The leader of “doomed” Surrey County Council will write to the Government asking for the May 2025 elections to be postponed and Woking’s debt cancelled as part of devolution measures to merge the county’s councils. The moves are said to allow the council the time to draft proposals for how the county and its 11 boroughs and districts will be dissolved and reborn as potentially a single authority with a directly elected mayor. Other plans could see the county split in two or three smaller unitary authorities in one of the biggest shake-ups in a generation.

In December, the Government placed councils on short notice over devolution plans, giving those who want to get on board until March to submit interim merger proposals. Those who do not will have their devolution plans dictated to them by Downing Street. To give councils time to reorganise, the Government also said it would consider passing legislation postponing the May 2025 elections until next year. On Wednesday, January 8, Surrey County Council confirmed it would pursue the Government’s offer, with conditions.

The move to push back elections, however, was disputed in the chamber with councillors calling it undemocratic, while the leaders of the 11 boroughs and districts have also called for the May polls to go ahead. Councillor Paul Follows, leader of the opposition, told the meeting the boroughs and districts made it very clear local government reform was necessary – but that it could be done alongside the democratic process. He said: “We accept and broadly agree that some unitary council combination would make sense for a variety of reasons but we believe that the pace, the haste, and the lack of plans should not just be folly but a clear threat to services our residents need, and we do not accept that elections must be cancelled.

“The Government aren’t asking us or making us cancel elections. The deputy prime minister confirmed in an interview [on Wednesday morning] that councils are not being asked this way.” He added: “The timetable is going to remain as is and the work is going to happen and we can do everything that the leader is proposing to do while holding the scheduled elections. The leader has argued that leaping in here brings benefits but nobody has outlined what they are and honestly whatever they are, unless they include defined government interventions on debt and adult social care, nothing is worth taking that leap because then any successor authority will be immediately in serious troubles.”

He would also raise concerns that without clear guidelines and financial support, scenarios where playing fields in Godalming could be sold off to pay debts in Woking could emerge. The ruling Conservative group, however, dismissed demands to keep the election saying it would not only cost millions – estimated at about £2.48m – but also elect a “zombie” body that would be dissolved in just a year’s time.

Councillor John O’Reilly (Conservative; Surrey) said: “This council is doomed. This council will not survive and the 11 boroughs and districts will also not survive. So we are talking about a new structure and framework and for those saying the election to go ahead, it is quite clear, the minister’s letter has said that those authorities where elections do go ahead, they have still got to provide submissions by autumn, leaving only a few months. So what is going to happen if we have elections? It will essentially be a zombie council in the twilight, lurching through its own oblivion maybe only a year or so later when elections will take place for the new authorities.”

Councils have until March to submit interim devolution proposals with final drafts delivered by either May or the Autumn. The council has said it will work with “all stakeholders” over the next eight weeks in drawing up plans, including residents, as well as taking feedback from police, fire and rescue, and health services. The Government states it wants new councils to have a minimum of 500,000 residents meaning it is most likely Surrey would become either a single mega authority or split in two – with a directly elected mayor.

Some councillors raised a preference to create three bodies. Councillor Tim Oliver did not rule out expanding beyond the Surrey border to create a regional authority but hoped that all parties could come to an agreement. He said: “We propose to make it clear that the Government will be asked to deal with the debt partially, Woking that is publicly known and crystallised, but there are other levels of significant debt across the county.” He said it was better to get in early to create some leverage over the debt position rather than be handed down a Government dictate.

He said: “Work will start on Friday – officers are putting together the working groups needed. This will be exceptionally time consuming. Not only will it need collaboration between the boroughs and districts, but this council will need to have an input into the proposals. We may go with more than one proposal, one from this council and one from the boroughs and districts.”

The county council leader will now write to the Government setting out that Surrey wishes to be part of the accelerated devolution program and that it would support any new legislation postponing the May 2025 elections until next year.

Related reports:

All change! Epsom and Ewell Borough Council approaching its final stop?

Surrey’s Conservative leader wants to postpone May’s poll reckoning

Tiers to be shed if Epsom and Ewell loses its Borough Council?

The latest Heritage at Risk Register, published by Historic England in November 2024, has cast a shadow over the state of heritage conservation in Epsom and Ewell. Two conservation areas—Epsom Town Centre Conservation Area and the Horton Conservation Area—have been flagged as being in poor condition, with a concerning trend of deterioration. While both areas are deemed to have “low vulnerability,” this designation should not obscure the urgency of their plight.

The condition of these heritage assets is not only a reflection of their physical state but also an indicator of broader systemic issues. Without proactive measures, Epsom risks losing significant elements of its historical character.

Decoding the Heritage Assessment

Historic England evaluates heritage assets based on three criteria: Condition, Vulnerability, and Trend:

• Condition: The physical state of the asset, ranging from “very good” to “very bad.” For both Epsom Town Centre and Horton Conservation Areas, the classification of “poor” signals pressing maintenance and repair needs.
• Vulnerability: The extent to which external factors, such as funding shortages or development pressures, threaten the asset.
• Trend: Whether the asset’s condition is improving, stable, or deteriorating. Both conservation areas are assessed as experiencing a deteriorating trend.

While “low vulnerability” suggests no immediate threats, the deteriorating condition of these areas calls for decisive intervention to reverse the decline.

Epsom Town Centre Conservation Area: A Historic Hub in Decline

Epsom Town Centre is more than a commercial centre; it is the beating heart of the borough’s identity. Its 39 listed buildings include the Spread Eagle Hotel and historic structures on Wheelers Lane. Each of these buildings tells a story of Epsom’s rich past, from its heyday as a 17th-century spa town to its enduring role as the home of the Epsom Derby.

The “poor” condition and “deteriorating” trend of the conservation area suggest neglect and insufficient maintenance. While some buildings remain privately owned, the broader conservation area’s status is a public concern that requires collective action.

Horton Conservation Area: A Legacy of Victorian Innovation

The Horton Conservation Area, part of Epsom’s celebrated “hospital cluster,” was established to protect the architectural and historical significance of the Victorian psychiatric asylum buildings. One notable structure, the Horton Chapel, was recently restored and reopened as the Horton Arts Centre. While this transformation is a success story, Historic England’s continued classification of the area as “poor” indicates unresolved challenges.

Epsom and Ewell Borough Council: Highlighting Achievements

Councillor Peter O’Donovan, (RA Ewell Court) Chair of Licensing & Planning Policy, defended the Council’s track record in heritage conservation. He highlighted the Council’s restoration of the Epsom Clocktower in 2019 and its role in transforming Horton Chapel.

Regarding the Town Centre Conservation Area, O’Donovan noted that the Council has implemented policies to guide development, enforce planning regulations, and enhance the appearance of shopfronts and buildings. The recently published Town Centre Masterplan prioritises a “context-led design approach,” aiming to balance new development with the conservation of historic features.

“Our local heritage is integral to our unique character,” said O’Donovan. “The Council works in a range of ways to protect the borough’s heritage and conservation areas.”

You can read Cllr O’Donovan’s full response HERE.

Councillor Kieran Persand: A Call for Stronger Action

Conservative Councillor Kieran Persand, representing Horton Ward, painted a more critical picture. He expressed concerns about the lack of a robust repair and maintenance programme for heritage sites, particularly in the Horton area.

Persand also raised alarm over the Council’s draft Local Plan, which proposes development on Horton Farm, a high-performing Green Belt site. “The vulnerability of these conservation areas is increasing significantly,” Persand warned. “Epsom is at risk of losing its identity as a beautiful and historic location through inappropriate development and poor maintenance.”

The Bigger Picture: Heritage and Development

Epsom’s heritage is inextricably linked to its future development. While the Council has emphasised its commitment to protecting conservation areas, critics argue that its actions often fall short of its rhetoric. The inclusion of Horton Farm in the draft Local Plan has drawn widespread opposition, with residents and conservation advocates fearing irreversible harm to the borough’s historic character.

Historic England’s findings underscore the importance of balancing development pressures with heritage conservation. The “poor” condition of Epsom’s conservation areas should serve as a wake-up call to prioritise long-term preservation efforts.

Community and Stakeholder Engagement

Preserving Epsom’s heritage requires a collaborative approach involving local authorities, property owners, and the community. Practical steps could include:

• Increased Funding: Securing additional resources for maintenance and restoration.
• Community Initiatives: Encouraging residents to take pride in and advocate for their local heritage.
• Education and Awareness: Promoting understanding of the value of conservation areas.
• Stronger Enforcement: Ensuring compliance with planning regulations and conservation policies.

The Path Forward

Historic England’s report is both a challenge and an opportunity. While the condition of Epsom’s conservation areas is concerning, it is not too late to act. Proactive measures, guided by a shared commitment to preserving the borough’s heritage, can reverse the trend of deterioration and secure Epsom’s identity for future generations.

As the debate continues, the question remains: will Epsom rise to the challenge, or will it allow its treasures to fade into obscurity?

Map of many of the listed buildings in Epsom Town Conservation Area: © Crown copyright [and database rights] 2025. OS AC0000815036. | © Historic England | © Crown Copyright 2024. Released under OGL. | © Crown Copyright 2024. Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2024. Released under OGL.

Councillor Peter O’Donovan, (RA Ewell Court Ward) Chair of the Licensing & Planning Policy Committee

Epsom & Ewell first came to prominence as a destination town in the early seventeenth century with the discovery of Epsom Salts within the borough. Visitors came from London and further afield to ‘take the waters’. Epsom became known to merchants and royal visitors alike as a place of relaxation, sport and leisure, perhaps most famous even now as being the home of the Epsom Derby. The town was first granted Market Town status by Royal Charter in 1865, and Epsom market has been a defining focal point for the bustling town for hundreds of years, watched over by the historic landmark Epsom clocktower which is owned by Epsom & Ewell Borough Council and restored in 2019.

Our local heritage is integral to our unique local character. Across the borough there are around 300 buildings listed on the National Heritage List including Bourne Hall in Ewell, listed for its “striking design, …space-age flair and the generous, top-lit principal interior space”, Ewell Court House, a little altered Grade II late Victorian house built in the Jacobean style with wonderful period plasterwork and joinery, set in beautiful grounds with flowerbeds, walks and lake: and the Grade II* listed Assembly Rooms in Epsom which are the earliest known surviving building of this type in England.

There are 21 designated Conservation Areas in the borough. For each of these areas of special architectural or historic interest the council publishes an outline of the area’s special interest and proposals for its preservation and enhancement, which can be found here: Conservation Areas | Epsom and Ewell Borough Council.

Horton Conservation Area

Horton conservation area isone of a group of conservation areas put in place to protect the Victorian psychiatric asylum buildings in Epsom, which became redundant in the 1990s. Horton chapel is a grade II listed building which opened in 1901 as a place of worship for the patients and staff in the surrounding hospital buildings. It was empty and in a state of disrepair for many years, but was recently restored and reopened as the Horton Arts Centre, using funding from the National Lottery Heritage Fund and several other funds, including £1.46m (s106 developers’ funds) allocated by Epsom & Ewell Borough Council.

This is an example of heritage that was at risk of dilapidation, but for which a vibrant new use has been found. Historic England have been asked to remove the entry from their Heritage At Risk Register as the building and area are no longer at risk.

Epsom Town Centre Conservation Area

Epsom Town Centre Conservation Area extends from South Street and West Street, along the High Street, and along part of Upper High Street at the eastern end. The architecture of the area represents the history of the town centre and its development from a spa town in the 17th century to the present day with many interesting historic buildings, some of which are listed, and all of which are protected by their conservation area status.

Historic buildings are mainly owned by private owners, so controls are set by the government and the council to ensure that they are conserved in a manner that will ensure their survival and enjoyment for present and future generations.

• To protect the conservation area, listed buildings in Epsom town centre must apply for Listed Building Consent for alterations (including internal alterations) and other buildings must apply for planning permission for external alterations.
• To help owners and businesses understand the historic character of the conservation area, the council has also produced a conservation area appraisal, which sets out the important historic features and buildings that should be looked after to protect the character of the conservation area.
• The council has recently published its Town Centre Masterplan which aims to compliment and protect the Town Centre conservation area. The first principle of the plan is to adopt “a context-led design approach to guide the development, regeneration and repair of the town centre. Having particular regard to the impact of building heights, building design, materials and land uses will ensure new development contributes to an improvement in the quality of the town centre.”  
• The council is also working to improve the appearance of the area by controlling development and seeking to improve the appearance of the buildings and shopfronts, as well as taking enforcement action where unauthorised works have taken place. Those considering making changes to their buildings are advised to seek advice from the planning service before undertaking the works. The council runs a pre-application advice scheme that can be used to find out whether changes might or might not be acceptable prior to making an application.

As these measures demonstrate, the council works in range of ways that are within its control to protect the borough’s local heritage and conservation areas.

In 2023, Epsom & Ewell Borough Council participated in a Local Heritage List Project with Surrey County Council, funded by the government’s ‘Build Back Better’ initiative in association with Historic England. We are in the process of finalising the assets on our local heritage list in 2024/25 following consultation. The list will include those assets most valued by our local communities.

You can find out if a building is statutorily listed, locally listed or in a conservation area  by using our online mapping system.”

Further information:

https://historicengland.org.uk/advice/heritage-at-risk

https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1232459?section=official-list-entry

https://www.epsom-ewell.gov.uk/conservation-areas (opens the Hospital Cluster Conservation Area Appraisal)

Hospital Cluster – Introduction

https://www.epsom-ewell.gov.uk/conservation-areas

Surrey is changing “whether we like it” or not and county council leader Tim Oliver says it’s better to be at the forefront of that change.

The Government wants to introduce new mayoral authorities across the country in a bid to streamline councils and shift power away from Westminster.

For Surrey, that means scrapping the 11 boroughs and districts as well as the county council, and replacing them with either a single, or what seems more likely, two authorities with a Strategic Mayor.

The question is how will it be done? The answer; it will either be imposed on Surrey, or the councils can create their own plans to merge under devolved powers.

County Council leader, Councillor Tim Oliver, favours playing a central role, arguing that change is inevitable, and it’s best to be part of the conversation in order to shape the future, rather than sit on the sidelines waiting to be told what to do.

The Government wrote to the county council in December outlining how it planned to “transfer power out of Westminster through devolution and to fix the foundations of local government.” It wants a simpler structure that is “clearer for residents” and said it would even pass new laws to postpone the May 2025 elections “to help manage” the once in a lifetime opportunity to restructure.

Writing to Surrey, Jim McMahon, minister of state for local government and English devolution, said: “We are under no illusion about the scale of issues facing local government. It is in all our interests to make sure we are avoiding unnecessary spend at a time when budgets are already tight.”

He added: “I have heard from some areas that the timing of elections affects their planning for devolution, particularly alongside reorganisation. To help manage these demands, alongside our objectives on devolution, and subject to meeting the timetable outlined in this letter, I am minded-to lay secondary legislation to postpone local council elections from May 2025 to May 2026. However, I will only do this where this will help the area to deliver both reorganisation and devolution to the most ambitious timeframe – either through the Devolution Priority Programme or where reorganisation is necessary to unlock devolution or open up new devolution options.”

Cllr Tim Oliver is already minded to take up the offer of pushing back the elections for a year to get devolution done. Holding the elections this year would cost about £1million, he says, and would take time away from officers already working to a tight five-month deadline to get devolution over the line.

“The Labour Government has set up their agenda in the white paper and that is to create Mayoral Strategic Authority (MSA) across England. They have a strong majority and we can assume they will pass the legislation,” Cllr Oliver said. “If you don’t reach an agreement locally, then they will legislate. It’s going to happen. It’s better that we try to control or have some influence over what happens rather than have it imposed on us down the line.”

“The primary focus should be ‘what is in the best interests of the residents of Surrey?’ Whether we like the model or not it is going to happen in Surrey and the reason for getting in early as we are, is that we are slightly unique here in that there are councils in Surrey that have significant debt levels.”

This, he says, gives the Government a huge stick, to push councils to get on board. Councils such as Woking are bankrupt and need Government intervention. Merging the councils would pile its £2billion debt on to others.

Similarly, though not bankrupt, Spelthorne Borough Council has debts of more than a billion and Runnymede has debts of more than £600m. Surrey County Council, albeit with significantly larger spending power as a top tier authority, is also heavily indebted.

Cllr Oliver said: “The longer we leave it, the less likely we will get any support from the Government. That’s what’s driving me.”

Historically, Surrey councils have not benefited as greatly as other local authorities from Government funding reviews and have to raise more money locally. Areas that can raise taxes will continue to be required to. Removing tiers of local government will be an efficiency driver and help stave off service cuts, or lead to more investment.

He said: “We have to divide up the county to create a minimum of two strategic authorities, and then we get a mayor. If we don’t get on with that reorganisation, we will be years away from the benefits of a mayor, compounded with almost certainly reduced funding to Surrey councils.”

Papers published ahead of the January 10 deadline to respond suggest the council leader will take up the Government’s offer to hold off on this year’s elections “to give time to consult.”

Cllr Oliver said: “If we go ahead with elections in May, and I’m fine with that, I wasn’t going to run again. But, ignoring who wins, you end up with an election in May that will cost over a million pounds, which they do, and then you will have a bunch of new councillors who have to find their feet, only to be out in two years when the council disappears. The next five months should be about the negotiation with the Government about what the future looks like.”

“Every political party, and all the existing councillors who know the county better, will have the opportunity to input. I can’t see what the Liberals, if they got a majority, would do differently? This way, we will get a bit of goodwill from the Labour Government by engaging with them now.”

“Hampshire, Essex, and Hertfordshire are already getting on with their own plans for devolution, and if Surrey County Council just puts its head in the sand and gets on with the elections we will miss the opportunity to have the conversation with the Government about the debt levels.”

“We’ve got five months to consider it, the key thing is to do an intensive piece of work now. We’re not at the point where we’ve had the conversation about how it’s split, but we’ve got five months to do this either the Government’s way or our way. Yes, the timetable is much shorter than anybody would want particularly putting a letter in by January 10 but we have to respect the fact that this Government has an agenda and it can deliver because it has the mandate.”

Later this month the Government will set out which areas will be included in its Devolution Priority Programme with a view to inaugural mayoral elections in May 2026. They are looking at creating new unitary councils with populations of 500,000 or more. Surrey has a population of about 1.2 million. Exceptions will be made to ensure new structures make sense for an area.

An extraordinary meeting of Surrey County Council is set to go ahead on Wednesday January 8 where the council will be “asked to note” that the leader intends to express interest in pursuing devolution and local government reorganisation.

Related reports:

Surrey’s Conservative leader wants to postpone May’s poll reckoning

Tiers to be shed if Epsom and Ewell loses its Borough Council?

Tim Oliver Surrey County Council leader – Surrey Live

The ongoing debate surrounding Epsom & Ewell Borough Council’s Proposed Submission Local Plan has escalated as the Epsom and Ewell Times publishes two sharply contrasting letters – one from the Epsom Green Belt Group (EGBG) and the other a formal response from the Council itself. At the heart of the dispute lies the proposed development of Green Belt land, the availability of affordable housing, and the transparency of the consultation process.

Epsom Green Belt Group: A Call for Change

The Epsom Green Belt Group’s letter criticises the Council for failing to heed public sentiment and expert advice during the Regulation 18 consultation earlier this year. Despite overwhelming opposition to the proposed release of over 175 hectares (around 12%) of the borough’s Green Belt, the Council has pressed ahead with plans that include development on high-performing sites such as Horton Farm and Hook Road Arena.

The EGBG highlights a key inconsistency: while the Council advised neighbouring Sutton Borough in September 2024 that they were under no obligation to review Green Belt boundaries, they have not followed this guidance themselves. Furthermore, the EGBG argues that prioritising brownfield and ‘grey belt’ land, as outlined in the updated National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) of December 2024, has been neglected.

The group also casts doubt on the Council’s promises of ‘affordable housing,’ pointing out that discounts on market prices still place homes out of reach for many. Flats on brownfield sites, they argue, offer a more viable path to genuinely affordable housing.

A looming concern raised by the EGBG is the likelihood of the Local Plan being deemed unsound by the Planning Inspectorate. They warn that if the plan proceeds in its current form, it could pave the way for further Green Belt loss.

Read the full Epsom Green Belt Group letter here.

Council’s Response: Balancing Competing Priorities

In their formal response, Epsom & Ewell Borough Council defends the Proposed Submission Local Plan, arguing that it strikes a necessary balance between meeting housing needs and protecting the borough’s environment.

The Council acknowledges the high demand for affordable housing, with over 1,350 households on the housing register. They stress that their policies reflect both national guidelines and financial viability assessments.

Regarding the consultation process, the Council points out that Regulation 19 is a statutory stage primarily focused on assessing the plan’s legal compliance and soundness. They also address concerns over the timing of the consultation—spanning the Christmas and New Year period—explaining that it was essential to meet the submission deadline of 12 March 2025 under the current NPPF.

On the contentious Green Belt issue, the Council offers specific figures: 52.6 hectares of greenfield Green Belt land (3.36% of the total) and 85 hectares of previously developed Green Belt land (5.44%) are earmarked for development. They maintain that these changes are necessary to meet housing targets while acknowledging the flexibility offered by the NPPF.

The Council concludes by noting that while changes can still be proposed following the consultation, the Planning Inspectorate ultimately determines their validity.

Read the full Epsom & Ewell Borough Council letter here.

Diverging Priorities, Uncertain Outcomes

Both letters reveal deep divisions not only in policy direction but also in trust between the Council and sections of the local community. While the Council presents its plan as a pragmatic response to national housing targets and local affordability issues, the EGBG sees it as a short-sighted and flawed approach.

Key questions remain unanswered:

• Why hasn’t brownfield land been prioritised more explicitly?
• Will the Local Plan survive scrutiny by the Planning Inspectorate?
• Are the proposed ‘affordable homes’ truly affordable for local residents?

The coming weeks will be crucial as the consultation progresses and residents have their final opportunity to submit their views. One thing is clear: the future of Epsom’s Green Belt hangs in the balance, and both sides are prepared to stand their ground.

Residents can participate in the consultation process until 5 February 2025 via the Council’s consultation portal.

Related reports:

Can the green light to Epsom’s Green Belt housing turn red?

Council minority vote Local Plan to next stage with Green Belt in

Conflict on Epsom’s Green Belt plans of another kind?

Epsom and Ewell Green Belt battle lines drawing near

and many more. Search “local plan” in search bar.

The leader of Surrey County Council is set to write to the Government calling for the 2025 elections to be postponed in order to allow authorities to focus on merging under devolution plans. In December last year the Government announced its vision to merge councils in Surrey and get rid of its 11 boroughs and districts. There would also be a directly elected mayor.

Councillor Tim Oliver plans to formally ask the government to postpone county elections until May 2026 to give the councils time to “put together proposals for local government reform necessary to unlock further devolution for Surrey.”

Not everyone has welcomed the delay with Surrey Heath Borough Council set to discuss a motion rejecting the county council leader’s proposals and allow the May 2025 poll to go ahead “in the interest of democracy and hearing the resident’s voice.”

Devolution plans are part of sweeping changes to how services are run as Downing Street looks to reshape local government.

Surrey currently operates under a two tier system with the county council overseeing things such as education, transport and fire with the boroughs and districts focused local planning matters, refuse collection and housing.

Devolution would do away with this system and instead create single unitary authorities, arguing it is more cost-effective.

In a draft letter set to be approved at an extraordinary meeting next week, Cllr Oliver writes that he shares the ambitions for boosting the country’s economic prospects and reforms to strengthen the efficiency and effectiveness of public services.

He said it was clear that reforming local government would unlock the full benefits of further devolution for the county.

The letter reads: “The current two-tier structure of local government in Surrey, comprising 12 sovereign local authorities, is fragmented and in a number of areas inefficient which inevitably diverts resources away from delivering the services that residents rightly expect.

“I believe reorganisation would provide more streamlined and cost-effective services for Surrey, enabling us to achieve further efficiencies and deliver better outcomes for our residents and communities.

“Local government reorganisation is a crucial stepping stone to further devolution for Surrey, to enable our communities to take more control of their own destinies.”

Cllr Oliver said the county already delivered more than £50 billion in gross value added every year, but further and deeper devolution could lead to even better returns.

It adds: “I am therefore writing to ask you to exercise your ministerial powers to lay the necessary legislation to postpone the county council elections in Surrey, which are due to take place in May 2025.

This will give us the time to work with the leaders of Surrey’s district and borough councils to put together proposals for local government reform that are necessary to unlock further devolution for Surrey.”

New unitary elections could then take place in 2026, and a mayoral election in 2027.

He argues that the delay would also allow time to determine how to deal with the “significant financial risk of the level of debt currently held across the Surrey local government footprint.”

Woking Borough Council is currently bankrupt with deficit of more than £1billion and debts of about £2billion, while Surrey County Council and Spelthorne Borough Council both have debts of more than £1billion.

Any proposals, Cllr Oliver adds, will need to adequately consider how to ensure the sustainable operation of any authority in the absence of exceptional financial support from the Government or a level of write-off.

Timetable for Devolution 

10 January 2025	Letter submitted to Minister of State requesting election postponement
Before March 2025	Minister’s response to letter received
March 2025	Interim Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) proposal submitted to government
May 2025	Full LGR proposal submitted to government
May – June 2025	Government evaluates proposal(s) received for LGR and makes a decision on whether to proceed on  single proposal, or to consult further on one or more proposals
July 2025	Government consultation with affected bodies on LGR proposal(s)
Autumn 2025	Government decision on LGR anticipated, which begins statutory process to establish new council(s)
January 2026	Parliamentary process begins to lay Statutory Instruments
May 2026	Elections to shadow unitary authority/ies
Spring 2027	New unitary/ies ‘go live’
Spring 2027 or 2028	Mayoral elections and mayoral strategic authority ‘go live’, with the preparations for the establishment of the Mayoral Strategic Authority (MSA) taking place throughout 2026/27, or Surrey joins MSA with neighbours

Related reports:

Tiers to be shed if Epsom and Ewell loses its Borough Council?

Image: Tim Oliver – Leader of Surrey County Council, Woodhatch Place, Cockshot Hill, Reigate. GL

Epsom & Ewell Borough Council has received its provisional financial settlement for 2025/26, and while the figures align with expectations, they highlight ongoing financial pressures on local services. The settlement forms part of the UK Government’s wider local authority funding announcement, which has delivered mixed outcomes across Surrey’s district and borough councils.

Epsom & Ewell’s Settlement Overview

According to the latest figures, Epsom & Ewell’s Core Spending Power for 2025/26 is projected at £10.23 million, equating to £307 per dwelling. This places Epsom & Ewell below several neighbouring boroughs, including Woking (£378 per dwelling) and Elmbridge (£367 per dwelling), but slightly above Waverley (£300 per dwelling).

The Settlement Funding Assessment (SFA), which includes central government grants and retained business rates, stands at £1.63 million. This figure underscores the limited financial flexibility available to the council, particularly given rising costs and increasing service demands.

The Funding Context

The settlement includes a modest contribution from the New Homes Bonus, with Epsom & Ewell receiving only £6,160. This pales in comparison to Runnymede (£774,587) and Guildford (£614,903), reflecting the borough’s slower rate of housing growth.

A Challenging Year Ahead

The provisional settlement aligns with broader trends across Surrey, where councils have been advised to continue delivering “high levels of efficiency” to maintain balanced budgets. Surrey County Council, facing similar pressures, acknowledged the settlement as expected but warned of the continued uncertainty surrounding medium-term funding.

Councillor David Lewis, Surrey County Council’s cabinet member for finance and resources, noted: “Councils across the country continue to face a very challenging financial future. Uncertainty on funding into the medium term, coupled with high prices and increased demand, means high levels of efficiencies continue to be required in order to balance budgets.”

Limited Relief from Government

While councils such as Mole Valley have benefitted from additional Government grants targeting homelessness and recycling services, Epsom & Ewell has not been as fortunate. With no significant uplift in funding and reliance on reserves to bridge financial gaps, the council faces tough decisions in the coming financial year.

Furthermore, the funding floor mechanism has provided limited relief, ensuring that Epsom & Ewell does not see a drastic year-on-year funding drop. However, without long-term certainty or multi-year settlements, financial planning remains a significant challenge.

Looking Forward

As the Government promises to ‘fix the foundations of local government’ from 2026-27 onwards, Epsom & Ewell will need to rely on prudent financial management and creative revenue generation strategies to maintain essential services.

Residents can expect continued fiscal caution from the council as it navigates rising costs, growing demand for services, and ongoing funding uncertainty. The final settlement figures are expected to be confirmed early in the new year, and until then, the council’s budget planners remain in a holding pattern.

Related reports:

Tiers to be shed if Epsom and Ewell loses its Borough Council?

Examination of a Surrey Borough’s 2nd highest UK debt

What cuts to Surrey County Council services are you prepared for?

Mole Valley District Council’s dream of “improving” and “enhancing” Leatherhead has taken a step forward after plans to regenerate Claire House and James House were submitted.

The site is part of the council’s vision for a new riverside area to attract visitors to spend time in the town centre.

The plans, submitted by McCarthy Stone the council’s preferred partner for regeneration, is for 37 one and two-bed retirement homes, a ground floor café and community space.

Developers McCarthy Stone said: “While the development is built around people in their later years this is not a development that offers care as you would find in extra care developments or care homes. 

“Retirement living creates safe and secure environments for homeowners to continue to live an active, independent life and caters for downsizers who are typically selling or vacating their former family home and moving to a smaller apartment. 

“Homeowners are generally the more active elderly rather than those who are in need of care or have more significant issues around mobility.”

McCarthy Stone also plans to improve the car park and landscaping the area to the front of the building. The work is part of the wider Transform Leatherhead project.

Councillor Keira Vyvyan-Robinson, Mole Valley District Council cabinet member for property and projects, said: “The Claire House and James House project aims to create a landmark mixed-use riverside development that will improve the western gateway to the town and enhance the area around the River Mole.

“The application marks the next step towards the regeneration of the area and enhancement of the riverside area, a key project of Transform Leatherhead.

 According to Mole Valley District Council, Leatherhead town centre is being re-invented, expanded and transformed.

It says the overall project, which also includes work on the retail and leisure quarter and Bull Hill, will “fully realise its potential as a distinctive, enterprising and highly regarded market town” adding that the “town’s character, history and environmental setting will be celebrated and complemented by new and revitalised uses.”

Not every aspect of the council’s vision has proven popular however. A petition calling on the authority to reconsider plans to build hundreds of homes in high rise blocks on the popular Bull Hill park gained 1500 signatures.

Some fear the plans will destroy the green gateway into the town, potentially turning it into another Croydon or Woking and causing people to leave.

Relared report:

Leatherhead town on the way up?

Surrey could be split in two as part of sweeping changes to how services are run. Downing Street is looking to reshape local government and has set out a white paper outlining its vision. It wants to do away with two-tier systems of boroughs and counties and instead create single unitary councils. It argues this would not only be more cost-effective but also shift power away from Westminster. If devolution plans for the county go through, Surrey and its 11 boroughs and districts would be no more. The big question is: what replaces it? The most likely answer at the moment appears to be two councils with a directly elected mayor overseeing county-wide issues – these could include policing, fire and rescue, and transport.

The English Devolution White Paper says that new unitary councils “must be the right size to achieve efficiencies, improve capacity and withstand financial shocks. For most areas, this will mean creating councils with a population of 500,000 or more, but there may be exceptions to ensure new structures make sense for an area, including for devolution, and decisions will be on a case-by-case basis.” Surrey has a population of 1.2 million, and a single “mega-council” stretching from Farnham to Oxted, an area larger than Greater London, would simply be too vast, some have argued. This leaves the most likely option of merging the current boroughs of Tandridge, Mole Valley, Reigate & Banstead, and Epsom & Ewell into East Surrey Council, with Woking, Guildford, Spelthorne, Runnymede, Surrey Heath, Waverley, and Elmbridge forming West Surrey Council.

The white paper also argues: “Unitary councils can lead to better outcomes for residents, save significant money which can be reinvested in public services, and improve accountability with fewer politicians who are more able to focus on delivering for residents.” However, opponents argue devolution could push residents further from the decision-making process and only delay funding reforms for local government.

Will Forster, newly elected MP for Woking, expressed his concerns: “I don’t think that having a single mega council is a good idea. Camberley to Oxted is far too large, there are huge differences east to west. It’s too large and remote. A single council would be too vast. That’s not devolution, that’s not empowering people.” Even the idea of a West Surrey Council would create a single area stretching from Haslemere to Staines. He added: “It also ignores the elephant in the room, social care – this seems to be the Government’s way of ignoring that. They want authorities of 500,000 or more. You look at a map, you do the sums. That’s clearly an east and west split. They’ve never divided up a borough or district and you can’t do north or south.”

Other questions would need to be answered as well, such as how the directly elected mayors are held to account. At the county level, the council holds regular meetings to vote on decisions, with scrutiny committees playing a further role. How this would be replicated for a single mayor is yet to be made clear. Councils have been invited to submit proposals to the government in January.

Tim Oliver, leader of Surrey County Council, welcomed the devolution paper and its “bold ambition to empower local communities and councils.” He said: “The government has set out an agenda for change, including potential reorganisation of local government, particularly in two-tier county areas like Surrey. I believe there is general consensus that the current structure – here and elsewhere in the country – is not the most effective. Therefore, we welcome a real examination and review of how local government is organised to make it more efficient and more effective for residents. We intend to work alongside government, and other partners locally, and ensure any change ultimately benefits the people of Surrey.”

Announcing the paper’s publication, Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner stated: “Our manifesto pledged to give everyone access to devolved power. So I will legislate for a new power of ministerial directive – which will allow central government to knock heads together and create strategic authorities when local leaders cannot agree. If we are going to build an economy that works for everyone, we need nothing less than a completely new way of governing – a generational project of determined devolution. Because the Westminster system is part of the problem. Whitehall is full of layers of governance and bureaucracy, controlled and micromanaged from the centre. To truly get growth in every corner of the country and put more money into people’s pockets, we must rewire England and end the hoarding in Whitehall by devolving power and money from central government to those with skin in the game.”

Housing targets in Surrey are set to skyrocket, with some areas expected to deliver double the number of homes under new Government plans. On December 12, the long-awaited update to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published, setting out what councils and developers can and cannot do – leaving boroughs and districts “disappointed” and “deeply concerned.” Across Surrey, the number of new homes expected each year has risen by 4,635 to a total of 10,981, with some areas bearing a significantly heavier load than others.

Worst affected is Elmbridge Borough Council, where housing targets have more than doubled, from 653 to 1,562. This increase comes alongside the prospect of having no local plan, giving developers greater freedom over where and what to build. A spokesperson for Elmbridge Borough Council said they were “reviewing the new NPPF and its implications for Elmbridge’s Local Plan.” The council was told in November that its housing strategy must be withdrawn and restarted or risk being deemed “unsound.” A decision on next steps will be made in February 2025.

Other boroughs facing substantial increases include Waverley, where targets have risen from 710 to 1,481, and Reigate and Banstead, which sees an increase from 644 to 1,306. Woking, the only council to see its figure drop, still faces a significant rise from 436 to 794. These adjustments align largely with July consultation targets. However, Woking residents hoping for a break in town-center skyscraper developments and green belt preservation will be disappointed, as the reduction amounted to just one unit from the earlier proposal.

Housing targets for Surrey boroughs under the new NPPF are as follows:

		Old housing target	New NPPF target	% increase
1	Elmbridge	653	1562	139
2	Surrey Heath	320	684	114
3	Waverley	710	1481	109
4	Reigate & Banstead	644	1306	103
5	Woking	436	794	82
6	Mole Valley	460	833	81
7	Guildford	743	1170	57
8	Epsom & Ewell	569	889	56
9	Tandridge	634	843	33
10	Spelthorne	631	793	26
11	Runnymede	546	626	15
	SURREY	6346	10981	73

Reigate and Banstead Borough Council’s executive member for planning, Councillor Rich Michalowski, described the Government’s decision not to heed their feedback as “disappointing.” He said, “The borough’s housing target in the new NPPF of 1,306 homes per year is nearly three times higher than our current local plan target of 460 and more than double the previous NPPF target of 644 homes. These changes will have severe implications for Reigate and Banstead’s green belt and the character of our towns and villages. The standard methodology for calculating housing is flawed, as it doesn’t account for environmental and infrastructure constraints.” He emphasized the council’s commitment to exploring all urban development options but acknowledged that a Green Belt Review might be unavoidable.

Waverley Borough Council echoed these concerns, particularly regarding the methodology and its impact on green belt. Cllr Liz Townsend, Waverley’s portfolio holder for planning, called the more than two-fold increase “unrealistic and uncalled for.” She noted that the requirement for 1,481 new homes annually is two and a half times the current target and could increase the borough’s population by 50% over 20 years. “There is simply no evidence of this level of demand, nor that building this many homes would make them more affordable,” she said. Cllr Townsend highlighted the borough’s existing issues, including water supply disruptions, sewage overspills, a crumbling rural road network, overstretched health services, and power shortages stalling new developments.

All councils must now face the new reality as their starting points for planning new homes. Each borough will need to demonstrate to Independent Planning Inspectors that they have explored all possible avenues for delivering these targets. This challenge will require balancing housing needs with environmental, infrastructure, and community considerations.

Related reports:

Can Epsom and Ewell get more dense?

The Local Plan plot thickens after revised NPPF

Can the green light to Epsom’s Green Belt housing turn red?

Campaigners have set up a petition against the new targets:

https://www.change.org/p/excessive-targets-for-new-homes-in-surrey

The Government’s revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), published on 12 December, has set ambitious new housing targets, requiring local councils to accelerate their housebuilding efforts. This move coincides with Epsom & Ewell Borough Council (EEBC) updating its Local Development Scheme, which outlines the timetable for the borough’s Local Plan.

Under the updated scheme, EEBC’s Regulation 19 Consultation will take place from 20 December 2024 to 5 February 2025, before the Local Plan is submitted for examination in March 2025. The council aims to complete the public examination by July 2025. The Proposed Submission Local Plan (2022–2040), which Councillors approved on 10 December, is intended to shield the borough from ad hoc developments and ensure sustainable planning decisions.

Councillor Peter O’Donovan, Chair of the Licensing and Planning Policy Committee, emphasised the importance of meeting these deadlines:

“We are determined to meet the Government’s deadlines and will do everything within our power to achieve them. I strongly urge residents and businesses to read and follow the consultation guidance so that their feedback can be sent to the Planning Inspectorate.”

Government Targets: “Builders Not Blockers”

The Government has set a bold target of building 1.5 million homes by 2029, with councils expected to contribute to a new annual quota of 370,000 homes. Prime Minister Keir Starmer highlighted the urgent need for reform, stating:

“For far too long, working people graft hard but are denied the security of owning their own home… Our Plan for Change will overhaul the broken planning system and deliver the homes and growth this country desperately needs.”

Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner added:

“We must all do our bit to tackle the housing crisis. Local councils must adopt plans to meet housing needs, ensuring homes are built alongside the necessary public services and green spaces.”

Key measures in the updated NPPF include:

• Mandatory housing targets for all councils, with increased expectations in high-growth areas.
• A “brownfield-first” approach to prioritise development on previously used land, followed by “grey belt” areas of lower-quality greenbelt land.
• Developers required to meet strict “golden rules” for infrastructure, including affordable housing, GP surgeries, and transport.

Boosting Council Resources

To support these changes, councils will receive an additional £100 million in funding and 300 more planning officers to expedite decisions. The Government is also exploring “brownfield passports” to fast-track urban developments and offering local authorities the option to increase planning fees.

Local Impact and Next Steps

The Regulation 19 Consultation represents the final chance for residents to provide input before the plan is examined by an independent inspector.

To participate in the consultation or register for updates, visit epsom-ewell.inconsult.uk.

With the new planning framework demanding rapid progress, councils across the country face the challenge of balancing ambitious housing targets with preserving the character of their communities. Epsom & Ewell’s ability to meet these demands will serve as a critical test of the Government’s commitment to delivering for “hardworking families” while addressing the nation’s housing crisis.

Related reports and letters:

Can the green light to Epsom’s Green Belt housing turn red?

Council minority vote Local Plan to next stage with Green Belt in

Epsom and Ewell’s Draft Local Plan goes to Full Council

Epsom & Ewell Borough Council has recently installed solar panels on the roof of Bourne Hall, and secured funding from the Public Sector Low Carbon Skills Fund to develop a heat decarbonisation plan for the Ewell Village community venue. These works are part of a planned programme of measures to decarbonise Bourne Hall.

This is part of the council’s Climate Change Action Plan which has set an ambitious target for the council to be carbon neutral by 2035.

Bourne Hall uses the most energy out of all the council’s buildings. The 52.2 kWp solar panel system will generate 45,000 kWh of electricity, covering 25% of Bourne Hall’s electricity usage, and saving more than 9 tonnes of carbon each year. The panels will save Bourne Hall around £15,000 annually in costs which can then be invested back into services for the community.

The Low Carbon Skills Fund is run by the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero and is delivered by Salix.

Funding for the heat decarbonisation plan will enable the council to develop a detailed understanding of the different ways in which energy efficiency of this building can be improved, including decarbonising the heating system.

Windows are also scheduled to be replaced with double glazing next year, part funded by the UK Shared Prosperity Fund.

Bourne Hall is a Grade II listed building, situated in the heart of the historic Ewell Village with Hogsmill River running nearby. Set in a picturesque setting, Bourne Hall has function rooms, facilities and services that the public and businesses can hire including an exhibition space. It also hosts Bourne Hall Museum, and Ewell Library which is run by Surrey County Council.

Councillor Liz Frost, Chair of the Environment Committee said: “We are passionate about our Climate Change Action Plan and take our responsibilities seriously. Changes and initiatives over the last four years has seen the council’s operational carbon footprint reduce by 14% since the council first began to measure it in 2019.

“Bourne Hall is an important hub for our community, and the installation of solar panels and the development of a robust heat decarbonisation plan is just part of a series of works that will make this picturesque and historical landmark more sustainable for future generations and help continue Epsom & Ewell Borough Council’s drive to be carbon neutral by 2035.”

Programme manager at Salix Christopher Masters said: “We are delighted to support Epsom & Ewell Borough Council in its net zero journey. Having a robust heat decarbonisation plan is a very important step in this process.

“We are looking forward to seeing what the plan will come up with and how the council will move forward as it continues to meet the ambitious net zero challenges.”

More information about Climate Change Action Plan progress can be found here – Climate Change | Epsom and Ewell Borough Council (epsom-ewell.gov.uk)

Letters to the Editor

From Tim Murphy of the Surrey Campaign to Protect Rural England

A Dark Day for Epsom and Ewell

Dear Editor,

I write with deep disappointment and dismay at the decision by Epsom & Ewell Borough Council (EEBC) to approve a draft Local Plan that sacrifices Green Belt land in our borough for housing development. This decision marks a dark day for Epsom & Ewell and represents a significant betrayal of the community’s trust and values.

On December 10, EEBC councillors voted by 16 to 8, with 7 abstentions, to approve the latest draft Local Plan, which proposes releasing large areas of our much-valued Green Belt. Planning officers claim councillors had no choice due to Government housing targets. However, this argument does not excuse the council’s willingness to surrender cherished green spaces. The community clearly recognizes the value of protecting our countryside, even if the council does not.

Public opposition to the loss of Green Belt land has been overwhelming. During last year’s consultation, more than 1,500 residents responded, with 87% opposing any Green Belt development. A petition against the loss of Green Belt land attracted an astonishing 11,000 signatures, and a subsequent petition was so strongly supported that councillors were forced to debate it at the December meeting. The message from residents is clear: we do not want our Green Belt sacrificed for development.

It is worth emphasizing that the council’s own Green Belt study concluded that the vast majority of the borough’s Green Belt is performing its intended function. This includes Horton Farm and Hook Road Arena—two areas now designated for housing—which were identified as “highly performing” under the Government’s own criteria. Why, then, is the council choosing to give up such valuable land?

Protecting our Green Belt is about more than preserving open spaces. It is essential for public health, biodiversity, climate change mitigation, and preventing urban sprawl. Epsom & Ewell has largely resisted London’s sprawl, maintaining its identity as Surrey’s smallest district. Its open spaces are limited to either municipal parks or the Green Belt, yet these are now at risk. Over the past 25 years, the borough has already absorbed significant population growth through large housing developments on former hospital sites.

The council’s reliance on private developers to address local housing needs is deeply flawed. Private housebuilders often fail to deliver affordable homes, using “viability assessments” to argue that profits would be insufficient if they included the required number of affordable units. For example, a recently approved development on Green Belt land in this borough includes no affordable housing at all.

If EEBC were serious about tackling local housing needs, it would prioritise socially rented housing by working with central government and housing associations to develop urban brownfield sites and town-centre locations. Instead, the council appears intimidated by unrealistic housing targets set by Whitehall and has chosen to offer up our Green Belt as an easy sacrifice. This raises serious questions about local democracy and accountability.

The council’s decision disregards the wishes of the community it is supposed to serve. It is vital that we continue to challenge this plan and advocate for a future where Epsom & Ewell’s Green Belt is valued and protected for generations to come.

Yours faithfully,

Tim Murphy, Trustee Surrey Campaign to Protect Rural England

---

From Katherine Alexander of The Epsom Green Belt Group

Dear Editor,

The ink is barely dry on Epsom & Ewell Borough Council’s signing off on the draft Local Plan when it has been rendered obsolete.

The Epsom Green Belt Group warned the council that failing to accelerate the Local Plan process would result in disaster for the borough, and that disaster has now arrived.

The Local Plan will now be caught by the revised National Planning Policy Framework issued today by the government.

Prior to today, the council had the option not to review Green Belt boundaries and not to argue for exceptional circumstances to build on the Green Belt. It chose not to do either, but instead to revise Green Belt boundaries to permit development. Seven and a half years of delays have led us to this point.

The government has focussed its headlines on building on the ‘greybelt’ to make their plans sound palatable. However, the ‘greybelt’ definition is a smokescreen for much broader development that they want to portray. This is for two reasons:

1. All Green Belt qualifies as ‘greybelt’ except:

• Strips of land at the edge of a borough that separate it from built-up sections of neighbouring boroughs.
• Land that ‘strongly contributes’ to ‘checking the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas.’

In Epsom & Ewell, 22 of the 53 parcels of Green Belt land in the council’s analysis fail to meet either of these criteria and would therefore be classed as greybelt under the new definition. No disused petrol stations to be seen anywhere.

One of the parcels that would remain Green Belt, not greybelt, under this definition is Horton Farm. However, the council has voluntarily included it in the plan.

2. The NPPF states that where there is insufficient greybelt land to meet the new housing target, councils must find enough Green Belt land to make up the difference (para 148).
The only hint of protection is if that Green Belt land need not be released if it ‘would fundamentally undermine the purposes (taken together) of the remaining Green Belt when considered across the area of the plan.’ There is no guidance available as to what that means in practice, but as Epsom Common and Horton Country Park will remain, this exception is unlikely to help either.

What then is the new housing target for Epsom?
889 dwellings per year. That is almost five times the historical house building rate in the borough (c.189 per year) and more than three times the rate in the proposed Local Plan (c.273 per year).

Every scrap of available land will need to be included in the plan, and even then it won’t be enough to get close to the target.

The council only has itself to blame. It has failed to protect the borough, and the government has made it so the price for that failure is astronomically high.

After over 7.5 years of delays, the council’s task now is to work quickly—hitherto anathema to them—to review the NPPF in detail and work out whether any of the Green Belt can be saved under the new rules. This may mean taking out land that it had already included, because there is an argument to protect it (such as Horton Farm) in order to mitigate and minimize the disastrous impacts for the borough.

The previous excuse for progressing with an unpopular plan was to protect the borough from speculative development. Because of their delays, there will be no land left for speculative development. Perhaps they’ve got their wish.

Yours faithfully,

Katherine Alexander

---

From Epsom and Ewell Borough Council

Epsom & Ewell Proposed Submission Local Plan (Regulation 19) Consultation to go ahead as soon as possible

10th December Councillors voted to approve the Epsom & Ewell Proposed Submission Local Plan (2022-2040) and that the Regulation 19 Consultation should take place at the earliest opportunity. The Regulation 19 Consultation is the final opportunity for residents to feedback on the plan before it is submitted for independent examination next summer.

At the meeting of Full Council, Councillors heard from a petitioner who requested that all green belt land should be removed from the Proposed Submission Local Plan except for previously developed land. This was debated by Councillors during the meeting, before the vote.

Commenting after the meeting, Councillor Peter O’Donovan, Chair of the Licensing and Planning Policy, said “The Proposed Submission Local Plan provides a vision for our borough that strikes a balance between providing much needed homes including affordable housing, infrastructure, and support for local businesses whilst ensuring enhanced protection for biodiversity and our borough’s green spaces, and protecting the valuable local heritage and character of our borough’s towns and villages.

“It is challenging to find a path that meets the many different needs of all our communities, and not everyone may agree with every aspect of this plan. However, having listened to all the feedback, and examined the comprehensive evidence base, we feel strongly that this plan ensures that everyone in our borough, both now and in the future, is given the chance to thrive in Epsom & Ewell.

The Regulation 19 Consultation will take place at the earliest opportunity. We will announce the dates on our website and on social media as soon as they are confirmed.”   

An up-to-date Local Plan protects the borough from ad hoc and inappropriate development and ensures responsibility for future planning decisions remains with the borough and its communities. It provides a framework for where in the borough new development should go and where should be protected.

Epsom & Ewell Borough Council consulted on the Draft Local Plan in February and March 2023. The comments received on the Draft Local Plan, along with the local evidence base, informed the Proposed Submission Local Plan. The Regulation 18 consultation feedback summary report, which shows how the council has taken account of the feedback received, can be found here: Consultation response statement

During the Regulation 19 Consultation residents, visitors and local businesses can comment on whether the plan is legally compliant and sound, in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework. Guidance on how to respond will be published on the council’s website.

Responses collected as part of the consultation will be sent to the Planning Inspectorate with the Proposed Submission Local Plan and the evidence base documents.

---

Dear Editor

As someone involved in the Save Epsom Green Belt campaign I just cannot contain my disbelief and anger at the local Council.

Last week the majority of them went ahead with a policy to build on our wonderful and well used recreational green spaces doubtless under some ‘exceptional circumstances’ clause.

Obviously, as already said many times and with recent letters to you, it is nevertheless worth reminding all your readers of the true devastating significance of this decision.

It is a Residents’ Association Majority Council. They are supposed to represent the local residents: the clue is in the name! They have not and should be ashamed at letting us down despite the many efforts to stop this. I understand that Epsom is the smallest Surrey Borough yet the most populated for its size. As many of us know, the present infrastructure is overloaded: schools, the hospital, GP surgeries, roads viz. Ruxley Lane in rush hours!

This building programme will further exacerbate the problem and severely restrict the country wide environment and its diverse wildlife. No doubt developers are already rubbing their hands with due opportunism as, thanks to the Residents’ Association Group, the local Green Belt vanishes FOR EVER! YES, WITH NO COMING BACK.

Yours Faithfully,

Dr Ted Bailey

West Ewell

---

From Epsom and Ewell MP Helen Maguire

Dear Editor,

Housing in Epsom and Ewell: A Call for Community-Led Solutions

I write to express my deep concern over the Government’s recently announced planning framework, which enables developers to bypass locally elected councillors and pressures councils to review precious green belt land for development. For communities like ours in Epsom and Ewell, this approach represents yet another example of Whitehall ignoring the voices of local people who are best placed to decide what their area needs.

Housing is a pressing issue, but the solutions must be community-led. The homes we build here must be genuinely affordable and accompanied by the services that people rely on—GP surgeries, schools, and reliable public transport. It is equally important that we protect the green spaces that define our borough.

Vulnerable families in Epsom and Ewell need safe and warm homes, but this cannot be achieved by sidelining the community. When residents are engaged and empowered, we can deliver the homes required to support those living in temporary accommodation, help older residents access housing solutions tailored to their needs, and ensure the next generation has somewhere to call home.

Unfortunately, the Government’s announcement fails to address the root causes of Britain’s housing crisis. The biggest issue is a desperate lack of social housing. Too often, developers use legal loopholes to shirk their obligations to build affordable homes. Meanwhile, the very term “affordable” has become meaningless to many local families who are priced out of the market. We need clearer definitions and upfront solutions to ensure that affordability is not just a slogan but a reality.

The recent decision by Epsom and Ewell Borough Council to move forward with the Local Plan, including controversial Green Belt sites, highlights the challenge we face. While I welcome the council’s efforts to prepare a plan, I share the concerns of many local residents and Liberal Democrat councillors who feel that housing targets and the development of virgin Green Belt land, such as Horton Farm, are not the right path forward.

The ruling Residents Association has been slow to update the borough’s planning policies, leaving us vulnerable to inappropriate and opportunistic applications. It is time for all parties to work together to prioritise robust, community-supported plans that deliver for Epsom and Ewell.

Epsom and Ewell deserve housing solutions that respect our unique character, address the needs of vulnerable residents, and safeguard our green spaces for future generations. I will continue to stand with our community in advocating for planning policies that reflect these priorities.

Yours faithfully,

Helen Maguire MP
Member of Parliament for Epsom and Ewell

---

On 10th December 2024, the Full Council of Epsom and Ewell Borough Council convened to debate the proposed Local Plan, a pivotal document that will shape the borough’s future planning, housing, and Green Belt policies until 2040 and beyond. Central to the debate were contentious issues regarding housing targets, the timetable for the Local Plan submission, and the potential release of Green Belt land for development. The controversial Local Plan, including some Green Belt development, was voted through by 16 votes from a Council that consists of 35 Councillors.

---

Presentation of the Petition

The meeting began with the presentation of a petition organized by Yvonne Grunwald, titled “Remove Green Belt from the Epsom and Ewell Borough Council Local Plan.” Mrs. Greenwald argued the case against developing on Green Belt land:

“Over the last few years, residents have repeatedly told the Council that they do not want building on the Green Belt. They have held rallies, protests, they have spoken at council meetings. This includes secondary school children. They’ve sent emails to councillors and their MP… The results showed that 87% of respondents were opposed to building on the Green Belt.”

She criticized the council’s perceived disregard for public opinion:

“Why consult with the residents if you are going to ignore the result and actively undermine them?”

Mrs. Greenwald also pointed to an alternative plan that relied solely on brownfield sites:

“In November, opposition parties and the Green Party, together with residents, submitted an alternative plan, which showed that enough houses can be built on brownfield sites already identified by the Council.”

Concluding her speech, she urged the Council to act quickly to amend the plan:

“You must make sure that the Local Plan doesn’t include Green Belt… This should happen as quickly as possible so that it can be submitted to examination before the new NPPF rules come into force.”

---

Council Debate

Councilor Peter O’Donovan, (RA Ewell Court) Chair of the Licensing and Planning Policy Committee, responded to the petition. He acknowledged the concerns raised but defended the inclusion of Green Belt land in the Local Plan as a necessary compromise:

“The proposed submission plan… aims to strike the right balance of meeting development needs, including much-needed affordable housing, against protecting the borough’s Green Belt and character of the urban area, both of which are important to our residents.”

He warned of the risks of removing Green Belt sites from the plan:

“Officers consider that removing sites from the Local Plan would significantly increase the risk of the plan being found unsound at the examination stage. If our Local Plan is found to be unsound, we will have to restart the process again, meaning we will be without an up-to-date Local Plan for longer.”

Councillor Julie Morris (Lib Dem College) expressed her sympathy for the petition’s intentions but highlighted the challenges of late-stage changes:

“The problem with this petition is that it’s quite late in the day. Whilst I have every sympathy with its intentions and what it says, it’s actually quite difficult to implement that right now. You know, 12 months, 18 months ago, it would have been a different scenario.”

Councilor Bernie Muir (Conservative Horton) strongly opposed the inclusion of Green Belt land in the Local Plan, emphasizing the importance of protecting such spaces:

“Releasing high-quality Green Belt should be avoided at any time… Without this housing, our homeless levels will grow, not reduce. Releasing high-quality Green Belt without achieving a very significant benefit by doing so would be contrary to the NPPF and totally unacceptable.”

Councilor Clive Woodbridge (RA Ewell Village) cautioned against removing Green Belt sites, citing the experience of Elmbridge Council:

“Elmbridge… submitted a Local Plan with no Green Belt and a multiplicity of smaller brownfield sites. They are now faced with the option of either withdrawing it or having it found unsound. The inspector argued that the brownfield-only approach adopted would fail to deliver anything near the level of need for the planned period.”

---

Final Debate on the Draft Local Plan

When the draft Local Plan was introduced, Councillor Neil Dallen (RA Town) summarized the difficult position faced by the Council:

“Nobody wants to build on Green Belt, but there is not enough brownfield land. The risk is that this won’t be accepted, and we’ll be in even bigger trouble.”

Councillor Jan Mason (RA Ruxley) criticized the concentration of development in certain areas:

“You’re talking about the most densely populated part of this borough. This isn’t well thought out… There will only be harm.”

Councillor Chris Ames, (Labour Court) condemned the lack of affordable housing:

“This plan… will only deliver just over 1,000 affordable homes… fewer than 400 social rented homes by 2040. This is not sound.”

Clive Woodbridge defended the plan as a balanced approach:

“It delivers badly needed homes while protecting most of the Green Belt and maintaining the character of our borough.”

---

Outcome of the Vote

The Council ultimately voted on the draft Local Plan without amendments. The majority supported the plan, although several councillors abstained or voted against it. Councillor Peter O’Donovan’s remarks highlighted the Council’s predicament:

“This is the plan we have in front of us, and this is what we need to vote on today.”

Those opposing the plan, like Councillor Jan Mason, stood firm in their dissent:

“I’m personally against this plan… This isn’t something that will suit Ruxley and West Ewell.”

---

Conclusion

The Full Council’s debate underscored deep divisions over the Local Plan. While the plan’s supporters argued it represented a necessary compromise to meet government targets and protect the borough’s future, its critics condemned the perceived sacrifice of Green Belt land and insufficient affordable housing. The council’s approval of the draft plan marked a critical step forward, but the contention surrounding it suggests continued challenges as the plan progresses to examination.

The Voting: 16 FOR, 8 Against and 7 Abstentions.

Councillors Who Voted FOR:

• Arthur Abdulin, Residents’ Association, Town Ward
• Steve Bridger, Residents’ Association, Stamford Ward
• Neil Dallen, Residents’ Association, Town Ward
• Liz Frost, Residents’ Association, Woodcote and Langley Vale Ward
• Shanice Goldman, Residents’ Association, Nonsuch Ward
• Rachel King, Residents’ Association, Town Ward
• Robert Leach, Residents’ Association, Nonsuch Ward
• Steven McCormick, Residents’ Association, Woodcote and Langley Vale Ward
• Phil Neale, Residents’ Association, Cuddington Ward
• Peter O’Donovan, Residents’ Association, Ewell Court Ward
• Humphrey Reynolds, Residents’ Association, West Ewell Ward
• Alan Williamson, Residents’ Association, West Ewell Ward
• Clive Woodbridge, Residents’ Association, Ewell Village Ward
• John Beckett, Residents’ Association, Auriol Ward
• Hannah Dalton, Residents’ Association, Stoneleigh Ward
• Chris Watson, Residents’ Association, Ewell Court Ward

Councillors Who Voted AGAINST:

• Rob Geleit, Labour, Court Ward
• Christine Howells, Residents’ Association, Nonsuch Ward
• Alison Kelly, Liberal Democrat, Stamford Ward
• James Lawrence, Liberal Democrat, College Ward
• Bernie Muir, Conservative, Horton Ward
• Kieran Persand, Conservative, Horton Ward
• Julie Morris, Liberal Democrat, College Ward
• Jan Mason, Residents Association, Ruxley Ward

Councillors Who ABSTAINED:

• Chris Ames, Labour, Court Ward
• Kate Chinn, Labour, Court Ward
• Christine Cleveland, Residents’ Association, Ewell Village Ward
• Bernice Froud, Residents’ Association, Woodcote and Langley Vale Ward
• Tony Froud, Residents’ Association, Stoneleigh Ward
• Darren Talbot, Residents’ Association, Auriol Ward
• Graham Jones, Residents’ Association, Cuddington Ward

Procedural criticisms and more:

The Epsom Green Belt Group has raised significant concerns regarding the procedural handling of the Local Plan by the Residents Association-led council. They argue that the process lacked transparency and adequate opportunities for scrutiny.

In their press release, the Group stated:

“For almost two years, since the regulation 18 consultation in early 2023, the public has been waiting to see what would be included in the Local Plan, whilst lobbying for the protection of the Green Belt, submitting a 10,000-member petition, holding rallies and writing to councillors. Requests were made to discuss the Local Plan and the treatment of Green Belt in the fourth quarter of 2023, in July 2024, and in September 2024. Nothing was shared, and nothing debated until November 2024.”

This lack of earlier discussion and public involvement was also echoed during the Full Council meeting. Councillor James Lawrence (LibDem College) highlighted the limited opportunities for councillors to engage in substantive discussions:

“There have been cases where we could have been involved, such as after the briefings. There’s nothing wrong with having briefings, but those were never brought into the public domain until a few weeks ago.”

The Group also pointed to restrictions on questioning during the December 2024 Full Council meeting, which they argued severely limited proper scrutiny of the Local Plan. They noted that only five questions were permitted in total, with some councillors, such as Councillor Mason, restricted from raising further queries, and others, like Councillor Lawrence, unable to pose any additional questions. Councillor Mason’s frustration was evident:

“I had more to ask about the Green Belt allocations and the housing numbers, but I was told I had used up my chance. How is this adequate scrutiny for a plan that decides the future of this borough for 16 years?”

Additionally, the Group criticized the Residents Association for missing the opportunity to submit the Local Plan under the existing National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) guidelines, which would have allowed for greater flexibility in protecting the Green Belt. They claim that the refusal to expedite the Local Plan’s preparation has exposed the borough to heightened housing targets under new rules.

Councillor Hannah Dalton (RA Stoneleigh) expressed the challenge of navigating a rapidly changing regulatory landscape but stopped short of endorsing the Group’s criticism of delays:

“We’ve got numbers that have changed. We’ve got new government ambitions. We want to build affordable and social housing. Whatever we do, it’s not going to satisfy everybody. That is the nature of Local Plans.”

The Group also accused the council of opening the floodgates for further Green Belt development by including high-quality Green Belt sites in the Local Plan. Councilor O’Donovan, however, defended the approach as a necessary trade-off:

“By including a small portion of Green Belt in the plan, we ensure protections for the rest. Without a Local Plan in place, developers will have greater freedom to target any Green Belt site.”