Finding temporary accommodation for families at risk of homelessness is the “biggest financial pressure” facing Epsom and Ewell. 

---

Following Epsom and Ewell Times report 13th October 2023 on Epsom and Ewell Council’s 10th October 2023 meeting of the Community and Well-being Committee: “Council Grapples with Rising Cost of Homelessness“, Emily Dalton probes further after this year’s meeting 8th October 2024.

---

Our local Council (EEBC) provides around temporary units to 250 households, according to data from July 2024. Of those, 90 are nightly accommodations.

The council spent £1,665,493 on nightly emergency accommodation in 12 months to April – an overspend of £395,000. EEBC had originally budgeted for 70 families in nightly paid accommodation but throughout the first five months of 2024, the Council was regularly supporting in excess of 90.

“The situation remains significantly serious and will be for some time to come,” said Councillor Clive Woodbridge, speaking at a Community and Wellbeing meeting on October 8. Despite hard-working officers behind the scenes, council documents stated that it is unlikely the number of homeless families will decrease over the next 12 months. 

EEBC is absorbing the costs through its original budget, a homelessness grant reserve and the council’s general fund balance and contingency. Nearly £650k has been awarded to EEBC as part of a Homelessness Prevention Grant for this financial year 2024/25. But, officers warned that if demand remains exceptionally high, the local authority may have to dip into its reserves. 

Homelessness “affects all households of all sizes”, a EEBC officer told the committee. He added: “But particularly for us, the higher expenditure is around family-sized households.” Overcrowded and multi-generation families, rather than rough sleeping was presented as the most prominent issue coming before the council, the officer said.  

Due to demand for accommodation, officers are on occasion having to use economy hotel rooms when no other accommodation is available. The total cost for this can be around £140 per night. 

Officers explained the council has a legal “duty” to help people at risk of homelessness and so will continue to foot the bill for temporary accommodation despite the budget pressures.

Landlords were encouraged to take on more council tenants at a landlord forum run by EEBC on September 26. The council is looking for landlords of three, four and five-bedroom houses to sign up to its private sector leasing scheme, so it can reduce the amount it spends on the nightly units. EEBC also highlighted the ‘Rent Deposit Scheme’ as a preventative homeless measures where councils support tenants with deposits and guarantees. 

Looking for new ways to solve the problem, EEBC has asked landlords to help provide emergency housing for families and individuals at risk of homelessness. Although the event was reportedly “well attended”, council officers said it may be “slow burn” for landlords to come forward for the scheme. Officers said there were a couple of approaches but “nothing concrete yet”. 

Related reports:

Epsom and Ewell Press Release on Homelessness

Council Grapples with Rising Cost of Homelessness

Image: Evelyn Simak cc-by-sa/2.0

Surrey councils will get nearly £2m to release disused brownfield sites to unlock desperately needed land for house building including cash to clear asbestos and transform the “heart of Camberley”.

Boroughs and districts are bracing themselves for tough new Government housing targets that could see the demands to deliver new homes skyrocket.

In an effort to alleviate some of the pressures the Government has announced £68m of funding is to go directly to 54 local authorities to turn what it describes as neglected land into housing.

Two of those councils are in Surrey; Surrey Heath Borough Council is set to receive £1,480,300, with Tandridge District Council in line for £250,159.

The funding is to be used clearing empty buildings, former car parks or industrial land in order to make way for homes.

Historically it is expensive to get such sites ready for housebuilding and can sit as empty eyesores for years.

Surrey Heath Borough Council has said in a statement the funding will support its new housing development in London Road site, “near the A30 in the heart of Camberley”.

It added: “The grant will be used to demolish derelict buildings on the site and safely remove asbestos from the former Allders building, clearing the way for future development. “

The money is part of a three-year £180 million Brownfield Land Release Fund 2 launched in July 2022 to allow local authorities in England to build on blocked brownfield land.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer said: “From the outset we promised to get this country building again to deliver 1.5 million homes over this parliament and help tackle the housing crisis we have inherited. That is the essence of fixing the foundations and driving growth.

“I said this government is on the side of the builders, not the blockers. And I meant it. This funding for councils will see disused sites and industrial wastelands transformed into thousands of new homes in places that people want to live and work. Our brownfield-first approach will not only ramp up housebuilding but also create more jobs, deliver much-needed infrastructure, and boost economic growth across the country.

“This government is rolling up its sleeves and delivering the change the British people deserve.”

Housing and planning minister Matthew Pennycook said: “The government is committed to a brownfield-first approach to housebuilding, and we have already taken steps to prioritise and fast-track building on previously used urban land through our proposals for a ‘brownfield passport’.

“The funding announced today will support the delivery of thousands of new homes and boost economic growth by unlocking development on scores of abandoned, disused and neglected urban sites across the country.”

Releasing brownfield land is one step in meeting the needs for housing but some councils are calling on the government to do more.

Waverley Borough Council has written to the deputy prime minister Angela Rayner over the government’s wider planning reforms, which currently would require the council to deliver 1,379 homes a year –  a figure that borough leader Councillor Paul Follows called “unrealistic” and “unachievable”.

He added: “The proposed standard method is fundamentally detached from the realities of local constraints, including national designations such as the Surrey Hills National Landscape. It risks undermining both the environment and community cohesion, and we urgently need a more credible, locally tailored approach.”

Further concerns were raised over the role of developers in housing delivery.

Planning authorities such as Waverley have no control over the rate of housing completions.

_{The Allders building in Camberley will have asbestos cleared to make it suitable for housing (image Google)}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Response from Epsom & Ewell Borough Council

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

Related reports:

Epsom Local Plan controversy heats up

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

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

Epsom and Ewell Brace for Government Housing Targets

Here we go again on the Local Plan?

and many more. Search “Local Plan.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Call for Fair Tree Protection

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

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

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

A Sharp Critique of Housing Targets

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

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

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

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

A Call for Balance and Realism

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

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

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

Addressing Climate Change and Housing Needs

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

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

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

The Question of Local Democracy and Transparency

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

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

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

Green Belt Protections: A Divisive Issue

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

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

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

The Decision: Moving Forward with Caution

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

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

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

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

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

Related reports:

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

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

Epsom and Ewell Brace for Government Housing Targets

Here we go again on the Local Plan?

Minister gets heavy on a Local Plan delay

Mystery Local Plan critic revealed

Local Plan costs eat into Council reserves

Local Plan to move forward after passionate debate

and many many more. Search “local plan”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related reports:

Epsom and Ewell Brace for Government Housing Targets

Anchored in reason on local housing need?

A bedsit landlord who repeatedly ignored warnings to fix flats dubbed “cold”, “damp”, “filthy”, and a “firetrap” has been hit with a court bill approaching £32,000.

Epsom Pars Limited, which runs a 21-room house in multiple occupation (HMO) near Epsom Downs was ordered to pay the fines and costs by Staines Magistrates’ Court after they pleaded guilty to 48 criminal charges.

The case was brought forward by Reigate and Banstead Borough Council after the landlord repeatedly ignored warnings to carry out improvement works to the property.

Councillor Rich Michalowski, executive member for place, planning and regulatory services said: “This case underscores the importance of landlords being held accountable to ensure tenants are living in safe, well-maintained homes. 

“Reigate and Banstead enforcement teams, armed with legal powers, will continue to take action against those who fail to meet the legal standards, ensuring that unsafe and unfit housing has no place in our borough.”

The company was ordered to pay fines, costs, and a victim surcharge totalling £31,840. The charges included various forms of disrepair and fire safety offences, the council said. 

The prosecution comes on the back of  months of exchanges between the landlord and the council.

During that time officers from the private sector housing team were said to have repeatedly warned the landlord against its continued non-compliance that left people living in  “cold”, “damp”, “filthy”  “firetrap” of a property.

During sentencing, magistrates spoke of the “repeated, unacceptable non-compliance” and noted that the  problems identified had put tenants at risk, according to a council statement.

Image RBBC

Plans to demolish and rebuild a shopping parade in Oxshott, has been met with controversy among locals, with some residents decrying it as a “monstrosity” that would be “entirely out of place in a quaint Surrey village.”

Nearly 240 letters have been written to Elmbridge Borough Council (EBC) with around 190 against and 134 supporting the application. Oxshott locals agree the “tired, old and ugly” Heath Building could do with upgrading but they have opposing ideas about what the development should look like.

Built in the 1960s, the two-storey Heath Building is of a brick, modernist design with a flat roof. It currently hosts five operating retail units and five residential flats, three of which are occupied.

The application is seeking to replace the existing Heath Building parade with nine residential flats, four retail units with car parking and a gym. In redeveloping the site the applicant, Heath Buildings Ltd, hopes the “high quality buildings” will attract more footfall and “ensure the vitality and viability” of the High Street.

Locals support a development of sorts, but not at any cost. Residents argued the size of the building is “ridiculous” and would completely dominate and destroy the street scene, and look “entirely out of place in a quaint Surrey village”.

Comparing the development to the equivalent of a “Marriott Hotel being ‘dumped’ in our high street”, one man argued the development will have a profound impact on neighbouring residents living “in the shadow of this monstrosity”.

But a resident who was in favour said: “Oxshott High Street is the heart of the village but the buildings are ‘tatty’. [This development] would enhance the high street.”

Council officers have recommended the proposal for refusal due to the height, bulk and the architectural design being “incongruous” with the character of the area. They added the style of the development would result in a “harmful” loss of privacy, create an “unneighbourly and overbearing impact” to other properties.

A previous application was refused in December 2023. EBC also rejected the application because it did not fully show it could secure private refuse collection for the residential units or that there would be no loss of biodiversity like trees.

Planning documents detail the applicant’s vision of a “traditional” building which reflects the “imposing and often neo-classical/Georgian style houses” in the area. Responding to the previous refusal of the scheme, the applicant has designed a ‘pitched roof’ slanting from the centre, to lower the overall height of the building.

The three-storey development is proposed to be two metres taller than other buildings on the high street. But the applicant said there would be “no harm” in introducing a “slightly taller building” on the high street as there was not a consistent level.

But people have still taken opposition, one resident said: “The Real Voice of Oxshott has spoken and it’s a ‘NO’”. Others have voiced persistent concerns around the height and overall bulk of the proposal. One resident criticised the plans as “excessive and overwhelming” with “little architectural merit”.

Concerns were also raised about losing trees around the retail parade, some with tree protection orders (TPOs) like the walnut tree.

Although the council’s tree officer made no initial objections to the scheme, a late submission by Midgarth Residents’ Association (MRA) found the proposed development would result in a detrimental impact on protected trees. This is because it is claimed that the building’s height would reduce growing space and harm the survival of the trees. Taking the report on board, officers have added the concerts around tree preservation as an additional reason for refusal.

Those supporting the plans argue the high street and the building is in “desperate” need for renovation and the investment will spur on economic and business opportunities in the village. A resident argued that “as one of the richest postcodes in the country”, the “quality” upgrade plans was exactly what the residents of Oxshott “should expect”.

Others say the building “needs to be updated” and they would rather have a company which has already invested in the community than an outside developer or a national chain. A resident claimed residents will “lose [the] high street” with all the independent shops if the application is not approved, as national retailers or large-scale development will take over.

Councillors debated the proposal at the south area planning sub-committee on September 11, but referred it to be decided at full planning committee later in the year.

Epsom & Ewell Borough Council, like many local authorities across England, is grappling with a growing homelessness crisis, as highlighted in a recent press release. [Click here for full press release]. The council, which is governed by the Residents Associations (RA), has laid out the stark realities of the situation, detailing the pressures it faces and the steps it is taking to address the problem. This has sparked responses from various political parties, local campaign groups, and concerned residents, each presenting their own perspective on how best to tackle the issue.

The council’s press release reveals alarming statistics, positioning Epsom & Ewell among the top seven boroughs outside of London with the highest number pro rata of homeless households in temporary accommodation. With more than £1.6 million spent on nightly paid accommodation last year, and many families placed outside the borough, the human and financial costs are escalating. Councillor Hannah Dalton, (RA Stoneleigh) Chair of the Epsom & Ewell Residents Association, highlighted the “enormous human impact” of this crisis, pointing out the disruption to education and the health challenges faced by those in temporary accommodation.

Councillor Neil Woodbridge, (RA Ewell Village) Chair of the Community & Wellbeing Committee, echoed these sentiments, stating, “The vast majority of homeless households are those who cannot afford suitable accommodation,” and he pointed to the council’s Homelessness Strategy as a key tool in mitigating the crisis. The council’s initiatives include a Rent Deposit Scheme, a Private Sector Leasing Scheme, and efforts to bring empty properties back into use. However, both Cllr Dalton and Cllr Woodbridge acknowledge that these measures are only partial solutions, and significant action is needed to achieve a sustainable resolution.

Opposition Parties Call for Central Government Support

In response to the council’s press release, opposition parties have voiced their concerns and offered their own solutions. Liberal Democrat Councillor Alison Kelly (College) criticised the council’s approach as “sticking plaster solutions,” emphasizing the need for central government to provide financial incentives for social housing development, particularly on brownfield sites. She pointed out that increasing local housing allowances would provide immediate relief for those struggling to afford rent, arguing that this would reduce the number of families pushed into temporary accommodation.

Cllr Kelly’s comments reflect a broader call for government intervention. “The rental increases and the continuing cost of living crisis mean many can’t keep a roof over their head without going into debt,” she said, urging the government to address these systemic issues to prevent homelessness in the first place.

Green Belt Protection vs. Housing Need

A significant debate centres around the use of green belt land for housing. The campaigning group Epsom Green Belt’s spokesperson Katherine Alexander criticised the council for failing to plan adequately for affordable housing, accusing it of prioritising expensive developments over genuinely affordable homes. They advocate for using brownfield sites to provide low-cost housing, arguing that this would meet local needs without sacrificing green spaces.

“Destroying our valuable Green Belt without providing truly affordable housing would be unforgivable,” she said, pointing to the council’s own evidence that identified the high quality of the green belt land. She called for creative use of identified brownfield sites, such as the Town Hall site and former gas works area, to accommodate affordable housing.

Conservative Councillors Criticise Council’s Approach

Conservative Councillors for Horton, Bernie Muir and Kieran Persand, also weighed in, accusing the council of systemic failures. Cllr Muir argued that the council’s focus on green belt development was a “lazy and short-termist approach,” and that the council had not adequately explored the potential of brownfield sites. “I completely accept that we need social and affordable housing,” said Muir, “but the council is opting for the easy option rather than the optimal solution.”

Cllr Persand highlighted what he saw as a lack of proper investigation into alternative development strategies, including multi-use and multi-purpose sites. He suggested that large-scale developments, common in other towns, could meet housing needs while also providing economic benefits, such as increased footfall for local businesses and opportunities for local graduates.

Labour Councillor Demands Immediate Action on Social Housing

Labour Councillor Kate Chinn (Court) was sharply critical of the Residents Associations’ handling of the housing crisis, “As the Residents Association boast they have had control of the council for over 80 years, it is absolutely astonishing that they have put out a press notice highlighting their own failures on housing and homelessness.” She added “When it comes to supporting homeless people, sending them to temporary accommodation away from friends, family and schools is highly damaging and the council is boasting about placing families in the private rented housing that it says itself is “expensive and insecure”.”

Cllr Chinn called for the Town Hall site [see Epsom and Ewell Times report HERE on Town Hall development] to be used for social housing, insisting that the council should ensure 40% of any new homes built there are for social rent. She pointed to the successful development of mixed affordable and social housing in Hollymoor Lane as a model to replicate, advocating for an immediate start on building more council houses.

“The council needs strong leadership and a Community and Wellbeing committee that has a laser focus on housing and homelessness,” she stated, calling for more resources for the housing team to manage the increasing demands placed on them.

Public Sentiment Reflects Diverse Concerns

Residents also voiced their opinions, questioning how Epsom & Ewell ended up among the worst boroughs for homelessness. Some suggested that the borough might be seen as a “soft touch” for homelessness registrations, while others pointed out that the affordability criteria used for new housing developments do not realistically address the needs of those facing homelessness. “A 20% discount on a £750k home on Green Belt does not help with homelessness,” said one informant, advocating for lower-cost housing solutions on brownfield land.

The Path Forward

The council’s press release and the responses it has provoked highlight the complexity of the housing crisis in Epsom & Ewell. While the council has implemented a range of initiatives, there is a clear consensus that more needs to be done, both locally and at the national level. The debate over green belt versus brownfield development, the call for greater government support, and the need for genuinely affordable housing options are central to finding a sustainable solution.

As Councillor Woodbridge remarked, “This is a situation which requires significant action to bring about a long-term and sustainable solution.” With various stakeholders advocating different approaches, the challenge for Epsom & Ewell Borough Council will be to find a balance that addresses the immediate needs of homeless residents while planning for a future that includes both affordable housing and the preservation of the borough’s natural environment.

Related reports:

Epsom and Ewell Press Release on Homelessness

Stoneleigh library flats for homeless

Council Grapples with Rising Cost of Homelessness

Do good intentions square with homeless savings?

Council targeting the homeless

Image – Street View Google and added persons with suitcases at Epsom’s Travelodge (frequently used by Epsom and Ewell Council for temporary accommodation for the homeless)

Media Release: Housing Pressures and Homelessness: How Epsom & Ewell Borough Council is Tackling a National Issue

Insufficient housing levels, particularly affordable housing, is a national issue affecting individuals and families up and down the country and Epsom & Ewell is no exception. 

The Government recently released their 2023 statutory homelessness figures, revealing a 12% increase nationwide in the number of households in temporary accommodation, with the figure now standing at over 112,000. The number of households with children in temporary accommodation rose even more sharply by 15%, now totalling 74,530 households.

As Councillor Hannah Dalton, Chair of the Epsom & Ewell Residents Association (Majority Group) and Housing Spokesperson for the District Councils’ Network, recently said in a letter about the homelessness crisis sent to the Deputy Prime Minister, The Rt Hon Angela Rayner MP:

“The human impact of this crisis is enormous. Families in temporary accommodation face huge challenges including disrupted education, health issues, and difficulty holding down a job. Homelessness undermines people’s lives and life chances.”

There are many factors that contribute to this nationwide problem; the lack of affordable housing, high rental rates, the ongoing cost of living crisis; and higher interest rates and mortgage costs to name a few. 

Epsom & Ewell has proportionately one of the highest numbers of homeless households living in temporary accommodation in England and is in the top seven boroughs outside of London.

In Epsom & Ewell we face the additional challenge of the South East’s very high housing costs, coupled with a severe shortage of housing. Affordable housing options in the borough are severely limited, partly due to the low level of affordable housing development in recent years. There is also only a small stock of private rented properties available which are in very high demand.  

So as a borough, we urgently need more housing of all types including, but not limited to, affordable housing. Every house fulfils a need that makes other housing available, improves supply and demand, and lowers costs. 

The rising cost of temporary accommodation  

We don’t have enough temporary accommodation in the borough to meet the large rises in demand we’ve seen over the last few years, so we often need to place people in nightly paid accommodation outside the borough. This can impact the household’s wellbeing and is very expensive: Epsom & Ewell Borough Council spent £1,665,493 on nightly paid accommodation in 2023/24¹. 

At present, we have 160 homeless households in temporary accommodation in the borough and more than 90 homeless households in nightly paid accommodation outside of the borough. Many of these families may have to wait more than three years before temporary accommodation in the borough becomes available, and even longer before a permanent housing solution can be found for them. 

Councillor Woodbridge, Chair of the Community & Wellbeing Committee, Epsom & Ewell, said: “The vast majority of homeless households are those who cannot afford suitable accommodation. Perhaps they are sofa surfing or living with family in overcrowded households.   

43% of homelessness is due to eviction from a private rented tenancy, with a further 24% people experiencing homelessness after living with family or friends who are no longer willing or able to accommodate them. There is also a significant percentage of households fleeing violence.”  

Epsom & Ewell’s very low supply of social rented housing is in high demand. Fewer than 90 social housing properties become available each year against about 1,300 households who are on the housing register.   

The average waiting time for applicants with a high housing need² is between 18 months and more than a decade, depending on the size of the property required. Those in lower housing need bandings have little or no prospect of being offered social housing.   

The only alternative to social housing is private rented accommodation, which is very expensive – rising to an average of £1,630 in June 2024, an annual increase of 10.7% (the rise in the South East over the year was 8.2%)³. 

“The housing team at Epsom & Ewell Borough Council undertake a huge range of actions and activities to mitigate and help solve the many challenges, as set out in the council’s Homelessness Strategy. Without the incredible work being done by this team, the situation would be much worse.” – Councillor Woodbridge, Chair of the Community & Wellbeing Committee. 

Initiatives that Epsom & Ewell Borough Council undertake to prevent homelessness include: 

• Prevention focus – liaising with family and friends of people at risk of homelessness, negotiating with private rent sector landlords on their behalf, and assisting with deposits. 
• Private Sector Leasing (PSL) Scheme – the council leases a property for between three and five years from a private landlord for use as temporary accommodation: Epsom & Ewell Borough Council calls on landlords to sign up to their Private Sector Leasing Scheme | Epsom and Ewell Borough Council (epsom-ewell.gov.uk) 
• Rent Deposit Scheme: the council is able to support residents with rental deposits that would otherwise be unaffordable, to help secure accommodation. 
• The borough’s Local Plan, if approved, will bring much-needed development to the borough to help ease the pressure, costs and demand for housing. This includes a policy to increase affordable housing delivery on all eligible sites. 
• Working with partners to increase local temporary accommodation options including utilising any Council owned sites and properties.  
• Lobbying government in partnership with other local authorities, via the District Council Network (DCN) – recently, this has resulted in the Local Housing Allowance being increased, having not previously seen any increase since 2019.  
• Working in partnership with landlords to bring empty properties back into use. 
• Downsizing households in social housing to free up larger accommodation. 
• Challenging developers to provide much needed affordable housing on eligible development sites. 
• Working in partnership with Registered Providers to increase affordable housing.  

Development of affordable housing 

There are limited sites in the borough to develop affordable housing due to the size of the borough, the existence of the green belt and the cost of redeveloping brownfield sites.  

Furthermore, the current National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that smaller sites (fewer than 11 homes) are exempt from providing an affordable housing contribution, and commercial to residential ‘permitted development’ sites are not required to provide affordable housing either. 

Councillor Woodbridge, Chair of the Community & Wellbeing Committee, said: “As a council, we are working hard to ensure that local people have a suitable home to live in. This is crucial for the wellbeing of our residents – a home is not just a physical space to live safely and comfortably. A home provides roots, identity, a sense of belonging and a place of emotional wellbeing. 

We also want to be able to reduce the very high expenditure that is currently required to manage the housing crisis in the borough, so that we can continue to invest in, develop and protect the many other services that the council offers its residents. The many actions we are taking will help to ease the crisis for some, but this is a situation which requires significant action to bring about a long-term and sustainable solution.”  

Case Study: Mr K

Mr K⁴, a self-employed professional and single father of two young children, had been renting privately for a number of years.  

His rent was already £295 per calendar month (pcm) over the Local Housing Allowance (LHA) rate when he learnt that the landlord wanted to increase his rent by a further £200 pcm. Mr K could not afford to pay this increase and the landlord served an ‘s21 no fault’ eviction notice.   

The average market rent for a 2-bedroom property in Epsom is £1,720 pcm, however the LHA rate is £1,200 pcm. The LHA rate is the maximum rent that is used to calculate how much Housing Benefit or Universal Credit someone is entitled to. Anything over the LHA will not be considered, and the shortfall will have to be paid by the tenant, in addition to their usual rent liability.  

Mr K was unable to find alternative affordable accommodation as letting agents wanted prospective tenants to have either: 

·         a minimal annual income of at least 30 times the monthly rent 

·         a guarantor who earns 36 to 40 times the monthly rent,  

·         or pay 6 month’s rent in advance (even harder for Mr K as he was self-employed).  

In addition, there were very few properties on the market and a lot of competition for them, with some properties going to sealed bids. 

When the s21 notice expired Mr K felt he had no option but to approach the council as homeless. He was not previously known to the council and is an example of the increasing number of residents who are now unable to resolve their own housing problems and are becoming more reliant on the council for emergency homeless assistance.   

When Mr K became homeless, the council provided self-contained temporary accommodation in the Croydon area. However, one of Mr K’s children has special educational needs, and they were struggling being placed out of borough, with childcare, access to schools, family support and specialised support services. This was the only accommodation available to the council at the time. 

After a number of months in temporary accommodation in Croydon, Epsom & Ewell Borough Council’s Move-On Officer was able to find Mr K to find a privately rented 2-bedroom flat in Epsom and helped Mr K secure it by utilising the council’s Rent Deposit Scheme. 

Ends

Editors Notes 

¹ This was due to a number of factors: the consistently high number of households approaching as homelessness, a 15% increase in rental costs by our accommodation providers and a lack of alternative accommodation options. The average net cost of nightly paid accommodation for a small family is about £23,000 a year, nearly 20% higher than it was in 2022/23. For those families who require three-bedroom or larger accommodation, the cost is £27,900 per year – we currently have 27 of these families in our borough.  

² High housing need includes issues such as: their current accommodation lacks basic facilities, doesn’t have enough bedrooms, they are experiencing homelessness, or they have high medical needs.   

³ Office of National Statistics, 17 July 2024. 

⁴In order to protect our resident’s anonymity, we have changed some of the details of this case study and amalgamated details from more than one person. The case study remains a fair and accurate representation.

As reported in the magazine Local Government Lawyer (19/08/24) several local councils in England are accelerating the development of their local plans in response to proposed amendments to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) that could substantially increase their housing targets and require reviews of green belt boundaries.

The proposed changes, detailed in a recent government consultation, include the reintroduction of mandatory housing targets and the possibility that a council’s failure to meet its housing needs could justify revising green belt boundaries. Additionally, the consultation suggests alterations to the standard methodology for calculating housing need, which would likely result in most councils being required to plan for significantly more new homes.

Under the current proposals, local plans submitted for examination before June 2025 will be assessed under the existing NPPF rules. This has prompted councils like Winchester and Uttlesford to expedite their plans to avoid the more stringent requirements that could be imposed by the new NPPF.

In Winchester, the council’s planning officer emphasized the urgency of submitting the local plan due to the potential increase in the housing need figure from 676 to 1,099 dwellings per annum. Similarly, Uttlesford District Council, which currently operates under one of the oldest local plans in England, is also moving quickly to submit its plan before the deadline.

Not all councils are in favor of the proposed changes. Wirral Council, for example, is set to hold an extraordinary meeting to express its concerns, particularly regarding the potential impact on its green belt. The council’s draft plan focuses on brownfield development, but under the new proposals, it could be required to deliver an additional 14,000 homes, potentially affecting large areas of its green belt.

Councillors in Wirral have expressed strong opposition, with motions being tabled to challenge the proposed standard method for housing calculations, which they argue could undermine local regeneration efforts.

Epsom and Ewell Times asked Epsom and Ewell Borough Council if it had any plan to accelerate the Draft Local Plan process. Councillor Peter O’Donovan, (Residents Association – Ewell Court) Chair of the Licensing & Planning Policy Committee responded: “Epsom & Ewell Borough Council is currently interrogating the documents for the Government’s consultation on proposed reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework and will prepare a response to the consultation to be submitted within the timeframe. We are dedicated to the development of a Local Plan that meets the needs of current and future residents of Epsom & Ewell. We will continue to consider the implications for the borough following the Government’s consultation, when more detail becomes available.”

Cllr Julie Morris (Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group) (College Ward) said “Unfortunately the ruling Residents Association seems to have only one speed, DEAD SLOW, when it comes to the Local Plan which is already around 12 years late. It has never been a priority for them. We can’t see any possibility of speeding things up now and recent progress is mostly unknown : there has been no open debate on the matter since last year. There is a meeting on 24th September which might throw some light on what’s happening. Even councillors from the ruling group believe that an update on progress and potential changes to the Plan, in the run up to Regulation 19 and (hopefully) final adoption of the document, is long overdue.”

A spokesperson for the campaigning group Epsom Green Belt commented on the Council position: “The NPPF proposals were published a month or so ago online. Without proposals it would not have been possible to launch the consultation, which runs until 24 Sept. The government’s stated plan is to issue the new NPPF in Dec, applicable immediately. 

Waiting until the changes are published and applicable would miss the current, and brief, window of opportunity to avoid their impact, which is why other (more enlightened and forward thinking) councils are choosing quickly to act. Epsom and Ewell Borough Council should be acting immediately to capture this opportunity.”

The Epsom Green Belt spokesperson added: “The current NPPF, issued in Dec 2023, remains in force until or unless replaced by a new version. The Dec 2023 version does not require the release of Green Belt, specifically providing the option not to review any Green Belt boundaries. The Council therefore can retain the existing Green Belt boundaries and focus all housing on identified brownfield sites which, according to the Regulation 18 draft Local Plan can accommodate 3,700 dwellings. If they fail to take the opportunity to accelerate the Regulation 19 process, the target house building will exceed 14k.”

Related reports:

Epsom and Ewell Brace for Government Housing Targets

Here we go again on the Local Plan?

Minister gets heavy on a Local Plan delay

Mystery Local Plan critic revealed

Local Plan costs eat into Council reserves

Local Plan to move forward after passionate debate

and many many more. Search “local plan”.