survey for GLL were all completed prior to handover and signed off by the specialist contractors on behalf of the Council.  GLL handed the building over to the standard required by the Council and under the contract.”

£4.7 million investment

Places Leisure has now told the Times that it is investing approximately £4.7 million in modernising the centre – £200,000 more than the approximately £4.5 million previously publicised.

Work completed so far includes a full refurbishment of the fitness suite, new equipment and EGYM technology, refurbished group-exercise studios and a new immersive spin studio.

A new health suite, with steam rooms and saunas, is expected to open by the end of November. Further plans include improvements to the café and teaching pool and a new Reformer Pilates studio due to open in the new year.

Places Leisure said the improvements would broaden community activities, encourage healthier lifestyles and generate more than £5 million of “social value” each year.

However, the operator did not provide a breakdown of expenditure on the different elements of the project. Nor did it answer questions about membership numbers, how the investment is being financed or whether any payments or other financial arrangements with the Council have been altered because of the centre’s condition or the closure of facilities.

On the separate dilapidation works, Places Leisure said these fell outside its planned investment programme and were being instructed by the Council.

It said: “Places Leisure is supporting and working with the Council to complete any necessary works quickly and with minimal impact on our customers.”

Membership changes

A centre member told the Times that his monthly payment had risen from £45.50 under GLL to £60 following the change of operator. He said another long-standing member, previously paying closer to £30, had experienced a similar increase.

Places Leisure said existing membership prices remained unchanged until February 2026, when members were transferred to the closest Places Leisure equivalent. For some customers, that change of membership category resulted in a price increase, of which they were informed beforehand.

The present headline monthly rates include:

• Premium membership, covering the gym, swimming and classes: £60.
• Swimming only: £29.
• Premium membership for 16 to 18-year-olds: £30.
• Premium membership for 19 to 25-year-olds: £40.

A £75 Premium+ option, which will include the health suite, is expected to be introduced when that facility reopens. Places Leisure said existing members would not be transferred automatically to the more expensive category.

The member who contacted the Times praised the refurbished gym and fitness studios, describing the work as fresh and modern. He said, however, that he was unaware of significant changes to the pool or sports halls and that the health suite had remained closed.

Complaint reaches standards process

The Rainbow controversy also forms part of the background to a pending preliminary hearing into a councillor conduct complaint made by Councillor Neil Dallen (RA Town Ward) against Councillor Chris Ames (Labour Court).

At a meeting of the Strategy and Resources Committee in January, Cllr Ames pressed Cllr Dallen about the secret urgent decision which Dallen had signed off. From the chair Cllr Dallen stopped his questioning declaring “It’s my meeting”. During a heated exchange, Cllr Ames used the words “cover-up” and “arrogant”.

Cllr Dallen subsequently complained that Cllr Ames had breached the councillors’ Code of Conduct. Cllr Ames maintains that his language arose from a legitimate attempt, as an elected councillor, to establish what had happened and why councillors and the public were being denied the relevant information.

The preliminary hearing will address procedural issues surrounding the determination of the complaint before any final hearing. This follows an expensive external investigation being authorised by the Council into Ames conduct. The controversial January meeting is available for all to see on the Council’s YouTube channel. The preliminary hearing will be in Committee troom 1 at the Town Hall and the agenda includes a resolution as to whether the press and public should be excluded. Epsom and Ewell Times has been told that the committee room is not sufficient for any public presence anyway.

A complaint made by Ames against Dallen for his conduct of the meeting was dismissed by the Council’s Monitoring Officer, who advised at the heated meeting, and without an independent investigation.

Residents still do not know precisely what defects were discovered, when they arose, why routine inspection records appear not to exist, whether GLL is considered legally responsible for any of the work or how much of the authorised £500,000 will ultimately be borne by local taxpayers.

Sam Jones – Reporter

.

Image: Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication

Related reports

• Epsom & Ewell Council refuses to explain complaints disparity – 21 August 2026
• Epsom’s scrutiny committee slams Dallen’s urgent £500K Rainbow approval – 17 July 2026
• The Man Who Signed It, Chaired It, and Wouldn’t Explain It: Six Months of Silence Over Rainbow’s £500,000 Bill – 11 July 2026
• Epsom & Ewell Council blocks release of Rainbow Leisure Centre condition papers – 18 June 2026
• Epsom Council Rainbow Centre secrecy row deepens over “pre-election silence” advice – 19 May 2026
• No end to Epsom’s Rainbow Leisure Centre controversy – 18 May 2026

Plans for the new East Surrey Council continue to move forward as Surrey’s local government reorganisation programme progresses with the full support of both central government and Surrey leaders. Key decisions are helping shape a modern, locally focused council that will deliver high-quality services for residents and communities.

The East Surrey Shadow Executive met on 14 September to continue preparations for the launch of the new authority on 1 April 2027. Councillors reviewed progress on the implementation of local government reorganisation and considered a number of important decisions that will help ensure services continue smoothly from Vesting Day.

A key decision at the meeting was to approve Woodhatch Place in Reigate as East Surrey Council’s main office from 1 April 2027. This short-term arrangement provides a practical and cost-effective base for the new authority, ensuring it can operate safely and lawfully from day one while longer-term property plans are developed.

Access to council services will remain local and convenient for residents. Existing council offices across East Surrey will continue to provide face-to-face support, alongside online and telephone services, giving residents a choice in how they access help and information.

Looking beyond council boundaries, councillors backed proposals for East Surrey and West Surrey to work together on strategic county-wide issues through a proposed Foundational Strategic Authority. Members recognised the potential benefits for transport, housing, economic growth and local funding, while also calling for further details from government on matters including any future visitor levy and Surrey’s devolution arrangements.

The meeting also explored how communities could play a greater role in shaping the future council. An early East Surrey Council Strategy was discussed, setting out a vision for an inclusive and sustainable East Surrey where people feel heard, supported and connected. Councillors also considered community-led neighbourhood governance arrangements that would give residents and local organisations more influence over local priorities and services.

Protecting local identity and civic traditions was another important area of discussion. Councillors supported the creation of Charter Trustees in Elmbridge and Epsom & Ewell from 1 April 2027, and in Reigate & Banstead if a proposed parish council is not established. These bodies help preserve historic traditions, ceremonial events and local heritage during the transition to the new council structure.

Preparations for Vesting Day also included consideration of the legal agreements needed to create the new councils. These agreements will set out how assets, contracts, responsibilities and financial obligations transfer from Surrey County Council and the district and borough councils to East Surrey and West Surrey, while also establishing how the two authorities will work together on shared services and other arrangements after 1 April 2027.
Councillor Steve Wotton, Leader of the East Surrey Shadow Council, said: “The pace of progress demonstrates our determination to make East Surrey Council a success. Each milestone is taking us closer to creating a council that is shaped by local priorities and focused on what matters most to residents.

“We have a real opportunity to create a stronger platform for long-term economic growth, investment and infrastructure improvements across Surrey, this will help us to rethink on how key services, such as SEND, are delivered for people across our communities.

“By combining services at a strategic level and empowering communities to shape local decisions, we can create better outcomes for residents and build a stronger future for East Surrey.”

In the months ahead, shadow councillors will use Section 24 powers to review and approve key financial decisions as Surrey prepares for the creation of East Surrey and West Surrey councils. This will help protect the finances of the new councils by ensuring major spending commitments made before 1 April 2027 are in the long-term interests of residents and support a strong start for the new authorities.

Surrey County Council

The CEO of the newly created West Surrey Council is set to pocket a £236,485 annual salary.

Susan Halliwell, currently oversees Bracknell Forest Council and is expected to take over the top job after beating out nine other applicants.

Her recommendation follows a lengthy national recruitment campaign that was supplemented with an active search by recruiters GatenbySanderson who contacted 147 serving chief executives and those with experience of leading in a unitary or upper tier environments.

A long-list of six candidates were then invited to attend technical interviews led by an experienced unitary council chief executive who had  been through Local Government Reorganisation themselves.

Five candidates were then invited to take part in a comprehensive assessment process on September 3 at Millmead House in Guildford. 

---

Epsom and Ewell Times adds to this LDRS report some comparisons:

Office	Annual salary
UK Prime Minister	£174,039
First Minister of Scotland	£190,284
First Minister of Wales	£174,600
Chief Executive, Surrey County Council	approximately £237,000

---

This was to assess their strategic leadership capability, political awareness, stakeholder engagement skills and readiness to lead West Surrey Council through its establishment and beyond Vesting Day, documents read.

In the end Susan’s experience, leadership approach, and values that aligned with the ambitions of West Surrey, led her to be considered a strong fit.

Susan’s chief executive and senior leadership experience has seen her carry the responsibility for a workforce of more than 2,300 staff and a budget of over £400m.

She is said to have a strong track record of organisational transformation, financial stewardship, service reform and delivery of political priorities.

Interim head of paid service Andy Brown has been overseeing the role out of the new council while a permanent appointment is made.. He will remain in post while transition arrangements are finalised.

Councillor Paul Follows, Leader of the West Surrey Shadow Council, said: “I am delighted that Susan Halliwell has been identified as our preferred candidate for chief executive of West Surrey Council.

“Susan is an outstanding and highly respected local government leader with a proven track record of delivering large-scale transformation and improvement. She has successfully led organisations through significant change while maintaining a relentless focus on improving outcomes for residents and creating positive working environments for staff.

“Subject to full council agreement, I am looking forward to working closely with her to create a council that delivers excellent services, supports thriving communities and provides strong local leadership across West Surrey.

“I would also like to thank Andy Brown for his dedication and leadership as Interim Head of Paid Service for the West Surrey Shadow Council. Andy has played a crucial role in helping us prepare for vesting day and establish strong foundations for the new authority. We are grateful for his continued support until Susan takes up her post.”

Prior to joining Bracknell Forest Council, Susan served as executive director of place at West Berkshire Council and held senior leadership roles at Oxfordshire County Council.

The West Surrey Conservative group has also welcomed the recommendation and wished her success in the new role.

Cllr Jane Austin said: “Conservatives have been closely involved throughout the recruitment process, and know the strength of the field from which this appointment has been made.

“The scale of the task of bringing together six existing councils, several of which face significant challenges, should not be underestimated. 

“We look forward to working with our new chief executive to build a financially sustainable council which delivers excellent services and represents all our communities.”

Chris Caulfield Local Democracy Reporter

.

Sue Halliwell (image SCC)

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Surrey’s political leaders insist the replacement of the county’s 12 councils by two large unitary authorities remains on schedule. But a government review of local government reorganisation elsewhere in England has reopened questions about whether Surrey was right to proceed so quickly with its own costly transformation.

A major retreat by the Government over the restructuring of English local government has inevitably reopened the argument over whether Surrey was right to rush ahead with its own reorganisation.

Housing, Communities and Local Government Secretary Angela Rayner has announced a national review following what her department described as “updated and privileged legal advice”.

Decisions affecting Essex, Hampshire, Norfolk and Suffolk have been withdrawn. Plans for a further 14 areas have been paused, along with reorganisation proposals for Cambridgeshire and Peterborough and West Sussex which had not yet been settled.

Existing councils in those areas will now hold elections in May 2027 on their current boundaries.

The change is highly significant. Only months ago ministers were presenting the abolition of county and district councils across England as an essential part of creating simpler and more economical local government.

Ms Rayner said she wanted to be satisfied that the correct process was in place, that it complied with the law and that the proposals remained consistent with the priorities of a new Prime Minister and administration.

The precise legal advice has not been disclosed because the Government says it is privileged. It follows a succession of threatened or commenced judicial reviews challenging ministers’ selection of boundaries for the new councils.

In Essex, the county council began legal proceedings after former Communities Secretary Steve Reed selected a five-unitary arrangement rather than an option for fewer and larger authorities which was reportedly preferred by departmental officials. Challenges were also launched or contemplated in Hampshire, Norfolk, Suffolk, Portsmouth and Kent.

The Government’s wider retreat has been described by the Local Government Information Unit as threatening to turn the programme into a “colossal white elephant”, consuming thousands of hours of council officers’ and councillors’ time.

Surrey says it remains on course

Surrey’s councils responded quickly to the national announcement by reaffirming their commitment to creating East Surrey Council and West Surrey Council on 1 April 2027.

In a joint release issued through Surrey County Council, they said the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government had confirmed that Surrey would not be affected by the review.

The councils said significant work had already been undertaken to develop the proposals, consult partners and communities and prepare for the transfer of services. They maintained that the new structure would simplify local government, strengthen accountability and improve services.

Councillor Steve Wotton, Leader of the shadow East Surrey Council, which includes Epsom and Ewell, said: “Government has been clear that Surrey’s local government reorganisation programme remains on track.

“Councils across Surrey have worked at pace to develop robust proposals that will deliver long-term benefits for residents, businesses and communities. We remain confident that reorganisation will create stronger, more sustainable local government and help us deliver better outcomes for local people.”

Councillor Paul Follows, Leader of West Surrey Council, said significant progress had already been made and that partners were continuing to work constructively together.

“We remain committed to delivering reorganisation successfully and ensuring that residents, colleagues and partners are supported throughout the transition,” he said.

Residents have been assured that existing councils will continue delivering services normally until the transfer takes place.

The Surrey statement addresses the immediate practical question: the national review will not delay Surrey’s changeover. It does not, however, resolve the wider question raised by the Government’s change of course: whether the original national programme, including the accelerated Surrey process, was soundly conceived.

Why Surrey is different

Surrey has progressed considerably further than the areas placed under review.

The Government decided in October 2025 that Surrey County Council and the county’s 11 district and borough councils should be replaced by two authorities.

East Surrey will encompass Epsom and Ewell, Elmbridge, Mole Valley, Reigate and Banstead and Tandridge. West Surrey will cover Guildford, Runnymede, Spelthorne, Surrey Heath, Waverley and Woking.

The Surrey (Structural Changes) Order 2026 was approved by Parliament, made on 9 March and brought into force on 10 March. Elections for both new councils took place in May.

East and West Surrey now exist as shadow authorities. They are preparing budgets, staffing structures, constitutions and service arrangements before assuming full responsibility on 1 April 2027.

On that date Surrey County Council, Epsom and Ewell Borough Council and the other ten borough and district councils will be abolished.

Surrey therefore cannot simply be added to the list of paused areas through an administrative announcement. Reversing course would require ministers and Parliament to undo an order already in force, deal with two elected shadow authorities and decide whether the councils marked for abolition should instead be preserved.

The existence of that legal and democratic machinery probably explains why ministers have chosen to let Surrey continue. It does not necessarily amount to a fresh examination or endorsement of the merits of the two-unitary model.

Nor does it establish that the legal difficulties identified elsewhere could never have affected the earlier Surrey process. Ministers have not published the new advice or explained in detail why it applies to later decisions but not to Surrey.

The cost before the savings

Surrey’s own published figures show that reorganisation is not a cost-free exercise.

The May 2026 implementation plan estimates that setting up the two new councils before April 2027 will cost £35.3 million.

Surrey County Council is expected to provide £28.24 million. The remaining 20 per cent is being divided among the borough and district councils according to their council tax bases.

Epsom and Ewell Borough Council’s allocated contribution is £454,094.

That £35.3 million covers work before the new councils take over. The implementation plan expressly states that costs incurred after April 2027 will have to be funded by East and West Surrey themselves. The eventual total may therefore be higher.

There are also costs which are harder to place on a balance sheet: senior officers and specialist staff diverted from ordinary council work, consultants and legal advisers, harmonising computer systems and employment terms, splitting Surrey County Council’s budget and assets, rewriting contracts and policies and deciding what happens to hundreds of council-owned properties.

Council tax levels and services which currently differ between boroughs must also eventually be reconciled.

Supporters argue that these are one-off investments which will produce larger recurring savings. The Surrey business case forecast that savings could begin in the first year and increase substantially from year three. Later financial papers quoted a projected saving of about £23 million a year by year five, after allowing for continuing implementation costs.

If those savings are achieved and sustained, a £35.3 million initial expenditure would not by itself prove waste. It could be recovered within a comparatively short period once the full annual savings materialise.

The more difficult question is whether the promised savings will survive the practical complexities of combining 12 councils.

Two councils, but very different financial inheritances

The two new authorities will begin with markedly different financial problems.

Every existing Surrey council is forecasting a medium-term budget gap. West Surrey must also absorb the consequences of Woking Borough Council’s financial collapse and Spelthorne Borough Council’s debt and investment difficulties.

The Government has announced exceptional assistance for Woking, but reorganising boundaries does not make underlying borrowing disappear. Debt, assets, liabilities and interest costs still have to be allocated or supported.

East Surrey avoids Woking’s particular difficulties but will inherit its share of Surrey County Council’s pressures in adult social care, children’s services, special educational needs and school transport. These are among the most expensive and rapidly growing areas of council expenditure.

Unitary status may make it easier to coordinate housing, social care, roads, waste, planning and public health. It does not remove the demographic and financial pressures driving those services.

The Government’s original case for the Surrey changes promised fewer senior managers and councillors, reduced duplication, clearer accountability and more joined-up services.

It suggested, for example, that families needing help with education, social care and housing would no longer have to navigate separate county and borough organisations.

Those are plausible benefits, but they remain promises rather than demonstrated results.

What Epsom and Ewell loses

For Epsom and Ewell, the question is not only financial.

The borough, with its own civic identity and relatively small geographical area, will become one part of an authority stretching from Elmbridge in the west to Tandridge in the east. Decisions presently taken at Epsom Town Hall will ultimately be made by a much larger council serving around half of Surrey.

The number of councils may be reduced, but the distance between residents and the principal decision-making body will increase. Planning, licensing, parks, refuse collection, homelessness and other distinctly local services will be transferred to East Surrey.

That sits uneasily with the claim in the councils’ latest statement that reorganisation will strengthen local accountability.

Area committees, community boards or similar arrangements may be established to maintain a connection with individual towns and communities. Epsom and Ewell’s proposed Charter Trustees could preserve the mayoralty and some civic traditions, but would not replace the borough council’s service-delivery or decision-making powers.

If funded through an additional local precept, the Charter Trustees would also create a modest new layer of cost beneath the new unitary authority.

The tension is clear: reorganisation seeks savings through scale while simultaneously having to devise new structures to restore some of the local connection which that scale removes.

Was it all a waste?

The Government’s pause does not, by itself, prove that Surrey’s reorganisation has been a waste of time and money.

Surrey’s two councils have been established in law, their councillors have been elected and implementation is well under way. Stopping now could waste more of the work and expenditure already committed while creating legal and administrative confusion.

Surrey leaders are also entitled to point to the amount of preparation already undertaken and the need to give certainty to residents, council employees, contractors and voluntary organisations.

Nevertheless, the national reversal seriously weakens the confidence with which the programme was sold.

The policy was announced in the December 2024 English Devolution White Paper and was not contained in Labour’s 2024 general election manifesto, as recorded in the House of Commons Library’s July 2026 briefing.

Surrey was placed on an accelerated timetable, submitting proposals in May 2025 while most other areas were given until the autumn.

Residents were asked to accept postponed elections, hurried consultation and a fundamental alteration of local democracy on the basis that the national direction was settled and the financial case compelling.

Less than two years later, ministers are checking whether much of that programme was lawful, procedurally robust or even consistent with the new administration’s priorities.

Surrey appears to have crossed the bridge just before the Government closed it for a structural inspection.

Whether that makes Surrey fortunate or merely the first county irrevocably committed to a questionable experiment will not be answered by ministerial assurances or council press releases.

It will depend on measurable results after April 2027: the final transition bill, actual rather than forecast savings, council tax levels, the quality of services and whether residents still feel that local decisions are being made locally.

For now, the fairest conclusion is that Surrey’s reorganisation is too advanced to be treated as abandoned expenditure, but nowhere near advanced enough to be declared money well spent.

Lionel Blackman

.

Image: Angela Rayner Official Cabinet Portrait, July 2024

Related reports

• How two became one became three – how “unitary” means “trinity” – 25 August 2026
• Tiers not shed for local government in Surrey after all…? – 25 August 2026
• Epsom and Ewell Council votes for continuing a local Mayoralty after its abolition, for a small fee – 22 July 2026
• Big spending must be approved by new Councils from now – 9 July 2026
• East Surrey Unitary lack of devolution detail – 16 April 2026
• Tiers to be shed if Epsom and Ewell loses its Borough Council – 23 December 2024

Surrey’s two new unitary councils are considering a “tourism tax” to help buoy their finances amid major changes to local government in the area.

This tax on overnight stays, which regional mayors will be allowed to charge under government plans, could come to Surrey as part of a major overhaul of the county’s councils.

East and West Surrey councils are set to take over power from Surrey County Council and the 11 district councils next April, after which they plan to pool resources on certain services.

It would be achieved through a framework called a foundation strategic authority (FSA), and the two new councils are currently consulting with the government on setting one up. The FSA could then act as a stepping stone towards Surrey having its own overarching elected mayor.

East Surrey shadow authority’s cabinet, which is tasked with setting up the new council, will next week discuss its joint response with West Surrey to the government’s consultation on an FSA for Surrey.

But in their proposed response, the two councils asked for more information about “new fiscal levers” they might be given by the government to help bolster their finances.

This included the possible introduction of an “overnight visitor levy”, more commonly known as a tourism tax, that would allow regional mayors to impose a small levy on paid visitor accommodation in their areas.

The document reads: “As further details are developed, we would welcome clarity on the proposed charging framework, implementation timetable, any exemptions or thresholds, the categories of accommodation that would be in scope, and the extent of local flexibility in how the levy may be applied. 

“We would also welcome further information on how funding raised through the levy may be spent.”

Tourism taxes, which often involve a small fee levied on visitor accommodation, are commonplace in many other countries. A 2025 report by the Centre for Cities think tank described England as an “international outlier” in not imposing such a tax.

Ahead of the 2025 budget, the government announced plans to bring in the overnight visitor levy, which is designed to allow regional mayors to invest more in local infrastructure.

Local leaders would be able to decide whether or not to implement the tax, which would apply to overnight stays in paid accommodation such as hotels, bed and breakfasts and guesthouses.

A cabinet statement from July 2026 says the government will give “all strategic authorities the ability to introduce an Overnight Visitor Levy, with local leaders able to set out plans for how revenues will be invested by March 2028.”

In 2019, a study by the Institute for Fiscal Studies estimated that a £1 tourist tax could raise £420 million per year across England.

A government spokesperson said: “The levy will help ensure local people and economies keep more of the rewards and invest in what matters most to their communities, including reinvesting back into tourism.

“Similar levies in other countries typically add only a small amount per night and evidence suggests that they can have a limited impact on visitor numbers and jobs. 

“Local leaders will need to consult with their areas before introducing a levy, and we’re listening to businesses to make sure money raised is invested effectively.”

Surrey is now just months away from “vesting day” – the moment from which West and East Surrey councils will formally take over management of all local government services in the county.

The shadow authorities’ consultation response also highlights the more broadly fraught financial situation facing local government in England.

“We request early engagement with government on a funding package that appropriately reflects the scale of the functions being transferred, together with certainty on Surrey’s future pathway towards mayoral devolution,” it reads. 

“A firm commitment on both funding and Surrey’s future pathway towards mayoral devolution would provide confidence that Surrey can establish the strong foundations required to realise the full benefits of devolution.”

James Moules Local Democracy Reporter

Crushing debt set to be inherited by hundreds of thousands of West Surrey residents will have a big chunk taken out of it after the Government officially began the process paying down £500,000,000 of Woking Borough Council’s financial failings.

The new council will take over in April 2027 following the dissolution of Surrey County Council and its 11 boroughs and districts.

West Surrey was forecast to start life with a £4billion black hole as a legacy of failed investment strategies, the largest being Woking Borough Council £2billion shortfall.

This will now be significantly reduced after the government started paying Woking Borough Council’s historic debt, built on the back of a failed investment strategy that bankrupted the borough in 2023.

The first repayment was completed on September 1 with the settlement of an £8 million loan – with a further £492 million of loans expected to be repaid by the end of March 2027.

In effect the Government is paying itself as the money owed was from its own Public Works Loans Board but its decision to begin the financial relief has been described by Woking Borough Council as a significant milestone its recovery.

Cllr Ann-Marie Barker, leader of Woking Borough Council, said: “The start of this financial support marks a significant step towards addressing the council’s historic debt burden and reducing the costs associated with it.

“While this marks important progress, we recognise that Woking’s debt is an ongoing concern for residents across Surrey, and that there is still much work to do.

“Our priority remains clear.

“With the continued support of government, commissioners and our future partners in West Surrey, we remain focused on delivering our Improvement and Recovery Plan to enter the new unitary council in the strongest financial position possible.”

The money was first pledged to the council last year when the government said it would provide £500m in financial support 2026/27 to help reduce Woking’s debt burden and borrowing costs  – where the interest alone was pushing towards the £100m a year mark.

The council has been under commissioner control since collapsing, with all decisions having to be signed off by government appointed staff.

It says this money is a reflection of the ongoing commitment to reduce debt, which has seen it selling off a host of high-profile buildings in the town centre to help claw back what it can. These include the Victoria Square and its energy companies.

Chris Caulfield Local Democracy Reporter

.

Woking Borough Council (Image Chris Caulfiield)

Related reports:

Woking bankruptcy sell off

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

Surrey’s BIG debt question in local government reorganisation

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

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

What Epsom could do with Woking’s £75 million bail out?

Ex-Council Officers under investigation for Woking’s £2 billion debt

Will Epsom and Ewell be bailing out Woking?

No wonder Woking went bankrupt: scandal of private school loans

Epsom & Ewell Borough Council passed 552 council tax debts on to bailiffs in 2025/26, according to new Freedom of Information data compiled by National Debtline as part of its annual Stop the Knock campaign. This is a reduction of 39% compared to 2024/25.

The findings come as total council tax arrears in in and around Epsom and Ewell were revealed by MHCLG to now stand at £1.9 million. This forms part of a national total which has now hit £7.4 billion, up from £6.6 billion in 2024/25.

The charity’s figures also show that across England and Wales a total of 153 councils (48%) increased their use of bailiffs for council tax debts. And that 1.72 million council tax arrears cases were passed to bailiffs by councils during 2025/26, a figure largely unchanged from 1.74 million in 2024/25. The charity says these numbers demonstrate the continued reliance on enforcement action despite ongoing cost-of-living pressures.

As their budgets have become more stretched, councils are increasingly reliant on council tax revenue to fund essential services like social care, local schools and rubbish collections. This has led many councils to increase council tax for residents, a move which often deepens the financial challenges for people already hit hardest by the high cost of living.

Councils reduce support for most vulnerable residents

National Debtline’s research found that last year, just 26 of 317 local authorities were exempting residents in receipt of Council Tax Support from bailiff action, a decrease of 26% from 35 in 2024/25. Epsom & Ewell Borough Council does not exempt Council Tax Support recipients from bailiff action in this way – something National Debtline is calling on councillors to change.

The charity is calling on local authorities to recognise that people receiving Council Tax Support will be some of the most financially vulnerable so are highly unlikely to be able to be able to repay quickly and in full and so should be exempted from bailiff action.

Charity urges local people to seek advice

With council tax being one of the top three most common debts its advisers hear about, alongside credit cards and energy bills, National Debtline, the free independent debt advice service, is calling on anyone in and around Epsom and Ewell worried about their council tax bills or facing bailiff action to seek advice as soon as possible.

Currently a third (31%) of people who contact National Debtline have council tax debt.

Edward Ware, spokesperson for National Debtline, says:

“We understand that councils are under increasing financial budget constraints, and council tax is vital to funding the local services we all rely on, but collecting this money cannot come at the expense of its most financially vulnerable residents.

“We are pleased to see that Epsom & Ewell Borough Council has reduced its bailiff use recently, but we would urge councillors to review whether there is more the council could do to support residents who are struggling to pay.”

“With council tax now one of the most common debts we see we need councils to adopt fairer approaches to collection, not harsher enforcement. Exempting residents who receive Council Tax Support from bailiff action is a key way in which councils can help – and we would urge Epsom & Ewell Borough Council to put this in place urgently.”

Changes on the way, but more reform still needed

There is some positive news on the horizon. Following the Government’s wide-ranging consultation on council tax administration, several reforms are expected in 2027. These are aimed at creating a fairer and more proportionate system for people struggling with payments.  

The changes will require councils to wait longer – 63 days, up from two weeks – before demanding a full year’s council tax following a missed instalment; offer more affordable repayment arrangements; and a new £100 cap on court-related fees. Alongside this, there will be stronger emphasis on reducing aggressive enforcement practices such as the use of bailiffs, better protections for vulnerable households and a shift to 12 monthly payments, instead of the current 10, by default to make bills more manageable.  

The charity has welcomed these changes following years of campaigning on council tax reform, but says further action is still needed. It is urging the government to set out a series of statutory steps councils must take before passing debts onto bailiffs, including councils working with residents and debt advisers to put in place an affordable payment arrangement before any enforcement action is taken.  

The charity is also calling on the Government to follow through with proposals to regulate the bailiff industry and give the Enforcement Conduct Board statutory power to oversee the sector.

Edward continues, “The proposed changes to council tax collection practices should make a meaningful difference to financially vulnerable households, but we need to see more progress when it comes to regulation of the bailiff industry.

“We need to stop people falling behind with council tax in the first place. The Government should also invest more funding in local Council Tax Support schemes, so that all councils can offer 100% Council Tax Support for its most financially vulnerable residents.

“Anyone struggling to pay their council tax bill should seek free, independent advice from National Debtline as soon as possible. Our advisers are here to help and can talk you through your options.”

1.       Full dataset of bailiff use in England and Wales in 2023/24, 2024/25 and 2025/26 available on request or via https://www.stoptheknock.org/

2.       The latest council tax arrears statistics (from MHCLG) can be accessed via: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/collection-rates-for-council-tax-and-non-domestic-rates-in-england-2025-to-2026  (Table 9a)

3.       Government’s consultation on council tax: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/modernising-and-improving-the-administration-of-council-tax/modernising-and-improving-the-administration-of-council-tax

4.       National Debtline provides free, independent, expert advice. People worried about their finances can contact National Debtline for free on 0808 808 4000 or via www.nationaldebtline.org.  

Councillor allowance bill rises £19,275 in a year

Epsom and Ewell Borough Council’s bill for councillor allowances rose by more than £19,000 last year, with 30 of the borough’s 35 councillors receiving more than in the previous financial year.

The Council paid a total of £285,011.33 in members’ allowances in 2025/26, compared with £265,736.49 in 2024/25 – an increase of £19,274.84, or 7.25%.

The newly published figures cover the financial year from 1 April 2025 to 31 March 2026. The previous return covers 1 April 2024 to 31 March 2025.

Much of the increase resulted from the basic allowance payable to every councillor rising from £5,779.86 to £6,202.68 – an increase of £422.82, or 7.3%.

Across all 35 councillors that added £14,798.70 to the bill. In other words, just over three-quarters of the £19,275 year-on-year increase arose from the increase in the basic allowance alone.

Special Responsibility Allowances – additional payments for councillors holding particular positions – increased collectively from £62,822.38 to £67,359.72, an increase of £4,537.34.

Travel and subsistence payments actually fell slightly, from £619.01 to £557.81. No dependants’ carers’ allowances were recorded in either year.

The Council states that Special Responsibility Allowances do not relate to actual attendance at meetings but to membership of committees and panels, and that allowance payments are subject to Income Tax and National Insurance.

McCormick remains highest-paid councillor

Cllr Steven McCormick topped the table for the second successive year. His total increased from £16,983.46 to £18,608.16, a rise of £1,624.70.

For clarity, McCormick was a Residents’ Association councillor throughout the 2025/26 financial year. Although EEBC’s present councillor page now records him as Conservative, the Council’s earlier listing recorded him as RA and he contested the new East Surrey Council election on 7 May 2026 as a Residents’ Association candidate for Epsom Town and Downs. His subsequent change of allegiance therefore falls outside the period covered by these allowance figures.

Second highest was Cllr Neil Dallen, whose payment increased from £15,645.76 to £17,057.52, a rise of £1,411.76.

Council Leader Cllr Hannah Dalton moved from second to third place and was one of only five councillors whose total payment fell. She received £16,266.40, £429.41 less than the £16,695.81 received in 2024/25. The difference largely reflects a reduction in her Special Responsibility Allowance and travel and subsistence payments.

The other councillors whose total payments fell were Humphrey Reynolds (£175.96 less), Steve Bridger (£75.76 less), Julian Freeman (£52.16 less) and Bernie Muir (£52.16 less).

Biggest rises

After McCormick’s £1,624.70 increase, the biggest cash increases went to:

John Beckett – up £1,474.94

Neil Dallen – up £1,411.76

Alan Williamson – up £1,395.42

Clive Woodbridge – up £1,214.94

The percentage comparison can sometimes exaggerate relatively small payments, but Cllr Beckett’s total nevertheless rose by almost a quarter, from £6,278.44 to £7,753.38.

At the other end of the scale, 12 councillors received no Special Responsibility Allowance in 2025/26 and were paid simply the basic £6,202.68 allowance.

The two published returns show all 35 councillors serving in both financial years, allowing a direct like-for-like comparison.

Councillor allowances compared

The table is ranked by the latest, 2025/26, total.

Councillor / ward / party during 2025/26	2024/25	2025/26	Change
Steven McCormick — Woodcote & Langley Vale — RA	£16,983.46	£18,608.16	+£1,624.70
Neil Dallen — Town — RA	£15,645.76	£17,057.52	+£1,411.76
Hannah Dalton — Stoneleigh — RA	£16,695.81	£16,266.40	−£429.41
Clive Woodbridge — Ewell Village — RA	£12,431.10	£13,646.04	+£1,214.94
Liz Frost — Woodcote & Langley Vale — RA	£9,790.14	£10,562.54	+£772.40
Peter O’Donovan — Ewell Court — RA	£9,648.02	£10,544.64	+£896.62
Phil Neale — Cuddington — RA	£8,131.92	£8,994.00	+£862.08
Alan Williamson — West Ewell — RA	£7,553.56	£8,948.98	+£1,395.42
Bernice Froud — Woodcote & Langley Vale — RA	£7,802.86	£8,373.72	+£570.86
Christine Cleveland — Ewell Village — RA	£7,727.52	£8,063.52	+£336.00
John Beckett — Auriol — RA	£6,278.44	£7,753.38	+£1,474.94
Shanice Goldman — Nonsuch — RA → Conservative	£7,300.16	£7,488.26	+£188.10
Kate Chinn — Court — Labour	£6,708.26	£7,173.00	+£464.74
Rachel King — Town — RA	£6,539.96	£7,133.04	+£593.08
Jan Mason — Ruxley — RA	£6,358.22	£6,822.96	+£464.74
Humphrey Reynolds — West Ewell — RA	£6,998.92	£6,822.96	−£175.96
Chris Watson — Ewell Court — RA → Labour	£6,286.66	£6,822.96	+£536.30
Alison Kelly — Stamford — Liberal Democrat	£5,779.86	£6,719.58	+£939.72
Kieran Persand — Horton — Conservative	£5,779.86	£6,719.58	+£939.72
Bernie Muir — Horton — Conservative	£6,658.22	£6,606.06	−£52.16
Alex Coley — Ruxley — Independent	£5,993.54	£6,593.09	+£599.55
James Lawrence — College — Lib Dem → Independent	£5,779.86	£6,552.72	+£772.86
Julian Freeman — College — Liberal Democrat	£6,358.22	£6,306.06	−£52.16
Arthur Abdulin — Town — RA	£5,779.86	£6,202.68	+£422.82
Chris Ames — Court — Labour	£5,779.86	£6,202.68	+£422.82
Steve Bridger — Stamford — RA	£6,278.44	£6,202.68	−£75.76
Tony Froud — Stoneleigh — RA	£5,779.86	£6,202.68	+£422.82
Rob Geleit — Court — Labour	£5,779.86	£6,202.68	+£422.82
Christine Howells — Nonsuch — RA → Independent	£5,779.86	£6,202.68	+£422.82
Graham Jones — Cuddington — RA	£5,779.86	£6,202.68	+£422.82
Robert Leach — Nonsuch — RA	£6,029.16	£6,202.68	+£173.52
Lucie McIntyre — West Ewell — RA	£5,779.86	£6,202.68	+£422.82
Julie Morris — College — Independent	£6,179.82	£6,202.68	+£22.86
Kim Spickett — Cuddington — RA	£5,779.86	£6,202.68	+£422.82
Darren Talbot — Auriol — RA	£5,779.86	£6,202.68	+£422.82
TOTAL	£265,736.49	£285,011.33	+£19,274.84

Political allegiances also shifted during the year covered by the figures. Shanice Goldman left the Residents’ Association for the Conservatives in January 2026, Chris Watson moved from the RA to Labour in February, and James Lawrence left the Liberal Democrats for the Independent Group in March. Christine Howells, who had been an RA councillor during part of the year, was also sitting as an Independent by its end. Steven McCormick remained an RA councillor throughout the 2025/26 financial year; his subsequent move to the Conservatives came after the May 2026 unitary council election, which he contested unsuccessfully for the Residents’ Association in Town and Downs.

Sam Jones – Reporter

.

Image: Epsom and Ewell Borough Council Chamber. EEBC YouTube

Surrey’s future strategic authority could retain a share of locally generated income tax and business rates under government plans to transfer more money and decision-making from Whitehall to England’s regions.

The Government’s “Rewiring the State” programme proposes replacing some central government grants with a share of the income tax generated within each mayoral area from April 2028.

Mayors would not, on the information published so far, be given the power to set income tax rates. Instead, part of the existing tax collected by the Treasury would be assigned to their regions.

The intention is that an area which expands its economy and tax base would benefit from the additional revenue. Councils and strategic authorities would also retain a greater proportion of locally raised business rates.

However, the Government has yet to disclose what percentage of either tax would be retained, how the system would operate during an economic downturn or how revenues would be redistributed between wealthier and less prosperous regions.

Those details are expected in a fiscal devolution roadmap accompanying the autumn Budget, followed by more precise income-tax arrangements in the next Spending Review.

The proposals could prove particularly significant for Surrey, with its comparatively strong economy, high employment and large number of higher-rate taxpayers. Whether that translates into substantially more money for local services will depend upon the formula eventually adopted and the grants which tax revenues replace.

Surrey County Council says a Foundation Strategic Authority is proposed for the county in 2027, providing a possible route to a Mayoral Strategic Authority from 2028.

That distinction matters. The Cabinet statement promises a share of income tax to “every mayor”, while saying that mayoral authorities will receive greater powers than non-mayoral bodies. It does not clearly promise non-mayoral Foundation Strategic Authorities the same income-tax entitlement.

The Government says it will not impose a mayor on an area which does not want one, although it regards directly elected mayors as offering the strongest form of accountability. It wants every part of England to have, or be establishing, a strategic authority by the end of 2027, with authorities operating everywhere by the end of 2028.

Councillor Steve Wotton, Leader of the East Surrey Shadow Authority, welcomed the direction of travel.

He said: “Surrey has a strong economy, a highly skilled workforce and an important role to play in supporting national growth. Giving strategic authorities a stronger link to locally generated revenues has the potential to provide greater certainty for long-term investment in transport, infrastructure, housing and skills.

“The ability to plan over a longer time horizon could help local leaders make better decisions, unlock investment and deliver improvements that residents and businesses want to see.”

Councillor Paul Follows, Leader of the West Surrey Shadow Authority, said the principle was positive but cautioned that the detail would be critical.

“Places like Surrey should have a stronger voice in the decisions that affect their residents, businesses and local economy,” he said.

“However, it will be important that government gets the detail right. Any new funding system must be fair, sustainable and recognise the different opportunities and challenges faced by communities across the country.”

Beyond taxation, the programme proposes giving mayors greater control over transport, housing, skills, employment support, innovation, energy and cultural investment.

Mayors would gain control of budgets for technical and vocational education for 16 to 19-year-olds and locally tailored employment support. They could also be given greater influence over commuter rail services, bus regulation, affordable housing and regional investment.

Police, fire and rescue services and Integrated Care Boards are eventually expected to align with strategic-authority boundaries. Deputy mayors could be appointed to oversee important public services.

All strategic authorities, including non-mayoral ones, would also be able to introduce an Overnight Visitor Levy. The charge, sometimes described as a tourist tax, could be imposed on overnight accommodation, with authorities expected to explain by March 2028 how the proceeds would be invested.

No proposed rate or charging mechanism has yet been announced.

The reforms could therefore give a future Surrey mayor considerable influence over services and investment currently controlled by Whitehall or separate public bodies. They would also create another directly elected political office above the two new Surrey unitary councils.

Epsom and Ewell is due to form part of the new East Surrey authority under the county’s local government reorganisation. The precise relationship between the two unitary councils and a county-wide strategic authority—including how powers, costs and accountability would be divided—has still to be settled.

Tax retention could reward economic growth and provide more predictable funding for long-term projects. It also raises difficult questions. Income-tax receipts fluctuate, affluent regions begin with much stronger tax bases, and replacing government grants with locally assigned revenues could expose authorities to greater financial risk.

The Cabinet statement acknowledges that different areas have unequal starting points and says growth incentives will have to be balanced against fairness. It also proposes stronger oversight, including making the chief executives of mayoral strategic authorities accountable for the use of public money as Local Accounting Officers.

Business-rate retention is scheduled to begin for mayors in April 2027, with locally retained income-tax receipts following in April 2028. A government white paper setting out the legislation, funding arrangements and timetable is promised for the autumn.

For Surrey, the headline prospect is an attractive one: keeping more of the wealth generated within the county. Whether it represents genuinely additional local spending power—or chiefly a new way of funding responsibilities transferred from Westminster—will only become clear when the figures and equalisation rules are published.

Sam Jones – Reporter

A single commissioner team will oversee the combined financial messes across Woking and Spelthorne as fears mount that their enormous unsupported debts and tangled property webs could spill over and impact the newly formed West Surrey Council.

If the problems are not fixed, government-appointed commissioners could remain in place at the new authority, the Department for Local Government said this week.

The government has already committed £500 million to support Woking – and more is expected – and the council is currently selling off its assets left, right and centre in an effort to bring down its unprecedented multi-billion-pound debt. These sales may need to continue past vesting day, when Surrey’s councils merge into two mega-authorities.

In Spelthorne, commissioners have said there are still challenges over its financial sustainability, commercial portfolio and capacity to deliver changes. With the councils set to dissolve in April 2027, the government is concerned the problems could transfer into the new West Surrey authority.

At the same time, commissioners will work in a more joined-up way with West Surrey, letters from government ministers read, to provide advice, challenge decisions and offer independent assurance on how the new council will run from day one of the new authority. This will include its financial strategy, management of inherited risks and governance framework – although at this stage they will not have executive powers at the new authority.

Woking and Spelthorne remain two of the most indebted councils in the country after years of financial mismanagement and have been under watch to oversee their turnarounds.

Alison McGovern, Minister of State for Local Government, wrote to inform the councils that their special measures will remain in place and of the changes that will be made.

The letter read: “Significant challenges…remain, particularly financial sustainability, continued reliance on reserves, risks within the commercial portfolio, and capacity pressures. I agree that maintaining pace in the final phase of the intervention and managing these risks through transition will be critical.

“Findings reinforce the need for a more integrated approach to risks across Spelthorne and Woking. I have therefore decided to establish a single commissioner team across both councils.”

They will be tasked with providing an independent view of the financial, commercial and governance challenges that West Surrey may inherit from Woking and Spelthorne.

It added: “Their assessment will inform the department’s view of whether West Surrey has sufficient grip of those challenges and whether any further supportive arrangements may be needed beyond vesting day.”

On April 1, Woking, Spelthorne, Guildford, Surrey Heath, Waverley and Runnymede borough councils will dissolve and be merged with the western half of Surrey County Council to create West Surrey Council, which will be responsible for all services in the area.

Chris Caulfield Local Democracy Reporter

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Epsom and Ewell Borough Council’s homelessness expenditure remains at its maximum risk rating despite additional staff, fraud investigations, government funding and the implementation of a homelessness action plan.

The Council’s year-end performance report recorded a £410,000 adverse budget variance for 2025/26, with net expenditure of £10.679 million against an approved budget of £10.269 million.

The overspend was driven primarily by temporary accommodation costs. It would have been higher without treasury income approximately £100,000 above forecast and around £200,000 of additional income from property leases completed later than anticipated.

Councillor Steve McCormick (Conservative Woodcote and Langley) told the Audit and Scrutiny Committee 16th July that those gains had effectively masked what would otherwise have been a £710,000 operational overspend.

The number of homelessness applications rose by 82.6% during the year to 623. The number of households in nightly-paid accommodation remained above target and was 5.5% higher than at the equivalent point a year earlier.

The corporate risk of homelessness spending exceeding its budget carries an inherent score of 16 and, unusually, remains at 16 even after the Council’s controls are taken into account.

Mr McCormick asked whether that meant the controls were ineffective or that external pressures had simply overwhelmed what the Council could do.

Assistant Director Andrew Bircher said: “Notwithstanding all these actions that we seem to be taking in order to try and reduce the amount of homelessness, we’re not seeing that come to pass. In fact, we’re seeing the number of nightly paid and the homelessness numbers increasing. If it was getting better, I think we would see our residual risk lower, but what we’re seeing is it’s not getting better; it’s getting worse.”

He distinguished between making prudent financial provision for the costs and successfully reducing the underlying demand. “The fact that we might be able to cope with that doesn’t mean that it isn’t still a risk,” he said.

Where will the missing £650,000 come from?

Cllr Alex Coley (Independent Ruxley) agreed that officers had undertaken a considerable amount of work. He said almost every action within the homelessness and rough-sleeping strategy was marked green or completed, with modular housing the main exception. Without that work, he estimated annual costs could already have reached around £2 million.

However, he questioned whether the budget figures matched the scale of the known pressure. “The allocation of funding to temporary accommodation was significantly short of the money we spent in the last year, which is £1.4 million,” he said. “I think we’ve only allocated something like half of that, so £750,000. There is a question, isn’t there: where’s the other £650,000 going to come from?

“People might reasonably ask: did we actually set a balanced budget back in February?”

Three modular homes nearly two years late

The Council’s modular-homes programme remains more than three months off track against an original completion date of July 2024.

Only one location, providing three homes, was found to be viable. Progress has since been delayed by a requested land tribunal hearing, and the performance report supplied no new completion date.

Mr McCormick questioned why the tribunal risk had not been anticipated and what alternative rapid-delivery housing schemes were being pursued. Officers were unable to answer at the meeting and said a response would be obtained from the relevant service.

Financial position “unsustainable” without reorganisation

The Annual Governance Statement contained a candid warning from the Head of Paid Service that, although EEBC remained relatively financially stable, its position would be unsustainable over the longer term without local government reorganisation.

Mr McCormick asked whether that meant the Council might otherwise have faced a Section 114 financial emergency.

Mr Bircher said EEBC was in a better position than many neighbouring authorities but had previously relied upon reserves to balance its budget. “Clearly, use of reserves year after year is not a sustainable position,” he said.

Without reorganisation, the Council would have needed to consider substantial transformation and change programmes. He said the efficiencies expected from creating the East Surrey Unitary Authority would perform some of the function that a separate savings programme would otherwise have been required to achieve.

Property problem arises for third time

Without disclosing details discussed at a separate exempt meeting, Cllr Coley also challenged the red-rated risk attached to the Council’s property portfolio.

He said a problem involving the Council’s investment company had now arisen for a third time and would cost more than six figures. Previous advice had said doing nothing was not an option, but the problem had nevertheless been allowed to recur. “I would like to know what the control is so it doesn’t happen a fourth time,” he said.

Mr Bircher agreed the risk register should be updated with new mitigation but declined to bring a separate report back to the committee.

Mr McCormick noted that the Council described its approach as “treat” while both the inherent and residual property risk remained at 12. He asked what active measures had been taken to prevent commercial tenants defaulting. That question was also taken away for a later response.

ICT and other services off target

The Council’s 2024/25 ICT roadmap, originally due for completion in March 2025, remains off track. Its IT service-interruption risk remains high, with ageing components and dependence on outside suppliers identified as continuing threats.

Although new firewalls had been installed and other network work was progressing, Mr McCormick asked why the cyber-security response-plan review had slipped to September 2026 and whether investment might become redundant when systems were combined under the new unitary council.

Other significantly off-target indicators included long-term sickness absence and the proportion of parking penalty appeals answered within ten working days, which had fallen from 100% to 63%.

Mr Bircher said parking staff were diverted at the financial year-end to time-critical work such as permit and garden-waste renewals. The Council had chosen not to fund temporary extra capacity, although its response times remained better than the statutory requirement.

“When someone is accountable, they do not”

Many detailed questions were left unanswered because the heads of the relevant services were not at the meeting.

Mr McCormick asked how councillors and the public could be assured that written answers would subsequently be provided and published. Mr Bircher said it would be disproportionate to require every head of service to attend in case a question arose and that Democratic Services had a good record of recording questions and obtaining later answers.

Cllr Coley contrasted the attendance with a Strategy and Resources meeting two days earlier, at which the Chief Executive, Section 151 Officer, Monitoring Officer and senior property officers were present.

“The public and members might get the impression that when somebody wants something, everyone shows up, and when someone’s accountable, they do not,” he said.

The committee noted the performance and risk report.

Sam Jones – Reporter

.

Related reports:

Epsom’s homelessness crisis

What are the solutions to Epsom’s homeless crisis?

Council grapples with rising cost of homelessness

Micro-homes for a macro-problem?

Did a fair view prevail on Epsom’s modular homes for the homeless?

Epsom housing project in access gridlock

Pods off in bricks grant for Epsom homeless

Stoneleigh library flats for homeless

Do good intentions square with homeless savings?

Image: Geograph Britain and Ireland | Licence details Creator: Evelyn Simak licenced for reuse under cc-by-sa/2.0