A row has erupted over the sudden withdrawal of Surrey County Council funding for respite care provided by the long-standing charity, Crossroads Care Surrey, leaving hundreds of unpaid carers uncertain about their future support.

Crossroads Care Surrey announced this week it has stepped in to safeguard the wellbeing of 274 unpaid carers after what it calls a “U-turn” by the local authority on a previously agreed commitment to honour their full entitlement to respite breaks.

The charity, which has delivered government-funded respite care for unpaid carers across Surrey for over 14 years, was given six months’ notice in February 2025 that its contract—due to run until March 2027—would end early on 4 August 2025.

The controversy surrounds carers who were told they would still receive their full allocation of 70 hours of respite, even after the early termination of the contract. However, according to Crossroads, the Council has now withdrawn that commitment, leaving carers with “just a few weeks’ notice” of lost support.

“This abrupt U-turn not only breaks the promise made to unpaid carers, it also places already exhausted individuals in an impossible position,” said Terry Hawkins, CEO of Crossroads Care Surrey. “We know just how vital these respite breaks are for carers’ mental and physical health… the loss of this service will undoubtedly place an even greater burden on the already stretched GPs and hospitals across the county.”

Despite the withdrawal of public funds, Crossroads confirmed that thanks to a surge of generous donations, the charity will continue delivering the promised respite hours until 30 November 2025.

“Whilst it’s deeply disappointing to see the council walk away from their commitment, we’re proud to stand by unpaid carers when they need us most,” added Hawkins. “It has given us the means to do the right thing, and we are incredibly grateful.”

The charity is urging carers affected by the cut to contact Surrey County Council if they wish to challenge the withdrawal or explore alternative respite options. Carers can also access support beyond November through Crossroads Direct, a self-funded version of the service.

“We’re Putting Choice Back in Carers’ Hands”

In response to the criticism, Cllr Sinead Mooney, Surrey County Council’s Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care, insisted the authority had worked constructively with Crossroads to manage the transition.

“We’re pleased that Crossroads Care Surrey has confirmed they will honour their agreements with carers by continuing to offer replacement care for those with remaining hours, following the end of the council’s contract,”
said Cllr Mooney.

She explained that the replacement respite care was provided under individual agreements between carers and Crossroads, not directly guaranteed by the Council.

The Council defended its decision to introduce a new carers’ wellbeing support scheme, offering £300 on a pre-paid card to give carers “complete flexibility” over how they arrange their breaks.

“This new offer… has the potential to benefit many more carers across Surrey,” said Mooney, adding that it puts “choice and control back in the hands of carers. Our priority is to support carers in the best way we possibly can with the resources we have.”

The Council also pointed to its “Good” rating from the Care Quality Commission, which cited co-produced strategies with carers as part of its ongoing commitment to improvement.

Mooney urged any carer affected to contact the County Council’s information and advice service.

Crossroads Care Surrey says this is about trust and continuity—many carers joined the service with the understanding that support would remain, regardless of the Council’s early termination of the contract.

As the situation unfolds, the spotlight falls on the financial and strategic pressures facing local authorities, and whether charitable donations can sustainably replace core public service funding.

Crossroads has reaffirmed its mission to campaign for the rights of unpaid carers and is calling on individuals, businesses, and communities to help ensure that “no carer is left without support.”

For further details, visit: crossroadscaresurrey.org.uk

If you are an unpaid carer affected by the recent changes, contact Surrey County Council’s adult social care information and advice line or Crossroads Care Surrey for assistance.

A new analysis of Surrey’s special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) provision reveals growing concern over spiralling costs, limited local authority capacity, and soaring profits among private providers – all while many children with special needs remain without adequate support.

The situation has drawn particular attention following the release of financial data from companies operating independent special schools across the UK, including in Surrey. The Witherslack Group, which operates Bramley Hill School in Tadworth, reported a turnover of £208 million and an operating profit of £44.6 million this year – up from £172.8 million turnover and £34.8 million profit the year before. Some private providers, backed by private equity firms, have posted profit margins exceeding 20%.

In contrast, Surrey County Council – responsible for delivering education for over 16,000 children in the county with Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs) – faces an ongoing struggle to balance growing demand against limited state sector capacity. The Council’s own figures show that last year, it spent £122 million—almost half of its £270 million high needs block grant—on placements at non-maintained and independent schools.

The root of the issue lies in a long-standing shortage of suitable local authority-run SEND schools, which has left the Council heavily reliant on private sector provision. That reliance has come at a cost, both financial and human. According to Council data, 1,809 children in Surrey were recorded as being out of school for over a third of the time during the 2023/24 academic year. Campaigners and parents report delays in assessments, a lack of transparency in placement decisions, and limited accountability from some providers.

The County Council has committed to increasing in-county SEND provision. Its SEND Capital Programme, launched in 2020, aims to create 1,500 new maintained school places by 2030, with hundreds already in development. But critics argue progress is too slow, and that excessive profits among private providers are draining funds that could otherwise support local services.

Surrey’s six Liberal Democrat MPs – Al Pinkerton, Chris Coghlan, Helen Maguire, Monica Harding, Will Forster, and Zöe Franklin – have now called for a legal cap on profits made by private SEND providers. They propose a maximum margin of 8%, aligning with figures cited by the Office for National Statistics for average business profitability. The same threshold has also been suggested by the Education Secretary in the context of children’s social care reform.

In a joint statement, the MPs said:

“It is completely unacceptable that the top private SEND providers in Surrey are lining their pockets by exploiting a system that has been left in crisis by repeated failures from the Conservatives. Supporting places at non-maintained independent schools accounted for £122 million last year – money that could go further in public provision.”

“We are deeply concerned to see this greedy profiteering from private equity firms, especially when parents across Surrey are raising serious concerns about standards and support at some schools, including Bramley Hill.”

Surrey County Council has not commented directly on the profit figures but continues to highlight its strategic commitment to invest in new local SEND places. Its latest SEND Partnership Strategy focuses on co-producing services with families, improving timely access to support, and reducing reliance on high-cost placements. However, significant financial risks remain. In February, the Council acknowledged its high needs block deficit was continuing to grow, even with Government intervention schemes such as the “Safety Valve” programme.

Meanwhile, media scrutiny continues to follow the role of private companies in special education nationally. The BBC recently investigated complaints involving private SEND schools, and MPs including Monica Harding have raised questions in Parliament about accountability and off-rolling practices.

Parents and campaigners across Surrey continue to call for stronger regulation, more timely provision, and long-term investment in inclusive education. As one parent told EET: “We need a system that puts children first – not shareholders.”

Image: cc Bruce Matsunaga. Licence details

Guildford and Waverley Borough Council’s chief executive’s new salary will be £169,950 after a three per cent pay rise was agreed – despite the likelihood the two councils will soon be dissolved as part of local government reorganisation.

[The annual salary for a UK Prime Minister is £172,153, which includes £80,807 for the role of Prime Minister and an additional £91,346 for being an MP.]

Pedro Wrobel was appointed as the new joint chief executive in 2024, having previously been Westminster City Council’s executive director for innovation and change. He replaced former boss Tom Horwood, who said he was standing down from the then £150,000 job due to health concerns.

Other options that had been on the table at the Thursday, July 31 Guildford and Waverley Joint Senior Staff Committee included a 3.2 per cent bump, welcomed by the Union for Local Authorities CEO’s and Senior Managers, as well as a bumper one-off £25,500 lump sum that would have ramped the position’s salary up to £185,000. The council said this would have brought the role in line with similar shared CEO roles such as Broadland District and South Norfolk, as well as Boston Borough, East Lindsey District, and South Holland District.

In the end, the committee took all of two minutes to agree on a three per cent rise — the equivalent of an extra £4,950 a year. The union UNISON has already agreed a three per cent award for Waverley Borough Council employees. No agreement for Guildford Borough Council employees has been agreed.

A spokesperson for Waverley Borough Council said: “This decision aligns with the pay award agreed with UNISON for Waverley Borough Council employees, and the councils’ Joint Leadership Team. Maintaining a competitive remuneration package is essential to attract and retain high-calibre leadership. The benchmarking data shows that many councils with similar or even smaller populations and fewer employees offer higher salaries. A modest increase helps to ensure the council remains competitive in a challenging recruitment market.”

Mr Wrobel’s new salary is among the highest received by council bosses in the Southeast and Surrey – although on a per head of population basis it is the lowest among similar councils with a joint role. This, the council argues, reflects the significant scale and complexity of the Guildford and Waverley job – with a combined population of more than 270,000 and responsibility for a workforce of more than 1,100 employees and 100 borough councillors.

The councils rejected the 3.2 per cent offer as it would have created inconsistency with the rest of the leadership team. While the one-off uplift to £185,000 would have represented a 12 per cent increase, significantly above local and national pay trends, it was therefore considered inappropriate and difficult to justify financially at this time.

Epsom and Ewell Times adds:

Chief Executive Salaries – Surrey Councils

Figures are the most recently published base salaries or salary bands. Some councils report ranges, others exact figures, and a few include allowances or car benefits.

New CEO Pedro Wrobel (image GBC) and UK PM Starmer

Pro-Palestinian campaigners have urged a Surrey council to cut financial ties with Barclays Bank, accusing the firm, of funding what they called Israel’s “genocide of the Palestinian people”. But no formal decision on divestment was made at the meeting.

Simon Higgins, on behalf of West Surrey Palestine Solidarity Campaign, delivered a statement to Guildford Borough Council on July 30, calling for the authority to take an “ethical and moral stand” by divesting from Barclays.

He claimed research shows Barclays holds billions in shares and loans to arms companies whose weapons are being used in Israel in attacks on Palestinians.

“If Guildford Borough Council keeps investing in Barclays, it’s helping fund this genocide,” Mr Higgins said. “This cannot continue.” He added the bank helps the Israeli government raise money by acting as a dealer for its bonds.

Mr Higgins said: “Data obtained by independent research organisation, Profundo has revealed that

• Barclays holds over £2 billion in shares and provides £6.1 billion in loans and underwriting to nine companies whose weapons are being used by Israel in its genocidal attacks on the Palestinian people.
• Investment and financial services to these arms companies facilitates the provision of weapons for Israel’s attacks.
• Barclays acts as a ‘primary dealer’ for Israel’s government bonds, enabling it to raise money to fund its genocidal policies. By investing in Barclays, GBC is aiding this genocide.”
• He said over 700 local people have signed a petition calling for the council to divest, adding both the Mayor of Guildford and the council’s finance lead have acknowledged the seriousness of the situation.

Responding to the claims, Cllr Richard Lucas, lead for finance and property said he shared Mr Higgins’ horror at what is happening in Gaza, but did not believe the case against Barclays was clear-cut.

Cllr Lucas said: “[ Guildford council ] share Mr Higgins’ revulsion of what is going on but we don’t think he has made a clear case against Barclays and furthermore we are not in a position to make a detailed judgment on this.

“We’re already moving away from Barclays as part of our wider investment strategy,” he added. “We understand the concerns, but we have to make decisions responsibly.”

He said the research quoted by Higgins contradicts Barclays’ own statements, which say the bank doesn’t use its own money to invest in arms companies and that it pulled out of Israeli government bond deals last summer.

Cllr Lucas also explained how the council’s investment policy works. “We follow national guidelines that tell us to prioritise security and liquidity, and to act as responsible investors,” he said.

The council currently has two investments with Barclays – £3 million in a 95-day notice account (which is already being withdrawn), and £1.5 million in bonds that mature in 2027. Lucas said pulling out of the latter early would result in a significant financial loss.

“We’re already moving away from Barclays as part of our wider investment strategy,” he added. “We understand the concerns, but we have to make decisions responsibly.”

Speaking afterwards, Mr Higgins said: “At the meeting I was shut down and denied a right of reply. This is unfair, undemocratic and unconstitutional.”

Image credit: rawpixel.com CC 1 License details

At a busy half-hour meeting of Epsom and Ewell Borough Council on 22nd July, councillors confronted some of the borough’s most pressing issues, including the future of Horton Cemetery, the lack of social housing, and the need to reinvigorate scrutiny of Council actions.

Calls to Honour the Dead at Horton Cemetery

Cllr Kate Chinn (Labour Court) raised a poignant question about the fate of those buried in the long-neglected Horton Cemetery. “My belief is that the culture and heritage of having the Epsom cluster – five large Victorian institutions in which people lived and died – should be remembered,” she said. “9,000 people died and are buried in a cemetery in the borough. Will the Chair of Community and Wellbeing do something towards helping remember the people who died there and respecting their resting places?”

Responding, Cllr Clive Woodbridge (RA Ewell Village) said he shared her sympathies. “It’s a place that we should remember and celebrate,” he said. “If I can do anything to address the concerns that the councillor raised, I’ll do so.”

Social Housing: “Three Houses in Five Years is Derisory”

Cllr Chinn also delivered a sharp rebuke of the borough’s performance on affordable housing. “It’s not going to happen until this Council starts building homes for social rent,” she declared. “Can we have all the different departments working towards finally building some homes for social rent within the borough? Three houses in five years is derisory.”

Cllr Woodbridge admitted the situation was “particularly disappointing” and noted the Council is not a housing stockholder, which “limits its ability to deliver social housing directly.” However, he pointed to the local plan as a potential tool to unlock affordable development. “It won’t be enough ever, but it will be something,” he said. He added that homelessness prevention would remain a key focus, with increased use of the housing prevention grant to strengthen support teams.

Audit and Scrutiny Committee Faces Questions Over Effectiveness

Discussion over the Audit and Scrutiny Committee’s annual report revealed dissatisfaction with the body’s performance.

“The Audit and Scrutiny Committee has carried out limited scrutiny during the past year,” Cllr Chinn noted, quoting the report. “From my memory, that’s exactly the same last paragraph as it was a year ago. Can I please ask what will happen to change it so that next year there is some proper, true scrutiny?”

Cllr James Lawrence (LibDem College), former member of the committee, agreed there was room to grow: “I do think there are good changes occurring. There is a lot more to go… We would like scrutiny to go further.” He acknowledged that the committee’s new chair Cllr Steven McCormick (RA Woodcote and Langley) was making good progress.

Cllr Bernie Muir (Conservative – Horton) took a firmer stance, calling out enforcement as a glaring omission: “There is a rainforest of information from residents and councillors with their issue on enforcement. It has been identified as a weakness in our local authority. I don’t think this report reflects the issues that I believe exist.”

Cllr Chris Ames (Labour Court) raised concerns about how scrutiny is blocked by bureaucracy: “If the committee is always saying, well, this is just too much trouble… how are things going to be any different?”

Chair of the Audit and Scrutiny Committee, Cllr Steve McCormick accepted the criticisms, noting that scrutiny work had been limited but improvements were underway. “We do have a work plan in place,” he said, citing a planning enforcement audit and a forthcoming September item for scrutiny. “If we do have an item to scrutinise, we will find the resource to get that done.”

Alex Coley’s Motion on Council Property Referred to Committee

Cllr Alex Coley (Independent – Ruxley) and Cllr James Lawrence (LibDem College) sought to move a motion that included proposals to urgently dispose of 66 High Street, 70 East Street and any other underperforming Council owned commercial properties, and the capital receipts to be placed in Capital Reserves.

However, the details were not debated, as the Council voted to refer the motion to the Strategy and Resoucres Committee instead.

Epsom and Ewell Property Investment Company is wholly owned by Epsom & Ewell Borough Council. It has a property portfolio of £51.2m and in the year end 31st March 2024 made a profit before tax (excluding property re-valuations) of £1.366m and a dividend was paid of £614,986

The company’s strategy is to “maintain a diversified, balanced and low risk property portfolio to provide income over the long term to our ultimate shareholder, Epsom & Ewell Borough Council.”

The next Full Council meeting is scheduled for 9th December 2025.

Image: Mayor Robert Leach and deputy-Mayor Lucie McIntyre of Epsom and Ewell Borough Council bow heads in prayer with the Chaplain. Epsom and Ewell Borough Council – YouTube.

Tripling the number of houses on a brownfield Epsom site vexed Epsom and Ewell Borough Council’s Planning Committee on 10th July.

The Application from Nuro Homes Limited proposed the erection of 9 new dwellings on adjacent plots of land acquired by the developers in the Whitehorse Drive and Bucknills Close roads of Epsom off the Dorking Road.

A previous application for this development had been refused by the Planning Committee in April 2024 and the developers appealed to a Planning Inspector. The appeal was refused where the Inspector was in agreement with the Council’s refusal on the ground of highway safety but the objection concerning hazards in waste collection the Inspector stated could be addressed.

A revised application came before the Planning committee with a widened access from the development onto Whitehorse Drive. RA Councillors Neil Dallen, Jan Mason, Phil Neale and Humphrey Reynolds were not convinced that the revisions were sufficient to address safety concerns for pedestrians and in particular school girls attending Rosebery School in Whitehorse Drive.

Kate Chinn (Labour Court) emphasised the need for more housing – though this development was not providing anything affordable for those on low incomes, she added. With the improved access she stated people are mindful and the fears of pedestrian vehicular collisions should not be overstated.

The officers of the Council recommended the Application be granted.

Cllr Dallen proposed the Application be refused. The Chair of the Committee, Cllr Steven McCormick (RA Woodcote and Langley Vale) required him to cite the planning policies that justified refusal. As Cllr Dallen floundered through his papers an officer identified the reasons given at the meeting that refused the original application in 2024 and Cllr Dallen repeated them.

Cllr Julian Freeman (Liberal Democrat College) questioned the procedure of having a vote on a motion to refuse when the matter to be voted on was the recommendation to grant.

In a bizarre dance on the voting 2 voted in favour of refusal and two voted against refusal. The Chair cast his vote against refusal. This was followed by a vote on granting the Planning Application with 4 voting in favour and 4 voting against. The Chair voted in favour of granting the Application and therefore the officers’ recommendation was carried.

Image: Top plan original with narrow access on Whitehorse Drive. Bottom plan revised plan showing proposed housing and widened access. Epsom and Ewell Borough Council planning documents.

How £11m for rail, transport, school, health and recreation upgrades will be spent in Mole Valley has been laid out. The district council has approved spending plans for community infrastructure money collected from developers since 2016 – with almost half expected to go on cycling and walking schemes. Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) is paid as part of the planning process to help offset the impact of the growing number of homes in the borough. Councillor Bradley Nelson, cabinet member for planning, said: “The local plan was adopted in 2024 so the time has come to focus on the £11m of strategic CIL which could rise to £34m given the local plan growth.” He said the projects should be ones “the council thinks are necessary and achievable to help support development growth.”

“The programme commits investment for vital infrastructure such as health provision in Ashtead, Bookham, and a health hub in Leatherhead. Early years provision in Ashtead and Dorking would be targeted for funding as well as train station improvements in Dorking which we hope will lead to wider improvements and help the district as a whole, as well as investment in the district parks.” The council has been working with Surrey County Council over transport, education, early years provision and flood defence, Surrey Heartlands Integrated Care Partnership, Great Western Railway, Network Rail, the Football Foundation, and its own parks and open spaces team to get an up-to-date picture of the suitable projects.

It has earmarked two transport projects to upgrade rail infrastructure on the North Downs Line at the stations in Dorking. These projects, the Tuesday July 22 cabinet papers read, will complement planned improvements on the line, such as battery-electric trains, and increase the number of people using this sustainable transport mode. Deepdene Station will be upgraded as a priority and a lift installed, acting as a major contribution towards “realising the potential of the district’s east-west travel connections, supporting growth and promoting sustainable development”. School capacity issues requiring funding in Hookwood could also be addressed, as well as the expansion of the SEND school on Woodland in Leatherhead.

Surrey County Council’s early years team has identified two potential projects, one in Ashtead and one in Dorking, while football pitches at Ashcombe Secondary School in Dorking and the other at the Brockham Big Field could be upgraded to modern standards. There would also be financial support for the resurfacing of the sand-dressed pitch at Therfield Secondary School in Leatherhead to allow the installation of a new 3G football pitch “without losing a vital resource for hockey.”

Cllr Keira Vyvyan-Robinson (Liberal Democrats: Leatherhead North) said: “We all know just how much residents are concerned about the amount of development that comes and their biggest concern is where does the infrastructure come. It often seems that it’s a bit of a chicken and egg because the CIL comes from development, and without development you don’t get CIL – and therefore you don’t get infrastructure. For a long time we’ve been in the position where we’ve been telling residents we have to build these homes and we have to build these sites – and there hasn’t been anything to show – so it is really welcome to say ‘this is how we meet the infrastructure demands’. She added: “We can provide the funding, but we are dependent on the railway companies, the GP surgeries, the schools, to make those bids and to ask for the funding. But the development will pay for it and hopefully they will all come together at the same time.”

Estimated CIL Contributions by Infrastructure Category

• Transport – Active Travel – £11,555,000
• Transport – Passenger Transport – £3,450,000
• Well Being – Health – Primary Care – £2,350,000
• Well Being – Open Space and Public Realm – £3,859,000
• Well Being – Sports Facilities – £771,000
• Education – SEND – £870,000
• Education – Early Years – £300,000
• Flood Defence – Nature Flood Management – £95,000

A £4.9m overhaul of special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) services in Surrey has been approved. But opposition members have claimed the investment won’t fix the system’s deep-rooted problems. The funding was signed off by ruling cabinet members for Surrey County Council at a meeting on July 22, as part of the council’s ongoing budget planning for next year (2026/27). But extra resources and staff “will not by themselves make the significant change the service needs”, according to opposing councillors.

Changes to the SEND service have been recommended as a result of the End-to-End review of the statutory service, council documents state. These include hiring 30 new permanent case officers, forming a new team dedicated to issuing Education, Health Care Plans (EHCPs), and reducing case load from over 200 to 150 per officer. Council documents detail there would also be two new operational groups formed – one focused on staffing, training and system development, while another group will focus solely on tribunals, mediations, dispute resolution, complaints and quality assurance.

But Cllr Fiona Davidson, the committee chair who oversees and scrutinises SEND services, flagged serious concerns to cabinet members. She said the committee “has already found that employing extra staff does not by itself result in the outcomes we so desperately need.” The member for Guildford Residents and Villages slammed the proposal and argued the funding does not describe specific, measurable outcomes or impacts: “How will we know we have made progress?” She said: “[The committee has] deep concerns that this additional funding will once again not deliver the services that the children with SEND, their parents and carers have a right to expect, and all Surrey residents should demand.”

Cllr Davidson said an injection of £15m into SEND services in July 2023 was promised to enable many process improvements in communications, IT changes and strengthen governance. “Was this £15m value for money?” she asked cabinet members. She said: “To make matters worse, many of the backlog EHCPs which the £15m funded turned out not to be fit for purpose. These backlog EHCPs have contributed to the rising number of appeals by parents to the SEND tribunal. The human cost of these poor EHCPs have been extremely depressing […] Children not in school for months and years, families wrung out by trying to get support, schools at the end of their ability to cope trying to get very specialist support for their students. So we wondered, was that £15m value for money?” Although she agreed the investment has delivered significant EHCP timeliness, she said it is not clear that it has achieved much else promised two years ago.

Tim Oliver, Leader of Surrey County Council, defended the new plans, insisting the focus would be on prevention, early intervention and supporting families more effectively. He said: “It’s absolutely wrong that families feel pushed down that route to find the solution that is right for their child. This cabinet is very focused on spending every pound or penny of public money effectively.”

Related reports:

SENDing Pupils to Epsom’s Mainstream Schools?

Surrey sent on a U-turn on SEND by MPs?

Surrey MPs unite against County on SEND silence

Surrey SEND parents owed money

Epsom SEND case highlights a national problem

Surrey sorry for SEND shortcomings

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

A Surrey County Council could be pushed to the brink of financial crisis if government reforms, aimed at evening out local authority funding, go ahead, its leader has warned. Cllr Tim Oliver (Conservative) said Surrey County Council could be heading towards a “cliff edge” under proposals which could dramatically reduce Surrey’s income. The central government is looking at scrapping the current council tax funding model in favour of a national 100 per cent ‘equaliser’ system where each local authority gets the same amount of funding. The Conservative leader’s warning came during a cabinet meeting on July 22, where he suggested the government’s ‘Fair Funding Review’ would hit Surrey harder than most councils due to its higher council tax base.

The central government has launched a review into how local councils are funded across the country, called the fair funding review. Reports suggest the government could go ahead with a 100 per cent “equaliser” for local government income, meaning every council essentially gets the same level of council tax income. “There will be at some point a cliff edge for this council,” the Conservative leader warned colleagues. “There is an expectation we will look to our residents to fill that gap. That gap won’t be filled – can’t be filled – even if we were to increase council tax by 5 per cent.” Currently, Surrey has a high council tax base meaning it has more band H houses, paying at least £3,692.70 in 2025, compared to other parts of the country.

The funding reforms under consideration could flatten out this advantage by reallocating resources away from wealthier counties like Surrey and towards lower-income authorities. Cllr Oliver warned the resulting drop in funding would not be completely offset by any increase in local council tax, leaving the council with a growing deficit and fewer levers to pull. “It’s absolutely essential that we drive efficiencies wherever possible,” he said. “Otherwise this council like many others I’m afraid will be in section 114 territory where we simply cannot have a balanced budget.” A Section 114 notice effectively means the council’s expenditure outweighs its income. As councils cannot go ‘bankrupt’ it stops the authority from spending any more money except from its legal responsibilities.

Despite the stark and solemn warnings, Cllr Oliver said the council was committed to avoiding that outcome and praised the authority’s efforts over the past six years to manage finances. He said: “Whether that’s lobbying the government or managing our budget locally […] to make sure we can continue to provide services to our residents but that is going to be challenging.”

But government ministers would argue the current local government system is “broken” and outdated, with council tax bands still based on 1991 property values. A statement from the secretaries of state on the Fair Funding Review said: “Our reforms will take into account the different needs and costs faced by communities across the country, including adjusting for the costs of remoteness faced by rural communities, and the ability of individual local authorities to raise Council Tax, while also resetting business rates income. It will update the crucial formulae used to calculate funding allocations, which are a decade out of date.”

Related reports:

Two unitaries will save money says Surrey leader

Surrey leaders review spending review

Surrey’s BIG debt question in local government reorganisation

Tim Oliver Surrey County Council leader – Surrey Live

Over 2,000 new homes could be built on the Surrey border, to the right of Claygate and Esher, and above Epsom and Ewell. Plans for 2,003 new homes and a 104-bed care home are in the pipeline at Hook Park in Chessington, to the east of the A3 Esher Bypass and south of the A309 Kingston Bypass. If approved, residents say it could bring at least another 5,000 people into the area. Developers Poppymill Ltd envisions transforming the so-called derelict site into “a new family-friendly neighbourhood that centres around a huge public park and community spaces”. Around 50 per cent of the new builds could be affordable housing, of mixed tenures and with more than 600 homes for families. The proposed development site covers approximately 50 hectares of land and includes Chessington Equestrian Centre, ‘The Dell’ building and former scaffolding yards.

But residents claim the land is actually green belt status, preventing the urban sprawl of Chessington into neighbouring Surrey and providing an important green space. While the site is green belt, Poppymill argued the land is “compromised and inaccessible to the public” rendering it ‘grey-belt’, the developer claims. Details on the proposal are scarce, but initial planning documents indicated new terrace houses could be between two-four storeys tall, and apartment blocks could range from four-eight storeys high. No concrete plans have been announced, but Poppymill Ltd. has submitted a screening request which outlines the potential scheme.

The developer has asked the Royal Borough of Kingston-upon-Thames Council for a formal opinion on what information it should supply for an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) – this is called ‘scoping’ – ahead of a planning application. But Elmbridge Borough Council has also been asked for their view on the application, given the massive potential development is close to the authority’s patch. The prospective plans also hint at community space including room for retail or leisure uses, employment space, a public house, community centre and an active travel hub. Plans also include highway improvements such as a new vehicle access road from the Kingston Bypass and Clayton Road, pedestrian and cycle access and car and bike parking.

Residents who wish to comment on the scheme can do so on Kingston council’s planning website. Comments are open until July 24, 2025.

Aerial view of the Hook Park site outlined in red. (Credit: Poppymill Ltd consultation website)

A public debate TONIGHT will ask whether Epsom and Ewell Borough Council could soon be abolished — and whether such a decision might happen without any vote or public consultation.

The event, titled “Here Today, Gone Tomorrow? Devolution Explained”, will take place at 7.00pm TONIGHT Wednesday 23rd July 2025 at St Joseph’s Catholic Church St Margaret Dr, Epsom KT18 7JQ. It is free to attend and open to all residents and businesses.

The meeting is organised by Rotary Connections, a local initiative of the Rotary Club aiming to bring together businesses, civic groups, and the wider community.

The panel will include local councillors:

Eber Kington – Residents Association and Surrey County Council and former long-serving Councillor on EEBC.

Bernie Muir, deputy chair of Surrey County Council, Conservative, who also serves on Epsom and Ewell Borough.

Steven McCormick – Residents Association serving both EEBC and Surrey County Council.

Julian Freeman, Liberal Democrat Councillor for EEBC

The discussion will be chaired by Lionel Blackman, local solicitor and a director of the Epsom and Ewell Times.

The debate comes amid growing speculation over local government reorganisation in Surrey. Proposals in recent years have raised the prospect of scrapping all district and borough councils in favour of one or more large unitary authorities. Such a move would end the independence of Epsom and Ewell Borough Council, which has served the community since 1937.

Supporters of unitary reform claim it could bring savings and efficiency. Opponents argue it risks reducing local accountability and weakening the borough’s unique identity.

After initial addresses from each speaker organisers say the meeting will follow a “Question Time” format, allowing the public to pose questions directly to councillors on what these changes might mean for services, representation, and the future shape of local democracy.

Entry is free.

Related reports:

Guildford going for new Town Council? Whither unitary authorities?

Top-Down Power, Bottom-Up Pain: How Central Control is Killing Local Communities

New Epsom and Ewell Parish? Cherish or perish the thought?

Will the doomed Epsom and Ewell Borough Council rise from the ashes in other forms?

Two unitaries will save money says Surrey leader

Epsom and Ewell Considers New Community Councils as Local Government Shake-Up Looms

Epsom and Ewell Borough Council out – Community Council’s in?

and many more – search “local government reorganisation”.

The Audit and Scrutiny Committee of Epsom and Ewell Borough Council met on 17th July. Cllr Chris Ames (Labour Court) expressed his outrage that the Chief Executive of the Council was not in attendance.

The Committee had previously agreed to request a report from the Senior Leadership Team of the Council explaining management responses to External Auditors, as reported to the Committee in February 2025. The attendance of the Chief Executive to discuss management responses and actions was called for.

Grant Thornton, the external auditors, had made the following “red flag” recommendation to the Council: “The Council should develop a clear approach towards transparency. The Council should be mindful of requirements to be open and accountable”.

The Chair (Cllr Steven McCormick – RA Woodcote and Langley) explained that the Chief Executive’s availability would be checked but he could not foresee an issue in her attending the July Committee meeting.

However, due to another commitment of the Chief Executive on the 17th July, the Chair had invited her to attend the September meeting of the Committee. Further, he assured Cllr Ames, the Committee could defer any particular matters requiring the CEO’s attention to the next meeting.

Cllr Ames was not satisfied with the failure of the CEO to attend and repeatedly expressed his outrage at the stalling of accountability. Accountability being a key element for the Council to improve, as stated in the auditors red flag recommendation.

His frustration was duly “noted”.

Related reports:

Annual audit of Epsom and Ewell Borough Council

“Audit and Scrutiny” under scrutiny

Local Audit meet: unexpectedly interesting…

RA councillor replaces Independent member as scrutiny row erupts at Epsom Town Hall

Image EEBC YouTube. Cllr Ames.

Guildford could soon have its own town council for the first time in the hopes it would bring more local decision-making to its urban centre. The driving force behind this proposal is fears of a “democratic deficit” – with pending local government reorganisation looming, councils will be dissolved leaving some nervousness on how residents will be properly represented. The executive of Guildford Borough Council is looking at options for a formal ‘Community Governance Review’ to consider whether a parish council should be created to serve nearly half its residents in the currently unparished town centre. Members agreed to recommend the idea to the full council at an executive meeting on July 17.

If approved, it would bring Guildford in line with the surrounding villages (like Normandy or Ash) which already have their own parish councils. Unlike other parish areas like Shalford and Send, Guildford town has to rely solely on borough councillors to raise hyperlocal issues. Speaking at the meeting, Cllr Catherine Houston said: “Throughout this whole process of Local Government Reorganisation what has been missing has been the voice of the public, the imposition of this by the government without any consultation from people. We had the cancellation of the Surrey County Council election, so we have a democratic deficit currently going on within our county. This CGR allows people to decide whether they want to be represented at that very local level – that possibly could be lost, we don’t know – for an area of the borough which is not represented.”

Council reports state CGR aims to look at whether a town council would improve “community engagement, local democracy and service delivery”. The new body could also oversee things like town events, public toilets, benches, community grants and local planning consultations. If agreed, the new Guildford Town Council would be funded through a local council tax precept – a small extra charge already applied in parish areas. Normandy Parish Council required an extra £113.71, on top of ordinary council tax, for a Band D property for 2025/26. But other parishes vary. Around £300k could be spent in the first year setting up the new parish council which will be funded by Guildford council.

Boundaries, the number of councillors and a budget would likely be determined through consultation. The proposed town council would likely include wards such as Onslow, Stoke, Holy Trinity and Westborough. Technically, a CGR can only create parish councils and then, once established, can then agree to style itself as a town council. The earliest a town council would be created for the centre would be May 2027, with the elections to choose local representatives and possibly a mayor. Despite the proposed consultations, Guildford Borough Council, as it currently stands, will have the final say on whether to establish the new body.

Guildford high street buildings, town centre. (Credit: Emily Dalton/LDRS)

When I was a child growing up in rural Surrey, I could never imagine why anyone wouldn’t want to preserve the wondrous landscapes of Britain, only to replace them with concrete and tarmac for roads, houses, and airports. As I’ve gotten older, this disbelief has only grown stronger.

Take Ashtead, for example — a small town not far from where I live. The local council wants to build 270 new homes on green belt land, despite furious local opposition. Even the council themselves are divided on the issue, pushing it through due to fear of top-down reprisal. In nearby Langley Vale Village, there’s talk of potentially 110 homes being developed on equally green agricultural land that has been part of the local farming area for generations.

These are just two examples of dozens from my area alone. These plans are unpopular and have sparked fierce backlash and debate in the community. People wonder: Why do we have so little say in decisions that transform our neighbourhoods? Why do we often feel powerless against developers and top-down mandates?

Now, as I did then, I believe that Britain is still (at least for now) a beautiful country. However, my view of our island has matured to balance what I feel we have lost alongside what we’ve gained.

At 29 years old, many assume my generation is full of pro-modernist, latte-sipping, avocado toast-eating, Netflix-bingeing apathetics who don’t value the past and would bulldoze anything if it meant lowering house prices. This stereotype is not just wrong — it’s dangerous. Many of us care about more than just house prices; we care about landscape, beauty, nature and history. We want to preserve what was, and we think seriously about what is to come.

Many young people hear the mood of the nation and agree that things are broken. But I don’t believe that a centralised, managerial approach with top-down policies is the way to fix this or make the country happier.

A big reason why Brits feel broken is that they have no control over their futures. Stagnant wages, rising living costs, and soaring house prices force many to delay milestones like having children, marriage, or retirement. But I believe the problem runs deeper. This apathy — and misery — comes from a lack of local agency, community, and belonging. Money is necessary, but the soul of a community comes from local decision-making, not cash.

Nowhere is this absence of local control clearer than in the planning system. Central London Starmerites (and many others before them) claim that communities, especially in the Home Counties, are just NIMBYs blocking progress to boost the economy. But it’s far more complicated than this.

Today’s planning process is little more than a tick-box exercise. Communities are asked for input, then routinely ignored. When a local council rejects a development, it’s often overturned on appeal by higher authorities. Councillors face political backlash but have little real power to protect their communities. What looks like democracy is, in practice, centralisation.

This suppression of local democracy breeds apathy and resentment. People feel decisions are imposed on them, not made for them.

So here’s an alternative — one I doubt either major national party would support, but let’s dream.

In Switzerland, local communities decide their fate through direct democracy, sometimes gathering in town squares to vote on local issues. Local infrastructure, zoning, education, and some taxation are set at the local level. The central government only plays a guiding role in essential services and national taxes.

You might ask: won’t richer areas just set tax rates low to outcompete poorer ones, increasing inequality? Two mechanisms prevent this. First, Swiss local tax rates operate within regulated bands, maintaining rough parity. Second, a redistributive model transfers wealth from richer to poorer areas, ensuring local empowerment without worsening inequality.

I would love to see this model brought to Britain. It would shake up the old, sclerotic national parties and restore real power to local people. Local councillors represent diverse parties and interests but are currently toothless. A Swiss-style local democracy would change that.

“But what if they don’t build enough houses? What if businesses move to areas with better tax rates?” Then communities will respond accordingly. Challenges would remain, but at least people would be deciding their own trade-offs and paths forward.

Unfortunately, the UK is moving away from local democracy. Surrey provides a stark example. Our 11 boroughs are slated to merge into 2 or 3 “super authorities,” with a directly elected mayor gaining sweeping powers over the county. How is this real devolution? It centralises power into a system locals had no say in creating — allowing the government to push through top-down housing targets, often against local wishes.

In a Swiss or similar system, we’d live in a country truly made for the people, by the people — with agency, dignity, and hope for the future. I believe that Brits are capable of running their own communities, and it is patronising to suggest otherwise.

I wait with bated breath to see the fallout that is yet to come from this government’s drive towards centralisation, continuing a tradition in this country that has hollowed out local communities for decades.

I can only hope we the people see the light before it’s too late.

Matthew P. Dunn