In Surrey more people are invited to share their home
24 July 2026
A new partner is taking on Shared Lives in Surrey aiming to welcome more people into the service who can open their homes to adults with support needs and help them live independently and well.
Shared Lives enables adults with learning disabilities, physical disabilities or mental health needs to live within a supportive household, for short or long-term stays. Similar to fostering, it offers a home environment where people can build life skills and learn to lead active lives in their local communities.
Surrey County Council has appointed an experienced provider to run the service from this month, following a competitive selection process. The provider, the charity Ategi, has more than 30 years’ experience running care and support services including Shared Lives schemes in England and Wales.
All current Shared Lives carers and arrangements will continue to be supported, and more people from a wide range of backgrounds are being invited to explore the rewarding opportunity of becoming a Shared Lives carer.
Shared Lives carers receive ongoing support, a weekly fee and training according to their needs. No formal care experience is required – carers simply need a spare room, compassion and the willingness to support an adult with additional needs in their own home.
Around 80 Shared Lives arrangements, both short and long-term, have transferred to Ategi from Surrey Choices, the previous provider. People supported by the service have in recent years achieved life-changing outcomes including passing driving tests, securing meaningful employment, and gaining independence and improved mental wellbeing.
Kate Allen, Ategi’s Chief Executive, said: “We are delighted to be bringing Ategi’s extensive Shared Lives experience to Surrey and to build on the strong foundations created by Surrey Choices. We know how important continuity is for the people and families who rely on the service, and our priority is to ensure they continue to receive the high-quality, person-centred support they value.
“With more than 30 years’ experience delivering Shared Lives – including across London and the South East – we bring extensive Shared Lives experience from across England and Wales, which will help us work alongside local partners to support the service’s continued success and future growth. We look forward to working with carers, families and partners across Surrey to enable more people to live independently, build meaningful relationships and play an active role in their communities.”
Sinead Mooney, Surrey County Council’s Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care, said: “Shared Lives has long been an important part of the support we offer in Surrey and I’ve seen the difference it can make to people’s wellbeing and independence, and the rewarding experience it offers carers.
“Our new partnership with Ategi will build on Surrey Choices’ foundations, and we’ve been working hard to make sure the transition is as smooth as possible for everyone involved. We’re grateful to our existing Shared Lives carers for the support they provide, and we’re encouraging more people to consider coming forward to help adults with additional needs lead fulfilling lives.”
Louise Hayes, Operations Director at Surrey Choices, said: “We are incredibly proud of everything our Shared Lives colleagues, carers and the people we support have achieved together. We transfer the Shared Lives scheme with enormous pride in the legacy and the positive impact it has had on so many lives. We pass it on with confidence to Ategi, an experienced provider delivering Shared Lives across multiple counties in the UK, knowing the values of compassionate, person-centred support will continue.”
In the words of one family member with experience of Shared Lives, it is “an excellent service enabling adults with additional needs to live as near to independence as they can, with a safety net.”
Some Shared Lives placements in Surrey will continue to be provided by Mencap, as they are currently.
Anyone interested in finding out more about becoming a Shared Lives carer, or who has a query about an existing arrangement, should contact Shared Lives Registered Manager Paul Dawson at Ategi on 01494 932 920. More information can be found on Ategi’s website: www.ategi.org.uk.
A single commissioner team will oversee the combined financial messes across Woking and Spelthorne as fears mount that their enormous unsupported debts and tangled property webs could spill over and impact the newly formed West Surrey Council.
If the problems are not fixed, government-appointed commissioners could remain in place at the new authority, the Department for Local Government said this week.
The government has already committed £500 million to support Woking – and more is expected – and the council is currently selling off its assets left, right and centre in an effort to bring down its unprecedented multi-billion-pound debt. These sales may need to continue past vesting day, when Surrey’s councils merge into two mega-authorities.
In Spelthorne, commissioners have said there are still challenges over its financial sustainability, commercial portfolio and capacity to deliver changes. With the councils set to dissolve in April 2027, the government is concerned the problems could transfer into the new West Surrey authority.
At the same time, commissioners will work in a more joined-up way with West Surrey, letters from government ministers read, to provide advice, challenge decisions and offer independent assurance on how the new council will run from day one of the new authority. This will include its financial strategy, management of inherited risks and governance framework – although at this stage they will not have executive powers at the new authority.
Woking and Spelthorne remain two of the most indebted councils in the country after years of financial mismanagement and have been under watch to oversee their turnarounds.
Alison McGovern, Minister of State for Local Government, wrote to inform the councils that their special measures will remain in place and of the changes that will be made.
The letter read: “Significant challenges…remain, particularly financial sustainability, continued reliance on reserves, risks within the commercial portfolio, and capacity pressures. I agree that maintaining pace in the final phase of the intervention and managing these risks through transition will be critical.
“Findings reinforce the need for a more integrated approach to risks across Spelthorne and Woking. I have therefore decided to establish a single commissioner team across both councils.”
They will be tasked with providing an independent view of the financial, commercial and governance challenges that West Surrey may inherit from Woking and Spelthorne.
It added: “Their assessment will inform the department’s view of whether West Surrey has sufficient grip of those challenges and whether any further supportive arrangements may be needed beyond vesting day.”
On April 1, Woking, Spelthorne, Guildford, Surrey Heath, Waverley and Runnymede borough councils will dissolve and be merged with the western half of Surrey County Council to create West Surrey Council, which will be responsible for all services in the area.
A Surrey Council’s enforcement against landlords examined
24 July 2026
Private landlords have been hit with almost £75,000 in fines over the past two years by Reigate and Banstead Borough Council.
The figures were presented following questions over levels of enforcement in the borough and comes after the government announced new powers allowing local authorities to fine landlords up to £7,000 if their rented properties were found to have serious hazards.
Other tools available include the ability to issue fines up to £40,000 for illegal evictions or multi-occupancy breaches – as was the case in May this year when the council secured a fine of £9,000.
There, environmental health officers found a Horley landlord had been renting their flat to vulnerable elderly individuals without appropriate fire measures – and evicting them when they complained about safety measures.
The totals were made public after questions from Councillor Neha Boghani (Green Party: Horley East and Salfords).
She asked the July 22 meeting of Reigate and Banstead Borough Council what level of enforcement the council had been taking against private landlords, how many civil penalties had been issued, and the total revenue recovered.
Councillor Kate Fairhurst, portfolio holder for place, planning and regulatory services, said: “In the financial year 24/25 the team issued 17 civil financial penalties, the total value was £51,964.
“The final value includes adjustments after an appeal. The value of recovered in £43,456. With regards to the outstanding debt, this mostly relates to one case and debt recovery proceedings have been issued and a county court judgement applied for. For the financial year 25/26 the team issued seven penalties with a total value of £30,515. So far £14,015 has been recovered.
“Two cases have appeals in process so they are not yet fully settled and a third case has debt recovery proceedings initialed and a county court judgement applied for.”
The council has said it welcomed the introduction of the Renter’s Rights Act and would use it to combat unscrupulous and negligent practices.
Councillor Kate Fairhurst said of it: “The Renters’ Rights Act 2025 is bringing in new rights and responsibilities for landlords, letting agents and tenants. It is essential that landlords are compliant with the new law.”
Epsom and Ewell Council votes for continuing a local Mayoralty after its abolition, for a small fee …
24 July 2026
Epsom and Ewell could retain its mayor, civic traditions and borough regalia after the borough council is abolished next year following a vote by councillors.
Epsom and Ewell Borough Council agreed on Tuesday 21 July to ask the Government to establish Charter Trustees for the borough. The new East Surrey Council will also be asked to support the proposal.
The trustees would preserve the ceremonial office of Mayor of Epsom and Ewell after East Surrey Council assumes responsibility for local services on 1 April 2027.
They would not exercise normal council powers. Their duties would be limited to maintaining the mayoralty, civic ceremonies, historic rights and property such as the borough’s regalia.
Councillor Neil Dallen (RA, Town), who proposed the recommendations, said he had been approached by scores of residents concerned about what would happen to the mayoralty.
“The number of residents that have come to me about what’s going to happen about the mayor have been quite numerous,” he said. “I won’t say they’re in the hundreds, but they’re certainly in the tens, probably closer to 100.
“I have been a mayor, and there are a number of other councillors here who have been a mayor. Once you’ve been a mayor, I think you appreciate what the residents want as a mayor, and it will be a great loss if we don’t have a mayor.”
Cllr Dallen said several members of the new East Surrey Council had indicated support, although the final decision would not rest with Epsom and Ewell.
“We’ve got to get agreement of East Surrey to do this,” he said. “But I’ve spoken to three or four East Surrey councillors, and they are all very much in favour of keeping the mayor.”
Before the main debate, Councillor Alex Coley (Independent, Ruxley) attempted to have the proposal referred to the Strategy and Resources Committee. His move was defeated.
Cllr Coley argued that the proposal had come directly to Full Council without committee scrutiny, public consultation or a detailed estimate of its eventual cost.
Charter Trustees may ask East Surrey Council to fund their activities during the first year. After that, they can raise a council tax precept. The council report said the average Band D charge among existing Charter Trustee bodies was around £2.50 a year, with examples ranging from 46p to £5.
Cllr Coley drew a comparison with the council’s recent Community Governance Review, in which 82 per cent of approximately 2,200 respondents opposed the establishment of parish councils.
“The Charter Trustee item in front of us contains powers to raise a precept – i.e. council tax,” he said. “There was no consultation on this. It does include precepting powers and would create a new instituted body, and I believe that it should go to consultation.”
He added: “We don’t know what this will cost because no work has been done on costing it. For those reasons, I’d like this to go to Strategy and Resources for a debate where questions can be answered.”
Cllr Dallen said referring the proposal to committee could cause the borough to miss a narrow legislative window.
“There are two or three reasons why I think we need to make the decision tonight,” he said. “There is the urgency of trying to get a response before March 31 because, if we don’t get a response and we’re not set up, then everything goes into East Surrey and we lose control.”
He said East Surrey would meet the first year’s cost and described even a possible £5 annual charge as “really good value for money for having a mayor in the borough”.
Councillor Alison Kelly (Lib Dem, College) supported retaining a recognisable civic institution when the borough becomes part of a much larger authority. “Epsom and Ewell, as a relatively small borough, has benefited from a strong local identity,” she said. “With the new unitary authority, there is a risk that we will lose our distinctiveness.”
She said discussions with businesses, charities and East Surrey councillors had indicated appreciation for the mayoralty. “In this case, the relatively small additional charge would be outweighed, in my opinion, by the funds the mayor’s charities have gained,” she said.
Former mayor Councillor Robert Leach (RA, Nonsuch) said his year in office had shown him that the mayoralty was particularly appreciated by residents who might otherwise receive little civic recognition. “The people who valued the mayor were often some of the most disadvantaged people,” he said, recalling presenting certificates to children with special educational needs.
“People really felt honoured. Sometimes I almost felt embarrassed. They were saying, ‘We’re greatly honoured to have His Worshipful the Mayor here,’ and I was sitting there thinking, ‘Why?’ But they do really value it.”
He acknowledged concerns about a precept but said the borough already possessed its mayoral regalia, gowns and chains, making the cost of continuing the office comparatively modest.
Councillor Peter O’Donovan (RA, Ewell Court), another former mayor, said the office involved far more than its small number of compulsory civic engagements. “You do as much as you like because it’s such a fantastic position to hold,” he said. “It’s raising money for charities and seeing people.”
He recalled one child asking his father who the mayor was. “The dad said, ‘That’s the King of Epsom.’ So I’m royalty now as well,” he joked.
Councillor Alan Williamson (RA, West Ewell) said he had changed his mind after initially concluding that the scale of local government reorganisation counted against retaining a separate Epsom and Ewell mayor. “I think it’s necessary for the community to have a focal point, a focus of civic pride and for local identity,” he said. “If we lose that, we’ll be losing something significant.”
He warned that many residents did not yet appreciate “the enormity” of the borough council’s abolition. “We’re going to be subsumed into a rather amorphous administrative unit known as East Surrey, which very few people will be able to relate to on a day-to-day level,” he said.
Councillor Rachel King (RA, Town) said Charter Trustees could also help preserve Epsom and Ewell’s formal relationship with its French twin town, Chantilly. “The structure of the French government is such that it has to be twinned between a government body in France and a government body in the UK,” she said. “This would enable twinning to happen for our existing twinning and if we were to look for further twinning in the future.”
Councillor James Lawrence (Independent, College) opposed the proposal, arguing that councillors had not learned from the rejection of parish councils. “When the public were last asked for a precepting authority, they said no,” he said. “It is a concern to me that the learning moment from our last consultation seems to be: don’t consult, just take the decision straight to Full Council.”
He said that, despite growing up in the borough, he had little awareness of the mayor before becoming a councillor. “Not once did I come across the mayor,” he said. “I think I once saw a picture of someone in funny clothes wearing a big gold chain, which is largely accurate.”
Cllr Lawrence also questioned whether a mayor chosen from among councillors could claim to represent residents in the same way as a directly elected officeholder. “The mayor is not popularly elected,” he said. “It’s not chosen by the people of this borough. It’s chosen by a bunch of politicians.”
Councillor Clive Woodbridge (RA, Ewell Village) said the council was not itself creating the trustees but ensuring that East Surrey and the Government had an opportunity to consider doing so. “There’s a narrow window of opportunity,” he said. “If we don’t pass it today, then it won’t happen. At least we give it a chance of happening.”
Cllr Coley returned to the potential demands on East Surrey’s ten councillors representing Epsom and Ewell. The regulations require at least five Charter Trustees, who would elect a mayor and deputy mayor from among themselves. “Half of all councillors will need to be Charter Trustees minimum,” he said. “We know that the unitary councillors will have an extraordinary workload. They will be doing the work of the district and of the county.”
He added that continuing costs could include civic events, hospitality, expenses and administration, not merely the preservation of existing regalia.
Council leader Hannah Dalton (RA, Stoneleigh) said consultation was not legally required because Charter Trustees would have ex-officio membership and exclusively ceremonial responsibilities. She stressed that neither Epsom and Ewell nor East Surrey could guarantee that the Government would approve the request. “The answer from the ministry may be no. The answer from East Surrey may be no,” she said. “But if we don’t do it, and we don’t do it now, we are actually going to have lost that opportunity altogether.”
The recommendations were carried. The voting figures were not announced.
Under the proposal, the Government would need to introduce a further statutory instrument, approved by both Houses of Parliament. East Surrey Council must support the application before it can proceed.
Bitter exchanges in Epsom and Ewell Council Chamber on Local Plan oversight
24 July 2026
A bid to force greater councillor oversight of Epsom and Ewell’s Local Plan was defeated after an extraordinary council meeting descended into bitter accusations of dishonesty, procedural obstruction and democratic failure.
The motion, proposed by Councillor Kieran Persand (Conservative, Horton) and seconded by Councillor Julian Freeman (Lib Dem, College), was rejected by 15 votes to 12, with three abstentions, on Tuesday 21 July.
It sought to instruct the Licensing and Planning Policy Committee (LPPC) to review additional Local Plan documents submitted to the Government-appointed Planning Inspector after the 2025 examination hearings.
It also called for consultation responses not to be sent to the Inspector without LPPC approval. By the time the extraordinary meeting was held, however, the consultation had closed, 346 responses had been submitted and a further examination hearing had taken place on 2 July.
Recognising that events had overtaken parts of his original motion, Cllr Persand attempted to substitute proposals for an independent external review of the Local Plan’s governance.
His amendment questioned whether delegated authority allowing officers to propose “changes and corrections” to the plan and its supporting documents had been used more extensively than councillors intended.
It listed eight additional documents, covering urban sites, the Green Belt, potential housing allocations, sustainability, habitats, infrastructure and transport. Cllr Persand argued that the “scale and significance” of these documents raised questions about whether they should have gone before LPPC.
The proposed review would have examined:
The use of delegated powers during the examination;
Whether LPPC had fulfilled its constitutional role;
Whether councillors received adequate opportunities to scrutinise material changes;
Whether appropriate constitutional and legal advice was available;
How governance and transparency could be improved.
A separate factual report would have listed the documents submitted, the powers relied upon and the reasons they had not been considered by LPPC beforehand. The review’s findings would have gone to the Standards and Constitution Committee, the Planning Inspector and the shadow East Surrey Council.
Cllr Persand said the purpose was “to strengthen governance, transparency and democratic accountability, not to revisit the planning merits of the Local Plan”.
Mayor rejects amendments
Mayor Councillor Lucie McIntyre (RA, West Ewell) rejected the amendment under Full Council Rule 17.5 after taking officer advice.
She ruled that it was outside the scope of the published motion and did not identify a source of funding for an external review.
“The proposed amendment has no relation to the scope of the original motion,” she said. “It would not be in order to allow your proposed amendment, which seeks to make decisions which have no bearing on the original motion and provides no source of funding for the request.”
Cllr Persand disputed the ruling. “You’ve just quoted back my amendment, not really telling me why it’s out of scope,” he said. “It is about the Local Plan, but it’s also about transparency and governance, which the original motion was about.”
The Mayor said she had made her decision and invited him to follow the issue up in writing after the meeting. Following further exchanges, she agreed to adjourn the meeting so that Cllr Persand could prepare a revised amendment.
After consulting the Chief Executive and legal advisers Cllr McIntyre rejected the second version on the same basis.
When Cllr Persand continued to challenge the decision, she warned that she would ask him to leave the meeting if he persisted. “I have made my decision,” she said. “I have given my rationale. I am not going to discuss it any further.”
Councillor Bernie Muir (Conservative, Horton) intervened after another member called out during Cllr Persand’s speech. “This is not normal,” she said. “I haven’t seen this happen at county or anywhere else, where a member of the floor has piped up in the middle of someone’s speech.”
The Mayor then warned all members against interruptions.
“Masterclass” in democratic failure
Forced to proceed with his original motion, Cllr Persand launched a fierce attack on the council’s administration and handling of the plan. “This Local Plan process has become a masterclass of how not to conduct democratic decision-making,” he said. “Time and again, councillors have been denied the opportunity to do the very jobs residents elected us to do – scrutinise.”
He accused the council of cancelling meetings, delaying discussions and relying too heavily on decisions taken under delegated authority.
“Important decisions have been taken away from the committee whose constitutional role is to review, consider and help shape the Local Plan,” he said. “Councillors have too often been told what has been decided instead of being given the opportunity to help make those decisions.”
Cllr Persand claimed LPPC chairman Councillor Peter O’Donovan (RA, Ewell Court) had previously admitted not reading what was submitted to the Inspector.
“Think about that,” he said. “The chairman of the committee responsible for planning policy doesn’t know what was submitted in the council’s name. If that does not ring alarm bells across this chamber, I genuinely do not know what will.”
He also criticised the absence of a legal officer when constitutional concerns were previously raised at LPPC.
“Members were asked to consider important constitutional issues without legal advice being available in the room,” he said. “That should be a concern to every councillor here, regardless of political party.”
Cllr Persand said residents had been encouraged to spend hours responding to consultations but increasingly believed their views had “disappeared into a black hole”.
“Whether residents supported the Local Plan or opposed it is almost beside the point,” he said. “They deserve confidence that their views have been properly considered and that decisions affecting the future of this borough are being taken openly and transparently. That confidence has been damaged.”
He argued that the affair was symptomatic of broader problems at the council, referring to recent Audit and Scrutiny Committee criticism of the procedure followed over an urgent decision concerning Rainbow Leisure Centre dilapidations.
“What we are seeing is not one isolated issue,” he said. “It points to a wider pattern where proper scrutiny is too often treated as optional, where transparency comes too late and where councillors are expected to accept decisions that have already been made rather than being given the opportunity to shape them.”
Motion “out of time”
Councillor Steve McCormick (Conservative, Woodcote and Langley Vale) agreed with the motion’s underlying concerns but acknowledged that one of its proposed instructions was no longer capable of being implemented.
“Major, highly sensitive Local Plan evidence submitted under delegated authority was sent to a Planning Inspector without prior consideration or scrutiny by the Licensing and Planning Policy Committee,” he said. “When the committee tasked with setting out our planning framework is bypassed, our elected members are sidelined and our residents are completely left in the dark.”
However, the consultation had already closed and its responses had been sent to the Inspector. “Recommendation two is simply out of time,” Cllr McCormick said. “All 346 responses have long been sent to the Inspector, and the hearing itself concluded on July 2.” He added: “We cannot rewrite the past, but we must urgently address how we restore transparency, enforce committee oversight and ensure our residents are never shut out again as we move towards the main modifications stage.”
Councillors “struggled” to participate
Councillor James Lawrence (Independent, College), elected in 2023, said he had struggled to become meaningfully involved in Local Plan decisions. “I haven’t been able to be involved in a single public committee, apart from the one committee in November 2024, which released over 1,000 new pages in seven days to read,” he said.
“That’s not a realistic way to run a committee system. We’re not resourcing our committee system properly. You cannot make considered decisions on that basis.” Cllr Lawrence said committees should be properly engaged because they provided the principal means by which backbench councillors could influence decisions. “If we just get presented with 1,000 pages and seven days to read them, you’re not going to get a meaningful decision,” he said.
Councillor Kate Chinn (Labour, Court) said the “spirit of the motion is absolutely correct”. “We need a plan for the borough,” she said. “It needs to go to Licensing and Planning Policy Committee to make those decisions in the authentic and proper way.”
Cllr Muir described three recurring problems: “Transparency, scrutiny and a fair understanding of our concerns.”
“It has been an almighty struggle to actually have any input that’s been considered,” she said. “We cannot treat members like this. When you treat members like this, you are treating our residents like this.” She said councillors in other authorities were astonished when told how the process had operated in Epsom and Ewell. “Every single member in this room should feel appalled – absolutely appalled – at how we are consistently treated,” she said.
Councillor Christine Howells (RA, Nonsuch) said the sole issue should be whether the correct process had been followed. “It is eminently clear that this process was fundamentally flawed,” she said. “Due diligence now has to take place to show transparency, accountability and regain trust in the system.”
She urged members to put “duty, honesty and integrity” above political allegiance, warning: “This vote will be judged and scrutinised by the residents.”
“Democracy is being subverted”
Councillor Chris Ames (Labour, Court) linked the Local Plan dispute to wider concerns about transparency and officer decisions. When he began referring to the Rainbow Leisure Centre dilapidations issue, the Mayor twice directed him back to the motion. The Mayor being the daughter of Cllr Neil Dallen, who Ames has criticised in connection with the alleged “cover-up” of the £500,000 dilapidations Rainbow Centre bill.
“I really don’t think it’s for you to tell me what my speech is to be about, Madam Mayor,” he replied. “If I think this is relevant, I will make this point. I will not be silenced.”
He accused the administration and senior council figures of using procedural rules to prevent legitimate debate.
“There’s a pattern here,” he said. “Procedural rules are being used all the way along to stop councillors discussing things. This is supposed to be a democratic council, and democracy is being subverted.”
Defence of officers and administration
Councillor Clive Woodbridge (RA, Ewell Village) mounted a forceful defence of council officers and rejected opposition claims that the process lacked transparency.
“One of the most disgraceful things about this whole Local Plan process is the way that the opposition criticises officers – officers who work diligently and hard on behalf of us and our residents, and they’re not in a position to fight back,” he said. He described Cllr Ames’s criticism as “unconscionable” and called on opponents to reconsider the appropriateness of their language.
Cllr Woodbridge said opposition councillors had been given time to prepare an amendment which could properly be debated but had failed to do so. “Rather than blaming us, blaming the Mayor or blaming officers for this, they only have themselves to blame,” he said.
He said an officer had given a lengthy explanation at the previous LPPC meeting and the council’s Monitoring Officer had repeatedly stated that the constitution and due process had been followed. “It’s not about transparency,” Cllr Woodbridge said. “They just don’t like the answer that they get.”
He alleged that the opponents’ real objective was to stop the plan. “What they’re dressing up as transparency and integrity is that they want to stop this Local Plan,” he said. “We know we have to deliver a Local Plan for our residents that protects the Green Belt, protects our environment and delivers the housing that our current and future generations need.”
Cllr Woodbridge nevertheless agreed that residents and councillors should be involved when the Inspector’s proposed main modifications were published.
Delegation dispute
Councillor Shanice Goldman (Conservative, Nonsuch) said she had been an LPPC member when the disputed delegated authority was approved. “In no uncertain terms, we were told that the delegated authority was going to be for the purpose of making small changes, including grammatical errors and spelling mistakes,” she said. “We were not told that material changes would be made by way of delegated authority.”
She said members had been misled about the effect of their decision, while stressing that she was not alleging bad faith. “We took a vote with the information that was given to us,” she said. “That information was misleading. It was wrong.”
Councillor Alex Coley (Independent, Ruxley) said he had raised infrastructure issues directly at the examination hearing because he felt unable to do so through the council. “I made the point that I did it in that forum because I’m not able to do it at this council, either by committee or by talking directly to officers,” he said.
Although the Inspector suggested that councillors and officers should communicate, Cllr Coley said he had received no subsequent approach from the planning policy team. “This blanket, umbrella coverage of delegated authority suggests that councillors are not allowed to take part any more in their own process,” he said.
Councillor Alison Kelly (Lib Dem, Stamford) rejected Cllr Woodbridge’s contention that critics wanted to derail the Local Plan. “What we want is a Local Plan that has fulfilled all the consultation that’s necessary,” she said. “My personal disappointment was that we couldn’t have had an extra LPPC meeting before those original documents were submitted.”
She added: “I definitely want a Local Plan because it’s in the residents’ interest to have a Local Plan.”
“Worst-run council”
Cllr Freeman, who seconded the motion, strongly criticised the handling of the meeting itself.
He said the original motion had been available for two weeks, yet councillors received procedural advice shortly before the meeting which raised doubts about what they could debate. “This should have been quite a simple, straightforward process,” he said. “Instead, it has descended into farce, with people shouting out, being accused of things and being told they can’t talk about this and they can’t talk about that.”
Drawing a comparison with the shadow East Surrey Council, where he serves as a member, he described Epsom and Ewell as “probably the worst-run council I’ve ever had experience of….. For me, there has been a complete lack of due process,” he said. “This underlines why it is a good thing, in my view, that this council will soon cease to exist.”
He added: “In the end, I think there has been a failure of adequate oversight over this whole Local Plan process.”
The Mayor subsequently said Cllr Persand’s amendment had been submitted at 6.39pm, but corrected herself after he protested, confirming it had been sent at 5.04pm. The original motion had been published two weeks earlier.
LPPC chairman rejects accusations
Cllr O’Donovan disputed Cllr Persand’s assertion that he did not know what had been submitted.
“I did not read the actual responses, but I was in full conversation with the Head of Planning Policy and Economic Development,” he said. “I knew what was being asked, what was being replied to and therefore I was in full knowledge of what was being sent.”
He stressed that delegated authority did not require him to sign off individual documents. “I have to make it clear: under the delegated authority, it is not for me to sign anything off,” he said. “But I was well aware of what was being said.”
Responding to Cllr Goldman, Cllr O’Donovan said the full wording of the delegation appeared in the committee papers available to councillors before the November 2024 meeting. “I did not mislead anything,” he said. “The full motion was there, and you could have read it.”
Cllr O’Donovan said the necessary political decisions had been made during preparation of the plan. During examination, responsibility for the process rested with the Planning Inspector, who requested additional evidence to address concerns about soundness. “That work was completed under the delegated authority granted in November 2024,” he said.
The Inspector then approved publication of the additional documents for consultation. At the 2 July hearing, she indicated that documents submitted during the examination could only be withdrawn at her direction.
“As the documents and consultation responses have been published on the examination webpage under the direction of the Inspector, both parts of the motion being considered this evening cannot be implemented,” he said.
Cllr O’Donovan said the Inspector appeared likely to find the plan sound, subject to main modifications. Those modifications would be consulted upon before Full Council decided whether to adopt them. “If we decide not to, then the plan will not be found sound, and we will be in serious trouble,” he said.
Cllr Goldman replied that she had read the papers and fully participated in the November 2024 debate.
“Members of the committee queried the scope of the delegated authority,” she said. “We were then given assurances by the chair that the scope would be limited to small changes, including grammatical errors. That’s what we were told.”
Accusations of lying
In his final reply, Cllr Persand accused Cllr O’Donovan of making two false statements and said video evidence supported his account of what the LPPC chairman had previously said. “You did say that you hadn’t read the papers,” he said. “That is on a video recording.”
He accused Cllr O’Donovan of having “passive involvement versus active involvement” as LPPC chairman and said it was inappropriate given the significance of the Local Plan. “You’re under no obligation to read a paper for us, but you are under an obligation not to mislead the committee and to lie,” he said – apparently meaning not to lie.
Cllr Persand maintained that the November 2024 delegation had been presented as covering minor amendments rather than the material changes subsequently submitted. “There is a culture in this chamber and council where scrutiny is treated as an inconvenience, where transparency is something to be managed rather than embraced,” he said.
He rejected claims that the opposition wanted to defeat the plan. “All of us want a Local Plan. All of us want a sound Local Plan,” he said. “It’s the RA who are bulldozing decisions through without proper consultation, notification or working with other councillors.”
Cllr Persand turned his fire on the Residents’ Association’s record in local government, arguing that voters had already passed judgement in the East Surrey elections, at which only two RA candidates were elected. “You will not be leaving a positive legacy,” he told the administration. “Residents made that very clear in the last local elections.”
Cllr O’Donovan immediately objected to being accused of lying. “I’ve been accused of deliberately misleading the council and lying,” he said. “I just think that is unacceptable language.”
“I’m not lying,” he added during a brief exchange across the chamber.
The Mayor ended the argument and called the vote. Twelve councillors supported the motion, 15 opposed it and three abstained.
The motion was therefore defeated, leaving the additional examination documents without the retrospective LPPC review sought by its supporters. No external governance review or factual report will be commissioned under Cllr Persand’s rejected amendment.
Surrey Council leader thinks new PM will back a County Mayor
24 July 2026
Surrey County Council’s leader says he expects Andy Burnham to “turbocharge” initiatives that could see the county get its own elected mayor.
Speaking at a meeting of the full council, Councillor Tim Oliver said he “fully expects” the new Prime Minister to lean hard into the devolution of powers to England’s regions.
Councillor Oliver is serving a final stint in office before the county council he leads is abolished, along with Surrey’s 11 district councils. These will be replaced next April by two unitary councils in East Surrey and West Surrey, each of which will be responsible for all local government services in its respective area.
But Councillor Oliver expressed his hope that these reforms will go one step further, leading to the creation of an overarching elected mayor for all of Surrey.
He said he is “pleased to see” progress being made towards the establishment of a foundation strategic authority (FSA) – a county-wide body that would serve as a stepping stone towards a new mayoralty.
Councillor Oliver said: “Having seen the Secretary of State last week at the LGA (Local Government Association) conference, I know it is his hope to establish that FSA here in Surrey. And I’m confident that will lay the ground for a directly elected mayor of Surrey in the near future.”
Former Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham, who was elected as MP for Makerfield last month succeeded Keir Starmer as Prime Minister yesterday
Mr Burnham has championed greater devolution of powers to regional governments across Britain, which is set to be a signature part of his policy programme. He served for nine years at the head of Greater Manchester’s combined authority, a body that brings together the region’s 10 boroughs under one directly elected mayor.
Councillor Oliver said he hopes Mr Burnham’s experience as a regional mayor will inspire him to roll out further devolved powers and new mayoral authorities.
He said: “I fully expect our incoming Prime Minister to turbocharge that devolution agenda, having seen first hand the benefits of a mayoral system – and with change, growth, and improvements in local services that can be delivered.”
The abolition of Surrey County Council comes as part of a wider local government reorganisation, which is seeing mergers in many “two-tier” authorities where there are separate county and district councils.
Areas with this two-tier structure have local government responsibilities split between these two types of council, while newer unitary authorities oversee all services.
Councillor Oliver said he believes Surrey County Council officers and councillors have “a record to be proud of”.
“We said we would make Surrey fit for the future, and we have done just that,” he added. “Over recent years, many councils across the country have struggled, and Surrey has met those challenges head-on and thrived. Our finances have been transformed to a point where we have a stable, balanced budget, even in the face of extreme pressures.”
Elections were held for the West Surrey and East Surrey “shadow authorities” in May, which will work to get the new councils up and running in time for the handover of power in April 2027.
Councillor Oliver previously told the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS) it is his “expectation” that Surrey could be ready for mayoral elections in 2028, alongside four other new combined authorities.
However, this would depend on the green light for its creation being given by central government.
Readers bemoan Council’s feet-dragging on twinning Epsom with Bucha
24 July 2026
Dear Editor,
Very disappointed with Epsom and Ewell Council, this would have been a simple arrangement. I myself stayed in the borough of Bucha only a few weeks ago on my way to Odesa. I was only a few miles from the area occupied by the Russians, they were only stopped by the Ukrainians destroying the bridge. Imagine living in Epsom and enemy forces occupying Ewell killing people in the streets. Shame on the council members voting against this.
Yours faithfully,
Richard Gough
Dear Editor,
As a Ukrainian, I want to sincerely thank the people of Epsom and Ewell for everything they have done to support Ukraine over the past more than four years. Your kindness, generosity and the incredible humanitarian support you have provided have meant more than words can express.
Humanitarian aid has saved lives. But today, a statement of friendship and solidarity matters too. It tells Ukrainians that we have not been forgotten and that we are not standing alone.
The war has not become easier. Every day people continue to die, and cities continue to be attacked. We all hope this war ends in Ukraine, because if Russian aggression is not stopped here, its consequences will not stop at Ukraine’s borders.
Thank you for speaking up, for raising these issues, and for continuing to stand with Ukraine. It means more to us than you may ever know.
Yours faithfully,
Natalia Pankratova
.
.
.
.
.
.
Councillors dispute significance of EEBC’s complaint rate
24 July 2026
Epsom and Ewell recorded Surrey’s second-highest rate of upheld Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman complaints during 2025/26 — although officers and some councillors argued that the numbers were too small to indicate a systemic problem.
The Ombudsman received 18 complaints concerning EEBC, up from 15 in the previous year. Two were recorded as upheld, producing a rate of 2.4 upheld complaints per 100,000 residents. Only Spelthorne, at 2.8, had a higher rate among Surrey’s borough and district councils.
At last night’s Audit and Scrutiny Committee meeting Cllr Alex Coley (Independent Ruxley) asked why Epsom and Ewell’s rate appeared markedly worse than most neighbouring authorities.
Cllr Steve McCormick (Conservative Woodcote and Langley) asked what weaknesses in the Council’s first and second-stage complaints processes were causing cases to reach the Ombudsman and what service improvements would be put in place before the transfer to East Surrey Unitary Authority.
Assistant Director Andrew Bircher rejected the suggestion of systemic failure. He said the actual number of complaints was very low and that one of the two cases was classified as upheld even though the Ombudsman had not opened a full investigation. In that case, the Council had already accepted the complaint and taken satisfactory remedial action.
“I don’t see that there is an issue to be concerned about here as we transition into the new East Surrey authority,” he said.
Cllr Robert Leach RA Nonsuch) agreed that percentages based on one or two cases could be misleading. “When you’re dealing with very small numbers, you really have to have a viability threshold,” he said. “This is probably something barely worth reporting.”
Refuse, rodents and reasonable adjustments
The first upheld case concerned repeated accumulations of refuse and fly-tipping near a resident’s home, causing a rodent problem.
Following the Council’s own stage-two investigation, it apologised and agreed to double waste collections and inspections, make the location a priority site and increase the presence of uniformed officers.
The Ombudsman decided that no further investigation was required because the Council had already remedied the injustice. Its system nevertheless recorded the complaint as upheld.
The second case concerned the Council’s requirement that reports of planning breaches be submitted online or on a specified form.
The Ombudsman found that, after the complainant explained difficulties using their hands, the Council should have asked whether a reasonable adjustment was required. Its failure to do so caused uncertainty, although the Ombudsman could not say that an adjustment would necessarily have been granted.
The Council subsequently contacted the complainant and reminded officers of their anticipatory duty under the Equality Act.
Eleven data breaches
The report also disclosed 11 data breaches since the committee’s February meeting.
Nine involved email. Two were reported to the Information Commissioner’s Office, which took no further action beyond providing general advice.
The Council had also been notified of two complaints to the ICO concerning its responses to Freedom of Information requests. At the time of the committee meeting, both were still awaiting allocation to an investigator.
Under the new data legislation, residents will generally be required to complain to the Council about its handling of personal information before taking the matter to the ICO.
Mr McCormick asked how the Council could guarantee that complaints about its own conduct would be investigated objectively and whether the financial and staffing implications had been calculated.
Mr Bircher said the Council’s Business Support Team would provide an independent review through its existing two-stage complaints procedure. He could not say how the workload would be measured or reported under the new unitary council. “I dare say that this annual complaints report won’t come to this committee next year because it won’t exist,” he said.
Epsom and Ewell Council admits homelessness pressure is “getting worse” despite action
24 July 2026
Epsom and Ewell Borough Council’s homelessness expenditure remains at its maximum risk rating despite additional staff, fraud investigations, government funding and the implementation of a homelessness action plan.
The Council’s year-end performance report recorded a £410,000 adverse budget variance for 2025/26, with net expenditure of £10.679 million against an approved budget of £10.269 million.
The overspend was driven primarily by temporary accommodation costs. It would have been higher without treasury income approximately £100,000 above forecast and around £200,000 of additional income from property leases completed later than anticipated.
Councillor Steve McCormick (Conservative Woodcote and Langley) told the Audit and Scrutiny Committee 16th July that those gains had effectively masked what would otherwise have been a £710,000 operational overspend.
The number of homelessness applications rose by 82.6% during the year to 623. The number of households in nightly-paid accommodation remained above target and was 5.5% higher than at the equivalent point a year earlier.
The corporate risk of homelessness spending exceeding its budget carries an inherent score of 16 and, unusually, remains at 16 even after the Council’s controls are taken into account.
Mr McCormick asked whether that meant the controls were ineffective or that external pressures had simply overwhelmed what the Council could do.
Assistant Director Andrew Bircher said: “Notwithstanding all these actions that we seem to be taking in order to try and reduce the amount of homelessness, we’re not seeing that come to pass. In fact, we’re seeing the number of nightly paid and the homelessness numbers increasing. If it was getting better, I think we would see our residual risk lower, but what we’re seeing is it’s not getting better; it’s getting worse.”
He distinguished between making prudent financial provision for the costs and successfully reducing the underlying demand. “The fact that we might be able to cope with that doesn’t mean that it isn’t still a risk,” he said.
Where will the missing £650,000 come from?
Cllr Alex Coley (Independent Ruxley) agreed that officers had undertaken a considerable amount of work. He said almost every action within the homelessness and rough-sleeping strategy was marked green or completed, with modular housing the main exception. Without that work, he estimated annual costs could already have reached around £2 million.
However, he questioned whether the budget figures matched the scale of the known pressure. “The allocation of funding to temporary accommodation was significantly short of the money we spent in the last year, which is £1.4 million,” he said. “I think we’ve only allocated something like half of that, so £750,000. There is a question, isn’t there: where’s the other £650,000 going to come from?
“People might reasonably ask: did we actually set a balanced budget back in February?”
Three modular homes nearly two years late
The Council’s modular-homes programme remains more than three months off track against an original completion date of July 2024.
Only one location, providing three homes, was found to be viable. Progress has since been delayed by a requested land tribunal hearing, and the performance report supplied no new completion date.
Mr McCormick questioned why the tribunal risk had not been anticipated and what alternative rapid-delivery housing schemes were being pursued. Officers were unable to answer at the meeting and said a response would be obtained from the relevant service.
Financial position “unsustainable” without reorganisation
The Annual Governance Statement contained a candid warning from the Head of Paid Service that, although EEBC remained relatively financially stable, its position would be unsustainable over the longer term without local government reorganisation.
Mr McCormick asked whether that meant the Council might otherwise have faced a Section 114 financial emergency.
Mr Bircher said EEBC was in a better position than many neighbouring authorities but had previously relied upon reserves to balance its budget. “Clearly, use of reserves year after year is not a sustainable position,” he said.
Without reorganisation, the Council would have needed to consider substantial transformation and change programmes. He said the efficiencies expected from creating the East Surrey Unitary Authority would perform some of the function that a separate savings programme would otherwise have been required to achieve.
Property problem arises for third time
Without disclosing details discussed at a separate exempt meeting, Cllr Coley also challenged the red-rated risk attached to the Council’s property portfolio.
He said a problem involving the Council’s investment company had now arisen for a third time and would cost more than six figures. Previous advice had said doing nothing was not an option, but the problem had nevertheless been allowed to recur. “I would like to know what the control is so it doesn’t happen a fourth time,” he said.
Mr Bircher agreed the risk register should be updated with new mitigation but declined to bring a separate report back to the committee.
Mr McCormick noted that the Council described its approach as “treat” while both the inherent and residual property risk remained at 12. He asked what active measures had been taken to prevent commercial tenants defaulting. That question was also taken away for a later response.
ICT and other services off target
The Council’s 2024/25 ICT roadmap, originally due for completion in March 2025, remains off track. Its IT service-interruption risk remains high, with ageing components and dependence on outside suppliers identified as continuing threats.
Although new firewalls had been installed and other network work was progressing, Mr McCormick asked why the cyber-security response-plan review had slipped to September 2026 and whether investment might become redundant when systems were combined under the new unitary council.
Other significantly off-target indicators included long-term sickness absence and the proportion of parking penalty appeals answered within ten working days, which had fallen from 100% to 63%.
Mr Bircher said parking staff were diverted at the financial year-end to time-critical work such as permit and garden-waste renewals. The Council had chosen not to fund temporary extra capacity, although its response times remained better than the statutory requirement.
“When someone is accountable, they do not”
Many detailed questions were left unanswered because the heads of the relevant services were not at the meeting.
Mr McCormick asked how councillors and the public could be assured that written answers would subsequently be provided and published. Mr Bircher said it would be disproportionate to require every head of service to attend in case a question arose and that Democratic Services had a good record of recording questions and obtaining later answers.
Cllr Coley contrasted the attendance with a Strategy and Resources meeting two days earlier, at which the Chief Executive, Section 151 Officer, Monitoring Officer and senior property officers were present.
“The public and members might get the impression that when somebody wants something, everyone shows up, and when someone’s accountable, they do not,” he said.
The committee noted the performance and risk report.
Epsom and Ewell Borough Council’s Audit and Scrutiny Committee has formally concluded that the process used for the confidential £500K Rainbow Leisure Centre urgent decision did not follow the Council’s stated procedure and was not justified by the information presented to councillors.
The finding came at the end of a lengthy and at times heated debate on Thursday 16 July over Urgent Decision 158, which was signed off by Cllr Neil Dallen (RA Town) as chair of the Strategy and Resources Committee, in December 2025 without first obtaining the approval of his Committee.
Councillor Chris Ames (Labour Court) proposed that the committee record:
“The process followed for Urgent Decision 158 did not follow the correct stated procedure and was not justified according to the information put before this committee.”
The proposal was carried.
The committee separately backed a recommendation from Councillor Alex Coley (Independent Ruxley) that, where a matter of significance is known about in advance — such as proposed expenditure exceeding £50,000 or a change to the Council’s constitution — the first action should be to schedule a committee meeting.
As Audit and Scrutiny cannot itself alter the constitution, the proposal is expected to go to the Standards and Constitution Committee.
Months of warning or sudden urgency?
The Council’s report stated that a decision was needed by 17 December to progress negotiations with the new Rainbow Leisure Centre operator. The next scheduled Strategy and Resources Committee meeting was not until 27 January 2026.
Officers said that failure to resolve the matter could have caused the contract to collapse, leading to the loss of management fees, a need to retender, the Council having to maintain the centre without an operator and uncertainty for staff.
However, the Council’s constitutional test is not simply whether a decision is required before the next scheduled committee meeting. An urgent decision may be used only where delay would seriously prejudice the Council or public interest and it is not practicable to convene a quorate meeting in time.
Cllr Ames said the same problem could be seen in the explanations given for several other urgent decisions.
“The next scheduled meeting is irrelevant,” he said. “What matters is: could a quorate meeting of the relevant decision-making body be brought forward to take this decision?”
Assistant Director of Corporate Services Andrew Bircher acknowledged that some of the explanations in the annual report did not fully reflect the constitutional test.
“It would be better on this report had we been able to identify that,” he said, adding that future reports would set out the position more clearly.
Cllr Coley said the Rainbow difficulties had been apparent months before UD158 was signed and that there had been ample opportunity to arrange a special committee meeting.
He described what had happened instead as “sofa-style governance”, with discussions taking place among senior officers, lead councillors and the Residents’ Association group before opposition councillors were informed.
“The process here is a committee meeting should have been organised,” he said. “Instead, what happened was a lot of talking behind closed doors.”
He said RA councillors had been shown the issue in early December, approximately four weeks before opposition councillors were given access to it.
Cllr Ames said the timetable appeared to have been “artificially managed” to create urgency and avoid a committee decision.
Chair Cllr Steve Bridger (RA Stamford) repeatedly attempted to restrict discussion to the decision-making process rather than the underlying Rainbow dispute. He also said the officers needed to answer many of the questions were not present and asked members to submit further questions in writing.
Cllr Ames sought a commitment that the answers would be published, arguing that otherwise residents might conclude that the Council was trying to avoid explaining what had happened to public money.
Who decided the document was exempt?
A second dispute concerned who decided that UD158 and its contents should be withheld from the public.
The committee report stated that Chief Executive Jackie King, acting as the Council’s “proper officer”, had made the exemption decision after considering its commercial sensitivity.
Cllr Ames repeatedly asked whether there was any contemporaneous written record of that decision or of the required balancing of the public interest in secrecy against disclosure.
Mr Bircher said the Chief Executive had confirmed by email that she authorised the exempt treatment and that the matter had been discussed at meetings of the Strategic Leadership Team.
He acknowledged that there was no separate record in the leadership team’s meeting notes, but said the Chief Executive had agreed that future exemption decisions would be evidenced on the relevant committee report or urgent decision form.
The Council’s legal adviser, Deborah Davis, said the exemption decision did not necessarily have to be recorded in writing. Someone did, however, need to have made the decision after considering both the relevant legal exemption and the public-interest test. Recording the decision and naming the proper officer would be good practice, she said.
Cllr Coley told the committee that, at a group leaders’ meeting in early January, the Chief Executive had said she had been on leave and that Deputy Chief Executive Vicky Potts had prepared and signed the urgent decision.
He questioned when the Chief Executive had subsequently decided that the document should be exempt and whether an exemption could properly be applied retrospectively.
Mr Bircher responded that the Chief Executive had been aware of the circumstances through leadership team discussions and was satisfied that the matter should be treated as commercially sensitive.
Ms Davis advised that leaked information does not automatically cease to be exempt. The Council could continue to treat it as confidential until an authorised decision was made that disclosure was now in the public interest.
£500,000 Rainbow background
Epsom and Ewell Times has previously reported that the confidential urgent decision approved by Cllr Neil Dallen (RA Town) authorised access to Council reserves of up to £500,000 in connection with disputed dilapidations discovered during the change of leisure centre operator.
Former operator GLL has said it was unaware of any legal claim and handed the building back in the condition required by its agreement. The Council has acknowledged that it holds no record of routine landlord inspections over the operator’s lengthy tenure.
UD158 has therefore become central not only to the financial dispute but also to questions over how the Council monitored one of its largest public assets and why councillors and residents were given so little contemporaneous information.
A written public statement read at the start of Thursday’s meeting accused the Council of six months of “procedural silence” and urged the committee to demand answers over whether defects had been concealed, missed by consultants or allowed to develop through a failure of landlord oversight.
Despite the Audit and Scrutiny committee’s investigation and debate on the Urgent Decision on the Rainbow Leisure Centre the public are still in the dark about how the dilapidations estimate (if accurate) arose in the first place.
Wider transparency failures
The Rainbow discussion was not the meeting’s only dispute over withheld information.
At the beginning of proceedings, Cllr Ames challenged an exempt internal-audit appendix because the agenda did not state that the public-interest test had been applied.
Ms Davis agreed that such a statement should have appeared. Mr Bircher apologised for the omission, and the restricted appendix was withdrawn because neither the Chief Executive nor Monitoring Officer was present to confirm the exemption decision.
Cllr Ames noted that he had raised exactly the same problem four months earlier.
The committee later amended the Council’s Annual Governance Statement to recognise the “urgent need” to deliver a previous Full Council resolution establishing a process for publishing urgent decisions.
Cllr Coley said the Council had reduced its use of urgent decisions from 22 in the previous reporting year to six, but that uploading six decision forms should not present an insurmountable resource problem.
“We have agreed it is going to be delivered,” he said. “The decision is to do it, not to investigate it.”
Nearly £4.92 million of infrastructure and community-project funding has been approved by Epsom and Ewell Borough Council despite a resident’s detailed appeal for the decision—or at least funding for a new Hogsmill footbridge—to be deferred.
The Strategy and Resources Committee approved five strategic Community Infrastructure Levy projects and eight neighbourhood schemes by six votes to one abstention at its meeting on Tuesday 14th July.
CIL is money raised from property development and intended to provide infrastructure required to support growth. The Council had approximately £5.04 million of unallocated strategic CIL and £1.13 million of unallocated neighbourhood CIL available at the beginning of the process.
The projects funded
The strategic allocations were:
£1 million for the Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan, conditional upon at least £1 million in match funding;
£114,000 for earth bunding and green-infrastructure work at ten open-space sites vulnerable to unauthorised vehicle access;
£144,000 for a new footbridge across the Hogsmill River;
£1 million for initial community sports infrastructure at Hook Road Arena, conditional upon at least £1 million match funding; and
£2 million for Ewell Village public-realm improvements.
The neighbourhood awards included improvements to Ebbisham Sports and Social Club; tennis and pickleball courts at Poole Road and Gibraltar Recreation Ground; play equipment at St Martin’s School; a Scout tomahawk range; modernisation of the Epsom Beekeepers’ classroom; the Glyn Hall replacement project; and the final phase of a Scout headquarters redevelopment.
A correction made during the meeting reduced the published neighbourhood total from £668,871 to £660,911. Together with the £4.258 million strategic allocation, the corrected package amounted to £4,918,911.
The Council stressed that funding would ordinarily be released only after projects had been completed and that applicants remained responsible for obtaining planning permission, landowner approval and other necessary consents.
Stovell asks councillors to wait
Resident Kristy Stovell had sent councillors and Epsom and Ewell Times an eight-page evidence review before the meeting.
Her primary request was for the whole CIL item to be deferred until the next ordinary committee meeting. As a minimum, she asked councillors to remove the £144,000 Hogsmill bridge allocation from the package pending publication of further information.
Her analysis did not allege that every scheme was unsuitable. Instead, it argued that councillors were being asked to approve almost £4.93 million without complete applications, comparable cost plans, individual scoring, supporting assessments or CIL Working Group records being publicly available in one accessible place.
She noted that all five strategic schemes had been classified as “essential but not time critical”, which she argued allowed time for a short deferment.
Among the concerns raised were the absence from the public pack of full applications and supporting evidence; a lack of published Working Group papers and minutes; inconsistent identification of applicants; incomplete financial comparisons; and reports recording no equality, environmental, safeguarding or crime-and-disorder implications for projects that included a river crossing, earthworks, highways schemes, school play equipment and a Scout tomahawk range.
She asked for the full applications, detailed project costs, previous awards, match funding, Stage One assessments, point-by-point Stage Two scores and Working Group attendance, voting and declarations to be published before a final decision.
Bridge evidence questioned
Ms Stovell’s three-minute public statement concentrated on the proposed Hogsmill footbridge.
She said: “I am not opposing accessibility or the principle of providing safe and inclusive routes. I am asking the committee not to approve a substantial award before the proposal’s financial, environmental, accessibility and delivery evidence has been published and properly examined.”
She said the public documents did not clearly identify the applicant, the precise bridge location, a completed design, the full project cost or the additional design and planning funding required.
She also questioned whether the published material demonstrated a continuous accessible route for wheelchair and mobility-scooter users.
“The project was assessed as essential but not time critical,” she said. “There is therefore no demonstrated need to approve it tonight before the missing information has been supplied.”
She asked councillors to decline the recommendation or defer it until the location, design, complete costs, dependencies, environmental effects and whole-route accessibility had been evidenced and published.
Her longer review noted that the bridge application had been submitted before the Environment Committee selected a bridge option on 30th June. It also questioned the absence of an exact location plan, completed design, environmental and hydrological evidence, and clear maintenance and liability arrangements.
Members asked to trust the Working Group
In the Chair, Cllr Hannah Dalton (RA Stoneleigh) told the committee that it was the final CIL funding round and warned: “If we remove this item, we also lose the funding.”
She said councillors had appointed a cross-party Working Group to examine the applications and “there’s got to be some trust that our colleagues took the time to go through that detail”.
An officer said the Working Group had access to the full bids and supporting information and held four meetings during June to undertake the Stage Two assessments.
Councillor Steve McCormick (Conservative Woodcote and Langley) asked where the minutes of those meetings were and whether members could review them. The officer replied that the scores and decision-making were recorded in what he described as a comprehensive spreadsheet.
Councillor Kate Chinn (Labour Court) said that although councillors were being asked to trust the Working Group, it would have been helpful to see more detail, including the locations of the ten sites covered by the £114,000 green-infrastructure bid.
She also questioned why neighbourhood bids could fail where planning permission was missing while the strategic bridge bid could proceed without permission.
An officer explained that the adopted protocol did not require strategic applicants to have all permissions in place at the application stage, although no project could begin and no money would be released without the necessary approvals.
“A rock and a stepping stone”
The committee also wrestled with whether the proposed footbridge was intended to replace the existing stepping stones.
The published project description stated that the bridge would “replace unsafe stepping stones”. Yet Cllr Dalton said at the meeting that the two issues should be treated separately and proposed removing those words.
Councillor James Lawrence (Independent College) pointed out that the Environment Committee had acknowledged that the Environment Agency would remove the stones and had approved a new bridge as an alternative crossing.
“That reads like ‘replace’ to me,” he said.
Councillor Phil Neale (RA Cuddington) said the Working Group had considered only the bridge but had found itself “between a rock and a hard place—or a rock and a stepping stone”.
He strongly supported the bridge, while suggesting that if the Environment Agency removed the stones, campaigners might put new ones back.
Chief Executive Jackie King clarified that the Environment Agency owned the riverbed and banks but apparently not the stepping stones themselves. Their ownership—and therefore liability—remained uncertain.
She said members had responded to the strength of public feeling by separating construction of the bridge from decisions about the stones.
The committee amended the description to read: “Construction of a new footbridge across the Hogsmill River, providing a safer, more inclusive river crossing.” The words saying it would replace the stones were deleted.
The £144,000 figure was also clarified as including a 20 per cent contingency on an estimated £120,000 construction cost.
Questions over Surrey funding
Several councillors questioned how much Surrey County Council was contributing to the larger schemes.
Councillor John Beckett (RA Auroil) said the Council was being asked to fund £1 million towards cycling and walking infrastructure even though highways were a county responsibility.
He said Surrey appeared not to have “any skin in the game”, although officers explained that Surrey had funded much of an earlier phase and that the Epsom and Ewell contribution was intended to unlock funding from bodies such as Active Travel England.
On the £2 million Ewell Village scheme, Cllr Beckett described Surrey’s approach as presenting the borough with “this kind of fait accompli”.
Officers said Surrey had already spent money progressing the design, while rising material costs had increased the sum required.
Funding approved
No councillor formally moved Ms Stovell’s requested deferment, either for the full package or for the Hogsmill bridge alone.
The committee approved all thirteen recommended awards by six votes to one abstention, subject to the revised bridge wording and corrections to the published figures.
The decision commits the CIL money to the projects, but applicants will still have to secure the relevant permissions and deliver their schemes before receiving payment. The new East Surrey authority will assume responsibility for administering and monitoring CIL expenditure from April 2027.
