Cllr prays for Priest Hill not to be developed in Ewell
13 February 2026
A controversial proposal to build hundreds of homes on Green Belt land at Priest Hill in Ewell has re-emerged, with developers now progressing a revised scheme for up to 300 homes. The land, adjacent to Ewell East Station, had previously been identified in the draft Local Plan as a major housing allocation but was later removed from the Regulation 19 version due to concerns over deliverability.
From 350 Homes to 300
Under the earlier Regulation 18 Draft Local Plan, the site — known as NON013 — was allocated for at least 350 net zero carbon dwellings, with buildings up to six storeys, ground-floor retail space and the re-provision of playing pitches at Hook Road Arena. However, concerns were raised during consultation. Sutton & Epsom Rugby Football Club (RFC), which leases part of the site until 2079, objected strongly, citing the importance of its pitches to its 2,000 members and warning of potential harm to its long-term viability. Sport England also raised concerns, noting that any loss of playing field land would have to meet strict national policy tests, including equivalent replacement in quality, quantity, location and accessibility. Following these issues, and in the absence of evidence that long leases could be surrendered, the Council removed the site from the Regulation 19 Proposed Submission Local Plan in November 2024.
What Has Changed?
According to the Council’s latest position statement dated 22 January 2026, the landowner’s agents are now seeking pre-application advice for a revised scheme. The updated proposal would redevelop approximately 4.9 hectares currently under the leasehold control of Old Suttonians for up to 300 homes, while retaining the 3.7 hectares leased to Sutton & Epsom RFC as sports pitches. Old Suttonians confirmed to the Council in December 2025 that their use of the land for sports ceased in 1999, the clubhouse and changing rooms were demolished in 2015, and they have signed an option agreement to return their land to the freeholder for redevelopment. They do not sub-lease or share the land with other parties. In contrast, Sutton & Epsom RFC confirmed in January 2026 that it fully utilises its leased land for three senior pitches and one mini pitch and has no intention of ending its lease early, with 53 years remaining.
Green Belt Concerns
Nonsuch Ward Conservative councillor Shanice Goldman has called for urgent clarity over the revived proposals. The site lies within the Green Belt and while the revised scheme indicates that rugby pitches would remain, residential development would still take place on designated Green Belt land. Cllr Goldman said: “The protection of Green Belt and transparency in process are not optional extras. They are fundamental.” She added: “This is still Green Belt land. And once Green Belt is gone, it does not come back.” Residents, she said, had been left with the impression that large-scale development at Priest Hill was no longer proceeding and were now asking what has changed.
Housing Need Versus Open Land
The landowner’s agents have previously argued that the site is well served by public transport and should be reconsidered given the borough’s unmet housing need. The current proposal is at pre-application stage, meaning no formal planning application has yet been submitted. However, the renewed activity is likely to reignite debate over housing numbers, Green Belt protection and the future of community sports provision in Ewell. Interested parties include Epsom & Ewell Borough Council, the freeholder Coldunell Limited, Old Suttonians and Sutton & Epsom Rugby Football Club. Further details are expected once a formal planning application is lodged.
Image: Development area approximately overlaid on Google Map aerial view of Priest Hill.
.
.
.
.
Government comes to Surrey’s SEND rescue
13 February 2026
The Government is ‘finally recognising the heavy pressure placed on local budgets to support children’ after agreeing to wipe out 90 per cent of the debt councils has accrued in Special Education Need and Disabilities spending.
Surrey has 46,000 children with Additional Needs and Disabilities (AND) with 16,870 children and young people with a statutory Education Health and Care (EHC) plan. This is more than double the number in 2018 and puts it at the third highest in the country.
Councils must, by law, have to identify and support children with special educational needs but the surge in numbers has seen spending far outstrip what they receive from Government. Surrey County Council has spent millions since 2018 as part of its recovery plan for the service – which it has said is yielding results, but has pressed for changes to the wider system, additional funding and reform.
MP Greg Stafford also told the Commons that the High Needs Block deficit in Surrey was forecast to run to £165m by 2027. It leaves councils having to find huge sums every year – with historically poor support from the Government. The news that £5billion will be spent to eliminate almost all historic debt in Englands, they hope, signals a major change in direction.
Helyn Clack, Surrey County Councl’s deputy cabinet member for children, families and lifelong learning said: “Surrey County Council welcomes the announcement on SEND deficits. It shows that central government finally recognises the heavy pressure placed on local budgets to support children with special educational needs, costs that should have been fully funded through the Government’s Dedicated Schools Grant.
“We are mindful that this SEND deficit funding covers overspends we have already incurred. We now await more detail on the expected ongoing costs of the SEND system and the long-promised reforms needed to make it sustainable in the future. In the meantime, we are reviewing the details of the announcement to understand what it means for the Council.”
The announcement follows Local Government Association (LGA) warnings that as many as eight in 10 English councils would be facing bankruptcy if forced pay back their SEND deficits in full.
Cllr Amanda Hopgood, chair of the Local Government Association’s children, young people and families committee, said: “Councils want every child and young person to get the support they need. But under the current failing system, the rise in need has left many councils buckling under the strain.
“We were pleased that government announced it will tackle 90 per cent of councils’ historic high needs deficits, following our call to address the deficits, which removes the immediate threat of insolvency for many councils. Fully writing off historic and future high needs deficits remains critical.
“The challenges within the SEND system are not just financial. The Schools White Paper must deliver brave and bold reform where more children can get the support they need in a mainstream school, without needing a statutory plan.”
See-saw debate on whether Epsom and Ewell Borough Council’s budget is balanced
13 February 2026
Inside the Claims and Counter-Claims at EEBC’s 2026/27 Budget Meeting
Epsom & Ewell Borough Council (EEBC) declared Tuesday (10th February) that it has delivered a “balanced budget without the use of reserves” for 2026/27.
The ruling Residents’ Association (RA) described it as the culmination of decades of prudent financial management. Opposition councillors from Labour, Liberal Democrat and Independent benches described something rather different: a one-year balancing act achieved by withdrawing revenue support for maintenance and capital projects, while pushing structural deficits into the future and increasing council tax to the legal maximum.
“Balanced Without the Use of Reserves” — What Does That Mean?
The morning after the meeting, EEBC issued a press release stating that the final budget had been “balanced without the use of reserves” following “£700,000-worth of savings” and a more favourable government funding settlement, particularly relating to temporary accommodation costs.
In the chamber, Cllr Neil Dallen (RA Town), Chair of Strategy & Resources, framed the result as both fiscally responsible and stable: “We have produced a balanced budget without using reserves… while ensuring the borough’s finances are stable.”
Cllr Clive Woodbridge (RA Ewell Village) went further, calling EEBC: “an island of financial calm and stability” and describing the budget as “balanced… with no cuts… the continuation and culmination of decades of sound RA-led financial management.”
On the face of it, the claim is correct — in Year 1. The budget report states that, following savings and funding uplifts, the council has set a balanced budget for 2026/27.
However, the same report pack makes clear that this balance applies to the first year only. The medium-term financial strategy still shows a projected gap of approximately £0.206m in Year 2 and £0.373m in Year 3 — around £0.579m in total across the later years of the plan. The Section 151 Officer’s robustness statement acknowledges that the estimated gap by 2028/29 remains in the region of £0.56m–£0.57m.
So the question is not whether Year 1 balances — it does — but whether the structural challenge has been solved or merely deferred.
From £5 Million Gap to £579,000 — How Was It Done?
Back in July 2025, the projected three-year funding gap stood at £5.063 million. By February 2026, that gap had reduced to £0.579 million.
The improvement is attributed to three principal factors:
A favourable uplift in Revenue Support Grant (around £1.4 million) under revised funding formulae.*
Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) funding that exceeded expectations — around £1.08 million received versus £0.337 million forecast. [Click here for an Epsom and Ewell Times guide to EPR.]
Approximately £700,000 of savings achieved largely by removing planned revenue contributions toward capital projects and maintenance budgets.
The opposition did not dispute the arithmetic. They disputed the sustainability.
Liberal Democrat Warning: “We Are No Longer Maintaining Our Assets”
Cllr James Lawrence (Lib Dem College) delivered the most detailed financial critique of the evening. Referring directly to the budget papers, he acknowledged that the headline gap had fallen dramatically — but argued the method used to close it was deeply concerning.
He told Council: “We have 930k of savings being put forth for this year, 700,000 of that is because we’re no longer putting any revenue contributions towards our capital projects, and we’re not putting any towards our maintenance projects… That is 700,000 this year and all future years that we are not putting towards repairing and maintaining our buildings and capital assets.”
In other words, the largest element of recurring savings is the removal of revenue support for asset upkeep.
Lawrence also criticised what he described as unrealistic budgeting assumptions on temporary accommodation numbers the previous year, stating that predictions had been far below actual demand. He argued that the in-year deficit had only been reduced from around £900,000 to £500,000 because: “we took 400,000 out of the Rainbow Leisure Centre contingency.”
That reference would become a flashpoint later in the debate.
Temporary Accommodation: Windfall or Long-Overdue Reimbursement?
Homelessness spending sits at the heart of this budget story. The report pack acknowledges that 2025/26 is forecast to end with a deficit of around £520,000, largely due to housing and homelessness pressures, with a £750,000 increase built into 2026/27 for nightly paid accommodation.
The RA’s defence is that central government has finally begun to recognise real costs through revised funding formulae. Cllr Dallen told Council: “For years, they haven’t [paid], and we have been subsidizing that service by millions of pounds… The one and a half million they’ve given us still doesn’t cover the cost… So it’s not a windfall. It is actually starting to pay what they should be paying for homelessness.”
Opposition councillors saw it differently.
Cllr Chris Ames (Labour Court) argued that the scale of temporary accommodation expenditure reflected years of policy failure: “The council is spending huge amounts… on managing a homelessness problem, largely of its own making… People should be housed in permanent homes, not expensive temporary accommodation.”
Cllr Kate Chinn (Labour Court) added that prevention should sit “at the heart of our budget as a serious financial and moral commitment.”
The debate therefore split along a clear line: RA framing increased grant as overdue reimbursement; Labour framing homelessness spending as structural failure.
Council Tax: “Expected by Government” or “Squeezing Residents”?
The budget applies a 2.98% council tax increase — effectively the maximum allowed without triggering a referendum.
Cllr Dallen told Council that government “expects us to raise council tax by this amount,” warning that failure to do so could have grant consequences.
The report pack itself notes that the funding settlement assumes councils apply maximum Band D increases and deliver taxbase growth.
But Cllr Chinn challenged the choice: “The RA are again proposing residents pay the maximum increase allowed… this council should be reducing the pressure… not adding further costs.”
The political divide here is clear: RA sees the increase as prudent and necessary; opposition sees it as avoidable and poorly timed during cost-of-living pressures.
The Strategic Priorities Reserve — A Missed Opportunity?
One of the most substantive amendments came from Cllr Lawrence, seconded by Ruxley Independent Cllr Alex Coley, proposing that the Strategic Priorities Reserve — originally funded with approximately £2.3 million and still containing around £1.6 million unallocated — be dissolved and transferred to general reserves.
Lawrence argued that, with local government reorganisation and a shadow authority imminent, earmarking funds for long-term “wish list” projects no longer made sense.
Coley supported him: “I just don’t see the reason for keeping this money out of our general reserves any longer.”
Cllr Dallen rejected the amendment, invoking process: “We have a financial strategy advisory group… to suddenly have a knee jerk reaction at a council meeting where officers are not allowed to speak… I think is crazy… We have proper processes.”
The amendment failed. The reserve remains intact.
The deeper issue: what constitutes prudence at the end of a council’s life — ring-fenced ambition, or flexible liquidity?
Rainbow Leisure Centre — The Unresolved Liability
During debate, Cllr Ames alleged that the transfer of Rainbow Leisure Centre to a new operator could leave the council facing: “a bill of around half a million pounds plus legal costs.”
Lawrence’s separate reference to drawing £400,000 from the Rainbow contingency fund amplified the concern.
The budget papers do not explicitly quantify any final Rainbow liability within the headline figures, and no detailed rebuttal was provided during the meeting.
For residents, the question is simple: if liabilities exist, where do they sit within the risk assessment of the medium-term plan?
Reserves: Not Used — But Still Doing the Heavy Lifting
The claim that the 2026/27 budget is balanced without reserves is technically correct. However, the report pack confirms that 2025/26 is forecast to close with a deficit to be managed through earmarked reserves, while the General Fund reserve stands at £1.555m — only £55,000 above the council’s stated minimum threshold of £1.5m.
The distinction is important. “No reserves used in 2026/27” does not mean reserves are irrelevant to the council’s overall financial stability.
The Vote — And What It Revealed
The budget passed on a recorded division: 19 in favour, 10 against, one abstention.
Cllr Julian Freeman (LibDem College) criticised what he described as bloc voting by the RA: “Residents councillors just voting along with their group.”
The RA closed ranks. Opposition parties voted against.
So — Balanced, or Balanced for Now?
The 2026/27 budget does balance in accounting terms.
But it does so through a combination of: • Exceptional government funding uplifts. • Removal of recurring revenue support for capital and maintenance. • Maximum council tax increase. • Deferral of structural gaps into later years.
The ruling group describes this as prudent stewardship at the end of an administration.
Opposition councillors describe it as a one-year fix achieved by stopping maintenance contributions and raising tax while underlying pressures remain.
With local government reorganisation approaching and a shadow authority soon to assume control, the final judgement may not be made by this council at all — but by its successor.
Image: Any resemblance to any particular councillor is random and their position on the see-saw is not indicative of whether they supported the budget or not.
*A general grant paid by central government to local authorities to help fund their day-to-day services, with no requirement that it be spent on any specific activity
Ewell’s Bourne Hall plans knocked back by scrutiny
13 February 2026
A council decision to invest in the future of Bourne Hall Museum has been sent back to the drawing board after councillors ruled it was made without all the relevant information being made public.
The decision, taken unanimously by the Epsom and Ewell Borough Council’s Community and Wellbeing Committee in January, backed plans to improve the museum rather than close it or leave it as it is. But at an Audit and Scrutiny Committee meeting last week, councillors voted to halt that decision and refer it back, arguing key reports were missing when the original choice was made.
At the heart of the row are two reports commissioned using public money: a service review by an external consultant and a Cultural Peer Challenge by the Local Government Association (LGA). Both were repeatedly referenced in the January committee report and described as providing “valuable insights” and a “blueprint” for the museum’s future but yet neither was included in the public agenda papers. Even for the call-in meeting, the essential reports were not published in full.
Cllr Alex Coley, (Independent Ruxley) who called in the decision, said councillors were effectively being asked to vote blind. He told the scrutiny committee that members had been promised the reports would be published but they never appeared before the meeting. “None of us know what’s in the service review, so none of us can tell how this might have influenced the decision,” he said. “Either we do things properly or they get done again.”
Other councillors backed that view, raising concerns not just about missing information but about transparency for the public. Cllr Chris Ames (Labour Court) warned it may be unlawful to rely on background documents without publishing them, adding that members of the public watching the meeting had no way of knowing what evidence councillors were relying on.
He highlighted one finding from the LGA report that was not clearly reflected in the summary given to councillors, that the museum’s finances were “skewed” by how building and central council costs were allocated, potentially giving a misleading picture of how expensive it is to run. “That’s absolutely crucial information,” he said.
Council officers and the committee chair argued that all the important points from the reports had been summarised and that the final decision, to invest rather than close, matched the reports’ overall conclusions. They also said funding would still need to be approved by another committee.
But scrutiny councillors stressed their role was not to re-argue the museum’s future, but to decide whether the original committee had all the evidence it should have had at the time. In the end, they voted to refer the decision back to Community and Wellbeing with a view to reconsider the issue from scratch but this time with the full reports available.
View of Bourne Hall and Museum, Spring Street, Ewell. (Credit: Google Street View)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Mole Valley backs maximum council tax rise as deficit looms
13 February 2026
Council tax in Mole Valley is expected to rise by the highest possible amount – and still leave the district in financial deficit and relying on reserves to cover the gap. The decision was recommended at the Tuesday, February 3, meeting of the Mole Valley District Council’s executive committee ahead of its expected rubber stamping later this month, and the increase will go hand in hand with the 4.99 per cent hike imposed by Surrey County Council.
This is the final full year for many public bodies in Surrey before they are merged into two mega authorities, and Mole Valley’s budget comes amid warnings it could be among a number of councils to pass on a deficit to the newly merged East Surrey next year.
This year’s budget shortfall, projected to be about £1.5m, is to be covered by existing reserves and will allow the council to continue funding projects close to its heart including free summer activities for children, the Mole Valley Employment Hub, and a grant to Citizens Advice. The biggest loss in projected revenue is expected to come from the enforced closure of Dorking Halls during its costly multi-million pound refurbishment.
Councillor Andrew Matthews, portfolio holder for finance, said: “This budget is unlike previous years. Instead of setting a medium term plan, with local government reorganisation taking effect in April 2027, we are presenting a single year budget alongside indicative figures for the two years beyond to support planning for the new East Surrey Council. The council is forecasting that it will cost £14.3m to fund services next year with £12.8m income. The shortfall will be covered by using £1.5m of reserves.”
Part of the shortfall, he said, was due to the revenue drop off caused by the long closure of Dorking Halls while it undergoes refurbishment.
The 2.99 per cent increase in council tax will now be put before full council for formal approval and would see Mole Valley’s share for band D properties rise from about £211 to £217 a year. Mole Valley’s take is about 9 per cent of a person’s annual council tax bill, with Surrey County Council accounting for 75 per cent. The rest is distributed between Surrey Police at 14 per cent and any parish council. Currently band D homeowners in non-parished areas pay £2,395.20 – this will now go up.
Car parking within the council-owned sites will continue to be free on evenings and Sundays.
Looking forward, Cllr Andrew Matthews said: “The financial environment remains uncertain. Inflationary pressures, rising costs, and the transition to a new unitary authority means that the medium term projections for 2027 and 2028 show that the new East Surrey Council will inherit a predicted budget deficit from Mole Valley.” He said this was in part due to changes in central government funding that gave areas less able to raise money – those with fewer high council tax band homes – a larger share than those with larger tax bases. He expected other councils would be in a similar boat and could have financial implications for the new council going forward.
He told the meeting: “This is not unique. Other councils forming a new East Surrey Council are also predicting a potential budget deficit in their projections. This is a key risk for sustainability of services under the new Surrey Council.”
Cllr Paula Keay said the employment hub played a vital role in the community and was important to fund. She said: “I’m delighted that this one off revenue spend has gone through. It will ensure the long-term sustainability of such an important facility. We know there is no job centre anywhere in Mole Valley and it provides a valuable service to both employers and local people seeking work and skills.”
Mole Valley District Council offices in Dorking. (Credit: Google Street View)
Council didn’t stand up Dorking Wanderers
13 February 2026
A new spectator stand that will “support the continued success” of Dorking Wanderers Football Club can stay after the club secured planning permission.
The Mole Valley club had already erected the four-row seating section in the northern corner of its Meadowbank Ground in Dorking, and it has been used since April 2025, giving spectators a better view of games. The planning application was submitted retrospectively and was granted at the February Development Management Committee meeting of Mole Valley District Council.
The tiered 100-seater stand will not increase the club’s overall capacity of 4,121, but will instead upgrade facilities for supporters who had previously been required to stand pitch-side. Objectors raised concerns about the potential for increased noise and disturbance, but planning officers said an October 2025 site visit found that existing sound-damping fencing and newly planted trees would mitigate such issues, and that the stand would not affect maximum attendances.
Mole Valley’s environmental health team said the stand would result in a negligible increase and no material change in terms of noise impacts on match days. Officers told the meeting that the new stand, which can be folded away as required, “would not increase spectator numbers, though the arrangements for spectators would differ to the current arrangement, with the three-tier seating area instead of ground-level standing.”
She added that the stand would enhance facilities at the established community ground and support the continued success of Dorking Wanderers. The application was approved without opposition after councillors were told the stand was already in place and that all objections raised had been addressed.
The approval follows a number of upgrades to the ground in recent years, including a new part-covered terrace at the western end approved in 2022, alongside LED floodlighting, additional turnstiles, TV facilities and an expanded fan zone. The western terrace was constructed after the club’s promotion to the National League in order to meet entry requirements.
Epsom celebrates Ukrainian culture at Festival of Friendship
13 February 2026
The Festival of Friendship – Ukraine brought a vibrant celebration of Ukrainian culture to Epsom from 27 January to 1 February, uniting local organisations and residents in a week of art, music, film and hands-on creativity. Organised jointly by Epsom & Ewell Refugee Network, Epsom & Ewell Borough Council, Epsom Library and Epsom Picturehouse, the festival highlighted both the richness of Ukrainian traditions and the strong connection between the Ukrainian community and the community of Epsom and Ewell.
The festival was inspired by a cultural project created by Sofia Ziatyk for her final degree work at Chelsea College of Arts, for which she was awarded First Class Honours. Her project explored Ukrainian crafts, rituals and traditions through striking hand-drawn images, forming the heart of the exhibition that anchored the week’s programme.
The official launch event took place on 27 January at Epsom Library and was attended by senior figures from Surrey County Council, the Mayor of Epsom & Ewell, and around 100 members of the local community. The atmosphere was one of warmth and curiosity, as visitors gathered to view Sofia Ziatyk’s exhibition and to hear live performances by Ukrainians living in and around Epsom. Traditional music and poetry created a powerful sense of shared experience, giving audiences a glimpse into the traditions and artistic life of Ukraine.
Throughout the week, the library hosted two exhibitions: the display of Sofia Ziatyk’s drawings and Inna Kucherenko’s This Is Me: Recreating – a display of lost photographs and fragments of forgotten history recreated from memory using AI. A special treasure hunt for children invited them to search for pictures and symbols connected with Ukraine, helping younger residents engage with another culture in a fun and accessible way. This initiative proved popular with families and reinforced the festival’s emphasis on learning through participation.
Workshops formed a key part of the festival and were consistently well attended by the local community. Participants had the opportunity to try traditional embroidery and beading techniques, make wool dolls, explore paper cutting and experiment with block printing. These sessions offered more than creative activity; they provided space for conversation, storytelling and mutual understanding. Among those taking part was local MP Helen Maguire, whose presence underlined the importance of the festival as both a cultural and community-building event.
The festival also extended beyond the library into the world of cinema. Epsom Picturehouse, working in collaboration with TalentedU, screened three Ukrainian films: Rocky Road to Berlin, Sanatorium and Home for Ukraine. Audience demand exceeded expectations, with each screening so well attended that a second screen had to be opened. The films offered different perspectives on Ukrainian life and history, giving viewers insight into personal stories and national experiences rarely seen in mainstream cinema.
For many attendees, the festival provided an opportunity not only to discover Ukrainian traditions but also to meet Ukrainian neighbours and hear their voices directly through art and performance. The blend of visual exhibitions, live music and poetry, practical workshops and film created a programme appealing to a wide range of interests and ages, demonstrating how culture can act as a bridge between communities, fostering empathy and connection.
Speaking about the events, Councillor Clive Woodbridge, Chair of the Community and Wellbeing Committee, said: “The Festival of Friendship – Ukraine was a truly uplifting and inspiring occasion. It was incredibly moving to see Ukrainian guests of all ages demonstrate how much the creative basis of their culture means to them, whether that be through music, singing or poetry. It was particularly heart-warming to see the younger members of the Ukrainian community perform with such confidence and feeling.”
Organisers described the festival as a true partnership between local institutions and residents. By bringing together Epsom & Ewell Refugee Network, Epsom & Ewell Borough Council, Epsom Library and Epsom Picturehouse, the project showed what can be achieved through collaboration and shared purpose. The success of the events – from the packed workshops to the oversubscribed film screenings – reflected the enthusiasm of the Epsom community for meaningful cultural exchange.
Originating in the work of a young artist and carried forward by community organisations, the Festival of Friendship – Ukraine transformed everyday spaces into places of discovery and dialogue. For one week, Epsom became a window into Ukrainian culture, reminding all who attended that art and tradition can unite people across borders and experiences.
The average household in Surrey could pay more than £350 a year towards policing after a £15 council tax hike was given the go-ahead. The police precept – the portion of council tax that funds Surrey Police – will rise from £338 to £352 a year for the average Band D home from April 2026, a 4.4 per cent increase from last year.
The rise was backed by the Surrey Police and Crime Panel on February 4, despite a sharp debate over whether residents can afford it. Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) Lisa Townsend said the increase was needed to prevent services from deteriorating, warning that without the full rise people could face slower answers to 999 calls, longer waits for officers to attend incidents, and delays in forensic investigations.
“For every £1 on the precept, about £0.5 million goes into the Force,” she told the panel. “That equates to around 15 police staff or officers.” Ms Townsend said Surrey Police has become “one of the most improved forces in the country” in recent years, with more visible neighbourhood policing and better performance on crimes such as burglary and vehicle theft, but rising demand and increasing costs mean those improvements are at risk.
She said: “Improvements we are seeing today have only been possible because of previous decisions to increase the policing precept. Those decisions have allowed SP to invest in officers, staff, systems and technology that are now delivering results on the ground.” According to the PCC, on an average day the force handles almost 1,700 contacts from the public and sends vehicles to almost 250 incidents. Each day 216 crimes are recorded, 33 relate to violence against women and girls, 56 are assault, and armed response officers are called out 16 times a week.
She added: “The improvements achieved so far simply cannot be sustained” without further funding.
Some councillors challenged the move. Cllr Richard Wilson said many residents in his area are struggling to afford food, heating and rent, questioned whether it was the right time to increase bills, and asked whether Surrey, as a relatively low-crime county, could manage with a smaller force.
Kelvin Menon, chief finance officer for the PCC’s office, said Surrey receives one of the lowest levels of government grant in England, making it more reliant on council tax, and warned that cutting funding would mean difficult choices about which services to scale back. He argued that although Surrey may be a ‘low-crime’ area, it is the police keeping it that way, asking: “What level of crime are people willing to accept?” He added: “The level of poverty in the country is possibly not the fault of the police precept.”
The PCC repeatedly assured the panel that Surrey Police has already delivered about £90m in savings over the past decade. Even with the tax rise, the force still needs to find £5.5m in further savings this year and more in the years ahead, with an overspend of around £1m this year driven largely by overtime costs.
A public consultation found 57 per cent of respondents supported a £14 increase, the maximum allowed at the time. More than 2,400 people took part, although this was highlighted as a small proportion of Surrey’s 1.3m residents.
Surrey Police and Crime Officer, Lisa Townsend, at the Surrey Police and Crime panel. (Credit: Surrey County Council webcam)
Epsom and Ewell Borough Council claws back millions to balance books before government shakeup
13 February 2026
Epsom and Ewell Borough Council has closed a multi-million pound budget gap as it gets ready to be absorbed into a new unitary authority next year.
Just months ago, Epsom and Ewell Borough Council was forecasting a £5m shortfall over three years, including a £1.9m gap for 2026/27 alone. But a combination of savings, streamlining services and additional government funding has reduced the projected deficit to just over half a million pounds across the same period.
Councillors were told at a Financial Strategy Advisory Group on January 30, the authority has now set a balanced budget for 2026/27. This is a legal requirement before local government reorganisation sees the borough council replaced by the new East Surrey unitary authority. Finance officers said the work ensures the new council will inherit a more stable financial position.
Bridging a £5m gap
Last July, the council warned of a growing funding gap driven by rising costs and pressure on services. Since then, a series of changes have reshaped the picture. These include:
New efficiency savings across services
The removal or reduction of some planned spending contributions
Additional funding through the government’s Fair Funding Review
Extra income linked to national waste and recycling reforms
Together, these changes have cut the medium-term deficit from £5.063 million to £579,000.
Although the government’s fair funding review has been slammed as a disaster across the rest of Surrey, Epsom and Ewell Borough Council is emerging as victor. According to the report, areas with high homelessness and temporary housing demand for those at risk of homelessness have received a 20 per cent increase in funds. Leading officers to label the boost as “favourable” compared to other councils across the country.
Officers told councillors the financial environment remains challenging, with continued pressure from temporary accommodation costs, agency staffing and inflation, but said the authority now has a clear plan to manage those risks.
Council tax rise still part of the plan
Despite the improved position, councillors have backed plans to increase council tax by 2.98 per cent next year, the maximum allowed without a local referendum. Officers said the increase, worth £6.93 per year for a Band D property, had always been built into long-term financial planning and was necessary to maintain stability.
Freezing council tax would leave a £291,000 hole in the budget that would need to be filled by service cuts.
Why balancing the books now matters
Although Epsom & Ewell will cease to exist as a standalone council after reorganisation, it is still required to pass on a clear and accurate financial position to the successor authority. Council documents state that producing a medium-term financial strategy remains essential so the incoming unitary council understands “future commitments as they stand.”
By closing much of the budget gap now, the borough council reduces the risk of the new authority inheriting an immediate financial crisis.
Ongoing pressures remain
The council warned that financial risks have not disappeared. Rising homelessness costs, inflation in contracts and uncertainty over income streams such as business rates continue to pose challenges.
However, councillors were told the authority has identified actions and savings to keep the budget balanced for the coming year. Final approval of the budget will be made by the Full Council on February 10.
Council tax bills in Surrey will rise by almost five per cent after councillors approved its final budget.
Members of Surrey County Council green-lit its last ever budget at a full council meeting on February 3. This is the county’s final before it is dissolved into two unitary authorities under local government reorganisation.
Councillors have approved a 2.99 per cent council tax rise plus a 2 per cent adult social care levy from April 2026, the maximum allowed. For a typical Band D household, that means paying £7.67 more per month.
Why is council tax going up?
The rise comes after the Government announced a new three-year funding deal for councils from 2026 to 2029. While ministers say councils will see more ‘spending power’, much of that increase depends on councils raising tax locally. So, no extra money will come from Westminster.
Surrey’s bosses say changes under the Government’s ‘fair funding’ reforms mean the county will lose significant national funding in the coming years.
Council leader Cllr Tim Oliver said residents were being asked to pay more just to maintain services. “We cannot accept a model where residents will pay more each year to, at best, stand still. That is a government, political decision and one which this council has no control over,” he said.
He added that the council would continue lobbying ministers for a better deal. “Long-term sustainability requires a fairer national settlement. This is a clear message to the government: we will do our part, now fund us fairly.”
The council’s finance chief warned Surrey is set to lose more than £180m in government funding over the next three years. He said: “Even with maximum council tax rises, we’re still facing a funding gap of over £100m by 2028/29.”
What is the money being spent on?
Despite the challenging situation, Surrey bosses said they have tried to protect frontline, people-facing services, despite the financial squeeze.
They highlighted:
Adult social care changes focused on helping people stay independent, receiving safe and compassionate care
Improvements to support for children with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND), including more local provision and transport
Core services such as road maintenance, potholes and libraries
Spending on adult social care will increase by more than 5 per cent, with a focus on helping people stay independent for longer.
There is also continued investment in children’s services and special educational needs and disabilities (SEND), including funding for more local specialist school places and children’s homes. Capital spending of £297m is planned next year, covering areas such as highways maintenance, school places, SEND provision and adult social care accommodation.
Cllr Oliver said: “We know households remain under real pressure from the cost of living. We do not take decisions lightly on council tax.” He added there is a wide range of support available to residents struggling.
Political opposition voices concerns
Opposition councillors pushed back on the leader’s claims the budget ensures ‘no one is left behind’. They said the budget does not go far enough to fix deep-rooted problems, especially in children’s services.
Leader of the Labour group, Cllr Robert Evans, described the budget as a “one-year sticking plaster”, pointing in particular to the growing crisis in SEND provision. “This isn’t just an accounting problem, children are missing important years of education.”
Cllr Catherine Powell, Residents’ Association and Independent Group leader, said social care remains the biggest pressure on the council’s finances and called for more support for foster carers, despite plans for more children’s homes.
Leader of the Green Party Group, Cllr Jonathan Essex, said the capital programme to build more special needs school places was still “playing catch-up”, adding: “Inaction is costing us £20 million a year.” Meanwhile, Cllr Liz Townsend (Liberal Democrat) said some promised investments amounted to “false hope”.
The report warns of major financial risks beyond next year. Demand for social care continues to rise sharply, while inflation and interest rate pressures remain uncertain.
One of the biggest long-term concerns is the soaring deficit linked to SEND provision. Surrey’s high needs education deficit is forecast to reach around £309m by March 2027. While this is currently kept off the council’s main balance sheet by a temporary government accounting rule (safety valve agreement with the high needs block), finance officers describe it as a serious national issue that threatens many councils’ financial stability.
