As voters in Epsom and Ewell prepare to elect representatives to the new East Surrey Unitary Council on 7th May, two unfolding controversies raise a broader question: how should voters judge those seeking office when key decisions remain unexplained?

At the centre of both issues is a bizarre but all the same political deployment of Section 2 of the Local Government Act 1986 to justify a refusal to answer questions. As previously reported, this provision is aimed at preventing political publicity, not at preventing factual explanation. Yet it has been relied upon in two separate cases to decline engagement with legitimate enquiries.

One concerns the Rainbow Leisure Centre, where a confidential council decision identified potential dilapidations of up to £500,000 shortly after a change of operator. The public is still waiting for clarity on how such a liability arose. The other concerns the signing of a submission in the name of Epsom and Ewell Borough Council relating to a proposed second tier of governance above unitary councils, where questions remain about authority and process.

In both cases, the refusal to answer questions has come at a moment when accountability matters most — immediately before an election.

This matters because local elections are not simply about party labels. They are about judgement, competence and accountability. For nearly a century, the Residents’ Association has governed Epsom and Ewell, attracting many capable and committed councillors who have avoided the severe financial problems seen in a number of Councils in West Surrey. That record carries weight.

But continuity also brings its own challenges. Some councillors, including among the four who have left the ruling group of Residents Association councillors since the last Borough elections, have raised concerns about the “undemocratic” style of leadership in recent years. Others, still within the group, have expressed to Epsom and Ewell Times unease but privately. Many councillors are not political operators by instinct and appear reluctant to challenge leadership decisions publicly or otherwise “rock the boat”. Though the former main opposition LibDems on EEBC have not been without their own divisions; they lost two of their four councillors to independent benches.

For voters, that creates a need to distinguish between individuals as well as affiliations. A candidate’s independence of judgement, willingness to question, and approach to transparency may matter as much as their political alignment.

At the same time, the forthcoming election is not for the existing borough council but for a new authority covering a much wider area. The East Surrey Council will bring together multiple districts into a single body responsible for all local services. That change introduces a second consideration for voters: influence.

Available projections and polling suggest that no single grouping is guaranteed dominance, but that larger national parties — including the Liberal Democrats and others with broader geographic bases — may be well placed to secure significant representation across the new authority. A recent JLP Partners opinion poll has placed the Liberal Democrats a nose ahead at 29% over a split right vote between Conservatives (25%) and Reform (27%). At a national level, the political landscape itself appears increasingly fragmented, with gains forecast for smaller and emerging parties alongside shifts in traditional support.

In that context, voters may find themselves weighing two different questions. One is who best represents Epsom and Ewell locally. The other is which candidates are most likely to have influence within the Unitary Council that will take decisions affecting the area for years to come.

Neither question has a simple answer. Voting for independent or Residents’ Association candidates may prioritise local identity and continuity. Voting for candidates aligned with larger parties may offer a greater chance of being part of the administration of the new authority.

What the current controversies underline is that accountability, transparency and willingness to engage with scrutiny are central to that judgement. When questions about significant public decisions remain unanswered, voters are entitled to take that into account.

The ballot on 7th May is therefore not only about the future structure of local government. It is also an opportunity for voters to decide what standards they expect from those who seek to represent them.

Two senior Residents Association Epsom and Ewell Borough Council figures have refused to answer questions from Epsom and Ewell Times, both claiming pre-election restrictions under the Local Government Act 1986 — prompting fresh concerns over transparency and accountability at a time when public scrutiny is arguably most important.

Cllr Neil Dallen (RA Town Ward) is standing with his daughter Lucie McIntyre for election to the East Surrey Unitary Council in the West Ewell Division and Cllr Hannah Dalton (RA Stoneleigh) is standing in the same 7th May election in the Ewell Village, Stoneleigh and Nonsuch Division.

In both cases, Section 2 of the Act — which prohibits councils from publishing material designed to influence support for a political party — has been relied upon to justify a refusal to respond. However, expert advice provided to Epsom and Ewell Times indicates that the provision is directed at political publicity, not factual explanations of decisions already taken, and does not require councils or councillors to remain silent when asked legitimate questions about the use of public powers and resources.

Rainbow Leisure Centre: £500,000 repairs and unanswered questions – the case concerning Cllr Neil Dallen

The first case concerns the Council’s handling of the Rainbow Leisure Centre following a change of operator in October 2025.

A confidential urgent decision taken in December stated: “The costs of the dilapidations are not yet fully known… However, an estimate is that this could cost up to £500k.”

The same document recorded a wide range of issues affecting the building, including fire alarms, lifts, ventilation, damp and possible roof defects, with some matters raising health and safety concerns requiring immediate action.

Such costs are not unusual over the lifetime of a large public building. But they are typically managed through regular inspection and timely maintenance. When issues are identified early, they can be addressed incrementally and at lower cost. When they are not, problems can accumulate — and costs can escalate sharply.

The central question therefore remains: how did a building that had just been handed over from one operator to another without closure come to present a potential £500,000 repair liability within weeks?

Conflicting accounts of the building’s condition

The former operator, Greenwich Leisure Limited (GLL), has maintained that the building was handed back in the condition required under its contract. It stated that the Council commissioned a full survey prior to handover, that all identified works were completed, and that these were signed off on the Council’s behalf.

GLL has further confirmed that the Council provided a condition survey to all tenderers as part of the tender process.

In contrast, the incoming operator, Places Leisure, identified extensive defects shortly after taking over, including issues said to affect the safe operation of the building.

Either the building was handed over in an acceptable condition following survey and sign-off, or significant defects existed which were not addressed and may have been present for some time.

No inspection records despite long-standing rights

In response to Freedom of Information requests, the Council confirmed that it held contractual rights to inspect the building throughout GLL’s 22-year tenure.

However, it also stated that it holds no inspection or survey reports prior to 2025.

If accurate, that absence of records raises further questions about how any accumulating defects — if they existed — were monitored, recorded or addressed over such a prolonged period.

The missing survey and disputed confidentiality

At the centre of the dispute lies the condition survey said to have been carried out prior to handover.

The Council has refused to disclose that survey, citing legal professional privilege and the possibility of litigation. Yet the same document was provided to tenderers, including GLL, during the procurement process.

GLL has indicated that it has access to the survey but has declined to provide it to Epsom and Ewell Times.

This leaves a situation in which a document said to be too sensitive for public disclosure appears to have been shared among commercial parties — raising questions as to whether the exemption is being applied too broadly.

If the survey identified the defects now being asserted, questions arise as to why the incoming operator proceeded with the contract before those issues were resolved. If it did not, questions arise as to whether the survey was incomplete or inaccurate, and who was responsible for its preparation.

Competing explanations

A number of explanations remain possible.

It may be that the former operator’s account is correct and the current dispute reflects differing interpretations of the building’s condition.

It may be that defects accumulated over time and were not identified or addressed due to a failure to exercise inspection rights effectively.

It may be that the survey itself failed to identify the true condition of the building.

Or it may be that the scale of dilapidations has been overstated or differently assessed by the new operator, which is carrying out repairs in return for a reduced management fee shortly after securing the contract through a competitive tender process.

At present, none of these explanations has been confirmed, and key documents remain undisclosed.

Refusal to answer questions

Epsom and Ewell Times put a series of questions to the Council and to Cllr Neil Dallen, Chair of the Strategy and Resources Committee, who supported the urgent decision and its initial classification as confidential.

The response received stated: “We cannot provide any further response as we are within the pre-election period and must follow restrictions governed by Section 2 of the Local Government Act 1986.”

Epsom and Ewell Times submitted a Freedom of Information request seeking to establish who advised that Section 2 applied in these circumstances. At the time of publication, no response had been received within the statutory timeframe.

Second case: Dalton and the FSA submission

A similar position has been taken by Cllr Dalton in relation to a separate matter concerning the signing of a submission connected to proposals for a new tier of local governance, referred to as an FSA (Foundation Strategic Authority).

Questions were put to Cllr Dalton as to the basis on which the submission was signed by her as leader of the ruling Residents Association group and whether it had received the necessary Council authority. Those questions have not been answered, with reliance again placed on alleged pre-election restrictions.

Expert advice

Expert advice provided to Epsom and Ewell Times by Nathan Elvery, former Chief Executive Officer of Croydon Council and now Director of Imagine Public Services Ltd, states: “The questions posed… are factual in character… A factual response explaining what occurred and why would not constitute political publicity within the meaning of the Act… The Council is not being asked to promote a political position; it is being asked to account for its stewardship of public funds.”

He added that reliance on Section 2 in such circumstances risks appearing as “a mechanism to avoid scrutiny during a period when accountability arguably matters most.”

The same advice notes that Section 2 applies to councils as corporate bodies and does not impose a personal duty of silence on councillors responding to press enquiries about decisions they have supported.

Transparency or silence?

The common thread in both cases is the use of Section 2 of the Local Government Act 1986 to justify a refusal to engage with questions about decisions already taken.

The law requires councils to avoid political publicity. It does not require them to avoid explaining themselves.

At a time when significant public decisions are under scrutiny — including those involving large sums of public money — the question for residents is whether the current approach reflects appropriate caution, or an avoidance of accountability.

Sam Jones – Reporter

Related reports:

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

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

Epsom’s Rainbow Leisure Centre Places new operators

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

Another Epsom and Ewell Borough Council cover-up of criticism?

Devolution or dilution? And who decides?

Cllr Dalton seeks another layer of local government

With one of the most significant changes to local government in a generation fast approaching, residents in Epsom and Ewell will have a rare opportunity to question those seeking to shape the area’s future.

Epsom & Ewell Times is hosting a public hustings for candidates standing in the forthcoming East Surrey Unitary Council elections. The event will take place at 7pm on Wednesday 29th April at Theatre 53 (formerly The Adrian Mann Theatre), NESCOT, Reigate Road, Ewell, and is open to all members of the public.

The elections on 7th May form part of the wider reorganisation of local government across Surrey, which will see the abolition of existing borough and district councils, including Epsom & Ewell Borough Council, and the creation of new unitary authorities. The new East Surrey authority will assume responsibility for a wide range of services currently split between county and borough levels, including housing, planning, social care, highways and local infrastructure. Decisions taken by the new council will therefore have a direct and lasting impact on the character, services and finances of the area.

Against this backdrop, the hustings offers voters a vital opportunity to hear directly from leading candidates representing the main political parties, to understand their priorities, and to challenge them on the issues that matter most locally. From council tax and development to community services and democratic accountability, the evening will provide a forum for open questioning and informed debate.

Epsom & Ewell Times is grateful to NESCOT for hosting the event, and in particular to its Chief Executive, Julie Kapsalis MBE, for making the theatre available for what promises to be a well-attended and important civic occasion.

The format will allow candidates to outline their positions and respond to questions from the audience, ensuring that residents are able to test the ideas and commitments of those seeking election before casting their votes.

With the move to a unitary system raising important questions about local representation and governance, turnout and public engagement will be crucial. Events such as this aim to strengthen local democracy by giving residents direct access to those who wish to represent them.

Doors will open shortly before 7pm, and seating will be available on a first come, first served basis.

Residents are encouraged to attend, take part, and ensure their voices are heard ahead of polling day.

Attendance and any question for the hustings form

East Surrey Unitary Council candidates’ statements – Epsom and Ewell

Guide to Epsom and Ewell candidates standing in the 7th May East Surrey Unitary Council elections

Epsom and Ewell: East Surrey Unitary Council Hustings

Related reports:

Epsom and Ewell unitary election, a family affair?

Unitary Council candidates standing in Epsom and Ewell

Two unitary proposal confirmed

Epsom & Ewell Borough Council agrees to submit proposal recommending three unitary councils for Surrey

County council set to propose two unitary councils for Surrey

Surrey’s political map is looking far less predictable than it did five years ago, with Surrey County Council now under no overall control ahead of crucial elections in May 2026.

The Conservative Party has lost its majority for the first time since the 1990s, leaving a fragmented council where no single group dominates. With power up for grabs, the election is set to decide who can harness this opportunity and shape the new East and West Surrey councils.

From safe Tory majority to political battleground

Back in 2021, the Conservatives held a commanding position, winning 47 of 81 seats. The Liberal Democrats secured 14, while Residents’ Associations and independents held 16 seats combined. The Labour Party and the Green Party of England and Wales took two seats each.

Fast forward to now, and that dominance has eroded. A series of by-election losses, defections and political shifts has chipped away at Conservative control, culminating in a high-profile Liberal Democrat win in Hinchley, Claygate and Oxshott last year.

The Lib Dems, buoyed by strong recent performances, believe momentum is on their side heading into 2026 turning parts of Surrey into competing seas of orange and blue.

Fragmented council, rising pressure

Without a majority, the Conservative administration is now more exposed, relying on support from other groups. Criticism has intensified over key issues including finances, service delivery and infrastructure, all likely to dominate the campaign. Adding to tensions, the elections were delayed from May 2025 to 2026, a move opponents say has prolonged uncertainty.

Local politics defies party lines

Beyond the county council’s headquarters, Surrey’s political picture is even more complex.

Areas like Epsom and Ewell have long been strongholds for Residents’ Association groups, where hyper-local issues often outweigh national party politics. In contrast, districts such as Tandridge highlight split loyalties — Conservative at county level, but frequently led by residents’ groups locally.

The result is a county shaped as much by local identity as party allegiance, with independents often holding the balance of power.

Major shake-up: Surrey to be split in two

The 2026 elections come amid one of the biggest structural changes in decades. Surrey is set to be divided into two new unitary authorities, East Surrey and West Surrey, replacing the current two-tier system from April 2027.

The elections will create “shadow councils” to oversee the transition, with new boundaries and significantly fewer councillors. West Surrey will have 90 councillors across 45 wards, while East Surrey will have 72 across 36 wards. This redraw is expected to reshape political representation across the county.

The current councillors at the county, district and borough level will stay in place and act as responsible figures until April 1, 2027.

Key figures stepping down

The political reset is also marked by a wave of departures. Among those stepping down are county council leader Tim OliverOBE and long-standing Labour figure Sir Robert Evans OBE, alongside several senior councillors from across parties and residents’ groups. Their exits add further uncertainty to an already volatile political landscape.

The issues: potholes, finances and the future

Despite structural changes, everyday concerns remain central. Potholes, council debt and the long-term direction of Surrey continue to dominate debate, with parties clashing over how best to manage services and finances during the transition to new authorities.

All to play for

As it stands, Surrey’s politics are more mixed than at any point in recent memory. With no party in control, strong performances from Liberal Democrats, entrenched residents’ groups and a weakened Conservative base, the 2026 elections are shaping up to be a decisive moment.

More than a routine vote, they will determine not just who runs the council but what Surrey’s political future looks like as it diverges in East and West.

Emily Dalton LDRS

Political map code:

* Blue: Conservative
* Orange: Liberal Democrat
* Red: Labour
* Light blue: Reform
* Black: Independent
* Pink: Residents’ Association (various)
* Green: Green Party

East Surrey Political Map. (Credit: Wikipedia/ Emily Dalton)

Related reports:

Guide to Epsom and Ewell candidates standing in the 7th May East Surrey Unitary Council elections

East Surrey Unitary lack of devolution detail

Have Your Say: Epsom & Ewell Times to Host East Surrey Election Hustings at NESCOT

The Epsom and Ewell Times has invited the candidates to submit their personal statements for publication.

You can find which division you are voting in by inspecting the reverse side of your polling card as illustrated.

Click below for candidate details submitted so far:

East Surrey Unitary Council candidates’ statements – Epsom and Ewell

---

AN ELECTION HUSTINGS

Do please consider attending the Epsom and Ewell Times East Surrey Unitary Council Elections. One candidate for each main Party will sit on the stage. Other candidates are invited to attend and there may be an opportunity to ask questions of them as well as the stage representatives.

You can just show up on the night but it will help the management of the event to fill in this form, especially if you want to ask a question of all the representative candidates on stage.

Attendance and any question for the hustings form

Epsom and Ewell Times is grateful to NESCOT for agreeing to host the event. It will start at 7pm on Wednesday 29th April in Theatre 53 (formerly known as The Adrian Mann Theatre) on the NESCOT campus in Reigate Road Ewell KT17 3DS. There will be ample parking available. The hustings will be chaired by local solicitor and director of Epsom and Ewell Times, Lionel Blackman.

Related reports:

Have Your Say: Epsom & Ewell Times to Host East Surrey Election Hustings at NESCOT

Plans to overhaul local government in Surrey are moving forward but councillors have warned of rising costs, unclear communication and growing confusion among residents.

At a meeting of the East Surrey Joint Committee on April 15, officials confirmed that each new council will receive £900,000 in government transition funding, with strict rules on how the money can be spent.

The overhaul will see Surrey’s current councils replaced by new “unitary” authorities, with a shadow council set to take over preparations ahead of the official launch in April 2027.

Money is tight

While the extra funding has been welcomed, there are concerns the overall budget could be stretched. Of the £35.3m set aside for the overhaul, around £11.2m has already been committed to early work. This includes running the 2026 elections, hiring specialist staff and beginning the complex process of aligning IT systems across councils. 

However, most of the expensive work is still to come. Officers explained they will still need to integrate or replace lotus of digital systems, as well as bring in additional legal, HR and technical expertise. They warned that while they are trying to keep within budget, forecasts suggest the full £35.3m could be needed as the project progresses, with IT costs alone expected to make up the largest share and remaining difficult to pin down at this stage.

Councillors repeatedly flagged IT systems as the biggest risk and cost pressure, warning delays in securing staff and resources could cause serious problems later. Cllr Steven McCormick said: “If we end up halfway down through the year and we recognize that we need extra resource it’s going to be too late. it’s going to be too costly.”

Officials admitted IT would be the most expensive and complex part of the transition, with many costs still uncertain. There were also warnings about staff burnout, with officers already under pressure to deliver the changes on time.

Residents “in the dark” over key decisions

A major theme of the meeting was frustration over the lack of clear information for the public. Councillors said residents are asking basic questions like: Where will the new council be based? Will there be local offices? Who do they contact during the transition?

But officers struggled to give definitive answers. Officials confirmed decisions like the location of the new council headquarters and whether there will be satellite offices will be made later by the shadow authority.

Councillors warned that vague messaging is not really good enough. Cllr David Lewis said: “There’s a general awareness of change but there isn’t an awareness of the detail.”

Cllr Catherine Sayer added the current communications are “very high level”. She told the committee: “It’s all very well talking in generalities about what we want to do, how we want a safe transition […] But actually there’s no detail. And I think even if you can’t say what the detail is, it would be very useful to say: ‘At the moment we don’t know’.”

In response, officers agreed to improve FAQs and to take into consideration concerns about clear communication with residents in future.

Confusion over who’s in charge

There are also concerns about who will actually be responsible for what once new councillors are elected in May 2026. During the “shadow year”, existing councillors will still run services and newly elected shadow councillors will prepare the new councils

Cllr Mike Rollings warned this could create “a messy topic” for residents and even for council staff. Another pointed out residents could have multiple councillors covering different boundaries at the same time, making it unclear who to approach.

Officials said clearer guidance will be given through inductions and communications but acknowledged more work is needed to make roles “super clear”.

Emily Dalton LDRS

Related reports

Have Your Say: Epsom & Ewell Times to Host East Surrey Election Hustings at NESCOT

Devolution or dilution? And who decides?

Cllr Dalton seeks another layer of local government

Council Council constitution

Unitary Council candidates standing in Epsom and Ewell

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

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

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

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

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

West Surrey ‘worse off’

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

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

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

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

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

Debt mountain and government bailout

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

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

Inequality fears and vulnerable residents

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

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

Confusion over what has been agreed

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

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

“Just a starting point”

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

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

Emily Dalton LDRS

Related reports:

West Surrey debt mountain – teenage fears

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

Government bailout to ease Woking’s debt burden

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

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

---

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Emily Dalton LDRS

Related reports:

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

Government bailout to ease Woking’s debt burden

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

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

---

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

---

Surrey’s proposal to form a Foundation Strategic Authority is framed as a step forward — aligning transport, housing and economic planning across the county and bringing decision-making closer to local areas.

It may yet prove to be that. But the way in which such steps are taken matters just as much as the structures themselves.

The reorganisation of local government in Surrey is already one of the most significant changes in decades. Boroughs such as Epsom & Ewell are to be abolished and replaced by two large unitary councils. Now, alongside that, a new county-wide strategic authority is proposed. In some areas, parish councils may also emerge.

This is presented as simplification. To many residents, it may look more like substitution — one system replaced by another whose overall shape is no less complex.

A Foundation Strategic Authority would not initially be directly elected. It would operate through existing council leaders, taking decisions that could shape the county’s future for decades. That makes clarity of accountability all the more important.

Which is why process matters.

When asked to explain the basis on which Epsom & Ewell supported the Expression of Interest, the council leader Hannah Dalton (RA Stoneleigh) declined to comment, citing the pre-election period. Caution during such periods is understandable. But it is important not to overstate what the law requires.

The statutory rules in question are aimed at preventing local authorities from issuing politically sensitive publicity using public resources. They are not a shield against legitimate questions about how decisions have been made — still less where the very question is whether the authority itself took the decision at all.

If a council has formally acted, it should be able to say so, and explain how. If it has not, then that too is a matter of legitimate public interest.

Invoking restrictions designed for publicity to avoid answering questions about authority risks blurring a distinction that ought to remain clear.

The lack of democratic scrutiny over the FSA submission contrasts with the level of scrutiny to which and recently the same Council leadership is subjecting the popular proposal to twin Epsom and Ewell with Bucha in Ukraine: Full Council to Strategy and Resources Committee to a Working Group and then all the way back again.

Beyond this local issue lies a wider one. English devolution has long carried a tension between promise and practice. Powers are announced, structures created, and expectations raised. Yet control — particularly financial control — often remains at the centre.

The risk is not simply that new layers are added. It is that they exist without the clarity, authority or autonomy needed to justify them.

None of this is an argument against devolution. The case for decisions being taken closer to the communities they affect remains strong. But devolution requires more than new institutions. It requires transparency about who is making decisions, on what basis, and with what authority.

As Surrey moves through this period of change, those are not peripheral questions. They are central ones.

Related reports

Cllr Dalton seeks another layer of local government

Cllr Coley on an attempt to create another layer of local government

Epsom on road to twin with world-famous Ukraine town of Bucha

Epsom & Ewell Borough Council has apparently joined Surrey leaders in backing a bid to Government for a new county-wide “Foundation Strategic Authority” (FSA), prompting questions about how such a significant step has been taken locally.

A letter dated 20 March 2026, signed by council leaders across Surrey including Epsom & Ewell’s leader Cllr Hannah Dalton, (RA Stoneleigh) confirms an Expression of Interest to form the authority by April 2027 .

The proposal forms part of the Government’s latest devolution programme, under which areas without existing mayoral structures are invited to establish FSAs to coordinate transport, housing, infrastructure, skills and economic development.

What is being proposed?

An FSA would sit above the new unitary councils planned for Surrey in 2027, providing strategic oversight across the county. The submission to Government describes it as offering “unified strategic leadership” and supporting long-term planning across a coherent economic area .

FSAs are also widely seen as a potential stepping stone to deeper devolution, including the possibility of a future elected mayor.

A changing local government landscape

The proposal comes as Surrey undergoes major reorganisation, with existing borough and district councils — including Epsom & Ewell — due to be replaced by two unitary authorities.

Alongside that, some areas are exploring the creation of parish or community councils.

The combined effect could see a structure emerging of:

• unitary councils delivering local services,
• a county-wide strategic authority shaping major policy,
• and more localised parish-level bodies in some areas.

Local concerns over authority and process

In a letter to the Epsom and Ewell Times, CllrAlex Coley (Independent) raises concerns about how the decision to support the Expression of Interest was taken .

He questions whether the Leader of the Council had authority to sign on behalf of Epsom & Ewell Borough Council, or whether the action was taken without formal approval through committee or full Council.

That distinction is not merely procedural. If the Expression of Interest was submitted on behalf of the Council, it would ordinarily be expected to rest on some identifiable constitutional or delegated authority. If not, it raises a different question as to the capacity in which the letter was signed.

Council leader declines comment

The Epsom and Ewell Times invited Cllr Hannah Dalton to clarify the position. She responded: “As we are in the pre-election period it is my understanding that elected members should not be making any comments on council matters and so I will not be providing a comment.”

Cllr Dalton is closely associated with the failed attempt to create parish councils for Epsom and Ewell.

Are pre-election publicity rules engaged?

The pre-election period places restrictions on local authority publicity, under the Code issued pursuant to the Local Government Act 1986.

However, those provisions are directed at preventing the authority itself from using public resources to publish material that could influence an election. They do not impose a general prohibition on elected members explaining decisions or clarifying the basis on which actions have been taken.

More importantly in this context, the issue raised is whether the Expression of Interest was in fact an authorised act of the Council at all.

If it was, the question of authority is plainly a legitimate matter for public explanation. If it was not, it is difficult to see how statutory restrictions on “local authority publicity” could apply to a request for clarification of an individual member’s actions.

Either way, the question goes to accountability, not publicity.

What happens next?

The Government will now consider Surrey’s Expression of Interest. If progressed, further detail will be required on governance, powers and accountability.

For residents, the immediate issue may be more straightforward: understanding how decisions of this scale are made locally, and on whose authority they are taken.

Sam Jones – Reporter

Cllr Coley’s letter to Epsom and Ewell Times

Dear Editor,

I read the 29th March letter to the editor “Local Councillors react to hospital merger idea” with great interest. The letter mentions a decision ‘taken behind closed doors three weeks ago, without public comment and clearly no intention to engage with residents.’

I agree, this does not augur well. The central theme of the letter is reminiscent of parallel activity at Epsom & Ewell Borough Council. 

Last week I discovered, by accident, that our borough council has supported an Expression of Interest to form a Foundation Strategic Authority as part of the Government’s next wave of devolution. This is a significant move with substantial implications for planning, housing, transport, skills, economic development, net-zero initiatives, police and fire services and perhaps most crucially – mayoral powers.

Cllr Hannah Dalton, the Leader of the Council in Epsom & Ewell has joined some, but not all, councils in Surrey to sign the Expression of Interest. There has been no announcement. 

To obtain the proper authority in signing this Expression of Interest some Surrey councils have called an Extraordinary Council Meeting, some used a committee meeting and some brought a report to their Cabinet delegating authority to their Leader. There are also some councils which expressly give the constitutional authority to act, to their Leader.

Epsom & Ewell Borough Council has done none of these.

I have subsequently written to the Council’s Chief Executive and Monitoring Officer seeking clarity. 

Do residents wish for their thoughts and concerns for the future to be guessed and assumed, perhaps ignored? Is a precedent being set, where a lone councillor can make strategic decisions on behalf of our borough without any of us knowing? Where is the public debate? 

It feels that we have leadership-in-hiding and decisions made in secret. Like they say in Thelma and Louise “You get what you settle for.” 

I don’t think we should settle for this.

Yours faithfully,

Cllr Alex Coley (Ruxley), Leader of the Independents – Epsom & Ewell Borough Council

The forthcoming East Surrey Council elections in Epsom and Ewell are shaping up to be something of a family affair, with a number of candidates sharing surnames – and, it appears, households.

The official Statement of Persons Nominated reveals several instances where voters may find familiar names appearing more than once on the ballot paper.

In the West Ewell ward, two candidates named Chambers – Sarah Jane and Simon – are both standing for Reform UK, while the Conservative slate includes Christopher Charles Muller and Tracy Margaret Muller.

Meanwhile, the surname Persand appears no fewer than three times across different wards: Aaron in Epsom Town & Downs, Kieran in Epsom West, and Meera in Ewell Village, Stoneleigh & Nonsuch – suggesting a family presence spanning multiple parts of the borough.

The pattern continues elsewhere. Labour candidates Kate Chinn and Richard Chinn appear in different wards, and the Ng surname also features twice, with Keew and Jeanne standing for Labour and the Liberal Democrats respectively.

Perhaps most notably, in West Ewell, Residents’ Association borough councillor Neil Dallen is joined on the ballot in the same ward by borough councillor Lucie McIntyre. While the surnames differ she is his daughter – underlining the extent to which family ties intersect with local political life.

None of this is improper. Local elections have long attracted candidates from the same families, particularly in areas with strong traditions of civic involvement such as Epsom and Ewell. Political engagement often runs in families, with experience, networks and commitment passed from one generation to the next.

But for voters, it does add an extra layer of intrigue. With multiple shared surnames across party lines and wards, the ballot paper will require careful reading to distinguish between candidates – and perhaps a sharper awareness of the personal connections behind the names.

In an election already notable for ushering in a new era of local government under the Surrey reorganisation, Epsom and Ewell’s contribution may also be remembered for something more personal: a contest where politics, quite literally, runs in the family.

Click here for : Details of all candidates for East Surrey Unitary Council standing in Epsom and Ewell

Sam Jones – Reporter

Related reports:

Unitary Council candidates standing in Epsom and Ewell

.

.

.