Surrey’s two new unitary councils are considering a “tourism tax” to help buoy their finances amid major changes to local government in the area.
This tax on overnight stays, which regional mayors will be allowed to charge under government plans, could come to Surrey as part of a major overhaul of the county’s councils.
East and West Surrey councils are set to take over power from Surrey County Council and the 11 district councils next April, after which they plan to pool resources on certain services.
It would be achieved through a framework called a foundation strategic authority (FSA), and the two new councils are currently consulting with the government on setting one up. The FSA could then act as a stepping stone towards Surrey having its own overarching elected mayor.
East Surrey shadow authority’s cabinet, which is tasked with setting up the new council, will next week discuss its joint response with West Surrey to the government’s consultation on an FSA for Surrey.
But in their proposed response, the two councils asked for more information about “new fiscal levers” they might be given by the government to help bolster their finances.
This included the possible introduction of an “overnight visitor levy”, more commonly known as a tourism tax, that would allow regional mayors to impose a small levy on paid visitor accommodation in their areas.
The document reads: “As further details are developed, we would welcome clarity on the proposed charging framework, implementation timetable, any exemptions or thresholds, the categories of accommodation that would be in scope, and the extent of local flexibility in how the levy may be applied.
“We would also welcome further information on how funding raised through the levy may be spent.”
Tourism taxes, which often involve a small fee levied on visitor accommodation, are commonplace in many other countries. A 2025 report by the Centre for Cities think tank described England as an “international outlier” in not imposing such a tax.
Ahead of the 2025 budget, the government announced plans to bring in the overnight visitor levy, which is designed to allow regional mayors to invest more in local infrastructure.
Local leaders would be able to decide whether or not to implement the tax, which would apply to overnight stays in paid accommodation such as hotels, bed and breakfasts and guesthouses.
A cabinet statement from July 2026 says the government will give “all strategic authorities the ability to introduce an Overnight Visitor Levy, with local leaders able to set out plans for how revenues will be invested by March 2028.”
In 2019, a study by the Institute for Fiscal Studies estimated that a £1 tourist tax could raise £420 million per year across England.
A government spokesperson said: “The levy will help ensure local people and economies keep more of the rewards and invest in what matters most to their communities, including reinvesting back into tourism.
“Similar levies in other countries typically add only a small amount per night and evidence suggests that they can have a limited impact on visitor numbers and jobs.
“Local leaders will need to consult with their areas before introducing a levy, and we’re listening to businesses to make sure money raised is invested effectively.”
Surrey is now just months away from “vesting day” – the moment from which West and East Surrey councils will formally take over management of all local government services in the county.
The shadow authorities’ consultation response also highlights the more broadly fraught financial situation facing local government in England.
“We request early engagement with government on a funding package that appropriately reflects the scale of the functions being transferred, together with certainty on Surrey’s future pathway towards mayoral devolution,” it reads.
“A firm commitment on both funding and Surrey’s future pathway towards mayoral devolution would provide confidence that Surrey can establish the strong foundations required to realise the full benefits of devolution.”
Crushing debt set to be inherited by hundreds of thousands of West Surrey residents will have a big chunk taken out of it after the Government officially began the process paying down £500,000,000 of Woking Borough Council’s financial failings.
The new council will take over in April 2027 following the dissolution of Surrey County Council and its 11 boroughs and districts.
West Surrey was forecast to start life with a £4billion black hole as a legacy of failed investment strategies, the largest being Woking Borough Council £2billion shortfall.
This will now be significantly reduced after the government started paying Woking Borough Council’s historic debt, built on the back of a failed investment strategy that bankrupted the borough in 2023.
The first repayment was completed on September 1 with the settlement of an £8 million loan – with a further £492 million of loans expected to be repaid by the end of March 2027.
In effect the Government is paying itself as the money owed was from its own Public Works Loans Board but its decision to begin the financial relief has been described by Woking Borough Council as a significant milestone its recovery.
Cllr Ann-Marie Barker, leader of Woking Borough Council, said: “The start of this financial support marks a significant step towards addressing the council’s historic debt burden and reducing the costs associated with it.
“While this marks important progress, we recognise that Woking’s debt is an ongoing concern for residents across Surrey, and that there is still much work to do.
“Our priority remains clear.
“With the continued support of government, commissioners and our future partners in West Surrey, we remain focused on delivering our Improvement and Recovery Plan to enter the new unitary council in the strongest financial position possible.”
The money was first pledged to the council last year when the government said it would provide £500m in financial support 2026/27 to help reduce Woking’s debt burden and borrowing costs – where the interest alone was pushing towards the £100m a year mark.
The council has been under commissioner control since collapsing, with all decisions having to be signed off by government appointed staff.
It says this money is a reflection of the ongoing commitment to reduce debt, which has seen it selling off a host of high-profile buildings in the town centre to help claw back what it can. These include the Victoria Square and its energy companies.
Cyber security threats to local government remain a “significant strategic risk”, according to a report, with the creation of two new unitary councils posing “further complexity” to IT security.
Guildford Borough Council’s audit and risk committee will next week review an update to its corporate risk register, which outlines and grades operational challenges.
These risks range from financial stability to climate change – as well as the ongoing local government reorganisation that will see two new unitary councils created next spring.
But the report also highlighted the dangers of cyber security threats to councils across the country, which the document says are “increasingly vulnerable” to such attacks.
These threats can take many different forms, including ransomware attacks, data breaches or Distributed Denial of Service (DDosS) incidents.
The report reads: “Cyber security remains a significant strategic risk given the increasing volume and sophistication of cyber threats facing local authorities, together with the potential operational, financial and reputational consequences of a successful attack.”
It adds that the ongoing local government reorganisation, which will see Surrey County Council and the 11 district councils scrapped next year to make way for the new East and West Surrey Councils, makes the situation more complex.
“The ongoing transition associated with Local Government Reorganisation adds further complexity to the Council’s technology and information environment and reinforces the need for continued vigilance,” the report says.
The council will continue to invest in preventative measures to mitigate the likelihood and potential impact of cyber attacks, the document adds.
“The risk remains above appetite due to the external threat landscape and the potentially significant impact of a successful cyber attack,” it says. “Given the nature of the risk, the majority of threat activity remains outside the council’s direct control.”
A Guildford Borough Council spokesperson told the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS): “We take our IT security and governance responsibilities very seriously.
“As part of this commitment, we provide councillors with a high-level summary of the cyber security measures we have in place. We do not publicly share specific details about security controls.
“We’re currently working with IT professionals from across county, district, and borough councils to ensure our IT systems remain secure when we come together on 1 April 2027.”
Secret Surrey leaders’ talks challenged by Epsom councillor
7 September 2026
An Epsom and Ewell councillor has launched a sustained Freedom of Information campaign to uncover what Surrey’s council leaders have discussed and agreed behind closed doors.
Councillor Alex Coley (Independent, Ruxley) is seeking the agendas, minutes and decisions of the Surrey Leaders’ Group, a forum bringing together the leaders of Surrey County Council and the county’s 11 borough and district councils.
The Group is currently chaired by Epsom and Ewell Borough Council Leader Councillor Hannah Dalton (RA, Stoneleigh).
Cllr Coley’s efforts began in March, when he requested records covering the civic years 2022/23 to 2025/26. Establishing which authority was responsible for answering proved to be the first hurdle.
Surrey County Council said that it did not hold the information. A response sent through a WhatDoTheyKnow account bearing the name “Surrey Leaders’ Group” came from Guildford Borough Council, which also said it did not hold the records because it did not provide the Group’s secretariat.
Guildford directed Cllr Coley to Reigate and Banstead Borough Council, which eventually confirmed that it held at least some of the material.
However, Reigate and Banstead initially refused the four-year request on cost grounds. It said more than 200 documents were spread across different authorities, including records kept by a previous secretariat. Locating, retrieving and reviewing them would exceed the Freedom of Information Act limit of £450, calculated as 18 hours of staff time at £25 an hour.
Cllr Coley expressed surprise that the basic records of a body composed of senior elected representatives should be so difficult to retrieve.
He argued that the failure to maintain a readily accessible publication scheme had itself helped create the situation in which answering an FOI request was said to be too expensive.
He subsequently narrowed his request to 2024/25 and 2025/26 and asked which council held the records for the two earlier years.
After extending its response deadline to consider the public interest, Reigate and Banstead released the Group’s constitution and collections of agendas. It has, however, refused to disclose the minutes.
The Council relied upon section 36 of the Freedom of Information Act, which can protect information where disclosure would be likely to inhibit the free and frank provision of advice or exchange of views.
It said the Group provided a “safe space” in which senior councillors could test ideas, challenge assumptions and discuss politically sensitive or developing issues before proposals entered the formal decision-making processes of their respective councils.
Disclosure, it argued, could have a “chilling effect”, making participants less candid and ultimately weakening the quality of subsequent council decisions.
The Council also maintained that the Surrey Leaders’ Group is not itself a formal decision-making body. It said any binding decision would still have to be taken through the constitutional and democratic procedures of the council concerned.
Among the Group’s stated objectives is taking decisions about joint activities across Surrey. It may make representations, determine certain nominations to outside bodies, levy subscriptions upon its member councils and maintain a fund that can be used to employ consultants or commission research.
Although it cannot bind constituent councils without referring an issue back to them, the constitution states that the decision-making powers of the former Surrey Delivery Board are to be exercised by the Leaders’ Group, subject to council ratification where required.
It also provides for voting, with each council leader having one vote, although the stated aim is to reach decisions by consensus.
The agendas demonstrate that the Group has considered matters extending far beyond informal networking. Subjects have included local government reorganisation, the allocation of reorganisation costs, strategic planning, health services, policing, economic growth, staff retention and the future governance of Surrey.
One agenda expressly recorded that a “decision” was required from leaders on proposals for funding the implementation of local government reorganisation. Leaders were asked to agree the proposals and take steps to set aside money from their councils’ budgets or reserves.
Another item asked leaders to provide a “steer” on proposed voluntary financial controls associated with the restructuring.
“No transparency”
Cllr Coley has now requested an internal review of the refusal to release the minutes.
He disputes the claim that publication would provide only limited additional transparency. He says the Group does not routinely publish its agendas, minutes, decision notices or even its constitution.
He also claims that at least one Surrey chief executive has acknowledged in writing that decisions were made at the Group rather than by its constituent councils. He says the current chair Cllr Dalton has told councillors that a particular course had to be followed because it had already been agreed by Surrey Leaders.
“The Surrey Leaders Group should not be a secret forum to circumvent public scrutiny,” he wrote in his request for a review.
Cllr Coley contrasted its private proceedings with the new East and West Surrey joint committees, whose agendas, minutes and decisions have been published and whose meetings have been open to the public and available to watch online.
That distinction is particularly important during the reorganisation of Surrey’s councils. Decisions and informal agreements made now could influence the structures, finances and services inherited by the two new unitary authorities.
Cllr Coley also argued that any need for continuing secrecy should be reduced by the impending abolition of the Group’s constituent councils. He told the Epsom and Ewell Times ” Your readers might chuckle at the idea of a “deep state” in Surrey, but what else should we call these arrangements where the most far reaching decisions are made in private with no scrutiny or public record and the mere existence of the Surrey Leaders Group is shrouded in mystery?”
Reigate and Banstead Borough Council acknowledged the internal review request on 2nd September. It aims to provide its decision by 30th September.
Bailiffs knocking on Council tax debtors in Epsom and Ewell
7 September 2026
Epsom & Ewell Borough Council passed 552 council tax debts on to bailiffs in 2025/26, according to new Freedom of Information data compiled by National Debtline as part of its annual Stop the Knock campaign. This is a reduction of 39% compared to 2024/25.
The findings come as total council tax arrears in in and around Epsom and Ewell were revealed by MHCLG to now stand at £1.9 million. This forms part of a national total which has now hit £7.4 billion, up from £6.6 billion in 2024/25.
The charity’s figures also show that across England and Wales a total of 153 councils (48%) increased their use of bailiffs for council tax debts. And that 1.72 million council tax arrears cases were passed to bailiffs by councils during 2025/26, a figure largely unchanged from 1.74 million in 2024/25. The charity says these numbers demonstrate the continued reliance on enforcement action despite ongoing cost-of-living pressures.
As their budgets have become more stretched, councils are increasingly reliant on council tax revenue to fund essential services like social care, local schools and rubbish collections. This has led many councils to increase council tax for residents, a move which often deepens the financial challenges for people already hit hardest by the high cost of living.
Councils reduce support for most vulnerable residents
National Debtline’s research found that last year, just 26 of 317 local authorities were exempting residents in receipt of Council Tax Support from bailiff action, a decrease of 26% from 35 in 2024/25. Epsom & Ewell Borough Council does not exempt Council Tax Support recipients from bailiff action in this way – something National Debtline is calling on councillors to change.
The charity is calling on local authorities to recognise that people receiving Council Tax Support will be some of the most financially vulnerable so are highly unlikely to be able to be able to repay quickly and in full and so should be exempted from bailiff action.
Charity urges local people to seek advice
With council tax being one of the top three most common debts its advisers hear about, alongside credit cards and energy bills, National Debtline, the free independent debt advice service, is calling on anyone in and around Epsom and Ewell worried about their council tax bills or facing bailiff action to seek advice as soon as possible.
Currently a third (31%) of people who contact National Debtline have council tax debt.
Edward Ware, spokesperson for National Debtline, says:
“We understand that councils are under increasing financial budget constraints, and council tax is vital to funding the local services we all rely on, but collecting this money cannot come at the expense of its most financially vulnerable residents.
“We are pleased to see that Epsom & Ewell Borough Council has reduced its bailiff use recently, but we would urge councillors to review whether there is more the council could do to support residents who are struggling to pay.”
“With council tax now one of the most common debts we see we need councils to adopt fairer approaches to collection, not harsher enforcement. Exempting residents who receive Council Tax Support from bailiff action is a key way in which councils can help – and we would urge Epsom & Ewell Borough Council to put this in place urgently.”
Changes on the way, but more reform still needed
There is some positive news on the horizon. Following the Government’s wide-ranging consultation on council tax administration, several reforms are expected in 2027. These are aimed at creating a fairer and more proportionate system for people struggling with payments.
The changes will require councils to wait longer – 63 days, up from two weeks – before demanding a full year’s council tax following a missed instalment; offer more affordable repayment arrangements; and a new £100 cap on court-related fees. Alongside this, there will be stronger emphasis on reducing aggressive enforcement practices such as the use of bailiffs, better protections for vulnerable households and a shift to 12 monthly payments, instead of the current 10, by default to make bills more manageable.
The charity has welcomed these changes following years of campaigning on council tax reform, but says further action is still needed. It is urging the government to set out a series of statutory steps councils must take before passing debts onto bailiffs, including councils working with residents and debt advisers to put in place an affordable payment arrangement before any enforcement action is taken.
The charity is also calling on the Government to follow through with proposals to regulate the bailiff industry and give the Enforcement Conduct Board statutory power to oversee the sector.
Edward continues, “The proposed changes to council tax collection practices should make a meaningful difference to financially vulnerable households, but we need to see more progress when it comes to regulation of the bailiff industry.
“We need to stop people falling behind with council tax in the first place. The Government should also invest more funding in local Council Tax Support schemes, so that all councils can offer 100% Council Tax Support for its most financially vulnerable residents.
“Anyone struggling to pay their council tax bill should seek free, independent advice from National Debtline as soon as possible. Our advisers are here to help and can talk you through your options.”
1. Full dataset of bailiff use in England and Wales in 2023/24, 2024/25 and 2025/26 available on request or via https://www.stoptheknock.org/
4. National Debtline provides free, independent, expert advice. People worried about their finances can contact National Debtline for free on 0808 808 4000 or via www.nationaldebtline.org.
How two became one became three – how “unitary” means “trinity”.
7 September 2026
The central promise of local government reorganisation was easy to understand. Surrey’s confusing two-tier system would be swept away. Surrey County Council and the county’s 11 borough and district councils would be replaced by streamlined unitary authorities.
One council would deliver the principal local services in each area. Duplication would be removed, accountability would become clearer and residents would know which authority was responsible.
That was the theory.
The emerging reality looks rather different. The Government is abolishing two tiers of local government, but Surrey now appears to be heading towards three separate layers or bodies: a countywide strategic authority or elected mayor, the new East Surrey Council and, within Epsom and Ewell, Charter Trustees preserving the borough’s civic and ceremonial functions.
Not all three would have equivalent powers. Charter Trustees would not run ordinary council services and a strategic authority would operate at a regional level. Nevertheless, each would be a public body with functions, office-holders, meetings, administration and potential financial consequences.
Residents might reasonably ask: how exactly is this simplification?
From two councils to one – and then back again
At present, Epsom and Ewell residents are served principally by Surrey County Council and Epsom & Ewell Borough Council.
From April 2027, both are due to disappear and be replaced locally by East Surrey Council. On paper, that reduces two councils to one.
But the reorganisation was always linked to a wider devolution agenda. A Foundation Strategic Authority covering Surrey is proposed as a possible first step towards a Mayoral Strategic Authority headed by a directly elected Surrey mayor.
The latest Government proposals would give regional mayors substantial powers, including the ability to intervene in major planning applications. Those powers could extend to developments of more than 150 homes, large commercial schemes and buildings of 30 metres or more.
Whatever view one takes of those powers, this would plainly be more than a decorative office. A Surrey mayor and strategic authority would sit above East and West Surrey councils, making decisions across the county on matters potentially including planning, transport, housing, infrastructure and economic development.
The old county council tier would therefore disappear, only for a new countywide strategic layer to emerge in a different form.
It may have different boundaries of responsibility, a different constitution and a directly elected mayor. But to residents looking up the governmental ladder, it may feel remarkably like the return of a second tier.
A new body below as well as one above
Epsom and Ewell also came close to acquiring an additional layer beneath East Surrey Council.
Epsom & Ewell Borough Council conducted a Community Governance Review into establishing two parish councils, styled as Epsom Community Council and Ewell Community Council. Parish councils are statutory local authorities with elected councillors and the power to raise their own Council Tax precept.
The proposal was rejected decisively by residents. Around 82 per cent of approximately 2,200 respondents opposed it, and the plan was abandoned.
That should have settled the question of creating another precepting body below East Surrey Council. Yet the abolition of the borough leaves a genuine question about what happens to Epsom and Ewell’s mayoralty, civic identity and ceremonial traditions.
The Borough Council’s preferred answer is Charter Trustees.
Charter Trustees are not parish councils. Their role would be much narrower, principally preserving the mayoralty and civic and ceremonial functions of the disappearing borough. They would probably be drawn from East Surrey councillors representing the Epsom and Ewell area rather than forming another separately elected council.
But they would still constitute another public body. They could seek funding from East Surrey Council during their first year and thereafter would have the power to levy a precept through Council Tax. The Borough Council’s report suggested that the average Band D charge imposed by existing Charter Trustee bodies is about £2.50 a year.
That may sound modest. The more important question is one of principle and accountability. Residents rejected two new parish councils carrying separate precepts. They may nevertheless find another precepting body created to preserve civic arrangements after the borough council is abolished.
There may be a respectable case for maintaining the mayoralty and Epsom and Ewell’s civic identity. But if residents are to pay for it, however small the initial sum, they are entitled to be consulted and told clearly what the body will cost, what it will do and how its spending will be controlled.
Three bodies where two once stood
The prospective structure can therefore be summarised simply.
Today, Epsom and Ewell has two principal councils: the borough and the county.
Tomorrow, it may have East Surrey Council in the middle, a Surrey strategic authority and mayor above it, and Charter Trustees below it.
Two bodies become three.
That does not necessarily mean three full tiers of service-delivering local government. Ministers and council leaders will no doubt insist upon that distinction. They will describe the mayoral authority as strategic and the Charter Trustees as ceremonial.
Technically, they would be right. From the resident’s perspective, however, government is not simplified merely by giving every new layer a different description.
Residents will still want to know who is responsible for a decision. They may have to distinguish between East Surrey councillors acting as members of the unitary authority and some of those same councillors acting as Charter Trustees. On major strategic issues, they may have to determine whether responsibility rests with East Surrey Council, a Surrey mayor or central government.
If the objective was clearer accountability, the emerging structure risks producing the opposite.
Powers must be matched by money and accountability
There is a legitimate argument for devolution. Decisions about Surrey’s transport, infrastructure, economy and housing may often be better made in Surrey than in Whitehall. A directly elected mayor could provide visible leadership and secure powers and funding which individual councils could not obtain alone.
But devolution must mean more than transferring obligations without sufficient money. West Surrey Shadow Authority leader Councillor Paul Follows is right to warn that local government cannot continue absorbing unfunded mandates.
Nor should devolution become a convenient name for rebuilding the hierarchy that reorganisation was supposed to dismantle.
If a Surrey mayor is necessary, ministers should explain why the strategic functions cannot be exercised jointly by the two unitary councils. If Charter Trustees are necessary, Epsom & Ewell Borough Council should explain why the civic functions cannot be preserved more simply and without another Council Tax precept.
Above all, the complete structure and its cost should be presented openly. Residents were asked to accept the disruption, expense and democratic upheaval of abolishing 12 councils on the promise of simpler and more efficient government.
They should not discover, piece by piece, that the promised single tier comes with another body above it and another below.
Local government reorganisation was sold as the removal of layers. Surrey now appears to be replacing them under new names.
That may be devolution. It may be reorganisation. It may even produce better government if it is properly designed and funded.
But nobody should call it simplification.
Tiers not shed for local government in Surrey after all….?
7 September 2026
Surrey’s shadow authority leaders have insisted that devolution in the county must be “done right” after the government proposed beefed up new planning powers for mayors.
Proposals due to be published in the coming week would see mayors across England granted the authority to override councils on certain planning applications – giving them the same powers already held by the Mayor of London.
These “call in” powers would only apply to developments of more than 150 homes, more than 15,000 square metres of commercial space, or of buildings 30 metres or taller, the BBC has reported.
It comes amid widespread change to local government in Surrey, with two new unitary councils in East and West Surrey set to take over from the county council and 11 district councils next year.
But many figures in local government are calling for additional changes that would see the county get an overarching elected mayor covering the whole of Surrey.
East Surrey Shadow Authority leader Councillor Steve Wotton told the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS) he supports the creation of a mayor and welcomes the prospect of additional powers handed over from Westminster.
He said: “We have a national housing crisis, public transport leaves behind rural communities and is wholly centred around London, and there is great potential in the county’s own local economies.
“More power out of Westminster and closer to Surrey, with a mayor, can help tackle these issues if done right.”
Prime Minister Andy Burnham, who assumed office last month, has made regionalism one of his core missions in government.
Mr Burnham previously unveiled proposals to give regional mayors a share of income tax revenue as part of a broader devolution drive.
The upcoming planning changes could also see mayors given the power to grant “up front” development permission, although a government spokesperson said councils will still decide most planning applications.
Under current proposals, Surrey could see a foundation strategic authority (FSA) set up from April 2027, which would allow the two new unitary councils to pool resources on certain service areas.
An FSA serves as a stepping stone towards the creation of a mayoral combined authority, which would involve the creation of a directly elected mayor of Surrey.
Councillor Wotton added: “It will be important that a future mayor works very closely with the two new councils in Surrey.
“We look forward to seeing further detail from government, so that we can help shape what is right for Surrey’s residents and businesses.”
West Surrey Shadow Authority leader Councillor Paul Follows told the LDRS he is “very keen” to see more powers devolved to the county, but that “those powers need to come with the funding to make them meaningful”.
He added: “Local government at every level cannot absorb more un-funded mandates.
“Mayors make sense in some parts of the UK but not all, and I hope that the government will be open to working with local government to develop the most appropriate plans for each area rather than a one-size-fits-all option.”
The young have their place in new Surrey governing
7 September 2026
Surrey’s youngest councillors want to see more young people get involved in local government – and not let growing hostility towards elected representatives deter them from standing.
Elections to Surrey’s two new unitary authorities in May saw several councillors under the age of 30 elected to the shadow council.
These new councils will formally assume all local government responsibilities from next April, at which point Surrey County Council and all 11 district councils will be abolished.
However, many younger councillors across the country face heightened online threats and abuse due to their age – with a 2024 Local Government Association (LGA) survey finding that seven in 10 councillors had received abuse or intimidation in the past 12 months.
The LGA’s findings added that younger councillors will often report heightened abuse “suggesting they were too inexperienced” due to their age.
But several of the new shadow councillors told the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS) they are determined not to let this stand in the way of doing their jobs – or deter them from standing for office.
Councillor Harleen Boparai (Liberal Democrats: Staines South and Ashford West) said: “Yes, we are faced with online abuse but young people are more aware than any other generation.
“We know how to ignore comments from bad faith actors and stay focused on getting things done for our communities.”
In a July meeting of the East Surrey Shadow Authority, councillors of all ages shared examples of the threats and intimidation they had received from residents and voters – which included threats of violence and inappropriate messages.
“This behaviour discourages good people from standing for public office,” Councillor Kirsty Hewens (Liberal Democrats: Walton South & Oatlands) told councillors at the meeting.
Despite the online abuse and intimidation faced by younger councillors, many of those elected have said they want to use their office to address the issues facing young people in Surrey.
Councillor Bradley Nelson (Liberal Democrats: Dorking) said “As councillors in our twenties, we also know how difficult it is to afford a home, get around without a car or find thriving town centres that offer opportunities for younger people.
“Rather than complain about those challenges, we’ve chosen to try do something about it.”
He pointed to the startlingly high cost of housing in Surrey, which is among the highest in the country outside of London, as a key issue affecting younger people in the county.
He added that balancing his council duties alongside his early career helps bring a useful perspective to the council.
Councillor Josh Lambert (Liberal Democrats: Walton North) added: “Being a councillor shouldn’t be restricted to those with surplus time or money. It’s vital that young working people are represented in local government.
Work is set to begin on Surrey Police’s long-awaited new eastern headquarters, bringing an end to a saga stretching back to 2023, when the force was compelled to vacate its Reigate base because of dangerous reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete (RAAC).
Surrey Police was granted planning permission for the Cleeve Road site in Leatherhead in November last year. According to papers filed with Mole Valley District Council, preparatory work is expected to begin on 7 September.
The force originally bought the building in 2018 for nearly £20.5 million, intending to move into the site. Those plans were subsequently put on hold while it considered relocating staff to its Mount Browne headquarters in Guildford.
If the project proceeds as planned, the main construction work will begin in February 2027. The new eastern headquarters, accommodating about 500 officers and staff, will be built on what is currently an unused car park.
Planning permission was also granted for 40 affordable homes on the site, although these will be constructed separately.
The second stage of the development will involve demolishing the existing redundant buildings to make way for a residential block containing the affordable homes. Surrey Police has said it would ideally like the homes to be occupied by its own officers and staff.
Once the headquarters is completed, the force will have a permanent eastern base. By then, officers and staff will have spent about four years temporarily housed at Surrey Fire and Rescue Service’s former headquarters at Wray Park in Reigate.
A Surrey Police spokesperson said the new headquarters would provide a financially sustainable base and ensure officers and staff had the facilities needed to investigate crime and keep communities safe.
The force said the Leatherhead site best met its operational needs because of its access to the surrounding area and major road links. It added that the improved facilities would help Surrey Police attract and retain staff.
Image: Illustrative Visuals of the new Eastern Divisional Head Quarters for Surrey Police. (Credit: Pick Everard/ Surrey Police/ Mole Valley District Council Planning
Free community football sessions and more for Epsom and Ewell
7 September 2026
Epsom & Ewell Borough Council is pleased to announce that free community football sessions will be available for young people aged 10 to 16 who live in the borough, from 24 August 2026 to 31 March 2027. This programme will be delivered by YOUfF (Young Ones United Football Foundation) with monthly life lesson mentoring sessions also available for participants.
Community football sessions will take place three days a week at Court Recreation Ground, with dedicated sessions for different age groups and genders. Spaces for up to 21 participants are available in each session and participation will need to be confirmed in advance via the YOUfF Instagram Poll. New players must complete a registration form, either online or in person at the session. For more information and details on how to book, visit this page on the YOUfF website – https://www.youff.org.uk/whatwedo
Monthly life lesson mentoring sessions will take place at St Barnabas Church in Epsom.
The Epsom & Ewell Community Football Programme supports the council’s Health and Wellbeing Strategy, which focuses on increasing physical activity, improving wellbeing and reducing health inequalities in the borough.
Councillor Clive Woodbridge (RA Ewell Village), Chair of the Community and Wellbeing Committee, said:
“The Epsom & Ewell Community Football Programme provides a fantastic opportunity for young people to take part in regular physical activity. Sessions will also provide a positive and supportive environment in which to improve their wellbeing and build their confidence.
“As well as developing football skills, participants will experience the benefits of being part of a team, building friendships, learning to be part of a team and developing a sense of belonging.
“This programme supports our commitment to improving health and wellbeing across the borough by providing free, accessible activities for young people. Alongside the football sessions, participants will also have access to mentoring and guidance to help them develop valuable life skills and make positive life choices.
“I’d like to thank YOUfF for partnering with the council to deliver this programme, and I encourage young people aged 10 to 16, and their parents and carers, to get involved and take advantage of this fantastic opportunity.”
Yasha Tobias-Browne, Founder of YOUfF CIC said: “YOUfF was created around the belief that football can be so much more than just a game. It gives us a way to bring young people together, build relationships and create opportunities both on and off the pitch. Through Epsom & Ewell Community Football, we want young people across the borough to have somewhere they can just turn up for FREE, play football, make friends and feel part of something positive. From there they can join the monthly mentoring sessions, where they’ll learn life skills, learn about qualifications and pathways that can genuinely help shape their futures. We’re really excited to be working with Epsom & Ewell Borough Council to make that happen.”
About Young Ones United Football Foundation (YOUfF)
YOUfF is a football and mentoring CiC helping young people engage in education and employment. They work alongside a number of educational organisations and reach disengaged learners using football and mentoring interventions. Football Educational Mentoring | UK | Y.O.U.F.F
About the EEBC Health and Wellbeing Strategy 2025-2028
The strategy is designed to support all residents, with particular attention given to children and young people, older adults, individuals whose health is affected by broader social and economic factors and those whose personal circumstances may disproportionately increase their vulnerability to poor health and wellbeing. The strategy also includes specific references to those who are disproportionately impacted by isolation, disability, digital exclusion and people with long-term health conditions. (Public Pack) Agenda Document for Community and Wellbeing Committee, 08/07/2025 19:30
Epsom & Ewell Council refuses to explain complaints disparity
7 September 2026
Epsom and Ewell Borough Council has refused to answer detailed questions about the apparent disparity between its vigorous pursuit of a complaint made by Cllr Neil Dallen (RA Town) and its handling of complaints made against him.
Epsom and Ewell Times asked a series of specific questions concerning the Council’s decision to send a complaint against Labour councillor Chris Ames (Labour Court) to a formal hearing, the involvement of Monitoring Officer Piero Ionta, the composition and powers of the proposed Hearing Panel and the progress of complaints against Cllr Dallen.
The Council responded within 45 minutes with a single paragraph.
A Council spokesperson said:
“As a matter of principle, the Council does not comment on allegations or complaints concerning individual elected members. Any such matters are considered in accordance with the Council’s standards procedures and applicable confidentiality requirements.”
That response did not answer any of EET’s questions.
Many did not seek comment on the truth of allegations against individual councillors. They concerned the Council’s procedures, constitutional powers, management of possible conflicts and the legal basis for conducting an entire hearing in private.
The refusal leaves unanswered who referred the complaint against Cllr Ames to a hearing, whether that person had authority to do so, whether the Council’s Independent Person was consulted and why councillors involved in the original dispute have been selected to judge it.
It also leaves the Council unable or unwilling to demonstrate that complaints against Cllr Dallen are being treated with the same urgency as the complaint he made against an opposition Labour councillor.
The Dallen complaint against Ames
Cllr Dallen complained about Cllr Ames following the Strategy and Resources Committee meeting of 27 January.
Cllr Ames repeatedly questioned the secrecy surrounding an urgent decision making up to £500,000 available for work at the Rainbow Leisure Centre. The decision had been taken by officers in consultation with Cllr Dallen, who supported keeping it confidential and then chaired the meeting at which it was questioned.
Cllr Ames asked who had decided that the public interest in withholding the document outweighed the public interest in its publication.
Cllr Dallen and the Monitoring Officer repeatedly referred instead to the separate procedure for excluding the press and public if confidential information needed to be discussed during the meeting.
Cllr Ames was not asking to discuss the confidential information. His question was why the document had already been withheld and whether the required public-interest assessment had been undertaken.
The failure to identify and answer that distinction drove the confrontation.
What was really a point of order
The sequence in which the exchange deteriorated is important.
Cllr Ames first questioned Cllr Dallen’s understanding of the procedures and attempted to continue asking who had made the confidentiality decision.
Cllr Dallen then brought the discussion to an end, saying:
“It does say in the Constitution that this is the chairman’s meeting, and the Chairman has decided there’s going to be no further discussion.”
Only after that assertion did Cllr Ames call him arrogant:
“I’ve never known such an arrogant man in all my life, you’re completely out of your depth, you are completely out of your depth.”
Cllr Dallen then said:
“Councillor Ames, it is my meeting, I am Chairman of this meeting.”
Cllr Ames responded by accusing him of “more cover-up and more cover-up”.
The sequence does not excuse Cllr Ames’s descent into personal criticism. But it contradicts any simplified account in which an unprovoked insult caused the chair to assert his authority. Cllr Dallen had already described the committee as “the chairman’s meeting” and announced that questioning would cease.
Underneath the anger was an obvious procedural issue.
Cllr Dallen had participated in approving the urgent decision, supported its confidential treatment and was then chairing the committee while members questioned those actions. The appropriate issue was whether his involvement meant that he should relinquish the chair to the vice-chair for that item, allowing the questions to be considered by someone not personally connected with the decision.
Neither protagonist handled that issue properly.
Cllr Ames should have stopped, expressly raised a point of order and asked the Monitoring Officer for a ruling on whether Cllr Dallen should relinquish the chair. Instead, he personalised the dispute by attacking Cllr Dallen’s competence and character.
Cllr Dallen should have recognised that his own involvement was the subject of the questioning. Instead of characterising the committee as his meeting and using his authority to end scrutiny of his own conduct, he should have referred the point to the Monitoring Officer and invited the vice-chair to preside while it was resolved.
The Monitoring Officer should also have recognised the conflict-management question and advised on it. He did not.
The confrontation was therefore not simply a case of one councillor disrespecting a blameless chairman. It resulted from the failure of Cllr Ames, Cllr Dallen and the Council’s legal adviser to identify and deal appropriately with the procedural issue sitting in plain sight.
Only one of them is now facing a formal standards hearing.
Ames acknowledges his mistake
Cllr Ames subsequently told EET that he regretted calling Cllr Dallen arrogant. He said he should instead have raised a formal point of order challenging Cllr Dallen’s continued chairmanship of the item.
That acknowledgement goes directly to the distinction between the legitimate issue and the inappropriate way in which it was pursued.
Cllr Dallen nevertheless submitted a Code of Conduct complaint on 11 February, alleging disrespect and bullying.
Independent investigators appointed by the Council recommended that Cllr Ames be found to have breached the requirement to treat other councillors with respect.
Their report concluded that his personal criticism, allegations of a cover-up and repeated interruptions went beyond acceptable political debate.
But it also made findings which place his conduct in a more complicated context.
The investigators accepted that Cllr Ames was pursuing “a genuinely held, good faith argument” about transparency and access to information. They found that he was not engaged in a calculated or malicious attack and recognised that political speech attracts enhanced protection.
They expressly declined to decide whether his questions were legally and procedurally correct.
“It is not within the scope of this investigation to comment on any of the concerns highlighted by Councillor Ames during the meeting,” the report stated.
The investigation therefore examined how Cllr Ames challenged Cllr Dallen and the Monitoring Officer, but not whether his challenge was substantively justified.
Nor did it investigate whether Cllr Dallen’s insistence that it was the chairman’s meeting, his termination of questions about a decision in which he had participated or his failure to relinquish the chair contributed to the disorder.
The report treats respect for “the authority of the Chair” as a consideration against Cllr Ames without examining whether the authority of the chair was itself being exercised properly.
Who referred it to a hearing?
The complaint is now due to be considered by a Standards Hearing Sub-Committee on 22 September.
There is, however, a fundamental uncertainty over how it arrived there.
The Council’s scheme of delegation states:
“Determination of complaints referred by an Investigating Officer regarding alleged breaches of the councillors’ Code of Conduct shall be delegated to Hearing Panels.”
Democratic Services told Cllr Ames:
“The hearing has been convened following receipt of the Investigating Officer’s Report into the Code of Conduct complaint.”
It continued:
“In accordance with the Council’s arrangements, the determination of complaints referred by an Investigating Officer regarding alleged breaches of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct shall be delegated to a Hearing Panel.”
In this case, the Investigating Officer was the external investigator who wrote the report.
The report recommends that Cllr Ames be found in breach. It does not expressly recommend or direct that the complaint be referred to a Hearing Panel.
That distinction may be important.
The Council’s Constitution gives the Monitoring Officer broad authority over Code of Conduct matters except for decisions reserved to a Hearing Panel or another decision-making body. But the specific delegation to Hearing Panels appears to apply to complaints “referred by an Investigating Officer”.
If those words establish a mandatory gateway, the question is whether the external investigator actually made such a referral. The Monitoring Officer cannot necessarily substitute himself for the Investigating Officer or silently supply a procedural step which the Constitution assigns to someone else.
There may be an answer. The Council might argue that a report recommending a finding of breach necessarily constitutes an implied referral. It might identify a separate written decision by the external investigator which has not been included in the report supplied to Cllr Ames.
But the Council has declined to say.
EET asked who made the referral, when it was made, where it was recorded and under which constitutional power. The Council’s blanket response does not identify any decision or decision-maker.
This was not a request to prejudge the allegation. It was a request for proof that the body proposing to judge it had been properly convened.
Report arrived after hearing invitation
The procedural uncertainty is compounded by the Council’s communications with Cllr Ames.
On 7 August, Democratic Services sent an invitation to the proposed Hearing Panel. It did not identify Cllr Ames as the subject member in the body of the invitation.
When he replied that he did not know what the hearing concerned and would not attend, Democratic Services responded:
“For the avoidance of doubt, you are the subject of the Standards Hearing Sub-Committee.”
Cllr Ames says that was the first time he had been told expressly that the complaint was proceeding to a hearing.
He had not received the final investigation report. The investigator subsequently attributed this to a “communication breakdown” between himself and the Council’s legal services team.
Instead of acknowledging that failure and apologising, the Council adopted a tone which implied that Cllr Ames should already have understood the position.
Cllr Ames has asked who decided to refer the case, on whose recommendation and under what policy. No substantive answer is contained in the correspondence supplied to EET.
Monitoring Officer was involved in original dispute
The position of Monitoring Officer Piero Ionta creates a separate concern.
Mr Ionta attended the January meeting and gave advice supporting Cllr Dallen during the disputed exchange. It was the adequacy and correctness of that advice which Cllr Ames was challenging.
The Monitoring Officer also failed to identify and advise upon the underlying question of whether Cllr Dallen should relinquish the chair while his own part in the urgent decision was being questioned.
The independent investigation was subsequently commissioned on the Monitoring Officer’s behalf.
Employing an external investigator does not necessarily remove an apparent conflict if the Monitoring Officer defines the remit, supplies the evidence, receives the report, manages the procedure and controls what happens next.
The external report placed the legal and procedural correctness of the Monitoring Officer’s advice outside its scope. It then recommended a finding against the councillor who challenged that advice.
EET asked why Mr Ionta did not withdraw from managing the complaint and whether an unconnected monitoring officer from another authority had been considered. These are questions about institutional impartiality, not the merits of the complaint against Cllr Ames.
The Council declined to answer them.
A participant proposed as judge
The proposed panel consists of Cllrs John Beckett (RA Auriol), Alan Williamson (RA West Ewell) and Julian Freeman (LibDem College), with Cllr Rachel King (RA Town) named as reserve.
Cllr Beckett is scheduled to chair it.
But Cllr Beckett participated in the January exchange which the panel will be required to assess.
When Cllr Ames questioned why the Rainbow information had been withheld, Cllr Beckett defended confidentiality on the basis that private companies would not want their financial information published. Cllr Dallen immediately told him that he was right.
Cllr Beckett’s intervention is quoted in the independent investigation report.
This does not prove that he has predetermined whether Cllr Ames breached the Code. Nevertheless, appointing someone who participated in the underlying dispute to chair the subsequent disciplinary hearing creates an obvious appearance problem.
EET asked whether all panel members had confirmed that they had not predetermined the complaint and why Cllr Beckett had been selected despite his involvement.
The Council declined to answer.
Hearing behind closed doors
The Council has announced in advance that the hearing will not be webcast and that “all evidence shall be received and heard in exempt session”.
Some evidence about individual councillors may lawfully require protection. It does not follow that the whole hearing must be secret.
The incident occurred during a public meeting recorded on the Council’s webcast. The complaint, the investigation and the proposed hearing concern the conduct of elected representatives performing public duties.
The Council has not identified which statutory exemption justifies excluding the public from the entire proceeding or whether the required public-interest assessment has been undertaken.
It has also declined to identify the sanctions constitutionally available to the panel if it finds a breach.
The Council’s response invokes “applicable confidentiality requirements” without identifying what those requirements are or explaining why they prevent answers about jurisdiction, procedure and panel powers.
Complaints against Dallen
The contrast with complaints against Cllr Dallen is increasingly difficult to ignore.
Cllr Ames says that he made a complaint against Cllr Dallen arising from the same January meeting. Among other matters, it challenged Cllr Dallen’s use of the chair to prevent continued scrutiny of a decision in which he had participated.
That complaint was rejected without an equivalent external investigation.
A complaint from a member of the public against Cllr Dallen was also reportedly rejected.
Cllr Ames has also made a complaint concerning Cllr Dallen’s reported participation in a panel dealing with a complaint against the Chief Executive about the Rainbow Leisure Centre urgent decision.
His case is that Cllr Dallen’s direct involvement in approving that decision created a conflict when he subsequently helped consider a complaint about the Chief Executive’s account of it.
EET does not suggest that any complaint against Cllr Dallen must be upheld. Different complaints can properly receive different assessments and outcomes.
The issue is whether they have been examined with the same willingness to commit time and external resources as Cllr Dallen’s complaint against Cllr Ames.
The Council could have answered that concern by publishing anonymised information about receipt dates, assessment dates, reasons for decisions and outcomes. Instead, it has invoked a blanket principle of silence.
Confidentiality or avoidance?
There are legitimate reasons for protecting information about unresolved complaints. Premature disclosure can damage reputations, discourage witnesses and undermine a fair investigation.
But confidentiality should protect the integrity of a process, not conceal whether a proper process exists.
EET did not ask the Council to decide publicly whether either Cllr Ames or Cllr Dallen had breached the Code. It asked:
who exercised the power to refer the Ames complaint to a hearing;
where that referral was recorded;
whether the Independent Person was consulted;
how the Monitoring Officer’s involvement was managed;
why a participant in the original incident was selected to chair the hearing;
why the whole hearing was designated private in advance;
what powers and sanctions the panel possesses; and
how the Council ensures that complaints are prioritised consistently.
None of those questions required the Council to reveal confidential witness evidence or prejudge an allegation.
A response sent within 45 minutes which simply restates a policy of not commenting creates the impression that the Council did not attempt to distinguish questions about confidential merits from questions about public governance.
Standards or selective discipline?
The case against Cllr Ames is not fabricated. His language became personal and intemperate. An independent investigator has provided reasoned grounds for finding that it breached the Code.
But that is only one side of what happened.
Before Cllr Ames called Cllr Dallen arrogant, the chair had already declared that it was “the chairman’s meeting” and terminated further discussion of an issue involving his own earlier decision. After the insult, he intensified the same assertion with the words: “It is my meeting.”
Cllr Ames failed to convert his legitimate concern into the formal point of order it should have been. Cllr Dallen failed to recognise that the proper response was to obtain a ruling and consider relinquishing the chair to the vice-chair. The Monitoring Officer failed to guide either of them towards that procedure.
Yet only Cllr Ames’s failure has been externally investigated and sent towards a disciplinary hearing.
The legitimacy of any finding against him depends upon the legitimacy of the process used to determine it.
A Council cannot demand meticulous respect for standards from an opposition councillor while treating its own compliance with constitutional gateways, impartial adjudication and transparent decision-making as matters upon which it will say nothing.
Nor can confidentiality be allowed to make unequal treatment impossible to test.
Different complaints can properly have different outcomes. A pattern of different outcomes does not prove political bias. But where a complaint by Cllr Dallen against a Labour opposition councillor receives an external investigation and formal hearing while complaints against Cllr Dallen are rejected or apparently progress no further, the Council must provide enough procedural information to demonstrate that the difference results from evidence and established criteria rather than identity or influence.
The unanswered question is no longer merely whether Cllr Ames spoke disrespectfully to Cllr Dallen. It is whether EEBC has constructed a fair and constitutionally valid process for deciding that question, while applying the same standards to the person whose conduct and chairmanship provoked the dispute.
By refusing to answer, the Council has not protected public confidence in its standards regime. It has deepened the doubts surrounding it.
UK’s “first and only” craft museum in Surrey open day
7 September 2026
One of Surrey’s most important buildings, and the UK’s ‘first and only’ craft museum, is to host a special event to show off the vital restoration work going into saving the historic Grade I site.
Wilmer House in Farnham was allowed to fall into disrepair, but in March 2023 benefited from £700,000 in Arts Council funding to carry out essential repairs to its Georgian home in West Street.
It was soon discovered that the problems ran much deeper and a further £700,000 was needed to repair decaying brickwork, collapsing windows, and eroded mortar joints, as well as the visible cracking throughout.
Waverley Borough Council, which has a legal duty to maintain the building, has stepped in to fill the funding gap but, to rally support within the community for the project, is hosting an open day at the Farnham Museum.
Councillor Kika Mirylees, Waverley Borough Council’s community services portfolio holder, said: “Willmer House is a building of enormous historical and cultural significance to Farnham.
“We are delighted to invite residents to join us for what promises to be a fascinating evening of discussion and discovery.
“The event offers a unique opportunity to hear directly from experts involved in heritage conservation and to learn more about the exciting restoration plans for this much-loved landmark.”
The free event is part of the council’s “every brick counts” campaign that offers residents the opportunity to contribute to the preservation.
The council said the building uses gauged brickwork, one of the most expensive building methods often seen on the finest buildings around the world.
The free open event takes place on Monday September 14 2026 and will be hosted jointly by the council and The Farnham Society from 7.30pm to 9pm.
It will feature a panel including representatives from Arts Council England, The National Lottery Heritage Fund, conservation consultant Graham Abrey, historic brick conservator Emma Simpson MBE, and local historian and author Dr Roy Waight.
Simon Bradbury, vice chairman of The Farnham Society, said: “The Farnham Society has been campaigning to preserve Farnham’s heritage since 1911.
“Willmer House, as a Georgian town house, is an important part of that heritage.
“Coming out of the wealth generated from the hop trade, Willmer House is a Grade I listed building, noted in particular for its brickwork, rated as one of the finest examples of Georgian brickwork in the country.”
The event is free to attend, but places should be booked in advance.
