Families experiencing financial hardship across Surrey will receive additional support with the cost of sending their children back to school this year, thanks to funding from Surrey County Council’s Crisis and Resilience Fund.

Surrey County Council has awarded over £100k to local children’s charity Stripey Stork to expand its already successful School Days scheme, helping more families access essential school items including non-branded uniform items, shoes, trainers, PE kits and school bags. This is additional funding to complement the many donations already made by local families, schools/PTAs and communities, that enable continued support throughout the school year by Stripey Stork.

The funding comes from the £7.1 million UK Government-funded Crisis and Resilience Fund, which is designed to help residents facing immediate financial difficulties and build longer-term resilience programmes.  Families will be able to access this support via the Crisis Payments scheme and through existing trusted referral networks including schools, social workers, health visitors, Citizens Advice, domestic abuse services and local charities.

Back-to-school costs can place significant pressure on household budgets, particularly for families already struggling with the rising cost of living. The expanded scheme will ensure that more children can start the new school year with the clothing and equipment they need to learn and thrive.

In 2025, Stripey Stork supported 7,503 children from 4,116 Surrey families via it’s Schools Days programme.

This funding will help Stripey Stork fill the gaps in the good quality pre-loved school items donated by the community, ensuring every child receives a complete bundle of everything they need to start the school year. It also provides the infrastructure needed to collect, store, sort, pack and distribute these items efficiently, enabling the charity to support around 8,500 children across Surrey over the next 12 months.

Nicola Dawes Deputy Lieutenant, Chief Executive at Stripey Stork said: “Every child deserves to arrive at school feeling confident, included and ready to learn. Our School Days programme is one of the most valued services we provide because we see the difference it makes, not just to children but to whole families.

“We know from our partners that without this support many families would simply go without essential school items or be forced into debt to buy them. Three quarters told us the support has a significant impact on children’s wellbeing and sense of inclusion, while more than 80% said it improves school engagement and attendance. Perhaps most importantly, over 90% said it reduces the stress and worry parents are carrying.

“We’re grateful to Surrey County Council for this investment. Combined with the generosity of our local community, who donate good quality pre-loved items each year, this funding means we can make sure thousands more children across Surrey have the practical items they need to attend school with confidence.”

Councillor Mark Nuti, Surrey County Council Cabinet Member for Health and Communities said: “By investing over £100k through the Crisis and Resilience Fund, we’re helping Stripey Stork reach even more families across Surrey with practical support at a time when it is needed most. This partnership is making a tangible difference to children and young people, helping ensure they have the essentials they need to succeed at school while easing the burden on household budgets.

“The Crisis and Resilience Fund is about much more than responding to immediate need. This three-year funding allows us to work with our voluntary, community, faith and social enterprise partners to develop long-term support programmes that help residents become more financially resilient, reduce reliance on crisis services and achieve their full potential. Together, we are creating opportunities for people to regain stability, independence and to thrive in the future.”

About the Crisis and Resilience Fund

The Crisis and Resilience Fund is a 3 year funded programme funded by the UK Government and currently administered by Surrey County Council. It supports residents facing financial hardship by providing immediate crisis assistance while also helping individuals and families build longer-term resilience and independence. The fund works through partnerships with local voluntary, community and faith sector organisations to deliver targeted support, including food, household essentials, energy assistance, financial advice. Crisis and Resilience Fund – Surrey County Council

Surrey County Council

The Green Party has won a crucial by-election in Reigate and Banstead that could impact the balance of power on the council.

Nick Abear, who also serves on East Surrey Shadow Council, won the ward of Hooley, Merstham and Netherne following yesterday’s election.

This by-election was called following the death of Councillor Mus Tary, who sadly passed away in June.

Councillor Abear told the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS): “I’m absolutely thrilled and delighted to have been elected in the Merstham, Hooley and Netherne by-election. 

“Thank you to everyone who put their trust in me, and to the many volunteers who gave up their time to help us. 

“I look forward to building on the excellent work that Shasha Khan and Joel Gabriel have been doing in the ward, and to working hard for all our residents over the coming months.” 

The result represents a Green gain from the Conservative Party at a time when the Tories have held a slender balance of power in Reigate and Banstead. 

The Greens will now have a total of 15 seats on the council against the Conservatives 16, while the Green and Redhill Independent group combined matches the Tories’ total.

In 2022, the full council election saw the Conservatives lose five seats, with the council remaining under no overall control.

However, this council will cease to exist in April, when the current district councils are abolished along with Surrey County Council to make way for the new West and East Surrey Councils.

Fellow Green ward councillor Shasha Khan told the LDRS: “I’m thrilled for Nick to be joining Joel and me to serve everyone in our ward. 

“In 2023, I got 37.4 per cent. In 2024 Joel got 38.4 per cent, and in 2026 Nick has won with 41.8 per cent. 

“This shows that where Greens get elected, they work hard for the community, resulting in voters wanting more.”

The full results are as follows:

• Nick Abear (Green Party) 42%
• Johnny Wolf (Reform UK) 24%
• Jon Mears (Conservative) 20%
• Tina Siobhan Cohen (Liberal Democrats) 7%
• Catherine Mary Drapans (Labour) 6%

James Moules Local Democracy Reporter

Nick With Partner And Green Councillors (Credit: Joel Gabriel)

Dear Editor,

My family moved to Epsom five years ago for many of the same reasons cited by those defending the Green Belt: the space, the schools and the feel of the town. I am 16, and I am conscious that a similar family arriving five years later might not be able to manage it.

For the past month, I have been reading the Local Plan and the objections to it. In all of this debate, I have not found the perspective of the generation it is supposedly about.

Both sides speak the language of protection. Those defending the Green Belt want to protect landscape, character and the reasons families came here in the first place. Those supporting the housing numbers want to protect the ability of younger residents to remain here. Neither is a bad-faith position, although the tone of the debate does not always reflect that.

What neither side says plainly enough is where the cost goes when a needed home is not built. It does not vanish. It comes back as a higher price, a longer commute, three adults sharing a two-bedroom flat, a 28-year-old still living in a childhood bedroom, or a teaching assistant unable to afford the borough in which she works.

Those costs often fall on people who cannot object to the plan because they do not live here yet. They have no residents’ association and they do not write to local newspapers. Their silence is not consent. It is absence.

I am 16, so I will not pretend to know the correct number of houses. But I would put the same question to both campaigns: if your proposal is fair, name the people who will bear its cost – and say whether you have asked them.

I would rather grow up in a borough that answers that question honestly and then decides than one that wins by outlasting everyone who might have disagreed.

My family got here in time. That is exactly why I do not think the door should close behind us.

Emad Rehman, 

Councillor allowance bill rises £19,275 in a year

Epsom and Ewell Borough Council’s bill for councillor allowances rose by more than £19,000 last year, with 30 of the borough’s 35 councillors receiving more than in the previous financial year.

The Council paid a total of £285,011.33 in members’ allowances in 2025/26, compared with £265,736.49 in 2024/25 – an increase of £19,274.84, or 7.25%.

The newly published figures cover the financial year from 1 April 2025 to 31 March 2026. The previous return covers 1 April 2024 to 31 March 2025.

Much of the increase resulted from the basic allowance payable to every councillor rising from £5,779.86 to £6,202.68 – an increase of £422.82, or 7.3%.

Across all 35 councillors that added £14,798.70 to the bill. In other words, just over three-quarters of the £19,275 year-on-year increase arose from the increase in the basic allowance alone.

Special Responsibility Allowances – additional payments for councillors holding particular positions – increased collectively from £62,822.38 to £67,359.72, an increase of £4,537.34.

Travel and subsistence payments actually fell slightly, from £619.01 to £557.81. No dependants’ carers’ allowances were recorded in either year.

The Council states that Special Responsibility Allowances do not relate to actual attendance at meetings but to membership of committees and panels, and that allowance payments are subject to Income Tax and National Insurance.

McCormick remains highest-paid councillor

Cllr Steven McCormick topped the table for the second successive year. His total increased from £16,983.46 to £18,608.16, a rise of £1,624.70.

For clarity, McCormick was a Residents’ Association councillor throughout the 2025/26 financial year. Although EEBC’s present councillor page now records him as Conservative, the Council’s earlier listing recorded him as RA and he contested the new East Surrey Council election on 7 May 2026 as a Residents’ Association candidate for Epsom Town and Downs. His subsequent change of allegiance therefore falls outside the period covered by these allowance figures.

Second highest was Cllr Neil Dallen, whose payment increased from £15,645.76 to £17,057.52, a rise of £1,411.76.

Council Leader Cllr Hannah Dalton moved from second to third place and was one of only five councillors whose total payment fell. She received £16,266.40, £429.41 less than the £16,695.81 received in 2024/25. The difference largely reflects a reduction in her Special Responsibility Allowance and travel and subsistence payments.

The other councillors whose total payments fell were Humphrey Reynolds (£175.96 less), Steve Bridger (£75.76 less), Julian Freeman (£52.16 less) and Bernie Muir (£52.16 less).

Biggest rises

After McCormick’s £1,624.70 increase, the biggest cash increases went to:

John Beckett – up £1,474.94

Neil Dallen – up £1,411.76

Alan Williamson – up £1,395.42

Clive Woodbridge – up £1,214.94

The percentage comparison can sometimes exaggerate relatively small payments, but Cllr Beckett’s total nevertheless rose by almost a quarter, from £6,278.44 to £7,753.38.

At the other end of the scale, 12 councillors received no Special Responsibility Allowance in 2025/26 and were paid simply the basic £6,202.68 allowance.

The two published returns show all 35 councillors serving in both financial years, allowing a direct like-for-like comparison.

Councillor allowances compared

The table is ranked by the latest, 2025/26, total.

Political allegiances also shifted during the year covered by the figures. Shanice Goldman left the Residents’ Association for the Conservatives in January 2026, Chris Watson moved from the RA to Labour in February, and James Lawrence left the Liberal Democrats for the Independent Group in March. Christine Howells, who had been an RA councillor during part of the year, was also sitting as an Independent by its end. Steven McCormick remained an RA councillor throughout the 2025/26 financial year; his subsequent move to the Conservatives came after the May 2026 unitary council election, which he contested unsuccessfully for the Residents’ Association in Town and Downs.

Sam Jones – Reporter

.

Image: Epsom and Ewell Borough Council Chamber. EEBC YouTube

Surrey’s future strategic authority could retain a share of locally generated income tax and business rates under government plans to transfer more money and decision-making from Whitehall to England’s regions.

The Government’s “Rewiring the State” programme proposes replacing some central government grants with a share of the income tax generated within each mayoral area from April 2028.

Mayors would not, on the information published so far, be given the power to set income tax rates. Instead, part of the existing tax collected by the Treasury would be assigned to their regions.

The intention is that an area which expands its economy and tax base would benefit from the additional revenue. Councils and strategic authorities would also retain a greater proportion of locally raised business rates.

However, the Government has yet to disclose what percentage of either tax would be retained, how the system would operate during an economic downturn or how revenues would be redistributed between wealthier and less prosperous regions.

Those details are expected in a fiscal devolution roadmap accompanying the autumn Budget, followed by more precise income-tax arrangements in the next Spending Review.

The proposals could prove particularly significant for Surrey, with its comparatively strong economy, high employment and large number of higher-rate taxpayers. Whether that translates into substantially more money for local services will depend upon the formula eventually adopted and the grants which tax revenues replace.

Surrey County Council says a Foundation Strategic Authority is proposed for the county in 2027, providing a possible route to a Mayoral Strategic Authority from 2028.

That distinction matters. The Cabinet statement promises a share of income tax to “every mayor”, while saying that mayoral authorities will receive greater powers than non-mayoral bodies. It does not clearly promise non-mayoral Foundation Strategic Authorities the same income-tax entitlement.

The Government says it will not impose a mayor on an area which does not want one, although it regards directly elected mayors as offering the strongest form of accountability. It wants every part of England to have, or be establishing, a strategic authority by the end of 2027, with authorities operating everywhere by the end of 2028.

Councillor Steve Wotton, Leader of the East Surrey Shadow Authority, welcomed the direction of travel.

He said: “Surrey has a strong economy, a highly skilled workforce and an important role to play in supporting national growth. Giving strategic authorities a stronger link to locally generated revenues has the potential to provide greater certainty for long-term investment in transport, infrastructure, housing and skills.

“The ability to plan over a longer time horizon could help local leaders make better decisions, unlock investment and deliver improvements that residents and businesses want to see.”

Councillor Paul Follows, Leader of the West Surrey Shadow Authority, said the principle was positive but cautioned that the detail would be critical.

“Places like Surrey should have a stronger voice in the decisions that affect their residents, businesses and local economy,” he said.

“However, it will be important that government gets the detail right. Any new funding system must be fair, sustainable and recognise the different opportunities and challenges faced by communities across the country.”

Beyond taxation, the programme proposes giving mayors greater control over transport, housing, skills, employment support, innovation, energy and cultural investment.

Mayors would gain control of budgets for technical and vocational education for 16 to 19-year-olds and locally tailored employment support. They could also be given greater influence over commuter rail services, bus regulation, affordable housing and regional investment.

Police, fire and rescue services and Integrated Care Boards are eventually expected to align with strategic-authority boundaries. Deputy mayors could be appointed to oversee important public services.

All strategic authorities, including non-mayoral ones, would also be able to introduce an Overnight Visitor Levy. The charge, sometimes described as a tourist tax, could be imposed on overnight accommodation, with authorities expected to explain by March 2028 how the proceeds would be invested.

No proposed rate or charging mechanism has yet been announced.

The reforms could therefore give a future Surrey mayor considerable influence over services and investment currently controlled by Whitehall or separate public bodies. They would also create another directly elected political office above the two new Surrey unitary councils.

Epsom and Ewell is due to form part of the new East Surrey authority under the county’s local government reorganisation. The precise relationship between the two unitary councils and a county-wide strategic authority—including how powers, costs and accountability would be divided—has still to be settled.

Tax retention could reward economic growth and provide more predictable funding for long-term projects. It also raises difficult questions. Income-tax receipts fluctuate, affluent regions begin with much stronger tax bases, and replacing government grants with locally assigned revenues could expose authorities to greater financial risk.

The Cabinet statement acknowledges that different areas have unequal starting points and says growth incentives will have to be balanced against fairness. It also proposes stronger oversight, including making the chief executives of mayoral strategic authorities accountable for the use of public money as Local Accounting Officers.

Business-rate retention is scheduled to begin for mayors in April 2027, with locally retained income-tax receipts following in April 2028. A government white paper setting out the legislation, funding arrangements and timetable is promised for the autumn.

For Surrey, the headline prospect is an attractive one: keeping more of the wealth generated within the county. Whether it represents genuinely additional local spending power—or chiefly a new way of funding responsibilities transferred from Westminster—will only become clear when the figures and equalisation rules are published.

Sam Jones – Reporter

An east Surrey farm is seeking permission to build a new irrigation pond, as climate change has made water supply a “major operational risk”.

Reid Manor Farm Limited has put forward a prior notification application to Tandridge District Council for excavation works to install the pond in a field to the west of Lingfield.

The applicant noted that “mixed farming activities” are currently undertaken in the area, with hay production being the largest operation.

“There are a number of other farming activities the business is currently exploring and in the process of setting up to support the farming business,” the planning documents say.

Blackberry harvesting and jam making are expected to be included among these activities, the applicant states.

But they added that the proposals for a new irrigation pond represent a “critical business asset” in the cultivation of aquatic plants.

“While south east England is historically the driest part of the UK, climate change has worsened summer droughts and unpredictable rainfall patterns, making reliable water access a major operational risk,” the documents say.

They add: “A farm irrigation pond allows a farm to capture and store abundant winter rainfall, securing an independent, year-round water supply that protects the crop from summer water restrictions and heat stress.”

The applicant also pointed to a government statement published in its ‘Farming Roadmap 2050’, which states: “The scientific consensus is clear that the UK should expect wilder, stormier weather with significantly increased flooding as well as summer droughts. 

“With 70 per cent of our land currently used for agricultural purposes, it will become increasingly important to hold more water on farmlands to help reduce the impact of flooding downriver and support farmers during drought periods.”

Access to the farm via Brickhouse Lane would not be changed as a result of this development, the documents claim.

They add: “The site currently has no mains water connection, and no water bore holes exist on site meaning the only current water source option is harvesting rainwater.”

James Moules Local Democracy Reporter

Image: Wheat stock image (Credit: Pixabay)

Strict controls on new HMOs in Reigate and Banstead could be brought in next year. 

It comes as new bedsits have sprung up and clustered in Redhill and Horley at an enormous rate in recent years, driven by a demand for low-cost housing, with the council having no say on where they are.

The borough council is looking to bring in new powers to ban the automatic right to convert homes into bedsits for between three to six residents in order to control where they are built.

Making small HMOs go through the planning process, the council says, would relieve pressure on waste collection and parking – as well as ensure quaintly of design.

Currently landlords can convert their homes into small HMOs – properties rented by at least three people from more than one household with shared kitchen or bathrooms – under permitted development rights.

The council is looking to remove this and, if everything goes according to plan,  would come into effect in 12 months to limit the council’s financial liability against any conversions already under way.

HMOs of seven people or more already require planning permission.

Speaking at the July meeting of Reigate and Banstead Borough Council’s planning committee was its chairperson, Councillor Simon Parnall.

He said: “It doesn’t remove existing HMOs nor would it prevent new HMOs from being created; however it would give the council greater control over location of, and the design of, the HMOs.”

Currently there are 101 licensed houseshares on the council’s registers with about three quarters occupied by up to six people.

There are at least 109 non-licensed HMOs with occupancy of three to four people. This, the meeting heard, was only an estimated number, and that, in reality, it may well be considerably higher. 

The majority of the HMOs within the borough are in Redhill and Horley and in recent years the number of small HMOs on the register has increased by 400 per cent with a notable rise in complaints to planning enforcements following.

He added: “There can be issues about parking pressure, waste management, poorly maintained buildings, the general standard of accommodation, noise disturbance, anti-social behaviour, especially when there is an area where there is a larger number of HMOs.”

The chair recognised the important role HMOs play in low cost accommodation but stressed the powers would give  greater control over location, design and quality which in turn would better renters.

It would also, he said, help reduce the clustering of HMOs, reduce parking pressures and overflowing bins. 

Cllr Rich Michalowski said: “I  am hugely supportive of the recommendation…and good news for those who will be dwelling in HMOs. Great news for communities.”

The deadline for responses to thehttps://www.reigate-banstead.gov.uk/article4directionHMOs consultation is Thursday 24 September 2026.

Chris Caulfield Local Democracy Reporter

.

.

.

.

The procedural controversy at Epsom and Ewell Borough Council did not end when 11 councillors walked out of the Council Chamber on 21 July in protest at the Mayor’s ruling in favour of her father participating in a debate on the development of Council owned Hook Road arena, where his annual fireworks display is held.

Since Epsom and Ewell Times’s (EET) report, “Fireworks at Epsom Council spark walk-out”, further exchanges with Councillor Neil Dallen (RA, Town) and the Mayor, Councillor Lucie McIntyre (RA, West Ewell), have raised questions about accountability, consistency and the proper boundary between robust scrutiny and personal abuse.

An interview made a condition of answering

Before the earlier publication, EET sent Cllr Dallen straightforward written questions about his position as a director of Epsom Fireworks Display Limited, the company’s agreement to hire the Council-owned Hook Road Arena, and whether he has ever received remuneration, expenses or another financial benefit through the company. After five days Cllr Dallen did not reply before publication.

After the publication he made an interview a condition of responding: “I do not intend to answer them (the questions) in isolation but if you wish to meet and discuss the firework display, how it is organised, who benefits etc. I would be very happy to meet you either face to face or online.”

EET explained that its settled news-gathering policy is to conduct enquiries by email. This creates an exact, contemporaneous record of the questions asked and answers given and protects reporters, contributors and those being interviewed against later disagreement about what was said. This policy has been expressly approved by EET’s regulator IMPRESS. Furthermore, as volunteers we do not have the time to give and Cllr Dallen is no exception to our method. EET would welcome for publication an article about the history of the Epsom fireworks, an annual event that has been a staple of community life in the Borough since 1971.

Cllr Dallen replied: “I can see no point in responding. Perhaps you need to consider taking out insurance or getting agreement to record meetings.”

For clarity, Cllr Dallen did not decline an interview. He required one before he would answer. EET declined that condition and renewed its invitation to answer in writing. No substantive response has followed.

Cllr Dallen is under no general legal obligation to answer questions from a newspaper. His decision not to answer proves neither payment nor wrongdoing. EET nevertheless considers the questions proper and relevant to the public controversy.

In particular, the question remains unanswered:

As a director, does Cllr Dallen receive, or has he ever received, fees, expenses or any other financial benefit from Epsom Fireworks Display Limited?

Gain is not the only possible interest

At the 21st July Council meeting, Cllr Dallen declared that he was a director and trustee connected with the fireworks display, but said he did not have a pecuniary interest in the Hook Road proposal.

It is possible that he reached that conclusion in good faith because the motion sought to advance development which might ultimately bring the annual firework display to an end rather than produce a gain for him.

A pecuniary interest, however, is not confined to the prospect of making money from the decision. An existing financial interest may also be adversely affected and that would constitute a “pecuniary interest“

Moreover, EEBC’s Members’ Code of Conduct includes among disclosable pecuniary interests a contract between the Council and an incorporated body of which the councillor is a director, where goods or services are to be provided and the contract has not been fully discharged. Epsom Fireworks Display Limited had an agreement to hire Hook Road Arena for the November 2026 display.

The Code says that, where a matter “directly relates” to such an interest, the councillor must disclose it, take no part in the discussion or vote and leave the room unless granted a dispensation.

That leaves an important question of application. Did a motion merely making development of the Arena a strategic priority “directly relate” to the existing fireworks-hire contract? The motion did not itself cancel that agreement or approve a particular development. There is consequently room for legal argument.

But the existence of a company contract is relevant independently of whether Cllr Dallen receives directors’ fees. An answer about remuneration would still help establish whether his directorship also falls within the separate category of an office carried on for “profit or gain” and would allow the public to understand the full nature of his interest.

It remains a question Cllr Dallen has chosen not to answer.

The Mayor’s full statement

EET also asked Cllr McIntyre why she did not formally disclose that Cllr Dallen is her father and why she did not invite the Deputy Mayor to chair the dispute over his participation.

The Council supplied the following statement on her behalf: “I was elected Mayor this year and, as you will read in my biography on the Council website, the commitment my father, Councillor Dallen, demonstrates in helping others is one of the things that inspired me to serve my community by becoming a councillor, and now Mayor. I am perfectly able to chair a meeting in my capacity as Mayor when my father is in attendance. At the Full Council meeting on 21 July, Councillor Dallen declared that he did not have a pecuniary interest in the item concerning Hook Road Arena, which was his right.”

The original report summarised the first part and reproduced the final two sentences verbatim, these being the part directly addressing the question. The Council subsequently insisted that the entire statement should appear, saying that editing it had altered its meaning.

EET therefore publishes it above in full.

The additional passage undoubtedly supplies context. It also expressly records Cllr McIntyre’s admiration for her father and the influence he has had upon her own public life. Readers may consider that this reinforces, rather than dispels, the appearance of a conflict when she chaired rulings determining whether he could remain, speak and move the motion.

The issue is not whether a mayor can ordinarily chair a meeting attended by a parent. It is whether she should have continued to chair the particular dispute over that parent’s interests, without formally disclosing the relationship and when the Deputy Mayor was available.

Cllr McIntyre’s statement does not answer that question.

In requesting publication of the full quotation, the Council’s communications team added: “We value our working relationship with local media and always respond to enquiries in good faith, with the expectation that comments will be represented accurately.”

This was not an express threat to end cooperation with EET. In its context, however, the reference to the working relationship could be read as placing institutional weight behind the request. A constructive relationship between a council and the local press must permit fair editing, difficult questions and disagreement over what is relevant. It cannot depend upon every supplied statement being published in full.

Was there “hate” in the chamber?

At the conclusion of the Hook Road debate, Cllr Dallen said: “We, as a council, made a motion about Debate Not Hate, and I think we need to remind ourselves about that.”

EEBC unanimously adopted its Debate Not Hate motion in July 2023. It committed the Council to challenging abuse and intimidation while encouraging healthy political debate.

The campaign was never intended to make councillors immune from criticism. When the East Surrey Shadow Authority recently supported the same Local Government Association campaign, councillors emphasised that they expected their decisions to be questioned and that there was a fundamental difference between robust disagreement and personal abuse. As one councillor put it: “We should challenge each other’s policies, question decisions, and hold one another to account.” Read EET’s report.

EET has reviewed the transcript of the Hook Road exchange. It records repeated procedural objections, interruptions, an adjournment and the walk-out. Cllr Kieran Persand (Conservative Horton) called the Council “a joke”. Cllr Clive Woodbridge (RA Ewell Village) praised those opposition councillors who remained for showing a “mature side”, prompting Cllr Chris Watson (Labour Ewell Court) to defend the walk-out as a valid democratic act. Cllr Hannah Dalton (RA Stoneleigh) referred more generally to “cheap pop shots and remarks” and councillors feeling “mauled”.

Some of that language was sharp and the atmosphere was plainly heated. EET found no threat, discriminatory abuse, harassment or personal attack upon Cllr Dallen in the recorded Hook Road exchange of the kind at which Debate Not Hate is principally directed. The objections concerned whether he was entitled to participate and whether the correct procedure had been followed.

It is therefore fair to ask what Cllr Dallen intended by invoking Debate Not Hate. If it was directed at those procedural objections, it risked treating scrutiny as abuse and turning a campaign designed to protect democratic participation into a means of discouraging it.

“Debate Not Hate” cannot sensibly mean “debate, but no uncomfortable questions”. The campaign protects councillors against intimidation; it does not release them from accountability.

Cllr Dallen may maintain that he had no pecuniary interest and was entitled to participate. Cllr McIntyre may maintain that she was capable of chairing impartially. Both are entitled to state those positions.

But accountability involves more than asserting that one is right. It includes answering reasonable questions, disclosing relationships relevant to public perception and permitting established rules to be tested without characterising the challenge itself as hate.

Whether the approaches taken here demonstrate consistency—or something closer to selective accountability—is a judgment readers can now make with the exchanges before them.

Sam Jones – Reporter

.

Related reports

• Fireworks at Epsom Council spark walk-out
• Why procedure matters—even in little old Epsom and Ewell
• Debate Not Hate says East Surrey Shadow Authority

A petition has been launched calling for a statue celebrating Ali G to be installed in Staines – tying in with the release of his new film.

The petitioners want Spelthorne Borough Council to explore a “temporary” Ali G attraction in the town linked to the upcoming release of ‘Ali G: Who Iz I?’, while also looking at options to fund a permanent landmark.

Nearly 15 years have now passed since Staines voted to change its name to Staines-upon-Thames – partially in response to negative associations with the character.

But the new petition wants the town to “embrace the attention with humour and pride” – and even asks the council to reach out to actor Sacha Baron Cohen himself to get involved.

It reads: “Ali G and the Staines Massiv have given Staines a distinctive place in British popular culture. 

“The release of a new film provides an opportunity to celebrate that connection, promote the town centre and create a lasting community benefit.”

While the petitioners want the council to invest in a permanent statue or landmark to celebrate Ali G, it adds that this should only happen “if external funding is secured for its design, installation and maintenance”.

The petitioners explicitly state they do not want a statue to be bought and upkept using council tax receipts, and want the project to “include a secure donation facility supporting affordable sport, arts, leisure and community activities for children and young people in Staines”.

They add: “We believe Staines should embrace the attention with humour and pride, while using it to support the next generation of the Staines Massiv.”

Just ten people have signed the petition at time of writing, which will run on Spelthorne Borough Council’s website until August 24.

Played by Sacha Baron Cohen, Ali G rocketed to global notoriety following the release of ‘Ali G Indahouse’ in 2002.

While the film was broadly well received with critics and audiences, many people felt the spoof character left viewers with an undeservedly bad impression of Staines.

Staines’ name was officially changed to Staines-upon-Thames in 2012, in a move that was widely seen as being a reaction to Ali G’s depiction of the town.

However, then Spelthorne Borough Councillor Colin Davis told the BBC at the time: “Ali G may have had a role, but I think it goes back further than that.

“I regard Ali G as someone who put Staines on the map, we’re just telling people where it is.”

The character’s new film ‘Ali G: Who Iz I?’ is due to be released on October 23, 2026.

Chris Caulfield Local Democracy Reporter

.

Photo: Ali G Indahouse (Universal Pictures)

One of the first orders of business for the newly formed Liberal Democrat-run, £4billion indebted West Surrey Council – will be to seek to change its name.

A motion is being put forward by Spelthorne-based councillors to rebrand West Surrey Council into the catchily named West Surrey and South Middlesex Council (WSASMC).

Proposed by Councillor Harry Boparai the motion to the Thursday, July 30, West Surrey Shadow Authority calls on the council to ask the government to rebadge the new body before it formally comes into being.

Posting to Facebook he described it as the most important motion for Spelthorne in 50 years.

He said: “Yes this is about identity that has been brushed under the carpet since 1965 which is shameful.”

His motion reads: “It is important that the name of the new unitary authority accurately reflects the history and identity of the communities it serves.

“Unlike the rest of the new authority Spelthorne lies north of the River Thames and has been historically a part of Middlesex, not Surrey, for centuries.

“Indeed, the postal address of properties in Spelthorne remains Middlesex.

“This council resolves to ask the government to rename the West Surrey Authority as West Surrey and South Middlesex as this would more accurately reflect and respect the history and identity of all the communities it serves.

“It would also remind councillors, officers, and others on a daily basis of the existence of a part of the new authority on the other side of the River Thames.”

The timing comes just two days after West Surrey Council leader Cllr Paul Follows issued his vision for the future of West Surrey. It mentions West Surrey 18 times. It never once says South Middlesex.

Cllr Follows said: “It is our collective understanding that this motion has broad opposition support.”

Had the council waited until it formally took over, in April 2027, it would require a two-thirds majority of members to change its name.

Leader of the opposition, Cllr Jane Austin criticised the decision to push forward with the name change during the summer holidays, when many residents would be away.

She said: “It is extraordinary that the Liberal Democrats’ first major signal of intent for West Surrey Council is to debate changing its name rather than tackling the enormous challenges facing the new authority.

“They are attempting to push through a significant change without consulting the nearly 700,000 residents we have been elected to serve.

“Meanwhile, the real issues – integrating six councils, managing around £4.5 billion of inherited debt and ensuring the new authority is ready for Vesting Day – remain unaddressed, and councillors are still largely in the dark about the administration’s intentions.

“I understand why many people in Spelthorne feel strongly about their Middlesex heritage, but Spelthorne is one of six council areas that will form the new authority, and its name must represent everyone.

“West Surrey does exactly what it says on the tin.

“By contrast, the proposed alternative is cumbersome and is being advanced without first seeking the consent of the residents it would represent. Rather than bringing people together, it risks creating division from day one.”

“In my view, it is outrageous that the Liberal Democrats are prioritising rebranding over building a council that is financially secure, well run and focused on delivering for residents.”

East Surrey Council has no plans to change its name.

Chris Caulfield Local Democracy Reporter

Image: Surrey East West. (Credit: Elmbridge Borough Council) Permission for use.

East Surrey councillors shared their experience of facing intimidation and harassment from voters as they debated a motion calling for civility in political discourse.

At a meeting of the full shadow authority, several members recalled facing extreme vitriol from members of the public and implored councillors and voters to engage respectfully.

It came as councillors debated a motion supporting the Local Government Association’s (LGA) ‘Debate Not Hate’ campaign, which aims to tackle growing abuse against local politicians.

Introducing the motion, Councillor Kirsty Hewens (Liberal Democrats: Walton South & Oatlands) said: “This motion is not about stifling or sanitising debate. We all know there is a fundamental difference between robust political disagreement and personal abuse.

“What matters is how we conduct those debates.”

She added: “As councillors, we expect to be challenged. And we should be. Residents have every right to question our decisions, disagree with us and hold us to account.”

However, she said there is a line between this and growing volumes of abuse directed towards councillors and officers from the public.

“This behaviour discourages good people from standing for public office,” Councillor Hewens said.

Other shadow authority councillors shared their own first hand accounts of receiving intimidation and harassment from voters.

Councillor Shelly Newton (Conservative: Tadworth, Walton & Kingswood) told councillors the authority’s Conservative group would support the motion, saying: “Politics is about ideas. We should challenge each other’s policies, question decisions, and hold one another to account.

“That’s what our residents expect us to do. That’s why they elected us. But there is a clear line between challenging someone’s views and attacking the person behind them.”

She added that in her two years as a councillor, she had received inappropriate messages and experienced harassment that resulted in police involvement.

“While canvassing I was grabbed, pulled into a resident’s home, and had my way blocked out by the resident who then shouted at me about national politics,” she added.

An LGA survey found that seven in 10 councillors across the country have reported experiencing abuse or intimidation in the past year.

The East Surrey motion threw the shadow council’s support behind the LGA’s campaign and called for the authority to commit to “fostering a culture where political debate is encouraged, but personal abuse, intimidation, discrimination and harassment are never tolerated”.

Councillor Andrew Matthews (Liberal Democrats: Bookham & Fetcham West) added: “As I’m sure many of us have experienced, we’ve had threats of violence. I’ve been threatened with being punched in the face. I’ve had people stalk me. I’m not alone.”

Seconding the motion, Councillor Elly Heaton (Green Party: Redhill West & Meadvale) thanked the councillors for sharing their stories, calling them a “disappointingly relatable experience”.

The LGA’s campaign also noted that more than half of councillors have reported being victims of misinformation.

The organisation’s website says: “The increasing level of abuse and intimidation aimed at local politicians is preventing elected members from representing the communities they serve, deterring individuals from standing for election and undermining local democracy.”

James Moules Local Democracy Reporter

.

Image: Councillors debate the motion (Credit: East Surrey Shadow Authority)

East Surrey’s shadow council leader has welcomed Andy Burnham’s “strong commitment” to devolution as Surrey continues to take steps that could see the county get its own elected mayor.

Speaking at a meeting of the full shadow council, Councillor Steve Wotton (Liberal Democrats: Horley West, Salfords & Sidlow) congratulated the new Prime Minister and wished him “every success”.

“I plan to write to him in due course to set out our plans for East Surrey Council, and update him on the progress we’re making,” he added.

Councillor Wotton told councillors the government has confirmed its intention to bring forward a Foundation Strategic Authority (FSA) for Surrey from April 2027 – pending local consultations and ministerial approval.

This would mean that the new West Surrey and East Surrey councils could pool resources and work together on certain key strategic issues, such as transport and economic development.

“We continue to see a strong commitment from government for the devolution agenda,” Councillor Wotton said.

“Following the recent appointment of Andy Burnham as prime minister, the government has reiterated its ambition to transfer more power and responsibilities and funding away from Whitehall and into local areas.”

An FSA would also serve as a stepping stone towards the potential creation of a mayoral authority – which would create a directly elected mayor for all of Surrey.

Councillor Wotton said an FSA would give Surrey a “clear route” into that next phase of devolution, adding that failure to embrace it would “risk leaving Surrey outside the main direction of travel”.

East Surrey and West Surrey shadow authorities are currently tasked with setting up their respective councils ahead of assuming full responsibility of local government services in April 2027.

At that point, Surrey County Council and the county’s 11 district councils will all be abolished. Elections to the shadow authorities took place in May 2026.

Councillor David Lewis (Conservative: Cobham & Oxshott South) welcomed the move towards an FSA and said the shadow authority’s Conservative group supports its foundation.

“We believe that the additional devolved powers and funding that would come with a mayoral strategic authority would be beneficial for the residents of Surrey,” he said.

“Directly elected mayors have brought an additional focus to their areas, which has resulted in higher levels of economic growth.”

Councillor Jonathan Essex (Green Party: Redhill East & North Earlswood) said the authority’s Green group supported the FSA creation “in principle”, but questioned why mayoral devolution had not been fast-tracked to Surrey.

“We were told by Surrey County Council in very early 2025 we would be fast-tracked to be new unitaries in Surrey on the basis this would enable a mayoral authority to be created,” he said.

Addressing these concerns, Councillor Wotton said he is “more confident now” of the government’s commitment to Surrey’s devolution under Andy Burnham’s premiership.

“But fundamentally this is about moving us forward on a journey towards devolution”, he added. “It does not guarantee a mayor, but it the first step necessary to achieve a mayor.”

James Moules Local Democracy Reporter

.

Image: Councillor Steve Wotton