Plans to turn a family house into a home for vulnerable children on a Surrey street have been given the green light despite strong opposition from its future neighbours.

A five-bed detached home on Crosby Hill Drive in Camberley will be transformed into a children’s home for up to three kids aged 10-17. Staff would live in with them around the clock, with no changes made to the building itself. 

Council officers state the home is sorely needed, with rising demand for secure, regulated accommodation for children in care. 

But of 28 locals who wrote in about the scheme, 27 objected. Concerns ranged from traffic and road safety to fears the change could alter the “character” of the street. But councillors said many of the concerns were based on myths and misunderstandings about children’s homes. 

Members of a Surrey County Council planning committee approved the scheme at a meeting on September 24. 

One resident, however, wrote in support, arguing the location is exactly the kind of quiet and supportive environment vulnerable children should be given: “Everyone deserves a safe place to live,” they said. 

Despite traffic concerns, highway officers said there will not be a material change in the use of the road or car parking spaces down the street.

Rebecca Hanifan, responsible for looking after children’s homes within Surrey, told the committee: “Children’s homes are heavily regulated. The children who live in them are risk assessed and those with higher needs are placed in secure settings, not in the community.

“These are children who can live in a family setting- they go to school, they sleep well at night, and do normal activities over the weekend. Our homes blend into communities, property values do not drop and our children are well-behaved.”

Cllr Ernest Mallett MBE dismissed the claims the children’s home would damage the character of Crosby Hill Drive. He said: “How is that any different to children living in other houses? This is a perfectly viable use for the property. It won’t be any trouble to anyone and won’t be any different to any other house on the street. 

“We are a first-class western society and we take care of people.”

Others noted practical issues- like the lack of a bus shelter nearby and concerns about parking during staff changeovers – but backed the need for more children’s homes, given the national shortage of foster carers. 

The thorny issue of restrictive covenants on the property was raised by Nigel James, speaking on behalf of one of the neighbours, who said the council risked “wasting tax payers’ money” if due diligence was not done. But officers and councillors stressed covenants were not a planning matter for the committee, and Cllr Mallett said they were “virtually unenforceable”.

Cllr Jeremy Webster expressed unease about “parachuting” a children’s home into a quiet residential area and cited apparent estate agent warnings of a 10 per cent dip in house values. Meanwhile, Cllr Trefor Hogg said he sympathised with residents’ concerns but stressed: “We need both foster homes and children’s homes in Surrey.”

Emily Dalton LDRS

View outside 18 Crosby Hill Drive, in Camberley. (Credit: Surrey County Council documents)

‘Sink holes happen’ was the blunt message from a Surrey highways officer when asked if the council had the budget to repair five crumbling suburban roads.

In fairness, council budgets are often in flux with authorities never knowing how much funding they will receive from the central government and whether they will get any extra pennies from grants.

But that has not softened the blow for Walton residents who say they are “disappointed” after finding out five battered neighbourhood roads might not be resurfaced until 2028.

Almost 300 people signed a petition calling for urgent repairs to Cottimore Avenue, Cromwell Close, Fairfax Crescent, Monks Close and Stuart Avenue. Residents claim the roads in Walton are riddled with cracks, potholes and uneven pavements that pose a danger to pedestrians, cyclists and drivers. 

Residents say the situation has gone on for decades – with complaints about the roads dating back to the 1990s. But people say their calls for Surrey County Council to act have been repeatedly put aside and pushed back despite rat run traffic and speeding issues. One resident even claimed that it has been at least 40 years since the roads were last resurfaced. 

Residents said they are worried the delays will only get worse once Surrey is broken into unitary councils in Local Government Reorganisation. “It seems the problem is simply being passed on to the next authority,” said Paolo Orezzi, lead petitioner. “The road will simply deteriorate and it will increase the cost liability.”

But highway bosses have said the streets will not be resurfaced any time soon at a Highways, Transport and Economic Growth meeting on September 23. Instead, they have been given a flatteringly modest ‘medium priority’ rating in the county’s road maintenance list meaning it is unlikely the work will be complete before 2028/29. 

Even then, the plan is not to fully resurface the roads but to ‘fine mill’ the concrete beneath the tarmac. This is a cheaper process but residents fear this will not go far enough. 

Highway officers defended the decision pointing to the sheer scale of the challenge. “We manage 5,000km of roads across Surrey,” an officer said. “There is no doubt the roads would benefit from work but we have to prioritise based on budgets, emergencies and needs. Unfortunately, we can’t give firm timescales beyond next year- things change, sinkholes happen.”

Cllr Rachael Lake, who said she has been backing the residents’ calls for years, recalled: “I was standing next to a crack where the tarmac had totally worn away. You could actually get a child’s foot stuck down it. It was dangerous.”

The Conservative member for Walton said she was prepared to use her entire £120,000 allocated budget to fix the roads following residents accusing her of not looking after them. But Cllr Lake claimed highway officers would not even let her put the five worn out roads on a waiting list to be resurfaced. 

Lead for Highways, Transport and Economic Growth, Cllr Matt Furniss relented and asked officers to reassess the five roads in question, speak to residents and see if anything can be done with Cllr Lake’s allocated budget to get the roads on the list. Cllr Furniss added: “We can potentially do it next year but I am not promising anything.”

Residents said they are worried the delays will only get worse once Surrey is broken into unitary councils in Local Government Reorganisation. “It seems the problem is simply being passed on to the next authority,” said Paolo Orezzi, lead petitioner. “The road will simply deteriorate and it will increase the cost liability.”

Highway officers defended the decision pointing to the sheer scale of the challenge. “We manage 5,000km of roads across Surrey,” an officer said. “There is no doubt the roads would benefit from work but we have to prioritise based on budgets, emergencies and needs. Unfortunately, we can’t give firm timescales beyond next year- things change, sinkholes happen.”

Pothole stock image. Credit Kathryn Anderson

Emily Dalton LDRS

Related reports:

Will Surrey potholes outwit AI?

Pothole payouts and repairs penalise Councillor projects?

On the Hunt for pothole repairs

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

An unauthorised traveller camp has been built on land earmarked for inclusion in the Surrey Hills National Landscape – and now plans to make the site permanent have been submitted. Witnesses reported several caravans moving on to Unstead Lane in Bramley last week, sparking frustrations among residents over the lack of enforcement action. Since then a petition has been created calling on immediate action to be taken – with more than 600 people already signing.

It says: “Residents and taxpayers expect and deserve equal protection under planning law. The Surrey Hills National Landscape and Green Belt exist to safeguard our countryside for the benefit of all, not to be eroded by unlawful development. Allowing this encampment to remain would set a dangerous precedent that planning law can be ignored without consequence.”

Guildford Borough Council has said it was aware of the work carried out and understood people’s concerns. Officers visited the encampment and completed background work to gain a full understanding of the situation.

Councillor Jane Austin, leader of the Conservative opposition group in neighbouring Waverley Borough Council, represents the Bramley and Wonersh ward near the site. She said: “People went to bed on Friday looking out to a field and now they have this. Saturday the road was blocked and they were clearly doing something without planning permission, but nobody could get hold of anyone. That field was due to be national landscape land, deemed to be of that high quality. The land is on floodplain and an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, they won’t ever be legally built. People around here are reasonable and agree the GTL (Gypsy Traveller League) community need somewhere to live. Everybody should follow the law of the land without exception, planning is there to build sustainable communities and must be followed.”

Councils must provide adequate land for housing – whether fixed homes or traveller pitches. If they cannot demonstrate enough provision, sustainable planning applications are difficult to reject as they are often won on appeal – with the council liable for costs. In 2024 Guildford Borough Council was only able to identify 2.59 years supply for traveller pitches, below the minimum five years. Elsewhere in Surrey, Runnymede Borough Council’s decades-long failure to provide the legal minimum number of Gypsy and Traveller pitches has forced families to take matters into their own hands and build their own. Runnymede’s planning committee recently felt obligated to approve 12 new pitches in Hardwick Lane, Chertsey, despite concerns the site would be overcrowded and the roads unsafe.

Guildford Borough Council said it could not be expected to predict or prevent this type of incident occurring, but would react and manage it as quickly as possible. A spokesperson said: “If a breach of planning control is confirmed on any site in the borough, we have several enforcement options including negotiation and formal action. However, the enforcement powers available to local authorities do not achieve an instant solution.”

A planning application for the site was submitted on Saturday September 13. If it contains the correct paperwork, the council must validate it – with nearby residents contacted and given the opportunity to submit their views before any decision is made.

Surrey County Councillor Matt Furniss said he has been speaking with Guildford’s planning team and that Surrey Highways Enforcement has also visited the site to assess the new unauthorised access onto the highway for safety and to determine next steps. He added: “It is always disappointing when some individuals choose to work outside the planning process and I will be pressing both councils for a quick resolution.”

MP Jeremy Hunt said: “Residents all express the same sentiment – why is there so little action to address unauthorised encampments like this, which are appearing with increasing frequency. It is absolutely infuriating to see the law being ignored this way – and the people who do it getting away scot-free. This latest case is another rural field, recognised as being of such quality that it is earmarked for inclusion in the Surrey Hills National Landscape. Yet local people now face the prospect of potentially years of planning enforcement action – with no guarantee of success. The point is that such drawn-out processes risk consuming vast amounts of council time and money, while the local community continues to suffer the consequences. Early intervention and decisive action such as prompt issuance of a Stop Notice would help prevent situations like this from worsening.”

Chris Caulfield LDRS

Image of site in Unstead Lane, Bramley

One of Surrey’s “largest and most comprehensive arts and performance” spaces could shut its doors again if the next phase of its near £10m revamp is approved. Dorking Halls closed last year as Mole Valley District Council agreed to fund £6.1m in “sorely needed” repairs and refurbishments to avoid safety risks and any unscheduled problems. It later became clear the original scope and scale of the issues had been underestimated and that work would take longer and cost more than first forecast. This has been made worse by rises in material prices and market rates over the past year, the council said. Hoped-for grant funding through the Public Sector Decarbonisation Scheme has also stopped being available.

Mole Valley District Council is now seeking an extra £3.34m of upgrade works to replace outdated air handling units and chillers, cut annual carbon emissions by 75 tonnes with solar panels and heat recovery systems, as well as upgrading the Grand Hall to modern safety and performance standards. Councillor Nick Wright, cabinet member for leisure and tourism, said: “Dorking Halls is arguably the largest and most comprehensive arts and performance venue in eastern Surrey. It is central to our community and is key to the local economy. Dorking Halls plays a vital cultural role in the district, with a busy programme of shows, concerts and films, as well as hosting youth theatre, school productions, live screenings, and community events. It also provides employment opportunities, particularly for young people entering the hospitality sector. This investment will ensure the Halls continue to serve residents and visitors with high-quality cultural experiences for many years to come, while also helping MVDC to meet its carbon reduction goals.”

The Mole Valley’s cabinet is expected to agree to the additional funding when it meets on September 23 ahead of formal sign off at the following month’s full council. The proposed works will be scheduled to minimise disruption, with the venue expected to close temporarily in 2026 from mid-April to early December. The halls last closed over the summer last year as the council addressed making its ceiling safe after a critical failure risk was identified. Had no work been done there was the potential the Grand Hall’s fibrous plaster could become unstable – forcing its closure at short or no notice. Any collapse, regardless of whether the public were in attendance, would likely have led to a fine.

Chris Caulfield LDRS

Dorking Halls Grand Hall (Image MVDC)

Related reports:

Dorking Halls to reopen after upgrade

Dorking Halls to get refit

Dorking refurb: “it’s behind you”!

Outline plans for 60 homes on the edge of a Surrey village have been scrapped again in a bid to stop “London creeping towards us”.

Elmbridge councillors said the land north of Raleigh Drive in Claygate is green belt not ‘grey belt’ and ruled it unsuitable for housing at a planning meeting on September 16.

They also said the plans failed the flood risk ‘sequential test’ meaning safer sites should be looked at first before building there.

The scheme would have seen new homes (up to 50 per cent affordable), open space and landscaping built on the land north of Raleigh Drive and to the east of Claygate House.

The application triggered more than 300 objections from residents, alongside opposition from Claygate Parish Council. Concerns centred on traffic, flooding and the loss of open countryside.

Cllr Janet Turner said: “I have seen over the years how London is creeping towards us.” The member for Hinchley Wood explained: “When you come out of London to Hinchley Wood or Esher or Long Ditton, you will immediately relax because you have an open aspect.

“This is what Elmbridge and Surrey are all about. This is the entrance into our cultural area and we must protect it. Once it’s gone you cannot bring it back.”

Other members agreed, arguing if you weakened one patch of the green belt, you weakened the whole metropolitan ring. Cllr Alistair Mann described it as “death by a thousand cuts” to the green belt if piecemeal applications keep being approved.

The site, next to Claygate house, once home to a bowls green, pitch and putt course and tennis courts, has reportedly fallen into disrepair.

A similar plan was refused in 2023 and dismissed at appeal last year with inspectors at the time ruling it was inappropriate development in the green belt.

Planning officers initially recommended the new scheme for approval, arguing that housing demand and national policy around the green belt has changed.

Elmbridge can currently only demonstrate a 0.9-year housing supply- well below the five years required by the government. Elmbridge currently has a house building target of 1,443 homes annually.

“Our housing need is so critical now, I don’t think this scratchy bit of land is putting green belt in danger,” said Cllr Elaine Sesemann.

She explained: “I would protect greenbelt forever along with every other councillor in this chamber but the world of planning has changed so dramatically.”

Council leader Mike Rollings admitted the local housing need has dramatically increased since 2023 when the plans were first put forward. However Cllr Rolling still determined the square patch of land was not appropriate for house building.

Emily Dalton LDRS

Illustrative view looking south of application site (left) and former Claygate House with Shanly Homes Oaklands Park development to the rear (Credit: Elmbridge Borough Council)

Plans to cut speed limits in Dorking town centre to 20mph are being considered. Surrey County Council is looking at cutting speeds along the A25 Reigate Road, West Street, South Street, Vincent Lane and surrounding roads – and carrying out a resident survey until October 13 to gather views.

It comes after the county council introduced limits across Surrey in 2024.  This proposal is being funded through Surrey’s Integrated Transport Schemes – with  a countywide budget of £2.8 million.

Before the council can introduce changes it advertises its intentions to give people the opportunity to tell us what they think about them. The council is then obliged to consider any feedback  before making a final decision whether to still go ahead, with or without any changes. If there is enough support for the scheme it is anticipated to come into force early next year.

Surrey County Councillor Hazel Watson (Liberal Democrat: Dorking Hills) said lower speed limits give drivers more time to react, reduce the severity of any collisions, and makes the roads safer for vulnerable users. She said: “There will be some additional 20mph signs, but mostly the existing 30mph signs will be replaced.”

She added: “She added, “Road safety is a very high priority for Surrey residents and this lower, appropriate, speed limit proposal for Dorking Town has been requested by many residents for a long time. It builds on the very successful introduction of lower, appropriate, 20mph or 30mph speed limits which have been introduced on many of the rural lanes and through the village centres across the Dorking Hills over the last few years.”

 “It is important that every resident who has an opinion on this proposal registers their comments at https://dorking-20mph-scheme.commonplace.is/ so that their views can be taken into account.”

Chris Caulfield LDRS

Dorking Town Centre Streets (image MVDC)

Surrey Heath Borough Council is accelerating the disposal of local assets to reduce its debts, with both car parks and town centre shops now on the block.

At its September executive meeting councillors agreed to sell part of Yorktown car park in Sullivan Road, Camberley. Seventy-three of its 137 bays will go, leaving 64, after officials reported average daily use of only 43 vehicles. The site generates just £9,000 a year – £1.26 per bay per week – and is earmarked for housing in the borough’s local plan. The sale is expected to provide “much-needed capital” before year end.

The same meeting also approved the disposal of a two-storey retail block in Obelisk Way. Despite being fully let to three shops and producing a gross rental income of £45,000, once landlord costs and service charges were taken into account the site posted a net loss of £4,500 last year. Substantial repairs were also looming. Councillors decided the 15,564 sq ft property, which includes eight parking spaces, would be “more valuable sold than retained” and could be converted for mixed residential use.

The council must cut £1.74m from its budget this year and £3.14m overall, alongside reducing interest payments on external debt and making a further £500,000 from service reviews. Cllr Kel Finan-Cooke, portfolio holder for property and economic development, said the financial case for both sales was “compelling”. Conservative deputy leader Cllr Jonny Cope called the Obelisk Way disposal “sensible”.

The sales place Surrey Heath in a wider national picture of local authorities struggling to balance their books. Years of shrinking central government funding, soaring social care costs and inflationary pressures have driven several councils close to collapse. Woking, Birmingham, Thurrock and Croydon have all issued effective bankruptcy notices in recent years, with asset sales and service cuts becoming the default response.

Critics warn that one-off disposals risk stripping town centres of public assets for good, but supporters argue such sales are unavoidable if councils are to stave off financial failure and protect statutory services. For Surrey Heath, further reviews of underperforming sites are expected as the borough seeks to navigate its way through England’s growing local government funding crisis.

Sam Jones – Reporter

A bid to build a huge battery storage farm on green belt land in Shepperton has been thrown out after councillors decided it didn’t pass the ‘special circumstances’ test needed to build on protected countryside.

Sunbury BESS Ltd wanted to install 50 industrial-scale battery units – each the size of a shipping container – on 3.5 hectares of land north of Charlton Lane, next to the Eco Park. The site, sandwiched between the M3 and the railway line, is designated green belt.

Objecting to the scheme, Nigel Spooner said: “We ask the committee to refuse this application and thus avoid inflicting on Charlton village, Shepperton and Sunbury an entirely inappropriate, unnecessary and hazardous blight for the next 40 years.”

Officers had originally concluded the project’s climate benefits – supporting renewable energy and cutting carbon – outweighed the harm to the green belt and local landscape.

But Spelthorne Borough Council’s planning committee threw out the application on September 17, arguing there simply were not any “very special circumstances” to justify bulldozing into green belt land.

The scheme, designed to store energy for the National Grid and release it when demand peaks, was pitched as helping the UK hit its climate targets.

The battery site would store electricity when there is plenty spare and feed it back into the grid when demand is high to help balance the supply. The applicant’s agent said at the meeting: “The project will actively contribute to decarbonisation by reducing renewable energy curtailment.”

But Green Party Cllr Malcolm Beecher argued: “If we are still using fossil fuel power in our power stations to generate the electricity going into the batteries for storage, we are not reducing our carbon emissions.

“Unless we have a condition that only green energy can be stored in these batteries, there are no special circumstances to have it in the green belt.”

The company halved the size of its original plans following strong objections, but locals still were not convinced. Residents wrote more than 40 letters objecting to the proposal, raising fears about fire risk, noise, health hazards and what they described as “the industrialisation” of Shepperton’s countryside.

But in the end, it was the location that killed the scheme. Planning officers said the battery farm counted as “inappropriate development” in the Green Belt, causing a “significant loss of openness” and clashing with rules designed to stop urban sprawl.

Despite concerns about fire risks and safety, officials said there was no evidence to refuse the battery farm on these grounds. Surrey Fire and Rescue service as well as the Health and Safety Executive raised no objections.

A planning report stated: “The proposal would introduce a range of industrial plant within an open field, resulting in considerable harm to the openness of the Green Belt and encroaching into the countryside. These harms are not clearly outweighed by the benefits put forward.”

The decision is a major blow for Sunbury BESS Ltd, which argued the project would provide vital infrastructure to balance renewable energy supply and demand.

Emily Dalton LDRS

Image: An example of a battery storage “farm”: Invenergy Beech Ridge Energy Storage System at Beech Ridge Wind Farm in Greenbrier County, West Virginia. Author Z22. Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license.

Guildford could soon see one of its biggest housing developments in decades, with fresh plans submitted to build up to 1,800 new homes at Gosden Hill.

Developers Martin Grant Homes want to transform farmland off the A3 into a new neighbourhood complete with schools, shops, sports pitches, and even a Park and Ride. 

The outline applications sets out a long-term vision for the site, which would include:

• Up to 1,800 homes, including 40 per cent affordable housing
• Six Gypsy and Traveller pitches 
• A new local centre with shops, health and community facilities
• Land for both a primary school and secondary school 
• Around 10,000sqm of employment floorspace
• A 250-space Park and Ride near the A3
• Large areas of green space, including allotments, play areas, and a new woodland walking rout

Developers say the project would create a “gateway for Guildford” for drivers coming off the A3. The site, covering more than 130 hectares of farmland and woodland, sits between Burpham and the A3. If approved, the first phase 150 homes would be built with access from Merrow Lane. 

The bulk of the site will be housing in a mix of family homes, apartments and some specialist accommodation. Planning documents detail the homes will be built in phases including a mixture of sizes from smaller flats to larger family homes, around 720 affordable homes, space for self-build plots and some elderly care housing.

Most of the higher density housing, like apartment blocks, would sit around the centre and the main street of the new community, while the rest of the site would focus on family housing with gardens.

Not everyone will welcome the idea of more traffic but the scheme includes a new A3 junction, cycle paths, and upgraded bus services to ease the pressure on local roads.

About 34 hectares of open space is planned including a big new woodland walking area at Cotts and Frithy’s Wood. Developers say overhead power lines will be buried underground and much of the existing woodland kept to help the site blend in with the landscape. 

Guildford Borough Council cannot currently meet government housing supply targets so the developers argue the project should be green-lit to help tackle the housing shortage.

If given the green light, Gosden Hill would become home to thousands of people, with the developer promising it will be a “healthy, happy and sociable” place to live.

Only eight people have objected to the scheme so far with the majority of comments slamming the construction traffic plan as “wholly inadequate” for the road and likely to cause “intolerable disruption”.

Emily Dalton LDRS

Outline of the proposed development on Gosden Hill Farm. (Credit: Guildford Borough Council/ Martin Grant Homes)

Surrey County Council’s failings have cost the authority more than £1m in fines and redress payments over the past two years – the vast majority within its education services, newly published figures show.

In 2020/22, the council paid out £104,630, followed by a small decline in 21/22 to £92,698. That leapt to £258,730 in 22/23 and hit a peak of £540,611 last year before falling back this year to £480,797. The majority of its recent payouts, 93 per cent, were connected to delays or failures in its Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP) process, including delays in issuing EHCPs, missed or incomplete provision outlined in plans, or breaches of statutory timeframes for assessments and reviews.

Payments typically fall into two groups: fault in service provision, such as delays in EHC needs assessments, calculated at about £100 per month – and symbolic financial remedies for the distress, frustration, and uncertainty caused by its failures. About 74 per cent of the payments this year related to issues with its Special Educational Needs and Disabilities service.

Previous cases have included a Surrey teenager who lost almost a year of school due to council staff shortages, and there have been parent-led protests outside the council’s headquarters calling for better provision for children. The county council has previously stated that part of its long-running special educational needs problems had been the backlog of cases, made worse due to lack of staff, as well as the national shortage of trained educational psychologists.

The county council said it will focus on quicker, more empathetic complaint handling, issue new guidance and investigation templates to staff and carry out a ‘deep-dive’ review of issues impacting SEND.

Councillor Jonathan Hulley, cabinet member for children, families and lifelong learning, said: “We continue to work hard to reduce spend on fines, which we know is higher than it should be. However, the Government has recognised that SEND is a broken national system in urgent need of funding and reform. Since 2018, Surrey’s SEND service has made significant improvement against a hugely challenging national picture and an unprecedented increase in demand.

“Our longstanding dedication to and extensive investment in this issue has resulted in considerable progress, with the volume of complaints about education services down 12.1 per cent from the previous year. We also recognise that delays in issuing EHCPs have historically contributed to missed provision and subsequent fines, however considerable progress has been made in this area.

“Our average EHCP timeliness in Surrey across the 2025 calendar year to date is 91 per cent, well above the national average of 46.4 per cent. We have invested heavily in SEND and in July our Cabinet approved a further £4.9m to expand and restructure the service, including an increase to the team directly supporting families through the needs assessment and EHCP process from 81 to 141.

“This will reduce the number of families each staff member is supporting, and in turn create capacity for staff to work more closely and more responsively with children and young people, families, schools and settings. Over time we expect these improvements to have an impact on the number of Local Government Ombudsman complaints. It is our absolute priority to ensure every child with additional needs and disabilities in Surrey receives the support that they need.”

New Surrey County Council HQ, Woodhatch Place on Cockshot Hill, Reigate. Credit Surrey County Council