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

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