New moped bays introduced to tackle pavement parking in Epsom High Street
19 March 2026
Epsom & Ewell Borough Council have established new moped-only parking spaces outside the Town Hall in a bid to combat pavement parking on Epsom High Street.
The issue of delivery riders mounting kerbs outside fast-food restaurants has been a cause of significant concern for residents and visitors in recent years. Vehicles blocking pavements create serious safety risks for pedestrians, particularly wheelchair users, those with visual impairments, and parents with prams and pushchairs.
The bays are the latest measure in the council’s multi-agency approach to the problem. Motions have been successfully passed at both Epsom & Ewell Borough Council and Surrey County Council calling for dedicated motorcycle parking at all new retail and takeaway developments, the introduction of “round-table” discussions with delivery apps such as Uber Eats and Deliveroo, and stronger enforcement of parking regulations.
The Epsom Business Improvement District (Go Epsom) is also working directly with restaurants and delivery riders to promote the use of these dedicated bays as a faster and legal alternative to pavement parking.
The local initiative coincides with a significant national policy shift. On 8 January 2026, the Department for Transport responded to a long-awaited consultation, announcing new powers for local authorities to tackle pavement parking more effectively.
Unlike the previous street-by-street approach, which was often slow and costly to implement, the new secondary legislation will allow councils to enforce against “unnecessary obstruction” more easily.
Councillor Steven McCormick, (RA Woodcote and Langley) Chair of the Planning Committee and a member of Surrey County Council’s Communities, Environment and Highways Select Committee, said:
“Pavements are for people, not for motorised shortcuts. We’ve heard from residents who have been forced into the road because the footway is entirely blocked. We are committed to making the High Street safe for everyone. The new moped bays that Epsom & Ewell have provided will mean there is no longer any excuse for this unacceptable and inconsiderate parking.”
“I also welcome the announcement of new powers from the Department for Transport. As soon as this national legislation is fully enacted, I will be pushing Surrey County Council to implement a new Traffic Regulation Order specifically designed to curb pavement parking across the borough.
“This TRO will provide the ‘teeth’ that enforcement officers have lacked, allowing them to issue civil penalties.”
Epsom and Ewell Council transparency row erupts as council backs publication of urgent decisions
19 March 2026
Epsom & Ewell Borough Council has agreed to improve transparency over so-called “urgent decisions” following a heated debate that revisited the controversy surrounding the Rainbow Centre and allegations of secrecy over a £500,000 liability.
At its Full Council meeting on 12th March, councillors voted to support a motion calling for a clearer and more timely system for publishing decisions taken by officers under delegated authority.
The move follows months of criticism over how urgent decisions have been handled and disclosed, culminating in disputes over a confidential document linked to the Rainbow Centre.
Motion seeks clearer publication of decisions
The motion, proposed by Councillor James Lawrence (LibDem College) and seconded by Councillor Alex Coley (Independent Ruxley), called for a formal process to ensure that officer decisions are properly recorded and made publicly accessible.
Lawrence told councillors that while urgent decisions are currently noted in committee papers, the underlying decision notices themselves are not published in a timely or transparent way. “The decision notice itself isn’t given… that is not at all in the same timeframe as a decision notice from committee,” he said. He added that in the past it could take months, or even up to a year, for such decisions to be reported.
The motion proposed that the Chief Executive develop a process for publishing these decisions, with an update to be reported back to council later in the year.
Legal compliance questioned
The debate turned on whether the council is already complying with transparency laws. Lawrence said the current arrangements were “legally questionable”, pointing to regulations requiring a written record of officer decisions to be produced “as soon as reasonably practicable”.
However, Councillor John Beckett (RA Auriol), chair of the Standards and Constitution Committee, rejected claims that the council was acting unlawfully. He told the meeting that the council’s existing practice – recording urgent decisions in committee agendas and reporting them annually – complied with the regulations. “The custom and practice of this council… satisfies this requirement,” he said.
The Mayor also intervened to clarify that officers believed no law had been broken.
Rainbow Centre controversy looms over debate
The discussion was heavily influenced by the ongoing controversy surrounding the Rainbow Centre, where an urgent decision was used to deal with issues linked to the site.
That episode has been the subject of previous reporting by the Epsom & Ewell Times, including concerns about a secret document referring to substantial potential dilapidation costs – reported to be in the region of £500,000.
Councillor Chris Ames (Labour Court) directly linked the motion to that issue, accusing the council of a broader lack of transparency. “We’ve had an ongoing shambles over the so-called urgent decision over the Rainbow Centre,” he said.
He alleged that key information had not been disclosed and suggested there had been no intention to publish the document. “The reality is… there was never any intention to publish the document in the first place,” he said. Ames also described what he called a “growing transparency crisis” within the council.
Since 20th January Epsom and Ewell Times has awaited disclosure from Epsom and Ewell Borough Council of information that will throw light on the Rainbow Centre controversy. Despite a 20 day legal limit under the Freedom of Information Act to disclose and our concession to accept delay where some items sought may take longer to find, we have received no disclosures of even readily available information.
Calls for greater openness
Councillor Alex Coley (Independent Ruxley), who seconded the motion, said he had been investigating urgent decisions since discovering their limited visibility several years ago. “I accidentally discovered that they exist,” he said. He told councillors that hundreds of historic officer decisions had not been publicly disclosed, including some involving significant financial commitments. “Some of them record millions of pounds being spent… even non-exempt information has been withheld as a matter of course,” he said.
Coley said progress had been made in recent years, but argued further reform was needed to ensure proper compliance and public confidence.
Cross-party engagement leads to compromise
Despite the sharp exchanges, the motion itself reflected a degree of cross-party cooperation. Both Lawrence and Coley acknowledged that they had worked with Councillor Beckett and officers to reach a compromise. Beckett, in turn, thanked them for their “time and patience” in developing the proposal.
The agreed approach stops short of declaring the current system unlawful, instead tasking the Chief Executive with designing an improved publication process.
Motion carried by council
The motion was approved by councillors, signalling a clear intention to increase transparency over urgent and delegated decisions. It requires the council to develop a system for publishing decisions in a more accessible and timely way, subject to the usual rules on confidential or exempt information. An update on progress is expected later in the year.
Wider implications
The debate highlights continuing concerns about governance and transparency at the council during its final years before abolition under Surrey’s local government reorganisation.
The Rainbow Centre episode appears to have acted as a catalyst for change, bringing the issue of urgent decisions into sharper public focus.
While the council maintains it has acted within the law, the adoption of the motion suggests a recognition that existing arrangements have not met public expectations. As one councillor put it during the debate, the issue is not only legality but trust.
With further major decisions expected before the transition to a new unitary authority, the way those decisions are recorded and disclosed is likely to remain under close scrutiny.
Epsom & Ewell Borough Council has approved changes to the political balance of its committees following further shifts in councillor allegiances, amid continuing tensions within the ruling Residents’ Association group.
The decision, taken at Full Council on 12 March, reflects the latest change in group composition after another RA councillor, Christine Howells (Nonsuch), moved to sit as an independent.
The adjustment of committee seats – known as proportionality – is a routine requirement when political group numbers change. However, the debate revealed deeper concerns about control, transparency and internal stability within the council.
Rebalancing committees after defections
Introducing the report, Councillor John Beckett (RA Auriol)said the changes were necessary to reflect the council’s evolving political makeup. “As a result of changes within the political representation within this council, there has been a need to review the proportionality sitting on committees,” he told members.
The revised allocations had been agreed between group leaders and were presented for formal approval by the full council.
Councillors approved the updated distribution of seats, ensuring that representation on committees broadly reflects the current balance of political groups.
Dispute over whether seats belong to parties or individuals
The debate exposed a technical but significant disagreement about whether committee places belong to political parties or to individual councillors.
Councillor James Lawrence (LibDem College) argued that while parties are allocated seats proportionately, it is the council that appoints individuals to those positions. “It is not the party being appointed, it is the person,” he said, adding that councillors who change political group should not automatically lose their place on committees.
He pointed to examples in the report where individuals had been nominated to seats allocated to a particular party, suggesting this supported his interpretation.
But Councillor Rachel King (RA, Town) rejected that view, insisting that committee places are fundamentally party allocations. “Seats are for parties, not for people,” she said, adding that parties retain the right to nominate replacements if councillors change allegiance. She said the arrangements had been agreed by group leaders and urged councillors to support the proposals.
Tensions over substitutions and control
The issue of substitutions – where councillors stand in for others at meetings – also proved contentious. Opposition councillors criticised what they described as inconsistent or politically motivated handling of substitutions following recent defections.
Councillor Chris Ames (Labour Court) said the situation had become “farcical”, alleging that rules were being stretched to maintain control. “The clique that runs this council has a special talent for alienating members… bending the rules,” he said. He linked the proportionality changes to wider political instability, suggesting the Residents’ Association group was “bleeding members”.
The debate reflects a broader struggle over influence as the RA group’s long-standing dominance of the council comes under increasing pressure.
Background: shifting political landscape
The latest changes follow defections from the Residents’ Association group over recent months, with councillors moving to sit as independents or aligning with opposition groups. The departure of Christine Howells (Independent Nonsuch) from the Residents’ Association further alters the balance, reducing the RA group’s numbers and requiring another recalculation of committee representation.
Under local government law, councils must ensure that committee seats are allocated in proportion to the size of political groups, as far as practicable. This means that each defection can trigger a reshuffle of committee places and, potentially, influence over key decisions.
Vote confirms new balance
Councillors approved the revised proportionality arrangements, including updated committee memberships.
A separate vote on one recommendation – relating to specific appointments – was carried by 15 votes to eight, with four abstentions, indicating some continuing division within the chamber.
Despite the disagreements aired during the debate, the council formally adopted the new structure, bringing committee representation into line with the current political balance.
Ongoing instability ahead of reorganisation
The debate highlights a council in a degree of political flux as it approaches both local elections and the planned abolition of the borough under Surrey’s local government reorganisation.
With further changes in group membership still possible, additional reviews of proportionality may be required in the coming months.
The shifting balance of power on committees could prove significant in the council’s final year, particularly as it continues to make decisions on major issues before handing over responsibilities to the new unitary authority in 2027.
Epsom’s empty and second homes face local tax increases
19 March 2026
Epsom & Ewell Borough Council has approved a 2.98% increase in its share of Council Tax for 2026/27, alongside new measures to penalise empty properties and second homes, but not without some questioning from councillors over the purpose and clarity of the changes. (Strategy and Resources Committee 27th January.) The increase equates to £6.93 a year for a Band D household, keeping within the government’s referendum limit and adding around 58p per month to bills. While modest in isolation, the rise sits within a wider package aimed at strengthening council finances and aligning local policy with other Surrey authorities ahead of the planned move to unitary government.
The more contentious element of the decision was the tightening of rules on empty homes and second properties. From April 2026, owners of empty and unfurnished properties will no longer receive a one-month exemption and will face a 100% Council Tax premium after one year, effectively doubling their bill. From April 2027, the same 100% premium will apply to second homes. Introducing the policy, Committee Chair Cllr Neil Dallen (RA Town) said: “It’s something that the rest of the boroughs and districts in Surrey are already doing… coming up to unitary it’s now proposed that we do do it and align ourselves ready for the unity proposal.”
Although the measures were approved unanimously, several councillors probed the reasoning and operation of the policy. Cllr Chris Ames (Labour Court) questioned whether the changes were primarily about raising income or achieving social outcomes such as reducing homelessness and increasing housing supply, asking whether the Council was “trying to achieve any of those things, or is it simply about… increasing the income that we get.” In response, Cllr Dallen indicated the policy served both purposes, noting that while the number of empty homes locally is limited, “every property is another family home,” and officers confirmed that bringing homes back into use remains an objective.
Cllr James Lawrence (LibDem College) also raised detailed questions about how the policy would work in practice, particularly the rules around when a property is considered occupied and how time limits on empty status are reset. He highlighted potential ambiguity in the wording of the policy documents, suggesting that the distinction between a property being “substantially furnished” and actually occupied could lead to confusion. While confirming his support for the policy in principle, he sought reassurance that the expected income—estimated at around £29,000—would exceed the administrative cost of implementing the scheme.
The discussion reflected a broader concern among some members about balancing financial necessity with fairness and clarity. While there was no outright opposition to the proposals, the debate revealed differing emphases: some councillors focused on revenue generation and alignment with Surrey-wide practice, while others stressed the importance of ensuring the policy delivers genuine housing benefits and is clearly understood by residents.
In the end, the committee approved the recommendations without dissent, confirming both the Council Tax increase and the new premiums on empty and second homes as part of the authority’s budget-setting process for the coming financial year.
Surrey-wide plan aims to get thousands back into work
19 March 2026
A cross-county plan to bring thousands of people back into employment in Surrey has received backing from Surrey County Council and government ministers.
The Get Surrey Working Plan brings together key partners to support 26,900 economically inactive residents who want to work but currently face barriers to employment.
Although Surrey has a lower-than-average economic inactivity rate of 17.8% compared to the national average of 21.2%, around 131,000 working-age residents are not currently employed.
Government ministers and local leaders from across government, Jobcentre Plus, health services and business have pledged to work together to tackle the issue through a range of interventions. These include multi-million pound schemes such as Connect to Work, Skills Bootcamps and WorkWell.
A new online Skills, Training and Employment Portal, known as STEP Surrey, will provide streamlined access to services, helping residents find support, gain skills, secure employment or access assistance more easily.
The plan was formally launched by representatives from the One Surrey Growth Board at Redhill Jobcentre Plus.
It identifies key reasons why many working-age residents are not in employment, including long-term health conditions and caring responsibilities.
The plan also addresses a mismatch in skills, where many highly skilled professionals commute to London, leaving local employers struggling to fill vacancies. Sectors such as health and social care, automotive and technology are particularly affected.
To address this, the plan will deliver targeted business support and skills development programmes, helping employers fill vacancies while supporting workforce planning and more inclusive employment practices.
The soon-to-be devolved Adult Skills Fund will focus on priority sectors and identified skills gaps, enabling residents to gain qualifications aligned with local employer needs.
Young people without access to skills or further learning will receive early intervention support in schools, reducing the risk of becoming not in education, employment or training (NEET), with clearer vocational pathways and work experience opportunities.
Matt Furniss, Surrey County Council’s Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Economic Growth and Chair of the One Surrey Growth Board, said: “While the economic picture in Surrey is largely a positive one, we know that there are thousands of people out there who are currently out of work but not in employment.
“Through the Get Surrey Working, we’re committed to breaking down those barriers and creating a truly inclusive labour market where everyone has the opportunity to access good quality employment and reach their full potential.”
Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Pat McFadden, said: “The Get Surrey Working Plan is a perfect example of how partners can come together to support people into work and help local businesses find the talent they need.
“Surrey is a county with real strengths – a thriving economy, top-class businesses and talented people – yet we know there are many more people who want to work but face barriers that hold them back.
“By bringing together local employers and support services we can reach people where they are and give them a genuine route into good work. This kind of practical, locally-led support is exactly what we need to get Britain working.”
The plan has been developed through partnership working with public health teams, Jobcentre Plus, Surrey Chambers of Commerce, employment support providers and other stakeholders.
Its aim is to avoid duplication of services and ensure support reaches those who need it most, by coordinating employment and skills provision across Surrey into a clear, joined-up local offer.
Residents can access employment and skills support through the STEP Surrey portal at www.stepsurrey.co.uk
Representatives from the Surrey Growth Board launch the Get Surrey Working Plan
Support programme launched to help Surrey’s high streets
19 March 2026
Dedicated support for high street businesses across Surrey to attract new customers, boost sales and drive growth is now available as part of wider efforts to strengthen and futureproof town centres.
The Surrey High Street Growth and Innovation Programme is open to a wide range of businesses, including independent retailers, start-ups, market traders, charities and social enterprises.
Funded by Surrey County Council’s Economic Growth Fund and delivered by specialists Smarter Society and The Retail Group, the scheme offers free practical workshops, online resources and one-to-one tailored support.
There is a particular focus on 22 high streets across all 11 district and borough areas in Surrey, with targeted workshops designed to help businesses attract more customers, increase footfall, improve visibility and boost customer spend.
Businesses can register for support directly via the programme’s enrolment form.
Matt Furniss, Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Economic Growth at Surrey County Council, said: “High streets are the lifeblood of our communities. They’re integral to the character and vitality of our towns and villages, which is why we’re committed to supporting them alongside our district and borough partners and Business Improvement Districts.
“This programme is a real investment in the people behind Surrey’s independent businesses, giving them the tools and knowledge to thrive – which is good for our economy, our residents and our communities.”
The scheme has been developed in collaboration with economic development teams from district and borough councils, alongside representatives from Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) across Surrey.
Launched last month, the programme includes workshops running through February, March and April at key locations across the county.
The Smarter Society outreach team is already engaging directly with businesses on Surrey’s high streets, meeting hundreds of owners face-to-face and signing retailers up for workshops.
Four free workshops are being held in each district and borough, covering practical topics such as increasing footfall, improving online and in-store visibility, making better use of social media and promotions, and planning for growth.
Workshops are also being streamed live online, with recordings available on demand.
In addition, a range of free toolkits, guides, templates and short videos is available via the Business Surrey website, alongside one-to-one support for businesses with more specific needs.
In the first few weeks of the programme, nearly 140 businesses have registered, with 75 already receiving support across five areas.
Geoff Baxter, Managing Director of Smarter Society, said: “The Surrey High Street Growth & Innovation Programme is gaining real momentum. Businesses across the county are engaging enthusiastically with our on-street support and workshops, and we’re proud to see such strong early signs of growth and innovation on Surrey’s high streets.”
The programme is free and open to any business trading on a Surrey high street. Further information is available via the Business Surrey High Streets page, with direct registration also available through the programme’s enrolment form.
Photo: Reps from Surrey CC, Smarter Society and Hello Dorking mark the delivery of the High Street Support scheme
.
.
.
Karl Nicholas honoured with Active Citizen Award at Borough Civic Reception
19 March 2026
A long-serving community volunteer whose work spans youth organisations, music, policing and education has been honoured with Epsom & Ewell Borough Council’s Active Citizen Award at the Mayor’s Annual Civic Reception.
The award was presented to Karl Nicholas by the Mayor, Cllr Robert Leach, during the civic gathering held on the evening of 13 March at Bourne Hall in Ewell. The reception, hosted by the Mayor and Mayoress Marilyn Leach, brought together councillors, aldermen, freemen of the borough, past mayors and other invited residents who have contributed to civic life in Epsom & Ewell.
Among those attending was Mary Zoeller, Deputy-Lieutenant of Surrey, along with a wide range of community figures representing voluntary organisations, education, faith groups and public service across the borough.
The Active Citizen citation described Nicholas as someone with a “distinguished record of public service”, highlighting decades of involvement across multiple areas of community life.
He has been involved with Second Cuddington Scouts for more than two decades, including 18 years serving as assistant commissioner for the area. The scout group provides activities for boys and girls aged six to eighteen and offers training opportunities for young people, including camps and leadership development.
Music has been another major thread in Nicholas’s community service. He serves as bandmaster and assistant musical director of the Kingston and Malden Scout and Guide Band, a role he has held for 25 years. The band has performed at prestigious occasions including Buckingham Palace garden parties and the Lord Mayor’s Show.
His musical contribution also extends to church life. Nicholas learned to play the organ at Cuddington Church and has been involved in church music there for more than 30 years, first as a choirboy and later as organist and choir director. The citation notes that he has frequently stepped in to support services when needed, including standing in at short notice to play for the Mayor’s civic service when the regular organist was taken ill.
Alongside his voluntary work, Nicholas has also served as a special constable for 14 years, and in his professional life works as a teacher. He currently serves as Head of Inclusion and Special Needs at Southborough High School, having previously been deputy head at a school in Cheam.
The citation concluded that across these roles Nicholas has shown “commitment and competence” and that his personal manner and skill make him “a worthy recipient of the Active Citizen Award”.
The civic reception itself provided a relaxed and celebratory atmosphere in Bourne Hall. The evening featured musical performances from Ukrainian musician Vladislav Voloshin, who entertained guests with a programme including pieces by ABBA and Bach, performed on saxophone and clarinet. The Mayor himself accompanied the performance on the piano.
Guests mingled over refreshments in the hall while reflecting the borough’s long civic traditions. The gathering brought together representatives from across the political spectrum and many strands of local life, demonstrating the borough’s continuing culture of voluntary service and public engagement.
Proceedings were guided with humour and warmth by Cllr Julian Freeman, the Liberal Democrat councillor who acted as master of ceremonies for the evening.
While politics often divides in the council chamber, the reception provided a reminder that the borough’s civic culture rests on a broader shared commitment to public service and community life.
That spirit was embodied in the recognition of Karl Nicholas — a volunteer whose decades of work in youth development, music, education and policing have quietly strengthened the fabric of local life in Epsom & Ewell.
Sun sets on Residents’ Associations’ cherished Parishes for Epsom and Ewell
19 March 2026
Epsom & Ewell Borough Council has formally abandoned plans to create parish-style community councils after a public consultation produced overwhelming opposition, bringing to an end a controversial review that has cost about £70,000.
The decision was taken at a full council meeting on 12th March following a debate that exposed sharp political divisions and prompted renewed criticism of the Residents’ Association administration that initiated the review.
Councillors ultimately accepted a report concluding that the consultation “does not demonstrate sufficient public support for the proposals”, after residents rejected the idea of creating two community councils covering Epsom and Ewell.
But the debate revealed tensions over the purpose of the consultation itself, the cost of the process, and the future of local representation in Surrey after local government reorganisation.
Beckett: residents “have spoken” but warns of democratic deficit
Introducing the report, Councillor John Beckett (Auriol), who led the Community Governance Review (CGR), said the council had carried out extensive engagement with residents and should be proud of the exercise.
He told councillors that more than 2,200 responses had been received, making it one of the council’s most widely responded-to consultations in recent years.
Beckett said the consultation was justified because residents across Surrey had not been properly consulted about the government’s decision to reorganise local government. He argued the borough had taken a different approach by asking residents directly what they wanted.
However, he acknowledged the result left the council with little option but to halt the plan. “Our residents have spoken on this matter, and with 82 per cent opposed to the idea of community councils, the recommendation of this report is not to proceed with CGR,” he said.
Despite accepting the result, Beckett used both his opening speech and his closing remarks to warn that the new local government structure could weaken local representation.
He questioned how the proposed neighbourhood committees expected under the new unitary structure would address local issues. “How the non-funded, non-decision-making neighbourhood committees will miraculously deliver those local issues facing our residents,” he asked, warning they may not resolve the democratic deficit created by large unitary councils.
In his summing-up he said the future system could leave a patchwork across Surrey of areas with and without meaningful local representation.
Opposition: “self-serving” and a “vanity project”
Opposition councillors were sharply critical of the review and its purpose. Labour councillor Chris Ames (Court) said the administration had been warned not to embark on the process. “The Residents’ Association administration was warned not to take the council into this shambolic, costly and self-serving process,” he said.
Ames argued the public had rejected what he described as an RA “vanity project”. “The public saw through it. It’s clear that the residents rejected the RA vanity project,” he said, adding that residents also resented the idea of another layer of taxation.
He criticised the consultation structure, saying residents were effectively offered only one option. “It’s laughable to present giving residents a choice of unwanted parishes or nothing at all as a choice,” he said.
He also asked where accountability lay for the £70,000 cost of the review. “Seventy thousand pounds later, where does the CGR shambles leave us?” he asked.
Claims the review was about creating roles
Councillor Julian Freeman (Liberal Democrat, College) argued there had never been a public demand for parish councils in the borough. “There’s never been any demand for it,” he said. Freeman suggested the proposal had been linked to the approaching abolition of borough councils. “It was a way of trying to carve out some kind of role for soon-to-be former Residents’ Association councillors,” he said.
He added that residents reacted strongly once they realised the potential council tax implications. “People saw that it was going to cost an extra £50 plus on their council tax bill and quite rightly said, what on earth do we want to pay for another layer of government for?”
Criticism of consultation design
Several councillors criticised the structure of the consultation. Councillor Bernie Muir (Conservative Horton) said residents had not been offered alternative governance models. “We were given one option or nothing,” she said.
She added that neighbourhood area committees proposed under Surrey’s local government reorganisation had not been presented as an option. “Those committees should at least have been given a chance to see if they worked,” she said.
Another councillor said the consultation had effectively framed the issue as a choice between parish councils or losing local influence entirely.
Cllr Kieran Persand (Conservative Horton) reminded the Chamber that the proposed Parishes would only manage a handful of allotments that residents grow fruit and vegetables in.
Administration defends consultation
Residents’ Association councillors strongly defended the review as an exercise in democratic engagement.
Councillor Clive Woodbridge (RA Ewell Village) said the borough had done what central government had not done during the reorganisation process. “We had the courage to ask our residents what they wanted,” he said.
He added that the council was respecting the outcome. “They’ve quite clearly said that they don’t want parish councils, and we will act upon that advice.” He claimed, wrongly as it transpired, that Epsom and Ewell would be the only area in the County without any parishes. See Epsom and Ewell Times table below.
Councillor Rachel King (RA, Town) also defended the cost of the consultation. She said the £70,000 spent equated to less than £1 per resident. “We’re talking about less than a pound per person for two full consultations,” she said.
King said the aim had been to explore how residents might retain local representation once the borough council disappears in 2027.
A consultation that defeated its own proposal
The consultation outcome – around 82 per cent opposition – effectively forced the council to abandon the idea it had been exploring.
But the debate highlighted a paradox. While the Residents’ Association leadership defended the consultation as a democratic exercise, several councillors argued the process appeared designed primarily to test support for parish councils rather than explore a range of possible governance models.
Critics pointed to the absence of alternatives such as neighbourhood area committees and the framing of the consultation around the creation of community councils.
At the same time, Beckett’s own speeches emphasised his belief that parish councils would have helped address what he described as the democratic deficit created by large unitary authorities.
End of a £70,000 process
The Community Governance Review had been one of the council’s strategic priorities for 2025–27. It involved two rounds of consultation, public meetings, publicity campaigns and engagement activities.
Despite the extensive engagement programme, the consultation produced a clear rejection of the proposal.
For now, Epsom & Ewell will remain without parish councils even after the borough council disappears under the planned Surrey reorganisation.
Parish councils across Surrey
Although Epsom & Ewell currently has none, several Surrey districts contain parish or town councils. In many cases these cover only parts of the district rather than the entire area.
The official opening of Hopescourt School in Walton-on-Thames marks a new chapter for children with additional needs in Surrey. The Lord Lieutenant of Surrey joined pupils, staff, Bourne Education Trust, project partners and the Leader of Surrey County Council to celebrate the opening of a school designed to give children the support, stability and opportunities they need to thrive.
Hopescourt School will ultimately provide 200 specialist places for autistic pupils and children with communication and interaction needs by 2029. For many families, the new school means shorter journeys and stronger connections to their local community, ensuring children can learn and grow in an environment that feels safe, familiar and supportive.
With the first cohort of pupils already settling into their new learning environment, the school will continue to expand over the coming years, strengthening Surrey’s local specialist education offer. It forms a key part of Surrey County Council’s commitment to increasing high quality specialist provision close to home, helping more children access the right support without needing to travel long distances.
The opening event brought together students, families, Surrey County Council, Bourne Education Trust, construction partners Willmott Dixon and many others whose expertise and dedication have helped bring this new school to life.
The Lord Lieutenant of Surrey, Michael More-Molyneux, said: “I was so pleased to be present to celebrate the opening of Hopescourt School. Never having visited the new building, I was immediately taken with its design. For members of the teaching team, it was obvious that they were very enthusiastic about their new school. The pupils, it should be said, were equally enthusiastic about their new place of learning. It is a facility that is certainly needed in Surrey, and I send my congratulations to all concerned for the building of this most impressive centre of education.”
Surrey County Council’s investment of nearly £30 million to build the school reflects its long-term ambition to give children and young people with additional needs the best possible start. The expansion of specialist provision is a core aim of Surrey’s Inclusion and Additional Needs Partnership Strategy 2023–2026, ensuring children receive the right support where and when they need it.
Tim Oliver, Leader of Surrey County Council, highlighted the life-changing impact this new school will have on children and young people and their families: “Hopescourt School is a symbol of what can be achieved when partners work together with a shared vision, creating a school that is inclusive, sustainable, and truly life-changing for Surrey children and their families.”
Hopescourt is also Surrey’s first Net Zero Carbon in operation specialist free school, combining sustainability with child-centred design. Specially designed spaces support the school’s ethos of ‘pause, breathe, think and flourish’, ensuring a calm and nurturing environment for pupils aged 4 to 19.
Richard Poulter, Managing Director at Willmott Dixon, highlighted the lasting impact of the project: “Delivering Surrey’s first Net Zero in Operation school reflects our joint commitment to sustainability and community impact. This school will provide much needed specialist places and support generations of young people.”
The project is the result of close collaboration between Willmott Dixon, Surrey County Council, the school, Bourne Education Trust, Freemantles School, AtkinsRealis and many other partners. In particular, the dedication and expertise of the council’s Land & Property Capital Projects team and construction partners Willmott Dixon ensured the successful delivery of a school built around the needs of children.
Andy Field, Chair of Bourne Education Trust, reflected on the collective achievement: “Hopescourt stands as a powerful example of partnership in action. This school demonstrates what can be achieved when organisations come together with a shared purpose: to create exceptional, inclusive opportunities for young people. With these fabulous new facilities and excellent staff serving our children, we now have the opportunity to build a thriving school at the heart of the community with the aim of becoming one of the best special schools in the country.”
Acting Headteacher, Nicky Meston, paid tribute to the dedication of the Hopescourt staff and the excitement of the school community: “I am incredibly proud of our team and the way they champion our pupils every single day. Today isn’t just about opening a building, it’s about opening doors to opportunity, belonging, and the very best start in life.”
Hopescourt School embodies the council’s vision for inclusive, high-quality and community-anchored provision, delivering sustainable support and improving outcomes for children and families across Surrey.
Beer fans will be pumped to know that Dorking Halls will be able to offer customers a greater variety of booze after planning permission was secured to convert storage units into cellars. Antique hunters may be less than thrilled however. Mole Valley District Council has given itself the green light to convert the units at the northwest of the halls so they can be used by the town’s flagship theatre. The block had been in long-term use by Dorking auctioneers P F Windibank to keep its wares and will force the company, which been based there for over half a century, to move elsewhere. Officers, who recommended the conversion be approved, said it would support the “popular leisure and cultural facility”, Dorking Halls, and help its long-term viability.
They told the March development management committee: “They consider they need more (space), to provide a greater variety of drinks and they need more storage for beer kegs. The proposed change of use would support Dorking Halls and the wider town centre economy. Dorking Halls is an important venue for Mole Valley, it provides opportunities for leisure and recreation both for those living within and outside the district.”
John Collins, speaking on behalf of the application, said the increased storage was needed due to the scale of activities and that revenues generated through bar sales underpinned the venue’s viability. He said the Dorking Halls was cherished by the community and added: “The current cellarage was simply not adequate and more space needed to improve back of house operations and comfort within the facility. Being able to have a comfortable welcoming place with a decent bar is all part of that experience.”
Councillors at the meeting expressed concern over how it would impact the town’s antique scene – although that lies outside the committee’s remit. Cllr Claire Malcomson (Liberal Democrat: Holmwoods and Beare Green) said: “I know Dorking Halls is an extremely precious asset that we have but I do also think this is going to (impact) some of the trade in Dorking. So I am not going to pass judgement or anything but I wanted to make that comment because I think this could be quite a loss for us.” Cllr Kirstie Havard (Liberal Democrat: Capel, Leigh, Newdigate and Charlwood) added: “This application is causing great harm to that business they have been there for 80 years. It’s arisen after the first phase of Dorking Halls (refurbishment) was completed and it was decided that space was needed, and I understand the reasons, but I’m very worried about Windibank and what they are losing, and it is very harmful to their business.”
A Surrey charity has warned that unpaid carers could be pushed “beyond breaking point” after Surrey County Council ended contracts for two carer support services.
Crossroads Care Surrey said the county council has withdrawn support for its Emergency Care Provision and Carer Emergency Planning services, decisions it claims were made with little notice and without consultation with carers who rely on them.
The charity said the changes follow earlier reductions in respite support for carers and could leave many families struggling at the most critical moments, particularly when dealing with medical emergencies or caring for loved ones at the end of their lives.
Crossroads said it received notification only days ago that Surrey County Council (SCC) would no longer support its end-of-life respite service, which enables unpaid carers to take short breaks while supporting terminally ill relatives at home.
The Carer Emergency Planning service will also end at the close of March, giving what the charity says is only three weeks’ notice. Crossroads says almost 1,500 carers who already have emergency plans in place will lose the safety net those plans were designed to provide.
The charity warned the changes could have “serious and far-reaching consequences” for vulnerable residents and already stretched health and care services.
It suggested that without emergency support, more carers could reach exhaustion and be unable to continue caring at home, potentially leading to avoidable hospital admissions or crisis interventions from social services.
Terry Hawkins, chief executive of Crossroads Care Surrey, said unpaid carers provide care worth an estimated £162 billion a year across the UK, a contribution broadly equivalent to the NHS budget.
He said: “Over the past year we have already seen vital support reduced following the removal of respite services. Now, further contracts are being ended early, leaving carers with fewer and fewer places to turn.
“Unpaid carers are the invisible backbone of our health and care system. Without them, the NHS and social care services would simply not cope.
“These services provide the basic safeguards that allow carers to keep going, knowing that if something happens to them, or when families face the end of life, support is there.
“Removing them risks pushing already exhausted carers beyond breaking point.”
Crossroads also questioned why the decision had not been considered by Surrey County Council’s Cabinet, arguing that services affecting thousands of vulnerable residents should be subject to public scrutiny.
The charity has said it will attempt to launch its own emergency support service to help carers who may now find themselves without practical respite assistance.
Surrey County Council has defended the decision, saying the contracts had not delivered the impact expected and that a new approach to supporting carers will replace them.
Sinead Mooney, Deputy Leader of the council and Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care, said the authority had carried out a review before deciding not to renew the agreements with Crossroads.
She said: “After careful review, we’ve decided to end – or not renew – contracts with Crossroads Care Surrey for carer support services because the contracts have failed to achieve the impact we expected.
“Take-up has been lower than we intended and we can’t justify continuing to fund the arrangements.”
Cllr Mooney said the council would introduce a new model of support, including a flexible £300 wellbeing break payment for carers.
She said the council would also work with NHS partners and other care providers to ensure carers can access help through the wider health and social care system.
“Surrey’s carers do an extraordinary job, often in challenging circumstances,” she said. “We’re absolutely committed to making sure the transition from these contracts for carers is smooth, responsive and supportive.”
The council also rejected suggestions that emergency support would disappear, saying replacement care in crisis situations would continue to be provided by the county council.
Cllr Mooney added that carers currently receiving support through the end-of-life contract would see no reduction in services until that agreement ends in September, after which support could be delivered by a different provider.
She said carers concerned about support should contact the council’s information and advice service.
The dispute highlights the continuing pressure on social care services across Surrey, where unpaid carers play a central role in supporting vulnerable residents at home.
Green light for MRI scanner at Leatherhead Leisure Centre
19 March 2026
Surrey will get a new MRI machine at Leatherhead Leisure Centre after councillors were “all in favour” of building the musculoskeletal scanner. The new machine will be housed in a temporary building, with the aim of bringing accessible, community-based imaging technology to the area.
The idea has been in motion for the past 18 months after it emerged there was a significant shortfall in MRI access and missed waiting time targets. Leatherhead Leisure Centre, in Guildford Road, Fetcham, was identified as the ideal location to help cut travel distances and relieve pressure on NHS hospitals, papers presented to Mole Valley’s March development management committee said.
The application was not without obstacles as the centre sits on green belt land where new buildings are normally considered inappropriate unless exceptional circumstances can be demonstrated. In this case, the pressing need for new medical facilities available to all patients, together with the temporary five-year nature of the development, proved compelling enough.
Officers told the meeting: “The centre lies within the green belt but in this case the very special circumstances – the need for this type of medical facility and the proximity to the centre, with its car parking space – are strong.” Originally the building was to be navy blue but a change of provider means it will now be white. Two staff members will occupy the site at any one time, with space for a waiting room and a separate scanning area.
Councillor Roger Adams (Liberal Democrat: Bookham West) said: “I am all in favour of additional health facilities in this area.” The plans were approved by nine votes in favour, with no objections and two abstentions.
Questions were raised about whether the land might be reclassified as previously developed green belt land after the temporary building is removed, amid concerns this could open the site to future development. Officers said the five-year nature of the scheme, together with its valued community use, would see the site revert to its original protected status.
Members also pushed for the building to be finished in a colour less likely to show wear and tear, but were told the appearance was determined by the materials available rather than a simple paint choice
Leatherhead Leisure Centre (Image Google) – the padel centre will be built behind the facility
Epsom and Ewell Local Plan tensions surface as committee debate curtailed by chair
19 March 2026
A meeting of Epsom and Ewell Borough Council’s Licensing and Planning Policy Committee (LPPC) on 10th March exposed growing tensions over the borough’s Local Plan after councillors attempted to debate how revised evidence is being submitted to the Government’s Planning Inspector.
The committee ultimately voted seven in favour with two abstentions simply to “note” the Local Plan update report, with the chair not voting.
But the discussion revealed frustration among some councillors over the level of member oversight of changes being made during the examination process.
Inspector requires further work on Local Plan
The meeting began with a detailed briefing from the council’s Head of Planning Policy explaining that the Local Plan, submitted for examination in March 2025, had been judged“unsound”by the Planning Inspector and required further work before it could proceed.
He told councillors that the Inspector had requested additional technical work to determine whether modifications could make the plan sound.
Two pieces of revised evidence had already been submitted earlier this year:
• a revised section of the Green Belt Topic Paper • an updated Land Availability Assessment
Further work has now been requested, including the preparation of potential additional site allocations and updates to the housing trajectory, sustainability appraisal, habitats regulations assessment, transport assessment and infrastructure delivery plan.
All of this work must be submitted to the Inspector by 10th April 2026.
Officers warned councillors that national policy now discourages long pauses in Local Plan examinations and that delays could risk the plan being withdrawn.
Debate centres on councillor oversight
Much of the discussion that followed focused not on housing sites themselves but on whether councillors had sufficient opportunity to scrutinise documents being submitted to the Inspector.
Independent councillor Alex Coley, who had requested the agenda item, raised concerns about the process and argued that wider oversight of the evidence base was necessary.
He told the committee that effective decision-making required proper evaluation of alternatives and meaningful access for councillors and the public to the decision-making process.
Coley also suggested that some of the conclusions contained in recently submitted evidence appeared contradictory and said this demonstrated the need for greater scrutiny.
“I believe that sets out just one example of why wider public oversight is so important,” he said.
Chair maintains procedural limits
However, councillors were advised that the committee could not introduce procedural motions or amendments relating to the Local Plan submissions.
Coley told the meeting that members had received advice from the council’s Monitoring Officer stating that motions from the floor were not permitted under the committee’s procedures.
He questioned that interpretation, suggesting it relied on provisions from an older model constitution that the council had replaced in 2023.
Despite this, the chair, Councillor Peter O’Donovan (RA, Ewell Court), maintained the procedural position and the meeting proceeded without amendments to the report or further debate on altering the process.
The committee therefore confined itself to noting the update report.
Questions raised about future scrutiny
Councillors also asked whether the committee would have further opportunities to review documents before they are submitted to the Inspector.
Officers said the timetable made that unlikely for the next stage of work.
“With the deadline for the evidence base being the 10th of April… there isn’t time for a committee to do that,” councillors were told.
Instead, public consultation on the new material will take place later in the examination process once the evidence has been submitted.
Campaign concerns continue
Outside the council chamber, the Local Plan debate continues to attract strong public interest, particularly over potential Green Belt development.
Campaign group Epsom Green Belt circulated a message to councillors following the meeting expressing concern that revised Local Plan documents could be progressing without full scrutiny by elected members.
The group urged councillors to ensure that any material changes affecting Green Belt land are properly reviewed and debated.
Next steps for the Local Plan
The Local Plan examination will now move into its next stage.
Key steps expected include submission of new evidence to the Inspector by 10 April 2026, followed by consultation on the new documents and potentially further examination hearings.
If the Inspector concludes that the plan can be made sound with modifications, the final decision will return to Full Council, where councillors will vote on whether to adopt the revised Local Plan.
Image – Epsom and Ewell Borough Council YouTube channel
Surrey Council reviews property sales as it signs off business plans for own firms
19 March 2026
Surrey County Council has signed off the latest business plans for two companies it owns as it tries to strengthen its finances during a difficult period for local government.
The council’s Strategic Investment Board approved the 2026/27 plans for property company Halsey Garton Residential and recruitment firm Connect2Surrey on March 9. In a meeting mostly held in private (part 2) for commercial sensitivity reasons, the board also heard an update from the property data organisation TRICS Consortium Ltd, in which the council holds a smaller share.
What it means
Essentially, the council is reviewing how companies it owns or part-owns will operate over the next year and whether they can continue to bring in money.
Like many local authorities, Surrey County Council is under growing financial pressure, with rising costs and less support from central government. These companies are meant to help generate income and support council services.
Officials say the plans should help improve transparency and ensure the council keeps a close eye on how its investments perform.
Possible property sales
One of the biggest issues discussed was what to do with homes owned by Halsey Garton Residential. The council is considering the pace at which it sells off properties in the company’s housing portfolio, and board members were asked to give direction on how quickly those homes should be sold.
That decision is partly being driven by changes to housing legislation coming into force in May 2026, which could affect how easily properties can be sold if they are currently occupied by tenants.
Selling homes more quickly could help the council bring in money sooner, but it also carries risks, including market uncertainty, reputational concerns and the challenge of completing sales before major local government changes take effect.
Financial pressures behind the move
Council officers warned the authority is operating in a “very challenging financial environment”. Future funding reforms mean the council is expected to receive less support from central government, leaving it increasingly reliant on council tax and other income streams.
Investment companies like Halsey Garton Residential and Connect2Surrey are intended to help support the council’s long-term finances, even if profits do not come immediately.
What happens next
The council will keep monitoring the performance of the companies over the coming year, with a half-year review planned later in 2026.
In the meantime, councillors are expected to continue weighing up how quickly to sell properties owned by Halsey Garton Residential. This decision could affect the council’s finances and its property portfolio going forward.
