A councillor who visited rural India paused his tour to take photos of the roads because they were “in better condition than Surrey’s”. The Labour group leader on Surrey County Council said he visited the state of Karnataka last month and on a visit to a village school, stopped to take a photo of the road.

Councillor Robert Evans (Labour, Stanwell and Stanwell Moor) told a meeting of the council on Tuesday (February 7) that his host had asked him what was wrong with the roads there. He told the meeting he had replied: “Nothing, to the contrary. I just wanted photographic evidence that the road surfaces here in rural India are better than in many parts of Surrey.”

Cllr Evans also said his Stanwell residents asked him why roads in what he called the “forgotten part of Surrey” were worse than in other parts of the county. He told the meeting: “I actually tell them they’re not, they are pretty bad everywhere.”

In the meeting, councillors voted through the authority’s budget for 2023/24, though without the support of the opposition. The county council’s share of council tax will increase by 2.99 per cent from April, which means an increase of 94p per week, or £48.69 per year on the average band D property.

This is less than the 4.99 per cent which the government says councils can increase council tax by without a referendum, though Slough, Thurrock and Croydon councils were this week given permission to raise council tax by 10 and 15 per cent to help pay off huge borrowing costs.

The district and borough councils in Surrey, as well as the Police and Crime Commissioner, will also add their shares to the bills that will be paid by residents. Surrey’s £1.1billion budget, which includes spending of more than £400m on adult social care and £249m on children, families and lifelong learning was described as a “good and fair” budget by the council’s leader.

Cllr Oliver (Conservative, Weybridge) pointed to the council’s “ambitious” capital programme which included highways maintenance as well as low emission buses, flood alleviation measures, independent living facilities for the elderly and more accommodation in the county for looked after children.

A cabinet meeting last week heard that more government funding was needed in Surrey for repairs on the county’s 3,000 miles of roads. The Liberal Democrat group leader called on the council to spend money the council had in reserves rather than “cutting spending on roads and services for vulnerable people”. Cllr Will Forster (Woking South) said Surrey’s roads were “completely falling apart”. He pointed to a highways budget that he claimed would be less than £30m by 2024/25, compared to nearly £70m in the 2023/24 budget. He said: “That is not acceptable. Our residents would find that appalling.”

But another councillor said it would be “bonkers” to spend the council’s savings on road repairs or other projects.
Cllr Edward Hawkins (Conservative, Heatherside and Parkside) said he supported the budget and looking to the situation in the Ukraine, Turkey and Syria, that it was important not to spend money that had been put aside.
He told the meeting: “It’s bonkers to spend the money that you put aside for a rainy day, when we really don’t know what’s coming around the corner.”

The meeting opened with a minute’s silence for the dog walker who was killed in Caterham in January, the Epsom College head and her family who were found dead on Sunday (February 5) as well as those affected by earthquakes in Turkey and Syria.

Related Reports:

Don’t blame us for potholes say Surrey’s highway authority.

Surrey County Council proposes 2023/24 budget

Going potty about pot-holes?

When is a question not a question? This issue was the subject of heated discussion at the 2^nd February meeting of the Epsom and Ewell Borough Council’s Audit and Scrutiny Committee. Former Stamford Ward councillor Previn Jagutpal, who resigned his seat in December, used the council’s procedures to ask a question at the start of the meeting: “When an outside agency such as … the Local Government Ombudsman [LGO] makes a determination about the functioning of this council, what is the process for the Chair of Scrutiny … to be informed?”

The chair, Cllr. Steve Bridger (RA, Stamford Ward), referred the question to a legal officer attending the meeting. “I believe the process,” the officer reported, “is that there’s going to be an annual report which will come to the committee which reports on any decisions made by the Ombudsman.”

Invited to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Jagutpal, then asked the Chair if he was “satisfied that all communications from outside agencies such as … the LGO in your 4 years as Chairman of this committee have followed that process and you have been informed of all such decisions?”

The Chair was again prompted. “You will receive a written answer in due course,” he said.

Mr. Jagutpal then requested to ask a second question. However, the officer ruled that his supplementary question was his second question. Mr Jagutpal argued that, according to the council’s constitution, a question followed by a supplementary question is one question, then a second question may be asked. But the officer responded that “You have asked a second question. There are no further questions we can answer tonight.”

“Are you going to deny me my constitutional right?” Mr Jagutpal asked. “As far as tonight, that’s it in terms of questions,” ruled the officer and Mr. Jagutpal left the council chamber.

Cllr. David Gulland (Lib Dem, College Ward) wanted to discuss the matter further “Obviously that question and the answers raised further questions in many of our minds,” he said and asked if the committee could discuss the matter.

Another pause from the chair was followed by “No, we continue with the agenda.”

But Cllr Gulland was not so easily put off. During the course of the evening he asked many other questions relating to the information being provided to the Committee and the Council’s internal processes. But he left his most damning speech for the final agenda item.

“Under the constitution,” he argued, “the monitoring officer is meant to report to all councillors on any breach of regulation or of data protection or where the ombudsman has reported it to us … I had to go and look for it, [but] I’ve found the letter of 20th July 2022 from the ombudsman to our interim chief executive, a public document, [which says that] ‘during the year your council failed to respond in time to our correspondence during three investigations. On each occasion, we had to escalate the matter internally and were forced to consider issuing a witness summons and a public report for non-compliance. Such delays in our investigation undermine our role and can result in further distress to complainants.’

“There’s a big elephant in the room,” Cllr. Gulland continued, “that our processes are not working and, more importantly, this committee has not been told about that. I would welcome comments from the chairman or the officer about my comments on the ombudsman and also about data protection issues.”

Again, it was the officer who responded. “You are referring to an old letter from the ombudsman,” he said, the letter being barely more than six months old. “I’m very happy to look into that. We’ll come back to you on issues about data protection.”

The July 2022 letter from the LGO acknowledges the challenges faced by local councils coping with pandemic working practices and the impact on services. The LGO seeks to encourage and assist EEBC in improving its procedures.

Meanwhile, members of the public and possibly even members of the committee may remain in the dark about possible breaches of regulations.

When is a question not a question? You decide. These are the relevant paragraphs from the council’s constitution:

1.9 At the Meeting the Chair/Chairman will ask the questioner if the response

answers their concern or if they wish to ask one supplementary question. If a

supplementary question is asked, it must arise from the reply given.

1.11 If a member of the public asks or wishes to ask more than one question, their

second question (written or oral) shall be taken after all other individuals who

wish to ask a question have been given the opportunity to do so.

Related Reports:

Man wrongly labelled ‘vexatious complainant’ by Epsom and Ewell Council

The state of Surrey’s roads is “no fault of the county council” its cabinet has heard, as councillors vowed to put more pressure on central government for highways funding. In what the council’s leader called “pothole season”, the problems facing the repair of the county’s roads were set out at a meeting of the authority’s cabinet on Tuesday (January 31).

Approving the budget for the next year, ahead of full council voting on it, cabinet agreed a 2.99 per cent increase to the authority’s council tax share, or 94p per week for residents. This will be alongside any increases to come from Surrey’s 11 districts and boroughs and a proposed £15 increase per year for the Police and Crime Commissioner.

Cabinet members agreed a final budget for the council in 2023/24 of £1.1billion, an increase of £61.4m from 2022/23. The council tax increase will be made up of a 0.99 per cent increase in the core council tax and a 2 per cent increase in portion that is spend on adult social care.

In terms of the budget for roads in Surrey in 2023/24, the meeting heard that the budget was being set in the context of “hyper-inflation”, seeing an increase in the cost of bitumen of nearly 30 per cent over the past year.
Councillor John O’Reilly (Conservative, Hersham), chairman of the communities, environment and highways select committee, pointed to three central government cabinet ministers being Conservative MPs, including the chancellor Jeremy Hunt, the MP for South West Surrey.

He said he hoped a central government review into highways funding was carried out earlier than next year, adding: “The state of our roads, through no fault of this council, do require not just pothole filling but resurfacing.” Cllr O’Reilly told the meeting: “I’m sure we’ll put as much of our influence as we possibly can on central government to address these issues of funding for highways, particularly potholes.”

Speaking before the meeting, Cllr Tim Oliver (Conservative, Weybridge), the council’s leader, said despite seeing more traffic than other areas, the county council got the same level of funding from central government. He said the potholes were a national problem, made worse at this time of year by the freezing weather in what he called “pothole season”. But he added that additional investment from the council had paid off and led to fewer potholes, with 32,000 being filled last year compared to 75,000 the year before.

He told the LDRS: “We need the government to give us some one-off money for potholes.”

Council will meet to approve the budget in full on Tuesday (February 7).

Related Reports:

Going potty about pot-holes?

Surrey County Council proposes 2023/24 budget

Senior local Councillor slams Surrey’s budget consultation

A lack of “Downton Abbey” type families to occupy abandoned mansions led to 112 homes at Headley Court (near Epsom) get the green light last night. The Mole Valley green belt site has previously been used by the Ministry of Defence,  Help for Heroes and as a covid testing centre. It could now be turned  into 12 two-bed homes within the converted mansion, with further 97 two-bed homes and three one-bed residents on the grounds.

Image: Headley Court mansion: Graham Harrison MoD

They were approved by a vote of 12 in favour and zero against. with three abstentions, by Mole Valley’s Development Management Committee on Wednesday, February 1. Attached to the approval was a list of conditions, including that homes should only go to people aged over 60 and assessed as requiring a care package, to make a publicly accessible restaurant and library available on site, as well as to agree to a travel plan.
The travel plan would include an on-call bus service and car club. 

The green belt site does not require special circumstances as it is considered to be previously developed land, the committee heard. There is currently an ongoing appeal of a previously rejected planning application on the site, due to be heard in May, and a decision on whether to pursue that matter will be taken in due course by developers Audley Group.

Questions raised during the meeting surrounded public access, environmental protection matters and parking, with Councillor Tim Hall, who abstained in the vote, saying the plans were “not quite there” particularly as the current bus to the site only ran once every two hours.

The meeting began with chair Cllr David Preedy announcing an interest in the matter and leaving the chamber. As a ward member, a letter was read on his behalf where he highlighted issues of parking while deputy Rosemary Hobbs oversaw the discussion.

The site was formerly part of a larger parcel of land that had used by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) from the 1950s to 2018 and since subdivided and sold to different owners. The  mansion house has been vacant since the departure of the MoD with the Jubilee Complex gardens used by the NHS and Surrey County Council during the pandemic.

Cllr Helyn Clack said: “We’ve been through a lot of papers for Headley Court  and a lot of changes.
“It’s a very historic site not just in its past but the very recent past. Its held very dearly in the heart of residents across the whole of mv and wider still because of the work that it did for Help for Heroes, the Afghanistan war and also what it has done more recently supporting the NHS throughout the pandemic. Across the whole of Mole Valley there are lots, particularly in rural areas, of large country houses originally built in the late 19th century or 18th century,  and then become completely unable to be used for their original purpose. You see them everywhere.

“We’ve had them here to discuss being converted into something where they can maintain their facial value but also be of use to the community going forward. We certainly wouldn’t want to see Headley Court left unoccupied or abandoned and people who want to go visit it are going to be able to do so in this plan.  The fact that hundreds, maybe thousands of people will visit this site when it’s finished – it will be a memorial site, not just to the veterans who were mended here but also to the pandemic.”

She added that she was banking on the new residents demanding and setting up their own residents association
Cllr Clack said: “We don’t still have the sort of Downton Abbey type families anymore who can run these huge estates. It’s a shame the MOD pulled out, it was a wonderfully loved site.”

She had trust in the planning regulations to deliver on what they were asking for and to not let that not fall by the wayside because it’s ‘too difficult to do’.

A further item on the agenda, to grant listed building consent to develop the site, was approved unanimously.

Surrey councillors say they could stop TfL (Transport for London) putting signs on the county’s roads ahead of the planned ULEZ (Ultra Low Emissions Zone) expansion. Surrey County Council’s leader said the authority would “stand its corner” on the expansion “blindly going ahead” as he called for more conversation between the London Mayor’s office and the authority.

The ULEZ sees drivers of certain cars charged £12.50 per day to enter it, and is currently in place in central London where Transport for London (TfL) claims there has been a reduction in nitrogen dioxide pollution by nearly half.
The zone is set to cover all of greater London from August, meaning it will border Surrey in council areas such as Elmbridge, Epsom and Ewell, and Spelthorne.

But Councillor Matt Furniss (Conservative, Shalford), the county council’s cabinet member for transport, infrastructure and growth, told a cabinet meeting on Tuesday (January 31) that TfL would need a legal agreement with the council to put anything on the county’s roads.

Cllr Furniss said he had written to the Mayor of London and TfL, setting out the council’s “absolute disappointment” that the plan would go ahead without “meaningful conversation” on how Surrey residents would be affected. He said he had told officers to stop any discussions on the location of signs on the county’s roads until “a grown up conversation has happened between the two authorities on mitigating the disruption and the financial cost to Surrey residents.”

The council’s leader, Cllr Tim Oliver (Conservative, Weybridge), said “any conversation would be a good start” claiming there had been “no dialogue at all”. He told the meeting: “We do have the legal opportunity to prevent the Mayor of London putting signage on our highways and we will forcefully make that point to them. We will stand our corner on this.”

Surrey’s councils were given the chance to respond to a consultation on the ULEZ expansion in 2022, with Elmbridge, Tandridge and Spelthorne, among others, submitting responses. They called variously for a delay to the expansion, an expansion of the scrappage scheme offered to London residents to include Surrey car owners and the expansion of the zone 6 Oyster card zone.

Cllr Furniss said the county council had put forward ten points to TfL that should be considered if the scheme were to go ahead. These included exemptions for taxis and key workers, corridors to NHS facilities near the border and extensions to public transport into Surrey, among others.

The expansion is due to come into place from August 29 this year.

Related reports:

ULEZ will come to Epsom and Ewell borders

Yet more on ULEZ….

More on Epsom and Ewell and Surrey and ULEZ

Council’s last minute opposition to ULEZ extension.

Surrey County Council is planning to restrict a rise in Council Tax to 2.99% in the current budget plans for 2023/24. The council’s Cabinet agreed the draft budget today outlining the planned rise, which is lower than the vast majority of other councils in the UK and far lower than the rate of inflation.

Surrey County Council spends just over £1bn a year on delivering vital services such as Adult Social Care, Children’s Services, maintaining roads and pavements, Surrey Fire & Rescue Service, libraries, countryside management and public health.

Image: council tax pie chart: EEBC 2022/2023

The budget also outlines the council’s five-year capital investment plan that will deliver more school places and improved school buildings, increased support for children with additional needs, road improvements, big infrastructure projects like in Farnham town centre, the River Thames flood defence scheme, grant funding community projects and increasing recycling capacity across Surrey.

Tim Oliver, Leader of the Council, (Conservative) said: “This budget is about protecting the services that the people of Surrey rely on, while being mindful of the huge pressures household budgets are under at the moment. The rise in the cost of living, inflation and interest rates have all impacted the council as an organisation, as well as our residents. Everything we do has simply become more expensive to deliver. However, we have worked hard over the last five years to ensure our finances are in a solid and stable state.

“We think it is important to only levy the absolute minimum we need to meet increased costs, in order to protect the money in people’s pockets as much as possible. “We are making the decision to face this financial challenge in the fairest way possible, balancing our needs and ambitions with the immediate cost of living impact on our residents.”

The budget will go before a Full Council meeting on Tuesday 7 February to be ratified.

The full details of the proposed 2023/24 budget can be found here.

Notes:

This list shows the Council’s budget plan for next year by each service area, and an indication of how much that is in terms of average Council Tax*.

Adult Social Care – Looking after people with disabilities, severe needs, and as they get older.

£439.7m per year (That is equivalent of £668.66 of annual Council Tax for a Band D property)

Public Service Reform & Public Health – Working closely with our NHS partners to help people live healthier lives and keep them safe and well.

£36.6m per year (That is equivalent of £55.66 of annual Council Tax for a Band D property)

Children, Families & Lifelong Learning – Giving young people the best start in life, with additional care for those who need it and supporting education providers.

£254.8m per year (That is equivalent of £387.48 of annual Council Tax for a Band D property)

Environment, Transport & Infrastructure – Improving our roads and public transport, managing our countryside, and tackling the climate emergency.

£152.8m per year (That is equivalent of £232.37 of annual Council Tax for a Band D property)

Surrey Fire & Rescue Service – Keeping residents safe and responding to emergencies

£38.7m per year (That is equivalent of £58.85 of annual Council Tax for a Band D property)

Customer and Communities – Helping local communities thrive, providing libraries, registrations, customer services and funding grants.

£18.9m per year (That is equivalent of £28.74 of annual Council Tax for a Band D property)

Prosperity, Partnerships and Growth – Working with businesses and other partners to help grow Surrey’s local economy

£1.6m per year (That is equivalent of £2.43 of annual Council Tax for a Band D property)

Communications, Public Affairs & Engagement – Making sure residents are well informed, can access services, and that Surrey’s collective voice is heard.

£2.2m per year (That is equivalent of £3.35 of annual Council Tax for a Band D property)

Resources – Things like Surrey Crisis Fund, school meal provision, administrative support, IT, legal services, and management of council buildings to keep services running smoothly.

£79.3m per year (That is equivalent of £120.59 of annual Council Tax for a Band D property)

Central Income and Expenditure – Putting money into savings to help protect services in future, and repayments on borrowing used for our investment programme

£76.9m per year (That is equivalent of £116.94 of annual Council Tax for a Band D property)

*For illustrative purposes, this represents the total budget split by the Band D council tax value. Some areas are funded by specific restricted grants, which are not reflected here. This is the County Council’s Band D figures only and does not include amounts raised by District & Borough Councils, Surrey Police or Parish Councils.

Surrey County Council news service.

Related Reports:

Senior local Councillor slams Surrey’s budget consultation

Budget Report: More council tax for Epsom and Ewell

Great expectations on Surrey’s tax?

Banding against Surrey’s top value homes?

Balancing the Borough’s Books

Epsom and Ewell Borough Council’s (EEBC) Licensing and Planning Policy Committee voted unanimously yesterday (30 January) to publish its Draft Local Plan for public consultation, after the chairman rebuffed claims that councillors had not been given enough time to read it. The decision followed public opposition to suggestions of Green Belt development in the borough, including a petition with over 2,000 signatures.

Image – Google – Horton Farm, Epsom in Green Belt, that could get 1500 houses.

The meeting opened with questions from the public. The chair, Councillor Steven McCormick (RA – Woodote Ward) told the committee that members of the public could not ask questions directly related to the meeting’s agenda items. This is in the Council’s Standing Orders. Steve Gebbett, who has been campaigning to protect the borough’s Green Belt, said: “My belt’s a bit too tight. I hope you don’t mind me taking off my green belt.” In a symbolic gesture, he placed a green belt on a table, where it remained for the remainder of the meeting.

He asked: “Does the committee ever refer significant issues that affect the whole borough to the whole council?” Mr Gebbett then described a situation in which “councillors go home and tell their loved ones their legacy is: honey, I shrunk the greenbelt”.

Councillor Julie Morris (Liberal Democrats, College Ward) asked the committee: “Am I the only person who hasn’t seen this document before? Have you all been discussing it for a long time? The assembled public might think we’ve been cooking it up for months. But we haven’t.” Councillor McCormick told her that they’d tried “to be open and transparent with the whole process.” He added that there had been many member briefings throughout the summer and autumn, and several statements to full council with opportunities to ask questions.

He also said that the Draft Local Plan had been presented to all members to be discussed in December, and said to Councillor Morris: “Maybe you missed some of those meetings?” Councillor McCormick added: “It’s strange to disperse the idea that it has happened behind closed doors. I’m quite disappointed Councillor Morris, I’m afraid.” Councillor Morris said that she meant that she had not seen the whole document together previously.

Councillor McCormick responded: “The items were presented on 7 December to all members. You’ve had ample opportunity to come forward to seek clarification.” Councillor Neil Dallen (Residents’ Association, Town Ward) said he had “sympathy” with Julie Morris’ comments, adding: “This is the first time we’ve seen the 200-page document. Most of it we have covered in different places at different times. I can’t say there’s parts I wasn’t aware of. I still think there’s bits missing.”

The Draft Local Plan sets out planning policies and sites that may be developed in the Borough up until 2040. It includes nine sites for potential development, on which it proposes that a significant proportion of its housing requirement will be built.

Four of these sites are in the town centre, on previously developed – ‘brownfield’ – land. However, the Council has said that they would be unable to meet housing requirements within urban areas alone. The Draft Local Plan states: “Whilst these sustainable locations are our preferred locations for new development, they do not deliver adequate housing to meet our social responsibilities for providing housing, in particular affordable housing.” Therefore, the other sites put forward for development are located outside of the town centre and on Green Belt land.

Green Belt land includes areas of countryside that are protected from development in order to prevent urban sprawl and encourage development within existing built-up areas. National planning policy requires that Green Belt boundaries are only amended “in exceptional circumstances”.

In the Draft Local Plan, the council says that it “considers that the scale of unmet development / housing needs in the borough that would result from pursuing a brownfield only approach provides the exceptional circumstances and justification to make changes to the Green Belt boundaries in the borough.”

The Draft Plan also states that: “Through the release of less than 3.6% of the borough’s Green Belt, the council will be able to deliver an additional 2,175 dwellings over the plan period”.

Under the proposals, sites removed from the Green Belt for development would include:

• Land at West Park Hospital (for 150 homes)
• Horton Farm (for 1,500 homes)
• Land at Chantilly Way (for 25 homes)
• Land Adjoining Ewell East Station (for 350 homes)
• Hook Road Arena (for 150 homes)

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPFF), which the Local Plan should generally adhere to, is undergoing consultation, including on a revision that states that: “Green Belt boundaries are not required to be reviewed and altered if this would be the only means of meeting the objectively assessed need for housing over the plan period”.

Mr Chris Grayling, MP for Epsom and Ewell, told the Epsom and Ewell Times: “The Borough’s proposal to simply build houses on 135 acres of green belt land, and not make any attempt to pursue the redevelopment of Kiln Lane and Longmead as a way of strengthening both the Borough’s economic future and meeting its housing need is a failure of momentous proportions.”

Mr Grayling has put forward his own proposals for development [reported in the Epsom and Ewell Times] on the Kiln Lane and Longmead estates. He told the Epsom and Ewell Times: “The kind of development that I proposed is happening elsewhere, but the Council thinks it is too difficult to do here. I think that is a cop out, and the result will be a massive loss of our green spaces in the area and real damage to biodiversity. It’s always easier just to build on a green field. But easy does not mean best.”

The Draft Local Plan, in reference to residential development on the Kiln Lane and Longmead estates, states that: “longer term opportunities for intensification for mixed use could be explored in time”.

The Council has said: “The Local Plan needs to protect our attractive and valued environment whilst reconciling the need to accommodate our development needs. The balance between protecting our environment and enabling development and supporting infrastructure, is at the centre of our spatial strategy.”

The borough’s housing need was calculated using the “standard method” in national planning guidance. The need was calculated as 576 dwellings per annum, equating to 10,368 dwellings over the Local Plan period. The Draft Local Plan, however, states: “Taking into account the borough’s constraints, the council is not planning on meeting its local housing need figure.” Instead, it has set a housing requirement of 5,400 dwellings over the Local Plan period.

Under another proposed addition, the NPFF will strengthen its existing point that local housing need is an advisory starting point for setting a local housing requirement. In an email on behalf of CPRE, (The Council for the Protection of Rural England), Surrey, to the Licensing and Planning Policy Committee, Mr Tim Murphy said that there was “no justification” for increasing the number of homes in the borough by 5,400. He said that the standard method used to calculate housing need “relies on household projections from 2014 which are now widely recognised as significantly inflating household growth in areas such as ours”.

The Council’s Planning Policy Manager told the committee that there is “already an existing need in the borough” and that as of June 2022, there were 1,200 households on the list for affordable housing. He added: “We have a significant need for affordable housing in the borough, including for homelessness and people in temporary accommodation.”

However, the committee rejected a motion, proposed by Cllr Kate Chinn (Court Ward, Labour), to ensure that 40% of all new developments exceeding 10 units included affordable housing.

Councillors also raised questions in the meeting as to whether the Draft Local Plan could be altered following the public consultation. Councillor Morris asked whether, if a large number of people came forward to oppose Green Belt development, this would form part of the “evidence base” required for Local Plan policies.

The Council’s Interim Director of Environment, Housing and Regeneration, responded: “It is the content of responses, and what new evidence and information they direct us towards, not about the number of responses received, or the number of times something is said.” She said that the council would be required to provide a statement on the consultation, with key issues that were raised, and how they were addressed with changes to the Plan.

Councillor Morris said: “We’ve taken an awfully time to get this far; I’d hate to see it abandoned. So much of the document is really really important. There are bits that are just not right. If I were to support it, it would not be that I support the content, but the concept of it going forward to public consultation.” She added: “Green Belt has become massively important. […] Keeping hold of what we’ve got has become the name of the game recently.”

Councillor Dallen added: “Can I request that we don’t have 200 pages to go through in one night in future?” Councillor McCormick responded: “It’s noted. We’ll try to do better next time.”

Just before the vote, Councillor Morris said: “I am somewhat reassured that there can be significant change if this document goes ahead. I expected to want to vote against. I felt we hadn’t given it enough thought and time.” She added: “This is clearly controversial. A lot of people are not happy about this.”

After almost two hours, councillors voted unanimously to go ahead with the Draft Local Plan. Public consultation will commence today at noon and conclude on 15 March. Go to Epsom and Ewell Times Official Notices page to see how you can respond.

After the meeting Cllr Steven McCormick, Chair of the Licensing and Planning Policy Committee, said: “We believe the Draft Plan provides a proactive framework for the borough to grow in a strong and positive way, so everyone will have the opportunity to live in an affordable, vibrant area with a growing economy. “The Draft Local Plan is our starting point and we strongly encourage local people to help shape the final Plan by responding to the consultation.”

[Ed: Even if the Green Belt proposals are removed after public consultation this Draft will still be of value in Planning Appeals pursued by Green Belt developers in the future].

Related reports:

Local Plan battle heating up?

Green-belters seeing red on Local Plan?

Lessons for Epsom in Mole Valley’s “shouty” Local Plan struggle?

Crucial month for local Local Plans?

Gove gives pause for thought on Local Plans?

Local Plan Battle: early skirmishes on Downs Farm

MP’s housing solution for Epsom and Ewell

Epsom and Ewell Borough Council is planning to purchase movable micro homes for families needing temporary accommodation in the borough. In a report to the Strategy & Resource Committee on 26th January, officers stated that demand in the borough for temporary accommodation is acute. They plan initially to purchase three family micro homes at a cost of £435,000. The homes, which boast exceptional energy efficiency, will be constructed off site and craned into position. They have a 50 to 60 year life span, come fully furnished and can be moved to another site if required. Several councils, from Cornwall in the west to Southend in the east, have already developed schemes with similar units.

Subject to planning permission, which will be applied for in the next three months, the units will be located on a brownfield site near the Kiln Lane Sainsbury’s. The Council has already secured a £75,000 grant from the Brownfield Land Relief Fund to assist with the preparation of the site for development.

The report was greeted with enthusiasm by councillors. “It looks a progressive and radical solution,” said Councillor Alan Williamson (RA, West Ewell Ward), “and it’s to be commended. I would like to see this as the basis for further developments in the borough.”

The interest was so great that one officer suggested arranging some tours before the homes are occupied.

Councillor Kate Chinn (Labour, Court Ward) was also wholehearted in her support. “Anything that stops families being separated, moving out of the borough, being able to remain with their support networks is fabulous,” she said.

After the meeting the Council issued a press release confirming:

Epsom & Ewell Borough Council has submitted a planning application to create three new temporary homes to house local families at risk of homelessness.

The proposal is in response to the acute demand for temporary accommodation in the borough, particularly for family-sized homes. It forms an important contribution to the Council’s recently launched Homelessness and Rough Sleeping Strategy, which includes the objective to increase accommodation options in the borough including temporary accommodation.

The proposal makes use of brownfield land alongside Fairview Road in Epsom and was approved by the Strategy & Resources Committee on Thursday 26 January. The proposal will now go through the due planning process and if approved, work will start in March 2023.

Alongside providing life-changing support to the families who will make use of the homes, investment in the properties will lead to savings for the Council over time, as the cost of the development is offset by rental income and a reduction in the need for expensive nightly paid accommodation. The Council has also been successfully awarded funding of £75,000 from the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities’ Brownfield Land Relief Fund, to be invested in this project.

The homes are pre-fabricated and built offsite to provide an innovative, attractive and low-cost housing solution. They are at the forefront of energy efficient design and provide safe, welcoming spaces for families.

Cllr Neil Dallen, Chair of the Strategy & Resources Committee, said: “I am delighted that this key project has been approved by Committee, and that its importance has been emphasised by the level of funding we have received from central government. The impact of homelessness cannot be underestimated, and increasing temporary accommodation provision for local families will have a positive impact not only on those being housed, but on the borough as a whole.

“This will now progress through the planning process and we will await the outcome with interest.”

At Thursday 26th January meeting of the Strategy and Resources Committee of Epsom and Ewell Borough Council eagle-eyed financial expert Cllr David Gulland (Lib Dem, College Ward) spotted a loss of £250,000 in the borough council’s on-street parking income.

A council officer explained that , although highways are Surrey County Council’s (SCC) responsibility, they had previously contracted Epsom & Ewell Borough Council (EEBC) to do the enforcement of on-street parking. EEBC already had their own enforcement officers managing the off-street carparks, so economies of scale could be realised by doing them both together. EEBC used to collect nearly £400K from on-street parking permits and enforcement notices.

But now SCC has unilaterally decided to end that contract and put it back out to a private sector contractor, so EEBC can no longer benefit from the on-street parking income or the economies of scale. Officers are doing all they can to reduce the cost and minimise the loss of income, he insisted.

Cllr Gulland was unimpressed with SCC’s actions. “I think we should note that for possible action at county council election time,” he suggested.

Related Stories:

Local Parking (enforcement) Wars opinion piece by Cllr Eber Kington

Private Public Parking Penalisers Surrey County Council privatises parking enforcement

At Epsom and Ewell’s Strategy and Resources committee meeting on 26th January, councillors discussed rates of pay in the forthcoming year – for staff, for the Chief Executive and for themselves. Most staff will receive a capped 3% cost of living pay increase. This is a result of the Council’s Employee Pay and Reward Procedure 2020-24, a four year pay deal agreed at the beginning of that period. This compares with a Consumer Price Index rise of 10.5% for the 12 months ending in December 2022.

This compares with a proposed increase for the Chief Executive of the borough of at least 15%, a figure which made Cllr Kate Chinn (Labour, Court Ward) feel “uncomfortable”. The top of the salary range for the Chief Executive will become £143,376 in the 2023/4 year.

A council officer explained that a review of pay for Chief Officers had been undertaken some years ago, but that the Chief Executive’s pay had been excluded from that review. Following an external benchmarking exercise, “this is a catch-up exercise,” she said. Nevertheless, “for the staff to get 3% because of the agreement that they’re in and the chief exec to get 15 to 16%, it does feel quite difficult,” Cllr Chinn complained.

Cllr. Eber Kington (RA, Ewell Court Ward) took comfort from the gender pay gap which continues to be negative, showing that women employed by the local authority earn on average more than men. This is primarily due to the majority of front-line operatives being male and senior management roles being held by a significant proportion of women. “This does suggest that this is an organisation to which woman feel comfortable applying and where they wish to stay and seek promotion within the organisation,” said Cllr Kington. “I think that is something we ought to be proud of as a local authority.”

However, the issue that provoked the most councillor participation was their own pay. The motion that councillors were asked to vote on suggested that their allowances should mirror the staff pay award and rise by 3% in 2023/24, with an independent Remuneration Panel determining the increase in 2024/25.

Cllr David Gulland (Lib Dem, College Ward) felt “personally unhappy in voting any increase for the councillors” in the current environment.

However, the meeting’s chairman, Cllr Neil Dallen (RA (Town Ward), pointed out that the last two independent remuneration panels had recommended a considerable increase in councillors’ allowances, but the council had voted at the time not to accept those recommendations, otherwise allowances would now be much higher than they are.

Councillor Alan Williamson (RA, West Ewell Ward) agreed. “There is a widening gap between this authority and other districts around Surrey,” he argued. “In future fiscal years, we should get back on track in line with the independent recommendations.”

“We have bills,” said Councillor Monica Coleman (RA, West Ewell Ward), “and some of us have to decide if we’re going to be councillors or get a job. There are some occasions when I have to decide whether to work or go to a meeting and sometimes work rules because that pays my bills.”

A sentiment that was echoed by Councillor Chinn. “A really good overhaul of the allowances would be very welcome,” she said, “ and looking at allowances for things like carers, transport, child-minding …. to enable as many people as possible to become councillors.”

The basic allowance for a councillor will rise to £4,031.70 in 2023/24. Some posts such as committee chairs and vice chairs receive additional allowances.

Related reports

Balancing the Borough’s Books

Surrey residents have just three weeks left to apply for a grant to help make their home warmer and more energy efficient, ahead of applications closing on Friday 17 February 2023.  

People living in hard to heat homes and on lower incomes, could receive grants between £10,000 and £25,000 to improve insulation and install renewable technology – helping to save energy, reduce emissions and combat rising energy prices. Improvement measures include loft insulation, cavity and external wall insulation, underfloor insulation, and renewables, such as solar electricity panels. 

Residents can check if they are eligible by visiting the Action Surrey website – www.actionsurrey.org, or by calling them on 0800 783 2503.

Marisa Heath, (Englefield Green, Conservative) Cabinet Member for Environment at Surrey County Council said: “We know this is a challenging time for many and we’re really pleased to be offering this funding to our residents who need our support the most.  

“Improving the energy efficiency of homes in Surrey will also help us achieve our goal to be a net zero county by 2050.  “I encourage residents to check if they are eligible as soon as possible.” 

So far, over £1.5m has been allocated across the county to fully fund over 250 energy efficiency improvements. Funding has been awarded through central Government to Surrey County Council, leading on behalf of the local authorities across the county. The project will be delivered and managed by Action Surrey – an energy efficiency advice service set up in partnership with all Surrey local authorities. 

Keep up to date on progress towards our target of making Surrey net zero by 2050 and find out what you can do to help. Sign up to our Greener Matters newsletter to get updates here: Our climate change newsletter – Surrey County Council (surreycc.gov.uk)

Surrey County Council news service

The allocation of levelling up funding from central government was announced last week, with more than 100 projects given a share of £2.1billion. But no funding was given to Surrey’s councils, with one of the county’s proposed projects being improvements to Caterham town centre and flooding measures.

Three bids were put in across the county in total, with the other two being for better cycling and walking routes to the east of Woking and a new health centre in Sheerwater. Overall, government figures show £672m was allocated to develop better transport links, £821m for community regeneration and £594m to restore local heritage sites across the country.

More than £200m was given to councils in south east England, including £45m to Kent County Council for more border control points and traffic improvement measures at Dover and £20m each for improvements to Folkestone and Sheerness town centres.

Over the border in Hampshire, Rushmoor Borough Council was also awarded £20m for a state-of-the-art leisure centre, library and cultural space in Farnborough to help tackle high levels of obesity, inactivity, and poor mental health in the area. But Surrey’s councils were not awarded any cash, with only three bids being put in between the county council and the 11 district and borough councils.

We break these down in detail below, including the cash that was asked for, and those councils which did not bid for funding.

Unsuccessful bids:
Surrey County Council’s £12m bid to improve walking, cycling and bus routes to the east of Woking would have created better connections to the town centre, and were part of wider plans to improve sustainable travel options in the county. The scheme would have seen improved footpaths, cycle paths and tracks, more secure bike parking and e-bike charging stations and proposals to fund a trial e-cargo bike hire scheme for businesses and residents. Bus improvements would have included better accessibility, real-time information and bus stops with living roofs.

A county council spokesperson said: “Whilst our bids in the latest round were not successful, we will continue to work closely with government to identify and access funding for the vital work we are doing to ensure no one in Surrey is left behind.”

Woking Borough Council also put in a bid for £3.8m for a ‘health and community campus’ in Sheerwater.
A £492m project is already underway to regenerate the area, which the council said is the second most deprived area in the county. The campus would have given residents access to maternity clinics, chiropody, disability support, GP services, dentistry, parenting support and nursery care.

The council said it should have a “significant and positive impact on some of the borough’s most vulnerable and harder to reach residents”. In response to the bid being unsuccessful, Cllr Will Forster (Liberal Democrat, Hoe Valley), the council’s deputy leader, said given the area being the second most deprived in Surrey, the council felt they had “a strong case”. He said the council was “disappointed” to have missed out on the latest round of Levelling Up funding. Cllr Forster added: “The next phase of the Sheerwater Regeneration Project has already commenced and we remain committed to working with partners to develop the new health and community campus and delivering the much needed facilities.”

Tandridge District Council’s application for £8.7m would have meant money being put towards regenerating Caterham, including new flood measures to help with the regular flooding there. The East Surrey MP, Claire Coutinho, thanked the district council for its work in putting together the bid, and said she was “disappointed” the money was not awarded. She added: “I will work with Tandridge District Council and central government to explore all future funding opportunities, to make sure that East Surrey gets the funding it needs to improve our towns and villages.”

The leader of the council, Councillor Catherine Sayer (Independents and OLRG Alliance, Oxted North & Tandridge), said: “We are extremely disappointed our bid for funding was unsuccessful. We planned to use this funding to regenerate Caterham, boost the local economy, attract more people to work, visit and live in the area and introduce much needed flood alleviation measures. This would build on the work we’ve already done to improve Caterham Valley town centre.” She said a lot of time and hard work had been put into the bid, and said the council would look for feedback on the application and appeal the decision if possible. Cllr Sayer added: “We will also consider another bid when government confirms details of the third round of funding.”

Councils which did not apply for the funding:

The other district and borough councils did not apply for levelling up funding, though some have bid for and received central government funding in the form of the UK Shared Prosperity Fund. These included a £1m award to Elmbridge Borough Council to be used for the Walton Playhouse and in playgrounds, and the same amount to Runnymede Borough Council which it will use for transforming Chertsey high street and grants for new businesses.

The full list of councils which did not make a bid for Levelling up funding were:

Reigate & Banstead Borough Council
Spelthorne Borough Council
Mole Valley District Council
Elmbridge Borough Council
Runnymede Borough Council
Surrey Heath Borough Council
Epsom & Ewell Borough Council
Guildford Borough Council
Waverley Borough Council

Related reports:

Surrey County Council on the level.

Epsom & Ewell Borough Council will carry out a number of activities to mark Holocaust Memorial Day on Friday 27 January. Holocaust Memorial Day is a time to remember the six million Jews murdered during the Holocaust, the millions of other victims of Nazi persecution and those killed in the more recent genocides in Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia and Darfur.

The Council will light up the clocktower in Epsom Market Place in purple in memory of the victims of the Holocaust and genocide worldwide.

The Mayor, Councillor Clive Woodbridge, will give a speech which will be available to view on the Council’s YouTube channel from Friday – https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0UGt6AEUCYhS3gjs4jEsyg.

An exhibition will take place at Bourne Hall, Ewell, looking at the history of the Holocaust and linking it to local stories from the Borough. Visitors will be able to place LED candles on the shrine as a mark of respect.

Virtual candles can also be lit by visiting www.illuminatethepast.org.

To learn more about the Holocaust and genocide, please visit www.hmd.org.uk.

Epsom and Ewell Borough Council

Related article:

Flight of refugees: history repeating?

An opinion piece from Cllr Eber Kington: This week SCC announced a seven-year contract worth £96.5 million, with private company Marston Holdings Ltd, for parking and traffic enforcement. In April, SCC will be centralising parking enforcement, a service which currently is managed by Surrey’s Borough and District on behalf of the County.

Image: Cllr Eber Kington on patrol

The accompanying comments to the announcement, made by the Kevin Deanus, Cabinet member for Highways
and Community Resilience, promise much. But residents need to be aware, SCC does not have a great track
record when it comes to taking back decision making and centralising services previously provided by the Borough Council on behalf of the County.

When SCC took back the maintenance of highway verge trees the policy became one of no maintenance unless a
tree is diseased, dying or dead. And no longer will SCC automatically replace a tree lost to our urban streets.
Instead, our residents have to pay £25 just to get a location looked at. £25 which is not refundable and, as often
is the case, ends with the site being declared as unsuitable for a tree.

In April, SCC is also taking back the cutting of verges. The 6 to 8 seasonal cuts by the Borough Council, recognising
seasonal weather conditions, will be reduced a standard county-wide cut of 4. Hardly an upgrade on what has
gone before. And will SCC be pro-actively managing overhanging branches in our urban alleyways? My concern is
that SCC does not even realise it’s a job to be done.

And the abolition of Local Committees and centralisation of highway decisions. Now residents have no public
meeting to ask questions of Highway Officers, petitions are determined at SCC’s HQ in Reigate by council officials
or a SCC Cabinet Member, and road safety schemes are decided by a Cabinet Member rather than local County
Councillors.

So, what will this £96.5 million contract mean? Kevin Deanus, Cabinet member for Highways and Community
Resilience, said: “The new contract will mean that Surrey County Council can more directly and consistently
manage on street parking enforcement across the county, helping to tackle inconsiderate parking and make
parking restrictions more effective.”

We all want safe and considerate parking, and there has to be a penalty for those who do neither. But that £96.5
million contract has to be paid for somehow. Will we see parking meters introduced where currently there are 1
hour or 2 hour waiting limits? Will additional yellow lines, designed to push drivers into paid for parking spaces,
be introduced. Will the new system be flexible enough to ensure that our local primary schools are visited
regularly to manage dangerous parking and idling cars? And will Residents Parking Zone Permit charges go up
once again.

Personally, I’m not sure that SCC’s desire for consistency and effectiveness in parking enforcement also equates
to fairness in delivery and a recognition of local needs, and it won’t be just another way to make our residents
pay.

County Councillor Eber Kington

Eber Kington is a former Mayor of Epsom and Ewell. He represents the Epsom and Ewell Borough Council Ward of Ewell Court Ward and on the County Council of Surrey he serves the ward of Ewell Court, Auriol & Cuddington.

Related stories from Epsom and Ewell Times:

Private Public Parking Penalisers

A Greener Future in Partial Sight As Verges To Be Left Unmown

A draft Local Plan, that will delineate Epsom and Ewell Borough‘s planning framework for decisions on planning applications and development for the years ahead, has been published on the Council’s website. Out of 5,400 new homes proposed in the Draft Local Plan (2023-20240), some 2,175 homes (almost 41%) are earmarked to be built on the borough’s Green Belt land. EEBC councillors are due to take a final Section 18 publication decision on 30 January,

Of nine “Preferred Option” development sites proposed, five are Green Belt – with Downs Farm, where 650 homes were proposed, only narrowly missing the cut after a campaign by residents. Over 55 hectares – or some 137 acres – of Green Belt land could be sacrificed. The plans include one gigantic estate of some 1,500 homes on land around Horton Farm, which will have its Green Belt status stripped away.
The “Preferred Options” for Green Belt development are:

• 150 homes around West Park Hospital
• 1,500 homes around Horton Farm
• 25 homes next to Chantilly Way
• 350 homes on the sports fields by Ewell East Station
• 150 homes on sports pitches at Hook Road Arena (land owned by the Council)

A spokesperson for a local campaign group seeking to protect green belt land has responded: “Given the Government’s “brownfield first” brief, it looks like the planners did not get the memo. They certainly did not get the new memo from Government saying that it is not necessary to review Green Belt for housing. And they appear not to have taken the hint from neighbouring Elmbridge, who creatively avoided any Green Belt destruction, and Mole Valley, whose councillors this month voted unanimously to remove all Green Belt sites from its Local Plan.”

“Only on its own land can the Council specify 100% affordable homes – the rest will be about 40% , as developers have many canny ways to get round this stipulation and build more profitable higher end housing. The Plan is offering just around 1,000 homes in Epsom Town Centre until year 2040, with a similar number only on other brownfield spaces, plus also around 1,000 for planning permissions in the Borough already in the pipeline “

Appendix 4 of the draft Local Plan reveal other Green Belt sites that have been offered up by developers in a “ Call for Sites.”

Yufan Si, campaign leader for Keep Epsom & Ewell’s Green Belt stated: “So where is the real challenge taken up, to redevelop Epsom Town surroundings, which most commentators agree could do with some rejuvenation? The Kiln Lane and Longmead industrial areas are said to be off limits, according to consultants for EEBC, because of the 1,800 jobs there. So not a single new brownfield affordable home is put forward here, with no imaginative plan to mix housing with job creation and revitalise an area close to the station, shops and entertainment facilities that many people prefer.”

“We are left with the conclusion that the planners – and by extension our ruling Councillors – are in a “Call for Sites” trap. This has inhibited visionary thinking and pro-active engagement with urban developers on how much-needed affordable housing might be built in tandem with an exciting redevelopment programme that Epsom’s brownfield areas so desperately need. All they seem able to do about it is to bulldozer yet another field of our Green Belt heritage” said Ms Si.

If Councillors vote at the special meeting of the Licensing, Planning and Policy Committee on January 30 for the Draft Local Plan (Section 18) to proceed, then it will be formally published by EEBC on February 1, followed by a six-week Public Consultation stage.

Related reports:

Green-belters seeing red on Local Plan?

Lessons for Epsom in Mole Valley’s “shouty” Local Plan struggle?

Crucial month for local Local Plans?

Gove gives pause for thought on Local Plans?

Local Plan Battle: early skirmishes on Downs Farm

MP’s housing solution for Epsom and Ewell

Who knew that 15th January was National Pothole Day? Earlier this month I drove around a bend in Woodcote Green Road in Epsom at night to be faced with a traffic cone placed a few feet into the road. Was that dangerous or was I lucky? The cone was placed in a large pothole and if the car had hit the pothole it might have been damaged. The Autocar website recently reported that a single pothole in Surrey had caused wheel and tyre damage to at least twelve cars on the evening of the 17th January. Whilst both the pothole that caused the damage to the 12 cars and the pothole in Woodcote Green Road were repaired by Surrey County Council, the surface on Woodcote Green Road leaves a lot to be desired and has done so for a number of years.

This incident reminded me of a report made to the Council via their porthole reporting web page in October of last year. It reported potholes and commented on the general poor state of the road surface of Woodcote Green Road that runs behind Epsom Hospital and is a route used by many cyclists. A reply was received. “We have visited the site and on closer inspection the problem does not need immediate work. We will continue to monitor and consider it when planning future works.”

Although Surrey County Council sends teams out to repair potholes they consider dangerous, the general surface of the road continues to deteriorate. On a stretch of Woodcote Green Road between Sunnybank and Pine Hill, about 450 metres long, more than 60 defects in the road surface are apparent. Some of these are no more
than 2 cm wide and 10 cm long. One varied in width from a few centimetres to about 15cms, was 17 meters long and entirely in a cycle lane. Another was about a square meter in area and had cable exposed arising from and disappearing back into the road surface. Reporting a pothole shallower than 3cms or other road surface issues
results in the message: “This issue is likely to be assessed as a low priority when inspected. We will probably wait to repair it as part of future improvement works.”

Walking along the road it’s noticeable that a number of defects are immediately adjacent to previous repairs, others are repairs that are beginning to break up and some are surfaces that have been reinstated after work by utilities and are sinking. Are the quality of repairs or reinstatements monitored and who is responsible for any
substandard work?

It is also noticeable that when a team is sent out to repair a pothole, that is exactly what they do. There may be defects very close to the pothole being repaired but these are ignored. In wet and cold weather, even small holes in the road surface will fill with water, the water freezes and expands and the hole gets bigger. Would it not make sense, and maybe save money if once a team was on site they fixed not only the hole they were sent to fix but also other defects nearby?

The link to a map of planned improvements mentioned above indicates that no resurfacing work is planned for Woodcote Green Road. The map indicates that very little road resurfacing is planned for Epsom with only a little more in Ewell and Stoneleigh.

The wait goes on for better quality road surfaces in Epsom.

An Epsom and Ewell Times Special Correspondent.

_{Is your road potted with potholes? Are you going potty about these potholes? Send us photos of your potted street. Epsom and Ewell Times admin@epsomandewelltimes.com}

Jackie King is set to become the new Chief Executive of Epsom & Ewell Borough Council, subject to ratification by Full Council on Tuesday 14 February. Jackie has been recommended for the position following a robust and competitive recruitment process.

Jackie joined Epsom & Ewell Council (EEBC) in September 2021 as Director of Corporate Resources and has been in the position of interim Chief Executive since July 2022. Jackie has had an extensive career across the public and private sector and prior to joining EEBC was Acting Chief Executive at Tandridge District Council. She also spent eight years at Surrey Police in various People, Change and Transformation roles as well as roles relating to
performance and risk in global financial institutions.

Cllr Hannah Dalton, Chair of the Residents’ Association Majority Group, said: “We are very pleased to be recommending the appointment of Jackie King as the new Chief Executive of Epsom and Ewell Borough Council. Through the rigorous recruitment process undertaken, Jackie demonstrated that she is a strong and effective leader with the drive and vision to take EEBC forward.  Jackie has the support of Councillors, staff and partners in leading the delivery of our agreed priorities and in helping our communities to face the significant challenges that lie ahead in these tough times.”

“Jackie has been with the Council as our Director of Corporate Services for 18 months and I have every confidence that, with her at the helm as our Chief Executive, we will make strong progress in the years ahead and deliver the change that Councillors are looking for and that our residents expect.”

Jackie King said: “I am delighted to be recommended for this position as EEBC’s next Chief Executive. As a
long-term resident of the borough I am so proud of what we have to offer here, and am looking forward to working with colleagues, Councillors, partners and residents to support the borough to grow and thrive. The last few years have been challenging for us all in many ways and from my time here at the Council I know how committed and ambitious everyone is to really make a difference and deliver the best services we can for our communities, businesses, and visitors.”

Press release EEBC.

Surrey Fire and Rescue Service (SFRS) welcomed 37 new firefighters to the service this month. The group of wholetime firefighters took part in three different 15-week training courses, starting in April, July and August.

This is the latest group of recruits to join the service, and they will be posted to fire stations across Surrey of which there are a total of 25.

SFRS’s Chief Fire Officer, Dan Quin, said: “It is such a pleasure to be able to welcome our 37 new firefighters into the service. They have all worked so hard to get to this point. The training they have undertaken is not easy, it takes hard work, determination and teamwork and that is what every single one of these new firefighters have shown. Welcome to Team Surrey, I look forward to working with you.

“Having trained as a firefighter myself and attended a pass out parade, I know what a special occasion these events are for our new colleagues and their families. I look forward to seeing our new firefighters out at fire stations soon.”

The firefighters will be posted to locations across Surrey including Camberley, Dorking, Egham, Esher, Farnham, Guildford, Haslemere, Painshill, Walton and Woking Fire Stations.

Cabinet Member for Communities and Community Safety, which includes SFRS, Denise Turner Stewart, (Conservative, Staines South and Ashford West) said: “A huge congratulations to the new firefighters joining the service today. I have had the pleasure of attending a number of Pass Out Ceremonies in recent years, and it is always such a wonderful occasion to meet the new members of the service who have committed to keeping the communities of Surrey safe.

“Today is also an opportunity for us to celebrate with their family and friends, who will be by their side every step of the way in their new career. We hope it is a special day for them too.

“I’d also like to take this opportunity to thank our superb training team for their knowledge and expertise, and everyone else behind the scenes who has helped towards enabling this course. The service offers exceptional career aspects, so I look forward to seeing the future achievements and development from our new firefighters.”

SFRS currently has opportunities for firefighters on on-call contracts, these are skilled people from all walks of life who offer daytime, evening and/or weekend cover at on-call fire stations in addition to their normal, day-to-day commitments. Just like their wholetime counterparts. SFRS are recruiting for on-call firefighters at all of their on-call stations. If you, or someone you know is interested on being on-call please take a look at the website.

Surrey County Council news service