Plans for a McDonald’s in Cobham have been thrown out. 

McDonald’s had hoped to find a new home on the former Loch Fyne Restaurant in Portsmouth Road on the outskirts of Cobham. Members of Elmbridge Borough Council’s planning committee rejected the application by majority vote on April 24, against officer’s recommendations to approve. 

Councillors were unhappy that the new McDonald’s would be within walking distance of schools and near an area of high social and economic deprivation. “McDonald’s isn’t a proper choice,” Cllr Lawrence Wells said, “most of it is ultra-processed food.”

The Liberal Democrat councillor for Cobham and Downside argued: “To young people and families who have very little access to healthy food or treats, a McDonald’s will be like the witch’s candy house to Hansel and Gretel.”

North of the potential McDonald’s site, argued Cllr Wells, there is a socially and economically deprived area between River View Gardens and Northfield Road. He claimed the 650-odd houses come in the fifth most underprivileged sub-ward in the whole of Surrey. 

But Cllr Ashley Tilling accused groups of “middle class snobbery” in opposing the scheme. He said it was unlikely there would be such opposition if a Gail’s or a Megan’s decided to open there. 

Councillors debated whether it was appropriate for a fast food restaurant and take away should be in walking distance from schools, parks and a children’s home. Surrey County Council had also raised concerns about the potential health impacts the new burger branch could have, being so close to areas where children congregate. 

“You have a duty to protect the most vulnerable, you have the duty to protect the health and wellbeing of your constituents,” Mr Sabi said, speaking for residents against the scheme at the meeting. He argued the council was using a London yardstick for walking distance to fast food places for a Surrey borough. 

Fearing the chicken nugget chain would exacerbate issues of obesity and not promote healthy living, planning members refused the scheme. Officers said it was a matter of judgement and there was no evidence to suggest the American burger branch would make people less healthy.

Other councillors warned “we don’t live in a totalitarian state where people are told what they must and mustn’t eat” or that it is even their role on the planning committee to “combat obesity”. 

Ward councillor Katerina Lusk acknowledged the old Loch Fyne Restaurant is in “disrepair” and no other use has been found. Cllr Tilling also supported bringing the locally listed building “back to life” and re-using it in the community. 

Despite the concerns, many people flagged the multi-million dollar company would bring huge financial benefits to the village, increasing visitors and supporting local business.

But Cllr Lusk highlighted the limited indoor dining options (60 covers) and proposed opening hours until midnight, which could mean it would be primarily used for takeaway. “More noise, more traffic and constant delivery movements- all spilling into an area already burdened with congestion and frequent flooding,” Cllr Lusk said. 

Submitted last year, the application has been hugely contentious. Hundreds of objections flooded in from residents, including an online petition reaching over 34,000 signatures. A similar strength of feeling was also boosted from those who want to see a closer Happy Meal in Cobham. 

McDonald’s has been approached for comment.

Related report:

Global fast-food giant targets Surrey village

Parents of children with special educational needs who were left with little choice but to use private educational psychologists may be due money back from Surrey County Council.

So far 27 families have been reimbursed for having to go private between the 2023 summer term and May 2024 due to a lack of qualified professionals able to create educational care plans. 

This has resulted in £26,475 being returned to families – although it has not been a straightforward process for some parents.

The figures emerged following a recently published complaint against Surrey County Council.

The local government and social care ombudsman upheld that the authority refused to reimburse a mother who used a private educational psychologist in support of her son’s education health and care (EHC) needs assessment.

The ombudsman also upheld the council delayed making payments for her son’s tutor and that its communications were poor.

The ombudsman upheld further complaints about delays at Surrey County Council in completing needs assessments due to the national shortage of educational psychologists – but that it has since been satisfied with the steps being taken to resolve the issue.

Between the 2023 summer term and May 2024 Surrey County Council said it temporarily agreed to reimburse private reports due to its backlog. 

The ombudsman said: “If we were to investigate this complaint it is likely that we would find fault.

“This is because the council accepted that a report from an educational psychologist was required and used the one obtained by Miss X.

“Therefore, it should have reimbursed her for the full costs. Also, when responding to Miss X’s complaint, the council accepted there were delays making payments to (the child’s) tutors. 

“Whilst the council did apologise, this is likely to have caused Miss X distress in the form of uncertainty that wasn’t remedied.

“I therefore asked the council to write to Miss X within one month to apologise and to make a payment to her for the full cost of the educational psychologist assessment she obtained and to offer a payment of £100 to remedy the distress its delayed payments to tutors caused her. 

“To its credit, the council agreed.”

Councillor Clare Curran, cabinet member for children, families and lifelong learning, said she was not able to comment on any individual children specifically, but the council accepted the findings from the ombudsman report and apologised to the family affected for any distress caused.

A spokesperson for the council added: “Where we used the private EP report as the sole advice during that time at the parent/carer’s request we would cover the cost. 

“However, if we did not use it as the sole advice then we would not reimburse.”

They added that authority was now operating at over 90 per cent “timeliness” and able to meet demand. 

Image: New Surrey County Council HQ, Woodhatch Place on Cockshot Hill, Reigate. Credit Surrey County Council

A number of commemorative events are planned to be held across the borough to celebrate the 80th anniversary of VE Day on 8 May 2025.

VE Day marks the official surrender of Germany, the end of the hostilities in Europe and the beginning of the end of World War II. The war continued in the Pacific until September 1945, when Japan surrendered.

Celebrations will begin with a procession from the Town Hall led by the Mayor to Epsom Market Place at 8.45 followed by a proclamation led by Councillor Graham Jones MBE, To mark the occasion a specially designed VE Day 80 flag provided by the Royal British Legion will be raised. The clocktower will be lit up in tribute the evening of May 8th.

In the evening, there will beacon lighting event, hosted by Epsom & Ewell Borough Council in partnership with Go Epsom BID and the Jockey Club, taking place on Epsom Downs. Epsom Downs Racecourse will be open from 7pm. Food and refreshments will be on sale, and entertainment provided by a variety of local performers. The event is free to attend and will end at approximately 9.45pm.

At 9:30pm, visitors are invited to gather at the dedicated Beacon site on Grandstand Road, Epsom Downs where the Mayor will lead the Beacon Lighting Ceremony. Please note that there is limited on-site parking available, and the beacon site is on uneven ground.

Bourne Hall is planning to decorate their café and reception area with homemade bunting and is asking local schools to take part in designing and making the bunting. Any schools willing to take part need to hand their bunting in at Bourne Hall by Thursday 1 May.

A patriotic matinee show, Land of Hope and Glory from Neil Sands Productions, is coming to the Epsom Playhouse on Thursday 1 May. This unforgettable afternoon of nostalgia is filled with more than 60 all-time favourite songs, celebrating the best of British entertainment through the decades. Book tickets via the Epsom Playhouse website.

Finally, Epsom & Ewell Borough Council’s streetcare team have been working hard in recent months to plant patriotic blooms in time for VE day celebrations.

Councillor Clive Woodbridge, Chair of the Community and Wellbeing Committee, said:

“The celebrations that have been arranged to mark the 80th anniversary of VE Day are an opportunity for the whole community to come together to commemorate the bravest generation, who fought for the freedom we enjoy today.

“I would encourage local schools to take part in creating bunting for Bourne Hall and I hope as many residents as possible are able to attend the proclamation and beacon lighting.”

Jackie King, Chief Executive, said:

“EEBC are very proud of those who fought for our freedom and also of all those friends and family members who supported their efforts at home. On this 80th anniversary we are celebrating and commemorating this important day along with local residents who we hope will join us at the Beacon event and also with their own street parties and other activities”.

Karen Pengelly, BID Manager at Go Epsom, said:

“It is an absolute honour and privilege to be part of this year’s VE Day commemorations, it will be both a moving and celebratory event.

“Performances from the Show Choir, Laine Theatre Arts Choir and Epsom Silver Band will take place from 7pm and the Royal British Legion, Epsom & Ewell Branch will be leading the standard bearers at the Beacon – it should be a wonderful event for all to attend.”

Jim Allen, General Manager at Epsom Downs Racecourse, said:

“Epsom Downs Racecourse is proud to be part of the borough’s VE Day 80th anniversary commemorations. The beacon lighting will be a moving tribute to those who served and a special opportunity for the local community to come together in remembrance and celebration.

“We look forward to welcoming everyone to the racecourse for what promises to be a meaningful and memorable evening.”

Image: VE DAY CELEBRATIONS IN LONDON, 8 MAY 1945 (HU 41808)
A truck of revellers passing through the Strand, London, 8 May 1945.
Copyright: © IWM. Original Source: http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205021981

Sir,

I reply to Cllr Ames’ letter attacking Residents Association councillors in general and me in particular.

It is a pity that he chose to quote me selectively. I did say that the RA Group could put through anything it wished – that is a simple fact as we hold 25 of the 35 seats. However I went on to say that we value the contributions of members from other parties. .

A council may use either the cabinet or committee system of government. We use the committee system under which all councillors may partake in all decision making, as Cllr Ames has done. Unlike many other councils, all councillors are involved.

It is also a pity that Cllr Ames did not mention the subsequent meeting of the Standards and Constitution Committee on 16 April of which he is a member. This was a long but amicable meeting where much of the two and half hours was spent dealing with suggestions from Liberal Democrat leader Cllr James Lawrence. Some of his proposals were accepted. On all the motions, James was congratulated on the effort he had put in to serve the council and the constructive way he worked with RA members. This is hardly the attitude of a dictatorial ruling group.

In contrast, let us look at the Labour government of his party. Last year in the general election it got about a third of votes on a 60% turnout. This means that only one in five electors voted Labour. Another two voted for other parties, and the remaining two did not vote at all. Subsequent opinion polls suggest that Labour has lost support since the election.

On the basis of getting just 20% support from the electorate, the Labour government has dictatorially decreed that the borough should provide more than 800 new homes each year building on Green Belt, and that the borough council should be abolished in 2027. On neither of these issues has the government consulted anyone to ask if they want all this extra housing or if they want the council abolished. I have yet to meet any resident who supports either policy. The Labour government does not listen to any voices other than its own, and sometimes does not even listen to its own voices.

I like Cllr Ames as a person, and I respect his right to criticise me and RA councillors. However I believe that this should be done fairly, and not by selective quotation wrapped up in bluster. If Cllr Ames does not like dictatorial government, he would be better advised to direct such views to his own party.

Cllr Robert Leach
RA councillor

Nonsuch Ward

Dear Editor,

Thank you for your excellent reporting of last week’s meeting of Epsom and Ewell Council’s Standards and Constitution Committee, which highlighted some important and contentious issues about how councillors represent our residents.

Your analysis that public trust and democratic scrutiny hang in the balance is spot-on. In my two years so far as a councillor, I have frequently sought to highlight these issues, often in conjunction with other opposition councillors and sometimes with the support of more independent-minded Residents Association (RA) councillors.

In this light, I would like to highlight Cllr Robert Leach’s comment concerning the committees that decide the bulk of what the council does, that “The RA group can put through anything it likes”.

This shocking comment goes to the heart of issues of democratic scrutiny and appears to reflect the approach of the ruling party and many RA councillors to a situation where it has two-thirds of councillors. Despite its councillors purporting to represent residents at a very local level, the RA can often operate as a monolithic block.

One major change that the RA administration has attempted to implement is to neuter the Audit and Scrutiny Committee, of which I am also a member, which should play a key role in scrutinising what the council does in the name of residents.

Despite, or perhaps because of this, the administration has proposed to remove the committee’s scrutiny function, on the grounds that scrutiny should take place on the committees that make policy and spending decisions.

Cllr Leach’s blunt assessment that “The RA group can put through anything it likes” on such committees should represent the death knell for this proposal, which the administration has already had to “pause” in the face of fierce opposition.

While Cllr Leach’s words represent the numerical reality, they neglect the role that opposition councillors can play in raising questions and challenges and, on occasion, influencing how other committee members vote.

Last month, for the second year running, the Audit and Scrutiny Committee amended its own annual report, as drafted by the administration, to record that it had carried out “limited scrutiny” over the past year.

While this is an unfortunate situation, to say the least, it does show that some RA councillors have an appetite for a stronger scrutiny role and, despite what Cllr Leach says, can vote according to their own individual judgement.

Democratic scrutiny of what the council does in the name of residents is essential to maintain the public’s trust in it. We need more of it – and less of a ruling party that thinks it can put through anything it likes.

Councillor Chris Ames – Labour – Court Ward

The Standards and Constitution Committee meeting of Epsom and Ewell Borough Council on 16th April was marked by heated exchanges and concerns over transparency, democratic participation, and officer-councillor relations.

The meeting, chaired by Councillor Hannah Dalton (RA Stoneleigh), dealt with contentious proposals affecting the structure of council committees, rules on public participation, and the delegation of powers to council officers. In the words of Councillor Chris Ames, (Labour Court) “There hasn’t been a meeting of the Constitution Working Group for seven months,” raising the stakes and intensity of the evening’s debate.

---

A Push for Plurality Rejected

A major flashpoint was the proposal to increase the number of councillors on the influential Strategy and Resources (S&R) Committee from eight to ten. Liberal Democrat Councillor James Lawrence (LibDem College) introduced the motion, arguing that the change would reflect “the plurality on the council” following the expansion to five political groups. “Strategy and Resources is, of course, our most important committee… and particularly so with unitarisation occurring and property decisions,” he said, asserting the need for broader representation.

Independent Councillor Alex Coley (Ruxley) added, “We should attempt to achieve the best plurality so that voices of smaller groups can also be heard and we can undertake proper, robust scrutiny.”

Despite the support, the motion fell. Councillor Robert Leach (RA Nonsuch)) dismissed it as a matter of “adiaphora — decisions that don’t really matter,” and declared, “The RA group can put through anything it likes… so I don’t think this would make much difference.”

Others expressed scepticism over inclusivity. Councillor John Beckett (RA Auriol) questioned the logic of the expansion: “We’re only going to give a voice to four [groups] if we go with this enlargement, so not everybody’s voice will be heard.”

---

Clashes Over Public Participation Rules

The committee also reviewed proposed changes to public participation rules, particularly Standing Order 3.1.3, which would allow officers to reword public questions for clarity. Councillor Bernie Muir (Conservative Horton) condemned the change as “seriously open to abuse,” warning it could “deny transparency, public accountability… and result in many issues and decisions being conducted without appropriate discussion.”

Councillor Lawrence suggested a compromise, proposing that officers “may suggest rewording” questions, rather than having an absolute right to do so. This amendment was accepted.

More fiercely contested was Standing Order 3.1.4, which sought to restrict questions relating to past legal cases or complaints. Councillor Ames described it as “having a chilling effect on public participation,” and stated bluntly, “We should not be trying to exclude members of the public… from participating at this meeting.”

In the end, the committee voted unanimously to refer the contentious clause back to the Constitution Working Group (CWG), along with concerns about the reduced five-to-three day notice period for residents’ questions.

---

Officer-Member Protocol Sparks Sharp Exchange

Perhaps the most contentious moment came with the debate on proposed additions to the officer-member protocol. Redrafted clauses sought to clarify officers’ expectations of councillors’ conduct.

Councillor Leach objected to the tone of the changes, declaring, “The council comprises councillors… not its officers… Officers are staff who are employed to do what we tell them to do.” This drew a stern rebuke from the Monitoring Officer, who warned that such language failed to acknowledge officers’ statutory duties: “If, in their professional opinion, something is unlawful or unconscionable, they have obligations.”

Councillor Lawrence defended the need for balance: “I don’t mind there being a look at the update of the officer-member protocol… but I would like it to be balanced.”

Ultimately, the committee agreed to refer the proposed changes to CWG, with a review of the Surrey County Council protocol as a potential model for achieving parity between officers’ and councillors’ expectations.

---

Delegated Powers Under the Microscope

Another area of concern was the list of proposed delegations to officers. Councillor Lawrence warned that not all proposals were “minor service changes,” pointing to one that would authorise officers to purchase properties for temporary accommodation.

“We should not delegate such significant capital decisions,” he argued. The committee eventually agreed to amend the wording, allowing officers to “identify and negotiate” but not to “purchase” without committee approval.

---

A Question of Process

Underlying the evening was a shared frustration with procedural breakdowns. Several members criticised the administration for sidelining the Constitution Working Group. “This administration, under your leadership, has twice postponed or cancelled the CWG,” Councillor Ames alleged, adding, “It would appear the CWG was not giving the answers that the administration wanted, so it’s been done away with.”

Chair Hannah Dalton acknowledged the delay, attributing it partly to the “devolution white paper” and pressures of local government reorganisation. However, she also committed to convening a new CWG to consider unresolved matters, stating, “You’ll probably need an extraordinary SNC and then bring it to the July meeting.”

---

As public trust and democratic scrutiny hang in the balance, the committee’s decisions to refer key changes back to the CWG suggest a desire to tread carefully. Whether this marks a course correction or a temporary pause in constitutional reform remains to be seen.

Image: The meeting from Epsom and Ewell Borough Council YouTube channel

Plans for an Aldi store near an Epsom junction described as being “fraught with danger” have been green-lit after an appeal—but with conditions attached. For years, the budget superstore has been trying to get planning permission on the Former Dairy Crest Site on Alexandra Road in Epsom. The planning inspector recognised the road is “far from easy to navigate and potentially dangerous” but said mitigations to encourage people to walk to the store would help.

Members of Epsom and Ewell Borough Council had thrown out the German company’s second application in July 2024 due to fears that increased traffic would have a severe impact on road safety. A previous application was rejected in 2015 over concerns about the site’s location, car parking capacity, traffic levels, and the potential effect on the neighbourhood’s character. The new £5 million development includes parking and some landscaping, but earlier plans for residential units have been dropped.

Residents and councillors had previously criticised the scheme for exacerbating an already ‘challenging junction’, often described as a “rat run” and “fraught with danger”. Despite these objections, Surrey Highways raised no formal objection and concluded the development would not create unacceptable risks.

Although the planning inspector agreed that the Aldi store would “undoubtedly increase the potential for conflict between vehicles and pedestrians”, they concluded that “additional measures to encourage drivers to slow down and take extra care would help to mitigate these increased risks.” The decision statement noted: “At the end of the day, nearly all collisions are the result of human error. In this case, the lack of an obvious pattern of collisions suggests that there are not significant problems with the layout which could easily be addressed by engineering interventions.”

The conditions imposed on Aldi’s approved scheme include improving pedestrian access to the site, implementing slow-down measures, installing new junction signage, and laying anti-skid surfacing—all subject to full agreement by the Surrey Highways Authority. The inspector highlighted the Former Dairy Crest Site as a location with “good opportunities to encourage more customers to choose to walk to the store”.

Improved pedestrian access was seen as an acceptable compromise, rather than simply accepting that peak times would bring queues and delays due to limited parking. Based on average data, the risk of excessive pressure on the Five Ways junction was considered small, though the inspector acknowledged that at exceptional times—such as Christmas—some delays would be inevitable. However, they concluded that seasonal stress is not sufficient justification for additional parking, “when the priority should be to promote increased numbers of visits to the store on foot.”

Aldi now has three years to begin construction of their new bargain grocery store on Alexandra Road before planning permission expires.

Image: CGI visualisation of Aldi store on the Former Dairy Crest Site, on Alexandra Road, Epsom. (Credit: Aldi/ Epsom and Ewell Borough Council)

A global fast food giant could be coming to a Surrey village as a new McDonald’s restaurant and takeaway might get the go ahead. Despite being famed for its ‘Happy Meal’, some residents fear the American icon will be ‘detrimental to the health of Cobham”.

The popular burger and nugget chain is hoping to find a new home in the former Loch Fyne Restaurant on Portsmouth Road, Cobham. The fate of the application will be decided by Elmbridge Borough Council members at a planning meeting on April 24.

Planning officers have recommended McDonald’s gets the green light to transform the disused fish restaurant. Residents have railed against the scheme, with nearly 500 letters of objection sent to the council.

The village of Cobham was named as one of the most affluent communities in the county but the Northfield Estate, where the restaurant is proposed, is among Surrey’s poorest socio-economic areas.

Significant concern has been raised about the proposed distance (or lack of) to local schools and playgrounds nearby. Opponents have claimed the new branch will “encourage children to form unhealthy habits”, “exploit young people” who will eat at McDonald’s and add to the country’s obesity crisis.

People have said the new outlet will be “detrimental to the health of Cobham” and the impact “cannot be underestimated”. Lots of residents pointed out there is already an outlet at the M25 services, so they do not need another one closer to the village.

Wyndham Avenue park and Hamilton Ave play area, both managed by PA Housing, are just a four-minute walk away (321m) from the potential McDonald’s site. Felton Fleet Prep School, Cobham Free School and Cobham recreation ground are only a seven minute walk (482m) away from the fast food chain.

But planning officers said the nearest schools are not within a 400m radius walking distance to the site. The intervening A3 would be a “man-made barrier” to the fast food chain, officers reported, and the proposed restaurant is not on the main school route to Cobham Free School so children would be walking the opposite way.

Although the neighbouring petrol station has a Greggs, the proposed restaurant will not create a ‘cluster’ of takeaways. The nearest other takeaways are in Cobham’s centre some 700m away, according to the report.

Despite recognising local public health concern, officers found there is no evidence the multi-million fast food chain will have a detrimental impact on health in the neighbouring areas. National planning guidance says local authorities should refuse plans for takeaways near schools and where young people hang out. Surrey County Council’s public health team did not object to the new McDonald’s in principle.

Cobham residents launched a petition in May 2024 against the plans to open a new restaurant and takeaway. The petition, which has garnered over 34,000 signatures, calls for the site to be turned into a community hub instead. Concerns raised include increased traffic, litter, and potential impacts on the area’s health and well-being.

Despite the concerns, many people flagged the multi-million dollar company would bring huge financial benefits to the village, increasing visitors and supporting local business. Others said the new ‘Happy Meal’ site could provide up to £60k a year in business rates for the council.

Supporters of the proposed McDonald’s slammed the listed building as an “eyesore” and in need of “restoration”. The new fast food outlet would employ around 120 people, which the company hopes to recruit from the local area, as well as offering training and career development.

People said comments about the quality and ‘wholesomeness’ of the food is “irrelevant” as no one has to eat there. Those looking forward to the new branch said it would be a good place for young people to meet and socialise as well as providing more takeaway options.

According to the chain, the new restaurant would include both indoor and outdoor seating with space for 60 diners, 30 cars parking bays, two of which would be accessible and three with EV charging spaces. The American fast food branch is hoping to be open every day from 6am to 11pm.

McDonald’s has been approached for further comment.

A surprise decision by Surrey County Council (SCC) to auction off a cherished woodland in the heart of Cuddington has sparked uproar among residents and elected councillors, who are now rallying to save the green space from the threat of large-scale development.

The 13-acre site, situated between Grafton Road and Old Malden Lane and bordering Linden Bridge Special Needs School, was discreetly marketed for potential development of up to 40 homes by commercial estate auctioneers. The move came without prior consultation with Epsom & Ewell Borough Council or even the local Surrey County councillors representing the area.

Local County Councillor Eber Kington (RA) , alongside RA Cuddington ward councillors Kim Spickett, Graham Jones and Phil Neale, and the Cuddington Residents’ Association, have launched a campaign urging SCC to reconsider its course of action.

“This woodland isn’t just a patch of land – it’s a vital green refuge in our urban landscape, a space of peace, biodiversity, and community value,” said Cllr Neale. “We’re asking residents to stand with us and help protect it for future generations.”

The woodland, known locally for its mature trees and diverse wildlife, lies adjacent to the Grafton Park Road estate and has long been considered a buffer zone preserving local environmental quality and character.

The auction concluded in late January, but SCC is yet to announce a winning bidder. The auctioneers stated that the highest bid would not necessarily be accepted, leaving room for alternative proposals to be considered.

One such alternative comes from a joint venture involving the Cuddington Residents’ Association, the Wandgas Sports & Social Club, and a local developer. Their bid proposes a modest housing scheme to fund the creation of a community-led sports and recreational space, including public woodland access for walkers and cyclists. The vision includes safeguarding the majority of the natural landscape and establishing long-term protections for its use.

Campaigners argue that SCC’s recent adoption of a Community Asset Transfer (CAT) scheme—championed by Epsom & Ewell’s own county councillor Eber Kington—should provide the framework to enable this type of locally-driven project.

“Transparency and local accountability are vital when it comes to decisions that affect our shared spaces,” Cllr Webb added. “We’re calling on the County Council to respect the CAT process, consider our community proposal seriously, and honour the values of environmental stewardship and public trust.”

Residents are now being asked to sign a petition backing the community bid and urging SCC to reject blanket housing development in favour of a sustainable, locally-beneficial plan.

The petition can be signed online and will be submitted to Surrey County Council ahead of a final decision.

For more information or to add your name to the petition, visit: Change.org

Plans for a new paintball and laser tag centre have been put forward in a former farm building. The new play shooting centre could be launched at The Paddock on Langley Vale Road, Epsom.

The proposed play shooting range already has a name- dubbed ‘PandaWarz’-and will offer Lasertag to the under 16’s and Tactical Paintball to those 16 and over. 

Developers claimed Epsom is a “thriving town with much to offer” but is “limited in leisure”. Planning documents sent to the council read there are “minimal opportunities for young children and young adults” particularly when it comes to their “special annual celebrations”, or birthdays. 

Details of the scheme include changing the existing agricultural building into an indoor children’s Lastertag arena. Two containers could also be installed, making closed arenas, along with a temporary roof covering for the indoor Tactical Paintball. 

Planning documents said that “PandaWarz’s objective is to modernise the game” by using military skills and techniques from close range to build up obstacles. 

The equipment will be modernised and operating with magazines, according to the applicant. Planning documents read: “The games are tactical, not simply spraying paintballs and hoping to hit.”

The two purpose play area will be made up of shipping containers, internal rooms, mazes and obstacles. Fine mesh is proposed to cover the arenas so no paintballs can be fired beyond the confines of the play area. A gantry has been designed over and around the arena with a temporary roof covering to protect both spectator and player from any weather.

Planning details read: “Twenty minutes running around a dark room filled with obstacles and UV reactive artwork shooting each other in teams. A successful way of both entertaining [children] and wearing them out!”

Noise will be reduced by containing the games within the existing building and as well as using the constructed containers and temporary roofing, the application states. 

Car parking for up to 15 vehicles is included, with additional parking directed to the open, free roadside parking a short walk away on the Downs.

Locals can comment on the proposals until April 30 on the council’s website. Epsom and Ewell Borough Council will decide the future of The Paddock site at a later date.

Proposed site layout. Epsom and Ewell planning documents.