Mole Valley District Council is facing bankruptcy and must make “very difficult decisions” over the future of its services.

The bleak warning came during the Tuesday, November 12 scrutiny committee when the grim outlook was laid bare to councillors.

Unless the council makes significant savings then “in all scenarios” reserves would fall significantly below minimum levels required in 2026/27 and be exhausted between 2027 and 2029, officers said.

Councils must balance their budgets and failure to do so can lead to section 114 bankruptcy notices being issued. When this happens all new spending must stop.

Anything other than drastic cuts would put Mole Valley “at such significant financial risk” that the council’s chief financial officer would  likely be legally bound to consider using statutory powers  – with commissioners brought in and the council losing day-to-day control of how it is run.

Mole Valley District Council’s executive head of service (finance and strategy) Claire Morris said: “Essentially every local authority is facing very challenging savings targets. 

“It is difficult. I think I need to be really honest and quite blunt with councillors, all the low hanging fruit, the easy wins, have been taken. We are now into making some very difficult decisions potentially. To achieve that savings target you will be asked to make some very difficult decisions.

“The alternative is equally less palatable. What we see by authorities that  got into trouble and issued notices… is that they get taken over by commissioners and you lose control of your council. “So I can not give you any confidence that we will definitely achieve those savings targets. “What I can say is that we will all, councillors included, work very very hard to achieve those savings and identify them.

“We should be honest with our staff and what this might impact on our services. “It’s the honesty we will now have to face up to.”

The most high profile example of a council going effectively bankrupt locally is Woking Borough Council with debts approaching £2billion, with other Surrey councils also facing their own issues.

Mole Valley District Council must find £1.8m savings this year but has only managed to achieve £493,000 so far and is expected to fall short by about £1.2million.

Future years look even more challenging with costs expected to increase, and revenues fall.

The council currently makes enough money from its commercial investments to cover the annual interest rates and debt repayment costs, the meeting heard, but “is facing increased tenancy risks and additional costs as commercial leases are approaching break points or end dates and tenants are vacating the properties”, council documents said.

The council also expects any new tenancy agreements to be at lower values than at present.

Additionally there is “the risk of the council needing to incur significant capital costs of refurbishing investment properties but without a commensurate increase in income”.

Short term cash flows have been hit by a double whammy of the council failing to sell assets, and the being unable to find anyone willing to rent office space in its civic centre.

Claire Morris, the council’s chief financial officer, said: “A key area was around the letting of vacant office space within this building 

“We have not yet found a tenant. We are still marketing the property, so that is ongoing, but we are continuing to market and hopeful that we will get a tenant.”

As it stands, the council then must find a further £760,000 of savings or income for the 2026/27 financial year. 

“It is also recommended that the council starts to develop plans to deliver at least £1.3million of further transformation savings for 2027/28 and 2028/29.”

During that time the council is forecasting its return on assets for decrease, while budgets had inflation forecasts at 2 per cent –  adding pressure. 

Councillor Gerry Sevenoaks, committee chair, added: “What is in front of us is undoubtedly some very high savings targets.”

Surrey’s team of gritter drivers are now available 24/7 to help keep residents moving during the colder months.

Our 39 state-of-the art gritting vehicles are ready to grit the county’s busiest routes before and during severe weather, using the 10,000 tonnes of salt stored at our four Surrey depots.

Winter arrangements typically begin in October and run until the end of March although this period can be extended depending on weather conditions.

Matt Furniss, Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Economic Growth said, “We’re committed to keeping drivers safe here in Surrey and investing in our roads.

“When temperatures plummet, our highways teams across the county will be ready to work around the clock to keep traffic moving on our primary routes using our new, efficient gritters.

“Keeping our roads safe this winter is part of a series of highways improvements we’ll be making across our busy network.”

The latest draft of the Local Plan has just been revealed. The headline news is that the housing target has been significantly reduced by omitting the Ewell East Station Green Belt site but the Horton Farm and Hook Road Arena Green Belt sites have been retained.

Decision time is coming with the key Council committee meeting to deliberate on the Local Plan on 20th November and Full Council due to meet on 10th December.

The campaigning group Epsom Green Belt has sent to the Epsom and Ewell Times a detailed analysis criticising delays, costs, and lack of transparency in the ongoing development of Epsom and Ewell Borough Council’s Local Plan. The findings highlight that a six-month “pause” in 2023, frequently cited by the ruling Residents’ Association councillors as the reason for the current tight schedule, didn’t halt progress entirely. During this period, some work continued, including transport assessments, suggesting that time lost was minimal and that the pause alone doesn’t fully explain the prolonged delays in the Local Plan’s timeline.

The study notes that, after work resumed in December 2023, the Council extended the Local Plan timetable by 11 months, meaning there was effectively a five-month gain rather than a loss. Statements made by Councillors Peter O’Donovan (Chair of the Licensing Planning and Policy Committee) and Hannah Dalton (Leader of the RA Group) that the pause led to delays which prevent the Council from accelerating the current timetable to avoid higher housing targets are challenged.

The review shows that delays have, in fact, compounded over years: since 2017, the Local Plan timeline has stretched by an additional seven and a half years, while budget overruns now exceed £1.7 million. A portion of this funding, nearly £742,000, was reallocated from the New Homes Bonus Grant—intended to reflect community priorities—without consulting residents.

Meanwhile, Epsom and Ewell Borough Council has issued a press release reaffirming its commitment to a comprehensive and balanced Local Plan, which will be discussed at the Licensing and Planning Policy Committee (LPPC) meeting on 20 November. At this meeting, the LPPC will make its recommendation to Full Council, which is scheduled to vote in December. Councillor O’Donovan, Chair of the LPPC, described the Local Plan as a “vital and cross-cutting document” that will influence all areas of local development, from supporting the economy and creating affordable housing to protecting the environment and enhancing biodiversity.

Acknowledging that residents may have mixed reactions, Councillor O’Donovan stated, “There is now a full suite of Evidence Base reports to support the Proposed Submission Local Plan, including feedback from last year’s Regulation 18 consultation.” He encouraged residents to review these reports and attend the LPPC meeting, highlighting the council’s aim to create a Local Plan that secures a “thriving future” for the borough.

The Epsom Green Belt analysis further reveals that reporting on Local Plan progress largely ceased after 2019, raising questions about accountability. A 2018 agreement to regularly update councillors on the Local Plan’s status appears to have lapsed, leaving minimal scrutiny over the plan’s extended timeline and growing costs. The Group urges the council to enhance transparency and engage more actively with the public, particularly on spending decisions like the New Homes Bonus Grant, which it is contended was reallocated without community input.

With the next public consultation (Regulation 19) anticipated to open following Full Council’s approval, residents have another chance to voice their opinions. Councillor O’Donovan encourages those interested to register for updates on the Council’s website.

The coming weeks will be critical in determining the future development and preservation of Epsom and Ewell.

Related reports:

Call to Epsom and Ewell Council to speed plan denied

Epsom Local Plan controversy heats up

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

Epsom and Ewell Brace for Government Housing Targets

Children have been told they can walk 4.9km through fields and over an unguarded railway line by Surrey County Council bureaucrats who cancelled their free bus passes.

The decision has left their family feeling “let down” and “frustrated” after the vital service relied upon for years was cut because a 10 kilometre hike was found by county hall officials.

Joe Massey was sent the letter informing him of the council’s decision after a “review” found the route was considered a safe walking route for children travelling from South Nutfield to Carrington School in Redhill.

The free bus service historically served the area but the so-called discovery of the new route means notice has been served on those who depended on the county council’s travel assistance.

Normally, free bus access is only provided to those who live more than three miles from their chosen school.

South Nutfield is within that distance but the narrow lanes linking the village to the school are unsafe for young people to walk along.

Now the council has written to parents telling them that a new 4.95 kilometre route – across muddy fields and unprotected railway lines is a suitable alternative – but as a precaution children should wear suitable footwear as the farmer’s field is prone to flooding.

The instructions, seen by the LDRS, on how the children should get to school read: “Follow the public right of way until you reach Mid Street.

“In places it is narrow, and it can be muddy with surface water, occasionally liable to flooding so appropriate footwear would be advisable after inclement weather. 

“There are two stiles to climb over; these are easily scaled.

“The train track is an open crossing with no gates, barriers, attendant or traffic lights. The sightlines in both directions are long, straight and clear. It is a rural line, Redhill to Tonbridge,  on average there are two trains per hour and occasionally a freight train making it safe to cross.”

Adding: “The public right of way continues across a farmer’s field which it can be muddy with surface water, occasionally liable to flooding.”

The decision was taken by the Surrey Travel & Assessment team alongside the Safer Travel team who had reviewed a number of routes across the county previously been deemed unsafe. 

They team wrote: “We understand that this may be disappointing news, however we have undertaken a thorough investigation into your child’s current eligibility, applying the travel assistance  policy robustly, and this is the resulting outcome. “

Joe Massey, said they have two boys who will be impacted, one in year 10 the other in year 7.

He said: “We qualify for the council’s assisted travel scheme because the nearest school to us is over three miles away but we’ve received a letter f saying that as of September next year they’re going to be cancelling both passes – because they’ve found an alternative route that’s less than three miles.

“A big chunk of it is cross country through cow fields and rail roads with no bridge. It’s just open tracks.

“It’s a public right of way. We did the walk, there’s a cow field, you’re wading through mud. 

“The council says it’s fine because its only 2.96 miles but the app says 3.06.”

“Some of the roads are really uncomfortable to walk along and to expect anyone to do it, especially in winter, is just unsuitable.

“And the fields are not lit at all; it’s just plain dangerous.”

Mr Massey said: “I’m extremely frustrated by the situation. Obviously the money is a big thing but it’s the principle.

“It took us an hour to do it, there’s no way in hell you’d send your child on that route.

“To then expect your child to walk for an hour ,they’re going to be exhausted.

“My wellies were caked in mud – they said in the letter to wear suitable footwear.

“It’s traumatic enough at secondary school but to have to carry muddy wellies around all day….

“We just feel let down and the option they’ve  given us is just unbelievable. 

“If any normal human being would have looked at that route, I can’t believe they would have sent the letter.”

Clare Curran, SCC cabinet member for children, families and lifelong learning said: “This route has been established between South Nutfield and Carrington School following individual Safe Walking Route assessments that were carried out by the council.

“Safety of route assessments are carried out in line with Road Safety GB Guidelines. It is important to note that this is an assessment of the road safety of a walked route by an accompanied child – national guidance advises that the child should be “accompanied as necessary”. It is the expectation that the child, and the accompanying adult, will wear appropriate clothing and footwear for the conditions underfoot.

“The current travel assistance provided by the council is an annual bus pass on a public bus service. This costs the Council £881 per year for each pupil. In line with statutory guidance, these pupils are no longer eligible to receive a free bus pass through the council. Amidst a set of challenging financial circumstances, the council is not in the position to continue to pay for transport for families where they are no longer eligible for assistance, due to a safe route being established.

“The council is not prescribing that children should walk to school via the safe route that has been established; the option is still available to use the bus service. Families will be able to purchase a bus pass directly from the operator to continue to use the bus. Families can appeal against the decision to withdraw travel assistance via the stage one safety of route appeal form, and a link to this was included in the initial correspondence with the family.”

Image Joe Massey – on the new school walk

Permission has been granted for The University of Surrey to build a solar farm on green belt land. The scheme will provide the university with 34 per cent of its electricity, helping reach its net zero carbon emissions targets by 2030. 

Working in partnership with SSE Energy Solutions, the university has proposed to place 22,410 solar panels across three fields on the Hogs Back in Guildford. The 12.21 megawatt farm will provide electricity directly to the university by a 50m underground cable link, zig-zagging to a substation on the Stag Hill campus.

After rigorously debating for over an hour, members of Guildford Borough Council’s (GBC) planning committee approved the scheme on November 6. A majority of nine councillors voted in favour, with four against and two abstentions. 

Cllr Joss Bigmore said it was an “incredibly difficult decision”, boiling it down to the “substantial benefits” of renewable energy versus “some of the highest landscape protection areas”. 

Despite the students’ union supporting the scheme, the application attracted over a hundred objections from residents, and 15 other groups. Speakers at the meeting vocalised their anxiety that the harm to the green belt and Area of Great Landscape Value had been “downplayed” by planning officers and feared approval would open the floodgates. 

Cllr Pat Oven raised issues with the solar panels being used on agricultural land, arguing: “You can’t grow crops on any old land but you can graze sheep anywhere; we need to grow food in this country.”

Planning agent Paul Rogers told the committee it is “financially essential” the university decarbonises its energy supply. He added: “A stable university is critical to a thriving Guildford”. Councillors heard that the university’s energy costs have increased significantly, soaring from £4m to £17m per year. 

Will Davies, Chief Operating Officer for the University of Surrey, said: “This solar facility is critically important for our University and the wider Guildford community – helping us to deliver on our commitment to achieve net zero by 2030, while also enhancing our financial stability and energy security after the price shocks caused by the energy crisis.

 “Our modest scheme will boost the county of Surrey’s renewable energy generation capacity by 13%. It will be delivered alongside wider plans to add solar to University rooftops and car parks, and a package of measures to increase our energy efficiency in general.”

Set to go live in 2025, the solar farm will be in operation for 35 years before being decommissioned back to a field.

Image: Solar Power farm unrelated to University

Plans to redevelop Surrey Police headquarters, at Mount Browne, have been given the go-ahead. The changes also include a new access road which the Force say will speed up response times from Mount Browne by two minutes. 

The significant modifications to the police’s home include demolition and rebuilding of the dog school, accommodation for Police students, and a new Contact and Deployment centre, a multi-storey car park with electrical charging points. 

Members of Guildford Borough Council (GBC) planning committee unanimously approved both applications on November 6. Councillors praised the application for the compactness of the development, with no overall height increase and limited harm to the Green Belt. 

One of the applications included a new western arm to Artington Roundabout, which the Force says will reduce traffic on neighbouring roads like Sandy Lane and The Ridges. 

Straight through the middle of an open field, officers highlighted the new access road would be visible and harm the Green Belt as well as agricultural land. However, they also noted even small improvements in Police response times can have a large positive impact on how emergencies can be handled.

The second application relates to the redevelopment and modernisation of the site, including demolition and construction of operational buildings, as well as internal refurbishment of the old building, corridor wing and sports building.

Mount Browne, on the outskirts of Guildford, has been the headquarters for Surrey Police for over 70 years. The current campus contains a large number of buildings which have been constructed mainly on a piecemeal basis and are judged no longer fit for purpose by the Force. 

The benefits of the scheme include high quality facilities to meet the ongoing operational needs of the Police, as well as staff retention and well-being, according to the report.  Replacing the dog kennels was also said to provide significant improvements to operations. Officers told the committee that currently all the training dogs can see each other in the kennels, so if one dog barks “they all go off”.

Surrey’s Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) Lisa Townsend has welcomed the decision, calling it a “significant milestone for the Force”. A six-week judicial review period now awaits before Surrey Police can take decisions on the next steps. 

Mrs Townsend added: “Mount Browne has been Surrey Police’s home for over 70 years, but the buildings here are run down, expensive to maintain and simply no longer meet the requirements of a modern police force.”

The PCC and Surrey Police’s Chief Officer decided in 2021 that the Force should remain at Mount Browne, on the edge of Guildford, rather than seek a new location.

Image – unrelated dog in a kennel

The decision by Epsom & Ewell Borough Council 7th November to approve three modular homes for temporary accommodation on Fairview Road has ignited a fierce debate. The council framed this decision as a compassionate and financially prudent response to an acute housing crisis, while residents, local leaders, and some council members aired strong concerns about road safety, infrastructure, and the integrity of the planning process.

A Much-Needed Solution, According to the Council

The council has justified the development as a crucial step in addressing homelessness in the borough, where families are often displaced to temporary accommodations outside Epsom, causing significant disruptions to their lives. With over 160 households in temporary housing and 90 more in costly nightly-paid accommodation outside the borough, the need for local temporary housing solutions is undeniable.

Councillor Clive Woodbridge, (RA Ewell Village) Chair of the Community and Wellbeing Committee, remarked in the council’s press release, “Epsom & Ewell has proportionately one of the highest numbers of homeless households living in temporary accommodation in England. Increasing temporary accommodation provision for local families will not only be life-changing for those being housed now and in the future but will also have a positive impact on the borough as a whole.”

The council also highlighted the economic benefits of the modular homes. According to their press release, the development could reduce the need for expensive nightly-paid accommodation, generating long-term savings. Funding for the project includes £75,000 from the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities’ Brownfield Land Relief Fund. “This project is a decent thing to do,” Councillor Humphrey Reynolds (RA West Ewell) noted during the meeting. “We need to find somewhere for families to live.”

Road Safety and Infrastructure Concerns Dominate the Meeting

The Planning Committee meeting, was chaired by Councillor Steven McCormick, (RA Woodcote and Langley) and the meeting revealed divisions on the issue. Many residents and councillors raised significant concerns about the state of Fairview Road, a narrow, privately maintained road with limited pedestrian pathways, which is already busy with schoolchildren and local traffic.

The Principal Planning Officer, introduced the application, clarifying that the site has existing access from Fairview Road and is currently overgrown, having previously served as a builder’s storage yard. She explained that the modular buildings would “meet a significantly higher standard of temporary accommodation” than current options in the borough.

However, Fairview Road residents, represented by Debbie Ransom, voiced fears about the impact of the development on local traffic and safety. “The road is already hazardous, narrow, and below minimum width standards,” Ransom asserted. “With this development, traffic on Fairview Road could increase by 50%, and the road simply cannot sustain that increase. It is already dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists due to insufficient lighting and narrow paths.”

This sentiment was echoed by Jo Garrod, Headteacher of nearby Glyn School. “Fairview Road is extremely narrow, with no dedicated pavement and poor lighting, which makes it difficult for our students to walk safely,” Garrod said in a formal objection. “Any increase in traffic will heighten the risk of accidents.”

Legal Challenges and Community Impact

The legal right of the council to use Fairview Road as an access point was also questioned. Residents claim that the council lost its legal right to access the site via Fairview Road when it sold an easement to Sainsbury’s for access through an adjacent car park. “The council no longer has the right of access through Fairview Road, and we as residents have refused to grant such an easement,” Ransom stated on behalf of residents. She argued that any additional wear and tear on the road, already funded by resident contributions, would be unacceptable.

Councillor Alison Kelly (Liberal Democrat Stamford) queried whether alternative access routes had been considered, such as Kiln Lane, but the officer responded that the council could only assess the application as submitted. “It’s up to the applicant to propose alternative access, not the council,” she said, adding that Surrey County Council had raised no objections based on road safety.

The discussion revealed frustrations among councillors who felt limited by what they saw as procedural obstacles. “If this was an adopted road, we’d be looking at solutions like yellow lines or even street lighting to improve safety,” Councillor Jan Mason (RA Ruxley) said. “But with this private road, we’re stymied. Surrey County Council has done nothing to mitigate these issues, and I find it difficult to believe that they wouldn’t see a problem here.”

Balancing Homelessness Needs and Community Safety

While the safety issues were widely acknowledged, some councillors, including Kate Chinn (Labour Court), stressed the need to consider the positive impact of the development on the borough’s homeless families. “For many families facing eviction through no fault of their own, the option to stay within the borough is critical,” said Chinn. “These modular homes could offer stability and security, allowing children to stay in their schools and families to keep local support systems.”

Councillor Lucy McIntyre (RA West Ewell) also voiced support, stating, “I understand the residents’ objections, but I believe these units represent a positive step for the borough overall, especially with the council’s focus on homelessness.”

However, other councillors, such as Jan Mason, remained sceptical. “It’s all very well to support homelessness initiatives, but this road simply isn’t suitable for further development,” Mason argued. “Adding three units to this unsuitable road will only make matters worse, and we’ve got no way to improve the infrastructure to make it safer.”

Conditions and Approval Amid Ongoing Concerns

The committee approved the development on a temporary five-year basis, subject to several conditions, including amendments to conditions to reflect a review of the scheme’s necessity and to ensure parking spaces were allocated to individual units. The council stipulated that after five years, a review would assess if there remained a need for such temporary accommodation.

During the discussion, Councillor Phil Neale (RA Cuddington) queried the proposed red colour of the modular units in the CAD drawings, expressing concerns that it might clash with the neighbourhood’s character. Planning officer clarified that the colour was a default setting in the drawings, not the intended final appearance, and that materials and finishes would be selected to harmonise as much as possible with the area.

In the end, the vote carried with seven members supporting the application, zero opposing, and one abstention. Councillor Phil Neale, reflecting on the vote, stated, “We know this is a tough decision, but as councillors, we live in the borough, we know the people, and we understand the difficulties of homelessness. We have to be both compassionate and professional in our decisions, and I believe this project warrants support.”

A Divisive Outcome

The approval of these modular homes highlights a difficult balancing act in Epsom & Ewell, where urgent social needs clash with established community concerns and limited local infrastructure. While the council aims to address a pressing homelessness crisis, residents worry that Fairview Road lacks the capacity and infrastructure to absorb additional traffic and maintain safety.

As this project proceeds, the council will need to navigate ongoing concerns about road access, safety improvements, and potential legal challenges from residents. For now, the decision stands as a testament to the challenges councils face in balancing local development with the needs of vulnerable populations.

Related reports:

Epsom’s homelessness crisis

What are the solutions to Epsom’s homeless crisis?

Fostering can mean everything to those involved; that is the message of a powerful new fostering film from over 100 councils. 

‘Everything’, a new fostering recruitment film, will have its Surrey premier at a private screening and fostering information session at Nova Cinema, Woking, on Thursday 14 November. 

As well as celebrating our existing community of Surrey foster carers, the event will offer residents who may be considering fostering the opportunity to learn all about the fostering journey. A panel discussion with foster carers, care experienced young people and fostering staff will provide the opportunity for questions, as well as to hear directly from those with first-hand experience of the power becoming a foster carer has to transform lives. Not just those of children being fostered, but of the foster carers and their families too. 

Highlighting the need for more foster carers in Surrey, Councillor Clare Curran, Cabinet Member for Children, Families and Lifelong Learning, said; 

“At Surrey County Council we have over 1,000 children in our care and we currently have just under 400 foster families. We want children to live and thrive in homes within the county, where this is in the right thing for them. While 42% of fostered children in Surrey live with our foster carers within the geographical borders of the county, our aim is that by 2030 that number will be up to 65%. 

“The ‘Everything’ project has given our fostering service an amazing film that shows the long-term impact that fostering can have, with relationships between carers and children lasting well into adulthood. Every council wants to recruit more foster carers, and by collaborating to produce this emotionally powerful film, we can show people how rewarding and life-changing being a foster carer can be. 

“The message is the same for all of us – we need more people to step forward and become foster carers. ‘Everything’ will help us to reach more people in our communities and encourage them to find out more about this really rewarding role. 

“We are committed to giving the vulnerable children and young people we care for the best chance to thrive, and for the vast majority of them that would be to live with a local fostering family. Our ambition is for at least 30 new foster families across Surrey to join us by the end of March 2025.” 

Children who enter the care system have often experienced trauma and instability in their lives, and a caring, stable foster family can make a significant difference in their wellbeing and development.  

Nationally, there are currently over 70,000 children living with around 56,000 foster families in the UK. However, there is still a significant shortage of foster carers, with around 9,265 new foster families needed in the next year alone.  

To learn more about fostering for Surrey, register online for your free place at our fostering information session on 14 November, or visit Fostering – Surrey County Council. 

The ‘Everything’ film 

‘Everything’ is the seventh film produced by a growing partnership of councils and children’s trusts to promote local authority fostering. The ‘Everything’ project is the largest collaboration yet, with participants from Cumbria to Devon and Lancashire to Essex. 

‘Everything’ follows foster carer Mike and his family on a journey through time with two of the children they have looked after, who are now adults. A surprise 60^th birthday party for Mike gives Will and Zara a chance to reflect on how being fostered made a difference to their lives, thanking him for everything. 

Thanks to footage shot on a genuine old camcorder, we are taken to the 1990s, to see how Will settles into the family. We also jump back to the 2010s, when a young Zara is being taught to play the guitar by Mike, something that comes full circle when she performs a song at the party. Mike’s son Chris is involved throughout, showing the important role the children of foster carers play.  

The concluding message of the film is that what you do with your life could forever change someone else’s – encouraging people to foster in order to make that change. 

The film was developed with the input and insight of foster carers and people with care experience, was produced by Reel TwentyFive and project managed by public sector media partner CAN/Rachel Brown. Project Director, Rachel Brown describes the main message of the film: “Many people don’t realise how common it is for relationships made through fostering to last well beyond the ‘official’ caring role. This has a huge impact on the lives of those who have been fostered, giving them stability and security well into adulthood. 

“We also wanted to reflect how the children of foster carers make a difference to children when they come into care, helping them to feel part of the family. 

“Having over 100 councils taking part in the project, the film will reach a very wide audience, encouraging people to find out more and take the steps towards becoming a foster carer.  

“Fostering with your local council or children’s trust means you can better support local children and young people who need a safe and nurturing home where they can grow and thrive.” 

Sarah Thomas, chief executive of the Fostering Network says: “The Fostering Network has been proud to support the collaborative film projects since ‘Giants’ in 2017. It’s great to see local authority fostering services pooling resources to produce another amazing film. ‘Everything’ will help to amplify their message about the chronic shortage of fostering households, encouraging more people to come forward and foster.” 

Dear Editor,

My 12 year old son spoke at the last local council planning meeting, about the importance of not building on the green belt, and I am writing to you, as an Epsom and Ewell Stamford ward resident, to echo my agreement. I’ve gone through the Land Assessment and the Draft Local Plan regulation 18, and am very concerned about the future of our green spaces in Epsom and Ewell. 

While I realise there are many ways to work out how many houses to build in Epsom and Ewell, I believe it should be based on how much brownfield space we have, rather than what is possible if we build on the green belt. We obviously need to build social houses (my understanding is that there are about 1,300 families on the waiting list in Epsom and Ewell), and we must do our part with helping to build a proportion of the houses likely to be needed nationally (which the office of national statistics estimates at about a 10% increase over 15 years). The local plan suggests an increase of about 14.5% (on top of 1,300 needed for social houses), so arguably more than we need to build.

I believe an alternative local plan has been sent to the council showing that it is possible to build all the houses we need on brownfield sites identified in the Land Assessment, plus there will be more spaces that become available over the next 15 years. This means that there are no exceptional circumstances in order to justify changing green belt boundaries.

A Reigate and Banstead Green Party councillor, who is also a town planner, gave a talk earlier in the year explaining that if you build on many small brownfield sites (instead of thousands of houses on one green site), you get small, local firms tendering for the work, instead of big developers, so increasing local employment.

I am also concerned that the council is not listening to residents, with their own consultation showing that 87% of respondents are opposed to building on the green belt. And a 12,000 signature petition has been ignored. While I realise there was a concern that not all the people who signed it definitely live in Epsom and Ewell, I think it is very likely that a huge proportion of them do.

Additionally, I feel I cannot leave out how disappointed I am that the Local Plan does not specify energy standards to be met for residential house building. I believe the excuse /explanation for this is the 2022 Local Plan Viability Assessment, which includes some analysis of estimated additional costs to building if various environmental standards are adhered to. I believe that this data is incomplete as it isn’t clear whether it considers the lower cost of running an energy efficient house and the resulting potential impact in the sale price of the property. It also doesn’t compare these figures to the cost of retro-fitting houses, and doesn’t mention the financial cost to the country if we fail to protect ourselves against the worse effects of climate change.

With not acting to remove green belt following the consultation, and dragging the process out, we are now at a point where if we delay any longer, new government rules will mean drastically higher number of houses required to be built in Epsom and Ewell, and could almost wipe out all the green spaces (except The Common) over the next 15 years. Please act quickly to avoid this!

And I cannot stress enough to please remember the importance of increasing green and re-wilded spaces across the UK in order to help mitigate the worst effects of the climate crisis. Green spaces are needed for free and natural carbon sequestration, reducing air pollution, natural flood management, and for our declining wildlife. They are also used as important community spaces, and children’s’ sports, as my son and his friend pointed out in the last planning meeting.

Yours faithfully,

Yvonne Grunwald – Stamford Ward Epsom.

Epsom & Ewell Borough Council is calling on the public to take part in their consultation about a proposed Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO) from 4 November. The consultation will run for 8 weeks and ends on 5 January.

PSPOs deal with a particular nuisance or problem in a specific area that is detrimental to the local community’s quality of life, by putting restrictions on how people can use public spaces in that area. They are intended to help ensure that the everyone can use and enjoy public spaces, safe from anti-social behaviour.

The consultation will help shape the future of our alcohol-related PSPO, with the public having a say on whether to renew the existing PSPO and extend its reach through the proposed changes.

Proposed changes include expanding the geographical area the PSPO covers to include the entire borough and, in partnership with Surrey Police, to provide additional community support to help counteract antisocial behaviour in public spaces.

The proposed new prohibitions in the PSPO include:

• Harassing or intimidating residents, businesses or members of the public.
• Threatening any person with violence and/or being verbally abusive towards any person.
• Urinating in an open public place.
• Littering or spitting with the intent to cause harassment, alarm or distress to any person.
• Wearing a piece of clothing with the intent to obscure or hide their identity for the purposes of committing crime and/or anti-social behaviour.
• Acting, or inciting others to act, in an anti-social manner, which is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to any person.
• Joining or remaining in a group of two or more people, which is acting in a manner that is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to any person.
• Consumption of alcohol following a verbal warning by an authorised person to stop. An authorised person includes a Police Constable, Police Community Support Officer, a Council Officer, or any other person authorised by the Council.

Councillor Shanice Goldman, Chair of Crime and Disorder Committee said:

“Our council is deeply committed to ensuring that public spaces across the borough are safe and welcoming for everyone. Public Space Protection Orders (PSPOs) allow police and council staff to address antisocial behaviour effectively, without immediately resorting to arrests.

“We’re seeking feedback from all residents, workers, and visitors to get a clear understanding of whether the proposed changes will better support the police and council in managing antisocial behaviour.

“I really do encourage your participation as your views will help shape our approach to creating safer, more enjoyable spaces for all.”

The consultation survey is available here – Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO) Public Consultation.

More than 800 homes will be built on Surrey green belt land as part of a 15 year plan for 9,270 new properties in the north of the county.

It comes after Spelthorne Borough Council agreed, last week, to reinstate 13 green belt sites it had removed from its local plan in February.

Opponents have said delays to the borough’s planning bible, which sets out where and the types of development that can go ahead for the next 15 years, has turned Spelthorne into “clarion” to be picked off by “vultures”.

The council said it changed its position in order to get its housing plan approved under lower targets of 618 a year versus potentially the 700 plus that could come in under national changes to planning law.

Councillor Darren Clarke (Conservative, Laleham and Shepperton Green) spoke out against the hold ups saying residents were “sold a pup” and councillors unable to stop unwanted development.

He said: “The lack of a local plan means that we don’t have a five year housing supply.

“This tilts decisions in favour of development, and away from not developing so when we are lobbied by residents to oppose builds we are told by officers that we have no reasons to object.

“We can reject  it as the committee and do because we know what good looks like, however the planners can and do apply  those with the most money know they will win and we need to pay their expensive legal costs as well

“So we not only end up with buildings which we do not want, lived in by people from potentially outside the borough, hindering, not helping the borough but also a legal bill for us and them, and who pays this, yes the residents.

“We are in a time of planning approval by appeal with developer vultures circling looking at us like carrion.

“What this short sighted administration has done is harm the borough make us look like a laughing stock and cost the residents in hard pounds.

‘It’s been almost fingers in ears and la la la”

His speech was rebutted by borough leader, Cllr Joanne Sexton who said the so called “pathetic excuse” to delay the local plan had been to protect residents from flooding rather than any quarrels over green belt.

She told the meeting that she was proud and delighted with the work that had gone in to ensure “that  now have a statement of common ground with the Environment Agency, who is a key stakeholder, and knows exactly what it is that they needed from us, and I am extremely proud today to be here to be able to take this forward.”

Officially the council paused the inspector’s examination of its local plan in December 2023 “to allow for training of newly elected councillors” and to consider potential changes to national planning policy.

In February 2024, the council asked the inspector to remove all green belt allocations, with the exception of the two sites for Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople. 

The council has now decided to return the 13 protected green belt sites back into the plan so they can be used for housing – before going back to the planning inspector with any proposed changes. 

The saga dates back even further with the Secretary of State ordering the council to not pause its plan in September 2023 after councillors asked for a hiatus in June – just a month after examination hearings had started at the end of May.

In all, there will be 855 new homes built on Spelthorne’s green belt, of which  438 will be affordable.

Spelthorne Borough Council offices in Knowle Green, Staines. Credit: Emily Coady-Stemp

As Epsom and Ewell Borough Council deliberates its Local Plan in the face of imminent, significantly higher government housing targets, the council’s slow-paced approach raises crucial questions about its strategy to protect our borough’s green spaces. Led by the Residents’ Association, the council is balancing on a tightrope between procedural rigour and an increasingly urgent need for action. But with higher housing quotas looming, is this balance tipping too far towards delay, at the cost of our precious Green Belt?

Nine opposition councillors have proposed an Emergency Full Council Meeting, arguing that swift action is essential to avoid a target increase to 817 new homes annually—double the current requirement. They rightly point out the risks to Epsom’s character and environmental integrity. With development pressure escalating, the loss of even a small proportion of green spaces would have lasting consequences, affecting not just our landscape but also the local ecology and community fabric.

Residents’ Association leaders, meanwhile, cite the need for strict adherence to regulatory procedures, with Councillor Peter O’Donovan (Chair of the Licensing Policy and Planning Committee, RA Ewell Court) cautioning against shortcuts that might render the plan “unsound” in the eyes of government inspectors. RA Leader Councillor Hannah Dalton (Stoneleigh) echoes this sentiment, emphasising the need for quality and robustness in the plan to withstand scrutiny. But, does adherence to every procedural step outweigh the immediate urgency to avoid a government-imposed target that could open up the Green Belt for development?

If every councillor claims to prioritise the protection of our green spaces, it’s difficult to justify the RA’s slow and careful approach. What would be lost by speeding up the process, even at the risk of minor regulatory issues? The Local Plan’s objective is clear: it must serve the community’s best interests by ensuring sustainable development, but without jeopardising the green spaces that make Epsom unique. Rushing to complete this plan before the higher targets take effect doesn’t mean compromising on quality—it means acknowledging the urgency of our current position.

The RA’s insistence on caution may reflect their commitment to procedural integrity, but in the face of a looming housing target that threatens everything they aim to protect, this stance appears increasingly illogical. The stakes are high, and with public consultation already delayed due to a halt in 2023, it is hard to see what further delay achieves. As Janice Baker of the Epsom Green Party rightly points out, legal pathways exist to expedite the consultation phase, saving precious weeks and potentially allowing the community to dodge the higher target.

In the end, Epsom and Ewell Borough Council must decide if this cautious approach truly serves our borough’s best interests. Every resident who treasures our green spaces deserves a council that can act quickly and decisively in their defence. The council’s commitment to procedural correctness is admirable, but it must be weighed against the real and immediate threat of intensified development. It’s time to ask, “What are we willing to risk?” Because in this case, the greatest risk might just be the price of waiting.

Related reports:

Call to Epsom and Ewell Council to speed plan denied

Opposition Calls for Emergency Council Meeting Over Epsom and Ewell Local Plan

Nine opposition councillors on Epsom and Ewell Borough Council are calling for an Emergency Full Council Meeting to fast-track the final stages of the borough’s Local Plan amid looming concerns over potential new housing targets set by the central government. The councillors—comprising members of the Liberal Democrats, Labour, and Conservative parties—are urging swift action, fearing that delays could lead to increased housing quotas that would place significant pressure on the borough’s cherished green spaces.

The councillors’ proposal, initially set out in a formal request dated 24th October, has stirred considerable debate across the council. They propose that the emergency meeting be held immediately following the Licensing and Planning Policy Committee (LPPC) meeting on 20th November or, failing that, on the evening of the 21st November. In doing so, they hope to expedite the draft Local Plan’s approval, enabling the next public consultation phase to commence before the year’s end.

The Case for Urgency: New Housing Targets and Local Development

At the heart of the opposition councillors’ concerns are potential changes to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which could soon enforce a higher housing target of 817 new homes annually—over double the borough’s existing requirement. One opposition councillor highlighted the urgency, warning, “If the Local Plan fails or is found unsound, we will be subject to the Labour government’s new targets, which are 817 dwellings per annum.”

These new targets, if implemented, could lead to development encroaching on the borough’s green spaces, a possibility that has mobilised both councillors and local residents. This anxiety is reflected in the recent appeals from local groups, including the Epsom Green Belt Group, which advocates for focusing on brownfield sites rather than encroaching on protected land.

Council’s Response: A Call for Procedural Compliance

In response, council leaders from the Residents’ Association majority group have expressed concerns about rushing the Local Plan process, citing the necessity of adhering to legal and procedural requirements. Chair of the LPPC, Councillor Peter O’Donovan, (RA Ewell Court) emphasised the importance of a comprehensive review process to ensure that any amendments to the draft Local Plan comply with regulations before it proceeds to public consultation. He stated, “The documents which will form the Regulation 19 consultation must be prepared in accordance with the regulations, including the legally required Sustainability Appraisal and Habitats Regulations Assessment.”

O’Donovan added that should any changes be proposed during the LPPC’s 20th November meeting, additional time would be necessary for council officers to update the documentation. Failure to address these requirements, he warned, could result in the plan being deemed “unsound” by government inspectors.

Residents’ Association View: Balancing Timeliness and Quality

Residents’ Association Leader Councillor Hannah Dalton (Stoneleigh), in her response to the opposition’s proposal, reiterated the council’s commitment to both transparency and quality in the Local Plan’s development. Dalton acknowledged the delay caused by a temporary halt in 2023 but argued that accelerating the current schedule could compromise the quality and legal robustness of the plan. “We can’t simply ‘speed up’ to replace six months of lost time,” she remarked, noting that the council remains committed to commencing the Regulation 19 public consultation “at the earliest possible opportunity after the November meeting of the LPPC.”

In a letter addressing a recent call from the Epsom Green Party, Dalton also noted that bypassing the LPPC’s role could undermine the Local Plan’s overall integrity. She explained, “Circumventing the LPP meeting… bypasses LPP, which has been tasked with the development of the Local Plan.” Any changes agreed upon by Full Council would still require further work to comply with legally mandated procedures, she added.

Epsom Green Party’s Intervention: Legal Pathways to Expedite Consultation

Meanwhile, Janice Baker, Chair of the Epsom Green Party, recently suggested an alternative approach. In a letter to Dalton, Baker proposed a legally permissible pathway for Full Council to assume the LPPC’s role, potentially scheduling a Full Council meeting in place of the LPPC’s 20th November session. This approach, she argued, could save several weeks and allow the Regulation 19 consultation to conclude by early January 2025, ahead of the potential NPPF changes.

“Many residents have been frustrated by the lack of open discussion,” Baker stated, adding that the proposed approach “provides a chance to avoid this disaster.” She further urged that any potential legal impediments to this plan be swiftly addressed by the council’s legal team, emphasising that delays could lead to increased housing requirements that would place “extremely significant environmental, financial, and social costs” on the borough.

Residents and Environmental Campaigners Express Growing Concern

The debate has galvanised local community groups and residents who are deeply invested in the borough’s planning future. The Epsom Green Belt Group has argued for prioritising brownfield sites to protect greenfield areas and prevent the urban sprawl that they fear could follow under new NPPF guidelines. Their concerns were echoed during the LPPC’s October meeting, where residents spoke passionately against any development that could jeopardise the area’s green spaces.

Adding further weight to the opposition’s argument, local Liberal Democrat leader Councillor Julie Morris (College) criticised Mayor Steven Bridger’s (RA Stamford) refusal to consider an Emergency Council Meeting (ECM) for 21st November. Bridger had stated that an ECM would not allow sufficient time for officers to finalise the necessary documentation and for councillors to adequately review it. However, Morris rebutted that the ECM was intended “to allow Council as a whole to sign off the draft Local Plan AND any amendments agreed on 20th November,” thus expediting the consultation’s start before the end of the year.

The opposition councillors are now considering other procedural avenues to press forward with the Local Plan, underscoring their commitment to avoid the looming 817-unit target.

What’s Next? A Community on Edge

The path forward for Epsom and Ewell’s Local Plan remains uncertain, as councillors and community members await the LPPC’s 20th November meeting. The stakes are high for the borough, with questions about housing supply, environmental conservation, and procedural integrity all coming to the fore. The decisions made in the coming weeks will not only determine the scale of future developments but will also shape the borough’s character for years to come.

In the words of Councillor Dalton, “Balancing development with the preservation of our borough’s character is challenging but essential.” With the pressure mounting from opposition members and concerned residents alike, Epsom and Ewell Borough Council faces critical choices as it navigates the complex and often conflicting demands of local governance and sustainable growth.

Related reports:

Opposition Calls for Emergency Council Meeting Over Epsom and Ewell Local Plan

Epsom Local Plan controversy heats up

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

Epsom and Ewell Brace for Government Housing Targets

Surrey County Council welcomes the extension by government of the Household Support Fund in this year’s Autumn Statement, after 86,000 Surrey households were supported by the fund last year.

In addition to the Household Support fund this autumn and winter, the council will continue to support residents with financial help, support and information. The council has, alongside partners, established a priority focus on 21 key neighbourhoods identified as having the highest levels of disadvantage, aligning with the organisation’s aim to enable as many people as possible to access the right support.

Councillor Mark Nuti, Cabinet Member for Health, Wellbeing and Public Health said: “We recognise times are still financially challenging for both Surrey residents and local government. As an organisation we commit to do the best we can with the resources we have available to us – working with system-wide partners across Surrey to ensure No One Is Left Behind. We therefore welcome the continuing support the Household Fund provides us to help Surrey’s most vulnerable residents and organisations such as SGN who have once again supported us with funding.” 

Other support available to residents includes:

• Continued provision of the Surrey Crisis Fund. Thanks to funding from SGN, the council is able to offer the continued provision of the Surrey Crisis Fund. The Surrey Crisis Fund provides financial help to Surrey residents who have nowhere else to turn in an emergency or following a disaster. It also can provide assistance to set up a home in the community where no other funds or resources are available. 
• Warm Welcomes launch again in November across the county as places where residents can enjoy a safe, warm, friendly environment to have a hot drink, read a book, socialise with others and receive energy saving information and advice.  
• Surrey County Council have been working with Citizens Advice who can provide free advice and support on benefits, housing, debt and a range of other problems that people might be experiencing.  
• The online Financial, Welfare and Health and Wellbeing Hub has been updated with the all the latest information to help with everyday living expenses surreycc.gov.uk/welfare. 
• Free online Energy Advice Tool for information and advice on a range of topics including debt relief grants and fuel vouchers. 
• Surrey County Council is working in partnership with FurbNow to launch a Home Energy Improvement ‘One-Stop Shop’ offering subsidised ‘Home Energy Plans’ and hassle-free energy saving measure installations. 
• Continue to work closely with the Voluntary Community Social Enterprise sector to ensure the right support gets to Surrey’s most vulnerable residents.  
• 52 Libraries across Surrey continue to provide face-to-face support in communities for those who may be struggling. Providing a space to meet others, offering free Wi-Fi, access to computers, digital upskilling, volunteers who can help with digital support. 
• Surrey Fire and Rescue Service Safe and Well visits out in the community often identify vulnerable residents and where they think appropriate, they can provide winter essentials, heaters, fuel vouchers and electric blankets thanks to our partnership with SGN. 
• Working with the Surrey Coalition of Disabled People to provide a number of cost-of-living initiatives to support disabled residents with rising energy bills. 
• In October, as part of the organisation’s ongoing priority of ensuring No One Is Left Behind, Surrey County Council signed the Good Company’s End Poverty Pledge – Surrey County Council signs the End Poverty Pledge | Surrey News 

The Community Helpline is also available to talk to someone to help residents check that they are getting all the financial support they are entitled to and maximising their income. The Community Helpline is available on 0300 200 1008 9am to 5pm Monday to Friday except bank holidays.  

Photo by Timur Weber

A clash between environmental advocates and oil developers at Horse Hill in Surrey has resurfaced as local campaigners question why oil production continues despite a lack of planning permission. The Weald Action Group, which represents numerous community groups opposing fossil fuel extraction across Southeast England, has raised concerns over ongoing operations by Horse Hill Developments Ltd (HHDL). The site, located in the Surrey Hills, is still producing oil even though the Supreme Court recently ruled that planning permission was granted unlawfully, citing omissions in the environmental impact assessment.

This summer, the UK Supreme Court upheld a challenge brought by environmentalist Sarah Finch on behalf of the Weald Action Group. The ruling faulted Surrey County Council for not considering indirect greenhouse gas emissions linked to the burning of the oil produced at Horse Hill when they approved the application. Consequently, the planning approval was nullified, marking a significant win for the environmental action group and setting a precedent that has since impacted other oil and gas sites across the UK.

In response to continued production at Horse Hill, the Weald Action Group’s legal team has written to Surrey County Council, requesting clarity on whether HHDL’s operations are indeed unauthorized and if the council intends to enforce a halt to production until retrospective planning permissions are secured. “It’s not clear why UKOG are still producing oil at Horse Hill despite having no planning permission to do so,” the group’s spokesperson stated. Meanwhile, Chris Coghlan, the newly elected MP for Dorking and Horley, has also pressed the council for answers.

The council’s statement confirmed it is aware of the issue, stressing that without planning permission, HHDL’s production activities may indeed be unlawful. It stated: “Following the Supreme Court decision, there is no planning permission for oil production at the site… The County Council is continuing its enforcement investigation and will determine whether formal enforcement action is expedient.” While the council refrained from offering a definitive timeline, it confirmed that formal enforcement remains a possibility, pending the ongoing investigation.

For the Weald Action Group and concerned residents, the situation underscores broader frustrations with fossil fuel projects in rural areas. Their efforts highlight a commitment to maintaining local accountability and environmental protections, especially in ecologically sensitive areas like the Surrey Hills.

UPDATE:

In a major development in the ongoing Horse Hill oil drilling controversy, UK Oil & Gas PLC (UKOG) has ordered the cessation of oil production at its Horse Hill site following intense public and political pressure. The decision comes after weeks of scrutiny, with mounting calls from local activists, national environmental groups, media outlets, and the newly elected MP for Dorking and Horley, Chris Coghlan, urging an end to operations that lacked valid planning permission.

The Weald Action Group, which represents a network of community groups opposed to oil and gas development in the Southeast, welcomed the decision but condemned the circumstances that led to it. “We are pleased that they have now suspended operations,” they stated, “but we are appalled that it took protests by Extinction Rebellion, news coverage, questions from the local MP, and the threat of legal action by Friends of the Earth to bring them to this conclusion.” According to the group, the suspension followed sustained pressure and widespread public outrage over UKOG’s ongoing activities despite the Supreme Court’s ruling that rendered Horse Hill’s planning permission invalid.

Brian Alexander, Communications Director for UKOG, initially defended the company’s position, claiming on Channel 4 that production at Horse Hill was compliant. “It’s not unlawful. We would not be doing it if it was unlawful… We are of the understanding, certainly from Surrey, that we are doing what we should be doing,” Alexander told the media.

In a statement issued after halting production, UKOG announced: “After recent discussions with Surrey County Council (SCC) and in keeping with the Company’s strategic move from oil & gas into material scale clean hydrogen storage projects, we instructed our subsidiary Horse Hill Developments Ltd (HHDL) to voluntarily suspend oil production at the Horse Hill site.” The suspension, effective as of Friday, October 25, reportedly aligns with the company’s new focus on hydrogen storage projects, reflecting a shift away from oil and gas.

UKOG emphasized that its actions regarding Horse Hill had been lawful, adding that HHDL has maintained regulatory compliance throughout its six years of operations. The company noted that discussions with Surrey County Council had been ongoing since June 2024 and included a recent site visit by council officials on October 16. UKOG stated it will now work closely with Surrey County Council to ensure a thorough suspension process and to support the planning redetermination process. This includes safely securing and decommissioning the Horse Hill site in compliance with environmental regulations.

The Weald Action Group, meanwhile, remains vigilant, stressing that it will continue to monitor UKOG’s activities and press for accountability at Horse Hill and other oil sites across the region. The group’s focus now turns to ensuring that any future decisions align with environmental protections and the community’s demands for transparency and local oversight.

Related reports:

The Hills Are Alive With the Sound of Drilling… ?

Justice Stops Oil

Image is AI generated imaginary picture of oil drilling in hills.

Epsom & Ewell Borough Council has completed two new community arts projects in Epsom and Stoneleigh during September and October, in collaboration with globally recognised street artists Positive Arts, local charity We Power On and GLF students. The vibrant designs are part of a series of public art installations organised by the council, aimed at revitalising areas within the borough that are tired and in need of improvement.

We Power On, a local charity that supports men with their mental health, worked with artists to create one of the murals near Clandon Close in Stoneleigh which depicts themes inspired by the local area, including the Hogsmill River and neighbourhood architecture.

Chris Waller, Founder of the community group We Power On said,

“We were honoured to be asked to be part of this wonderful initiative between Epsom & Ewell Borough Council and the guys from Positive Arts. We mucked in to help spread a bit of colour and positivity to an otherwise dark space which aligns perfectly with what We Power On is all about. The beauty of initiatives such as this is it brings people together to do good for the local community. We’re not sure we will make it as graffiti artists, but it was fun to have a go and be a part of something brilliant.”

A small cohort of students from a GLF School were also given the opportunity to develop their creative skills and contribute to the transformation of a walkway between Miles Road and Stones Road in Epsom with artists from Positive Arts by creating a mural that gives a nod to Epsom’s racing heritage.

Speaking of the project, a student from a GLF School said,

“I’ve really enjoyed (creating) the picture we’re drawing of racing horses on The Downs. It’s taught me how to control a spray can for artistic purposes. It should really brighten up the underpass and I hope local residents enjoy seeing our work”.

Clive Woodbridge, (RA Ewell Village) Chair of the Community & Wellbeing Committee at Epsom & Ewell Borough Council added,

“The amazing thing about these projects is that they’ve allowed the participants to develop their social and technical skills simultaneously. I really hope that everyone who’s had contact with Positive Arts through the creation of these murals has walked away feeling as though they’ve unlocked a skill they didn’t have before – whether that’s practical, via painting the area or socially via the teamwork that was essential for success!”

Both murals have been fully funded via the Arts, Culture and Heritage UKSPF 2024/25 allocation and contribute to the council’s overall vision for curating art projects that build pride with local community stakeholders.