Big spending must be approved by new Councils from now
9 July 2026
Major financial decisions across Surrey must now be taken by the newly formed councils – despite the fact they will not take over for almost a year.
Elections held in May voted in two new authorities, East and West Surrey. In April 2027 they will take over the running of public services in the county, and all existing councils will be dissolved.
As part of the process the Government has written to the outgoing bodies to say key monetary decisions now need to be approved by the incoming authorities.
This means land sales or contracts over £100,000 must be kicked up the ladder – as well as capital contracts of more than £1m. It also covers staff contracts.
The order covers Surrey County Council and all the boroughs and districts except for Woking and Spelthorne as they are under the control of Government appointed commissioners due to the state of their finances and need to rapidly improve bottom lines to reduce the huge debt West Surrey will be lumbered with.
The Secretary of State for the Ministry of Housing, Communities, and Local Government, said East and West Surrey should have a say on agreements to be entered to ensure they were in the best interests of the new councils or the residents of the areas they serve.
It would also ensure that any agreements do not undermine or diminish the anticipated benefits or savings as a result of unitarisation or have an effect on the financial position of the new councils.
In practice the old councils have already been operating under this model with the understanding that it would be formalised.
East and West Surrey Councils are expected to publish reports in the next few days that include recommendations into how services across two bodies will be run from next year.
These will come to their respective shadow executives on July 20 and 21 for approval.
Ministry of Housing, Communities, and Local Government (image Google)
The Chinese State is watching us on Surrey Council’s cctv?
9 July 2026
Surrey County Council is deploying CCTV cameras from a Chinese manufacturer which has been banned from government departments over national security concerns.
Cameras made by Hikvision, a company partly owned by the Chinese state, are in use in council libraries in several towns and villages across Surrey.
These include sites in Guildford, Ash, Chertsey, Cobham, Farnham, Merstham and New Haw, according to a Freedom of Information response to the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS).
Chinese law dictates that any companies operating within China must hand over data to the government in Beijing on demand, which prompted the UK to stop the installation of Chinese-made surveillance cameras in “sensitive sites” across Westminster in 2022.
However, this directive does not apply to local government and other public sector bodies at present.
A Surrey County Council spokesperson told the LDRS that its library cameras operate as closed systems, meaning they are not connected to any corporate networks or the internet.
They said: “As a result, the primary risks normally associated with these devices – such as remote access or cyber vulnerabilities – do not apply in this case. The main residual risk would be physical access. However, all units are located within staff-only areas and are appropriately secured. Therefore, the risk level is considered low and appropriately managed within the current setup.”
Hikvision has also faced criticism over its alleged links to the mass repression of Uyghur Muslims in China’s Xinjiang region, where the company’s surveillance technology has been reportedly deployed. Hikvision denies any direct role in human rights abuses.
In 2022, a report by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights stated that “serious human rights violations” had been committed against the Uyghur people of Xinjiang.
As many as one million Uyghurs are believed to have been detained in camps and across the region since 2017. The Chinese government denies human rights abuses, and claims the camps are for educational and training purposes.
But analysts have pointed to reports of forced labour and torture inflicted upon the Uyghurs, and have urged authorities in the UK to review their policies towards Hikvision.
Senior Policy Director at the China Strategic Risks Institute Sam Goodman told the LDRS: “After several years of public reporting regarding allegations of Hikvision’s links to human rights violations in Xinjiang and the government banning Hikvision from Whitehall citing national security concerns, there really isn’t an excuse for councils like Surrey County Council continuing to use these cameras.”
A Hikvision spokesperson told the LDRS their products meet “strict security requirements” and “comply fully” with UK laws and regulations.
They added: “Our position on human rights is a matter of public record. We have never knowingly or intentionally committed human rights abuses, and we never will. Hikvision has joined the UN Global Compact, committing to its Ten Principles on human rights, labour, environment and anti-corruption.”
Epsom Council leader’s delayed response to additional local government layer initiative
9 July 2026
Dalton says Surrey devolution letter was non-binding and rooted in Council’s 2025 vote
Epsom & Ewell Borough Council leader Councillor Hannah Dalton has said her decision to sign a letter supporting exploration of a new Surrey-wide “Foundation Strategic Authority” was based on the Council’s previous backing for local government reorganisation and the prospect of a future mayoral strategic authority.
The explanation follows questions raised by Epsom & Ewell Times over why Cllr Dalton signed the Expression of Interest without the matter first being referred back to the full Council.
Earlier attempts to obtain an answer were met with references to election-period restrictions, prompting criticism that the Council was avoiding a straightforward question about the authority under which its leader had acted.
In a response supplied to EET, and attributed to Cllr Dalton, the Council said the background lay in the Government’s English Devolution White Paper, published on 16 December 2024.
It said that, at a full Council meeting on 6 May 2025, Epsom & Ewell Borough Council agreed to support a proposal for local government reorganisation in Surrey. The proposal envisaged a future Mayoral Strategic Authority for Surrey, led by an elected mayor and intended to unlock the Government’s wider devolution offer.
Cllr Dalton said the Council and other Surrey authorities were now working on the reorganisation process and had recently been invited by the Government to explore a possible Foundation Strategic Authority.
The Council describes this as an intermediate stage towards fuller devolution. It says the letter signed by Cllr Dalton was a “non-binding Expression of Interest”, intended only to keep open the possibility that the proposed new East Surrey and West Surrey unitary councils could later explore creating such an authority.
The response states: “It did not commit the Council, confer obligations upon it, or determine any future course of action.”
It adds that any formal decision would follow a statutory consultation.
The answer clarifies the Council’s position that Cllr Dalton did not require a new Council resolution before signing the letter, because the authority relied upon was the Council’s broad 2025 endorsement of a reorganisation proposal which contemplated a Surrey mayoral strategic authority.
However, it is likely to leave open the political question of whether that earlier approval was sufficiently specific to authorise support for this particular Government initiative, especially where the letter was signed in the name of the Borough Council rather than simply as a contribution to exploratory discussions between Surrey leaders.
A Foundation Strategic Authority is a proposed form of combined authority with devolved powers but without an elected mayor. It may be used as a stepping stone towards a fuller mayoral combined or strategic authority. The Council says discussions with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government continue, including the next steps and the scope and timing of any statutory consultation.
The Council has directed readers to its online democracy pages for the reports and minutes relating to the 6 May 2025 meeting.
I read with interest your article of 2 June about the recent Local Plan consultation.
Mr Brown’s contention that the consultation was unconstitutional was undoubtedly correct. This is because the Local Plan documents being consulted on were required first to be ‘considered and approved’ by the Licensing and Planning Policy Committee (LPPC) under the council’s constitution.
Digging a little further into this failure of the elected councillors to review Local Plan documents indicates that this is a pervasive and deeply concerning issue.
The Local Plan is the single most important output, by the council, for the future of the borough. Given the local government reorganisation, it should also be the council’s swan song; an opportunity to provide clear and positive strategic direction for the next 14 years.
How has the council gone about achieving this? There are a plethora of articles in this paper highlighting repeated failures of the Residents Association-led council to direct, review or challenge the Local Plan process over several years. This would be concerning enough on its own, but is exacerbated by not just a reluctance, but an outright refusal by Residents Association (RA) councillors to undertake the role they were elected to perform.
Reviews of Local Plan documents should have been happening frequently and as a matter of course. As they weren’t, opposition councillors took the unusual step of working together to try to hold the council to account.
Motions have repeatedly been brought both to full council and to the LPPC attempting to require councillors to review Local Plan documents, but on every occasion they have been voted down by RA councillors.
There appears, to interested observers, to have been a systematic and ongoing attempt to confound any and all attempts to scrutinise the Local Plan. This has happened for several years, with the three most recent examples being:
The request by Cllr Lawrence in the 10 March 2026 LPPC meeting to review the new Local Plan documents before they were submitted to the Inspector. The Monitoring Officer advised against allowing this request. The Chair, Cllr O’Donovan confirmed he hadn’t even seen the documents being submitted but refused the request to allow the committee to review them. Cllr Reynolds encouraged the Chair to put the decision to a vote but was turned down.
The mid-March 2026 request by Cllrs Persand, Freeman and Geleit to hold a Special meeting of the LPPC to agree to review the Local Plan documents before they were submitted to the Inspector. The Monitoring Officer delayed holding the meeting for 2 months until 19 May 2026, after the documents were submitted. The RA councillors voted not to review the documents.
Given the urgency of the matter and the failure of the LPPC to perform its role, on 11 June 2026, a request was made by Cllrs Persand, Freeman, Geleit, Ames, Howells, Lawrence, McCormick and Goldman for an Extraordinary Council Meeting. The motion was to require the LPPC to review the Local Plan consultation documents, and if appropriate approve them, in accordance with the constitution. The meeting should clearly have been scheduled by the Monitoring Officer to occur prior to the 2 July public hearings on the consultation documents. The Monitoring Officer has instead delayed the meeting until 21 July and tagged it onto the pre-existing council meeting, after the consultation hearing has been completed.
The councillors mentioned above, from all opposition parties, should be applauded for their tenacity and their willingness repeatedly to stand up for the residents they represent.
Residents are asking why the Monitoring Officer appears to repeatedly obfuscate, delay and obstruct, and why RA councillors are not taking the lead, or at least supporting, attempts by opposition councillors to execute the roles they were elected to perform.
Given all the above, it perhaps should come as no surprise that the RA was all but wiped out in the recent East Surrey Council elections. Despite this, or perhaps because of it, the RA should take the opportunity to do what they should have been doing all along, actively engaging with, and reviewing the Local Plan documents. They should be ensuring the documents are factually correct (which in many instances they have not been), that they align with the council’s strategy and that they represent the views of the borough’s residents.
This is the RA’s last chance either to redeem its reputation and leave the door open to a future return to council membership, or to leave residents bitterly resenting the final failures of the group so many of us voted for over the years, as they hammer nails into the coffin of the RA group’s legacy.
Whose Local Plan is it anyway?
The Local Plan is written by the council and is the responsibility of the council throughout its drafting and execution.
Since the examination started last summer, council officers and councillors have repeatedly distanced themselves from the changes officers have specifically proposed to the inspector. These council proposals include building on extensive additional areas of green belt land such as Downs Farm, Priest Hill, Burgh Heath Road and Cuddington Glade.
Having actively put these sites forward, officers and councillors have denied responsibility, repeatedly arguing that it is ‘the inspector’s Local Plan’ and that they have no say in what happens.
It is worth highlighting that the government guidance says quite the opposite. When reviewing the council’s Local Plan, the government is at pains to clarify that:
‘The Inspector will always bear in mind that the planbelongs to the LPA, and subject to the duty to ensure the plan’s soundness, will not seek to impose his or her own views on its vision or its content.’
(The ‘LPA’ is the Local Planning Authority, in this case Epsom and Ewell Borough Council).
It couldn’t be much clearer, councillors, the plan is your responsibility before, during and after the examination. If you choose not to review proposals to put in deeply unpopular sites for development, you remain responsible for the proposals and accountable to residents for them.
Will the RA councillors perform the role they were elected to perform and that the constitution requires, or will they continue to shirk that responsibility? Time will tell, but that time is running out.
Epsom and Ewell Council admit behind hygiene inspections
9 July 2026
The borough’s environmental health team has told councillors it is running behind on lower-risk food hygiene inspections — deliberately prioritising higher-risk premises such as takeaways, schools and hospitals over sweet shops and home caterers — as the Environment Committee – Tuesday 30th June – adopted the council’s Food Hygiene Service Plan for 2026/27, in what officers confirmed will be the council’s last year running the service before Surrey-wide local government reorganisation.
Councils have a statutory duty, under a national Framework Agreement on Official Feed and Food Controls overseen by the Food Standards Agency (FSA), to inspect food businesses in their area at intervals set by risk category — broadly, the higher the risk, the more frequent the inspection. As of April 2026, the borough had 611 registered food premises, including 444 restaurants, cafés, canteens and other caterers and 139 retailers. Of these, 133 fall into the higher-risk categories A to C, requiring inspection every six, 12 or 18 months respectively; a further 120 businesses are newly registered and awaiting their first ever inspection.
Catching up, but not quite there
Public Protection Manager Oliver Nelson told the committee the service had actually exceeded its own targets in 2025/26, completing 237 inspections against a planned 161, largely by working through a backlog of overdue inspections and newly registered businesses that had not yet been visited. Even so, the plan for 2026/27 shows 207 scheduled inspections still due — including two Category A premises (the highest-risk tier, inspected every six months), 25 Category B, 77 Category C and 101 lower-risk Category D — plus a further 74 inspections reported as overdue from previous years.
Cllr Steve McCormick (Conservative Woodcote and Langley) pressed officers on why these 74 remained outstanding, and — more pointedly — “why is this statutory service unable to meet this demand, and how can we approve a plan that cannot deliver?” Mr Nelson said the situation was “not unusual” for a local authority environmental health team: the overdue premises are “mainly category E” — meaning very low-risk operations such as sweet shops and small-scale or domestic home caterers — which have been deliberately “deprioritised in favour of food production facilities, schools, hospitals, takeaways” and other higher-risk categories. He explained that his team juggles “four or five different” statutory service areas across several council committees competing for the same limited resources: “It’s a daily task to try and arrange yourself to cover all those bases,” he said, “and what happens is that the lower risk areas are deprioritised in favour of the higher risk every time.”
Staffing pressures and past scrutiny
The report notes that the service has struggled with staff retention, and that a newly created post remains vacant and covered by agency staff — leaving the small team vulnerable, officers said, since even a single experienced officer leaving risks non-compliance with statutory duties. Historically, 1.2 full-time-equivalent officers have been sufficient to meet the Food Law Code of Practice’s requirements for the borough, a level the service says it can currently sustain provided staffing and agency support remain stable.
Cllr McCormick also asked about a reference in the report to “the existing agreed action plan arising from previous Food Standards Agency intervention” — asking what that intervention had covered, and when the service was last formally audited. Mr Nelson could not recall the exact audit date on the night, estimating it was “probably in the last four years,” and agreed to circulate fuller details after the meeting. He said the earlier FSA intervention had flagged underperformance not just in the lowest-risk category but also in Categories B and C, at a time when staff resources had been diverted towards private sector housing casework.
The wider context: a service in its final year
In an unusually reflective note buried in the report’s final section, officers wrote that 2026/27 “will be the final year of delivery of this service by this authority following 90 years of work in the field by Inspectors of Nuisances, Sanitary Inspectors, Public Health Officers and finally Environmental Health Officers” — a reference to the borough council’s abolition under Surrey’s local government reorganisation, with food safety functions due to transfer to a new unitary authority from April 2027.
Elsewhere, Mr Nelson noted that several web links in the appended service plan had broken because the Food Standards Agency had migrated its guidance to the gov.uk website: “If any members of the committee would like those documents, I’m sure Google will be their friend,” he said.
Enforcement activity and the vote
During 2025/26 the service issued four hygiene improvement notices and 200 written warnings to food businesses. No food or environmental samples were taken during the year, officers said, as priority was given to the inspection programme; a separate allocation of around £2,800 a year from the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) funds routine microbiological sampling, alongside a local £450 budget for chemical sampling in 2026/27.
The committee voted to adopt the Food Hygiene Service Plan for 2026/27, with one councillor voting against.
A borough scheme charging residents to play tennis on council courts has taken in almost double its budgeted income in its second full year, the Environment Committee – Tuesday 30th June – heard, as members confirmed that free morning tennis sessions will return across the borough’s courts this summer.
The Pay-to-Play Tennis Scheme was introduced in 2024 using a grant-funded electronic gate system from the Lawn Tennis Association (LTA), the sport’s national governing body, paired with an online booking platform called Clubspark. Under the scheme, households can buy an annual membership for £40 (£20 for low-income households) covering up to five people for unlimited play, or book a court on an ad-hoc basis for £6 an hour — prices fixed at their original, introductory level through to 2026/27.
The numbers
Interim Assistant Head of Service Samantha Whitehead told the committee the scheme’s growth had exceeded expectations. Household memberships rose from 268 in 2024/25 to 316 in 2025/26, while ad-hoc bookings climbed from 1,404 to 1,868 over the same period. Net income of £31,634.62 comfortably beat a budget of £17,500. “I don’t think any of us at the outset thought it would bring back the returns that it has in a relatively short period,” she said, adding that renovation works funded through the scheme’s income at Court Recreation Ground, Alexandra Park and Auriol Park courts had already paid off: “My team report that since the recent renovations at [Auriol] Park this weekend was the most amount of bookings they’ve ever seen on the courts.”
The scheme was not without unbudgeted costs, however — £21,140.11 was spent on repainting and line-marking at Court Recreation Ground and Alexandra Park, requiring a drawdown of £7,984.46 from the council’s Repairs and Renewals Reserve, which now stands at £8,426.54.
Free summer tennis returns
Free, bookable morning tennis sessions were run for the first time during the 2025 school summer holidays and proved highly popular, generating 566 bookings across the borough’s five sites: 203 at Alexandra Park, 164 at Court Recreation Ground, 88 at Poole Road, 75 at Auriol Park and 36 at Gibraltar Recreation Ground. Officers recommended repeating the offer, running free sessions up to noon each day from 22 July to 31 August 2026.
Before debating the substance of the report, the committee formally amended the recommendation, at Cllr Liz Frost‘s (RA Woodcote and Langley) proposal, to make clear the free sessions apply to “all EEBC owned and managed” tennis courts in the borough — a clarification agreed with one abstention.
Cllr Steve McCormick (Conservative Woodcote and Langley) asked whether residents needed to register with the Clubspark booking system to access the free sessions. Ms Whitehead confirmed they did: “They do have to register with the LTA Clubspark system, which means that they could be exposed to marketing in the future if we chose to do that, but in return they get free use of the tennis courts.” Cllr Frost noted a further benefit of requiring bookings even for free sessions — it stops courts being monopolised by a single group all day, since “now people have the confidence that… they booked play, so they can go and play.”
A push to extend the hours — defeated
Cllr McCormick, noting this would be the borough’s “last summer” before local government reorganisation replaces it with a new unitary authority, argued the free window should be extended well beyond midday. “It’s incredibly popular… why not extend it?” he asked, proposing the sessions run until 2pm instead of noon, covering the same 22 July to 31 August period. “It’s only an extra couple of hours per day across that very short time frame,” he said.
Ms Whitehead’s reservation was that extending free access too far could crowd out members who had already paid for the privilege of unlimited play: “My only reservation would be for those that have paid for a membership, if they couldn’t… get access to the facilities having paid, that would be my only caveat.” Cllr Frost confirmed the committee had considered making sessions free all day the previous year, but had held back for the same reason, adding that the scheme had run smoothly in practice: officers “didn’t receive any complaints from members” unable to book a paid slot, nor “any complaints that people couldn’t play who wanted to play.” Officers were unable to confirm on the night whether last year’s free sessions were regularly fully booked, or how much the current proposal — or Cllr McCormick’s extended version — would actually cost the committee’s budget, saying the figures would need to be worked out and circulated after the meeting.
Cllr McCormick’s amendment to extend the sessions to 2pm was put to a vote and defeated, with three councillors opposed. The committee then voted, unanimously, to note the progress of the Pay to Play Tennis Scheme and to approve free morning tennis sessions on all EEBC-owned and managed courts from 22 July to 31 August 2026, in line with last year’s arrangements.
Also noted: bids for court upgrades
The report also noted that two separate Neighbourhood CIL (Community Infrastructure Levy) bids — submitted by Cllrs Alex Coley (Independent Ruxley) and Clive Woodbridge (RA Ewell Village) for the regeneration of the tennis and basketball courts at Poole Road and Gibraltar Recreation Grounds — have been approved by the council’s CIL Panel and now go forward to the Strategy and Resources Committee for final sign-off. If successful, both sites would also gain pickleball facilities, a fast-growing paddle sport the report describes as offering “inclusive opportunities for participation across a wide range of ages and abilities.”
Epsom and Ewell Council tiptoe around stepping stones “liability”.
9 July 2026
Epsom and Ewell Borough Council’s Environment Committee – Tuesday 30th June – has decided not to take on legal responsibility for the historic stepping stones across the Hogsmill River, after councillors concluded that accepting liability for a crossing already flagged as unsafe was too great a risk — instead backing a bid to build a new, fully accessible footbridge nearby.
The stepping stones, thought to have been installed in the early 1980s, sit within the Hogsmill Local Nature Reserve and are owned by the Environment Agency (EA), which — unusually — owns both the riverbed and the banks at this location. The EA has told the council it wants to remove the stones and the steps leading down to them on safety grounds, unless another organisation takes on responsibility for their ongoing inspection, maintenance and insurance.
Why now?
Countryside Manager Stuart Cocker told the committee two problems had brought matters to a head. First, the concrete steps on the northern bank have been undermined by dogs entering and leaving the water at that point, creating a risk of collapse — the first significant repair needed on the crossing “in over 40 years,” he said, with a repair cost of under £1,000. Second, a new wetland outflow channel built as part of nearby habitat restoration work has altered water levels, meaning the stones are now submerged, and therefore slippery, for much longer periods than in the past. The EA erected barriers preventing access to the stones in September 2025 following its own risk assessment.
Mr Cocker stressed that the EA remains an active partner in the wider Hogsmill Catchment Partnership, alongside the South East Rivers Trust, and pointed to what he called significant progress over 15 to 20 years, including “new meanders in the River Hogsmill,” removal of concrete weirs, “naturalising large sections of the river channel” and reintroducing fish.
He also had some encouraging news on the water-level problem: the South East Rivers Trust has secured the Environment Agency’s permission to move gravel that has built up at the confluence with the new wetland channel, work being paid for as a “public good” clause within a separate CIL-funded contract to restore a nearby footpath. “We’re fairly confident that that will cause the water levels to recede,” Mr Cocker said, though he cautioned it might need repeating. Asked directly whether this work would persuade the EA to keep responsibility for the crossing after all, he was clear: “From what they’ve said, they still wish the stepping stones to be removed. That’s their intention” — a decision he said rests with the EA’s asset management team, based purely on flood-risk grounds, and unaffected by the availability of funds for anything beyond flood mitigation.
Four options, and a difficult choice
Officers set out four options for the committee: take on liability for the stones with no bridge; take on liability and build a bridge; decline liability but still pursue a bridge; or decline liability and accept the stones’ removal with no bridge. A Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) bid for a new pedestrian footbridge — of the kind already built nearby across the wetland outflow channel, at a cost of around £130,000 — has already been submitted, though the outcome is not yet known, and design and planning costs on top of any successful bid would still need to be found separately.
Councillors were, without exception, reluctant to see the stones disappear. Cllr Rob Geleit (Labour Court) told the committee: “I’m afraid I’m one of those people who used to play there as a child, and I think there’s always an element of risk in places where children play, especially when there’s water, but I would hate to see the stepping stones gone. So, I’d like to say, please don’t take the toys away.” Cllr Julie Morris (Independent College) said she had researched the issue and found that stepping-stone river crossings of this kind are now rare in the south of England outside Box Hill: “I haven’t really heard anybody speak in favour of getting rid of the stepping stones entirely,” she said, though she accepted that without identified funding for the fuller package of repairs, a more modest package of gravel-clearing, a handrail and a warning sign might be “a sort of halfway house at the moment.”
Cllr Steve McCormick (Conservative Woodcote and Langley) said he was “100% behind” retaining the stones and covering the modest repair cost, but was sharply critical of the bridge costings in the report, which he said “do not illustrate the full picture,” since design and planning funding was not specified and would in any case need approval from the Strategy and Resources Committee rather than this one. He also pressed officers on what work had been done, in the years since the Hogsmill Local Nature Reserve’s management plan (which runs from 2017 to 2117, with its first review due in 2027) identified bank erosion by the stepping stones as an issue needing the Environment Agency’s attention, to actually secure that work — a question Mr Cocker answered by pointing to the partnership’s broader achievements rather than action on this specific spot.
The liability question
It was Cllr Rachel King (RA Town) — sitting as a substitute, and drawing on her day job dealing with insurance claims — who made the most pointed intervention against the council accepting responsibility. “You cannot sign your way out of liability,” she told the committee, warning that no amount of warning signage removes an organisation’s underlying duty of care. “I don’t think we should be taking on that liability, because we know from the report currently that they are not safe, and until they are made safe, we wouldn’t want to burden ourselves with that kind of responsibility.” She later added that the committee risked “accepting liability” before the legal review, inspection regime and insurance implications flagged in the report had actually been worked through: “It feels a bit too, too big a risk to move forward in that direction without having done that work first.”
Cllr Steve Bridger (RA Stamford) raised a related, practical worry: that even if the stones were kept safely maintained, the steps leading down to the water would remain a magnet for children paddling regardless — and he warned that a single successful insurance claim could send premiums “up astronomically,” potentially forcing the council’s hand later anyway. Officers confirmed that if the council did not take on responsibility, the EA intends to remove both the steps and the stones.
Committee Chair Cllr Liz Frost (RA Woodcote and Langley) also noted a case for the bridge on its own merits, separate from the liability question: with the new wetland habitat drawing more visitors to the area, she said, a bridge would open up access “for a lot more people,” including those with prams, pushchairs or bikes who cannot manage the current steps and stones.
The vote
Put to a vote option by option, the committee settled on Option 3: the council will not take on liability for the stepping stones or the steps leading to them, acknowledging that the Environment Agency may proceed to remove them, but will pursue a new, fully accessible footbridge as an alternative crossing, subject to the outcome of the CIL funding bid and further funding being secured for design and planning. Councillors formally noted the CIL application, while the report’s third recommendation — covering ongoing inspection and maintenance costs for the stones — fell away as a consequence of the vote. Closing the item, Cllr Frost reflected: “I think it’s a very difficult one, because I think we all acknowledge how much we like the stepping stones, and I really hope that somebody else will be able to take on the responsibility, but that’s not really for this meeting.”
Ewell’s Library of Things finally to become a thing?
9 July 2026
Epsom and Ewell Borough Council’s Environment Committee – Tuesday 30th June – has agreed to grant a police-approved outdoor storage unit in the grounds of Bourne Hall a five-year lease, with a two-year break clause, after councillors argued that officers’ original proposal of a two-year term was too short to give the volunteer group running the scheme any security.
The store is needed for the borough’s new “Library of Things” (LoT) — a scheme, similar to a book library, that lets residents borrow tools, camping equipment and household appliances rather than buying them outright. It is being set up by the volunteer group Epsom and Ewell Climate Action Network (EECAN) in partnership with Surrey Library Service, and will operate out of Ewell Library at Bourne Hall. Most items can be stored inside the library itself, but larger equipment needs a dedicated outdoor store — hence the need for a legal agreement over council-owned land.
A volunteer’s account
Before councillors debated the report, they heard a three-minute public statement from EECAN volunteer William Ward, describing himself as “a father and grandfather,” who joined the meeting online. Mr Ward told the committee: “I am working with 12 other volunteers to provide this free library of things at Bourne Hall, and I support the recommendations in the report.”
He used his statement to correct what he felt could be misunderstandings in the officers’ report. His original bid to the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) — a charge councils can levy on new development to fund local infrastructure — “was for one permanent shed, not multiple units,” he said, and had been approved at a meeting with six borough and county officers on 14 October, when the proposed site was shown to the volunteers present. He set out a lengthy timeline of pre-planning discussions, a planning application submitted on Christmas Eve, planning permission granted on 12 March, and confirmation from Building Control on 19 February that it did not need to be involved.
He also told the committee: “I’ve continued working with all partners, but only became aware last week from reading this report that the borough needed me to consult with the police. I want to reassure the committee that although I am [confident], the design addresses [many] of the risks [identified]. I’m happy to take further advice.” On safety, he noted that insurance was already in place, that Surrey County Council’s principal insurance officer had agreed to cover the store under its “Borrow a Bike” scheme, and that a planned green roof would carry a small solar installation providing only low-voltage lighting, with “no battery charging” to take place inside the unit.
Mr Ward ended with a warning about timing. If the lease “cannot be ready for signing well before April [20]27” — when local government reorganisation is due to sweep away the borough council in favour of a new East Surrey Unitary Authority — he said he might have to ask the incoming authority to reconsider storing the larger items inside Bourne Hall itself. He closed by asking the committee “to also consider the climate risk facing young people today,” saying his aim, with fellow volunteers, “has always been to help residents borrow instead of buy, save money and storage space, while lowering their carbon footprints.”
Officers’ concerns: wrong kind of shed
Introducing the report, Cllr Liz Frost (RA Woodcote and Langley) explained that the store was needed because Bourne Hall library “does not have sufficient storage space for the large items” the scheme requires, and that a two-year, rent-free legal agreement directly with EECAN was proposed, subject to planning permission and a series of health and safety mitigations.
Cllr Rob Geleit (Labour Court) asked officers directly: “Is there a concern that this is a wooden building when it was proposed to be a metal building?” Cllr Frost confirmed this was indeed a live issue. The CIL bid had originally referenced small, “police-approved” metal storage units no larger than 2.2m by 1m by 2m — the kind of secure steel shed used for bike storage. The planning permission that was in fact granted, however, was for a much larger timber outbuilding measuring 7.2m by 3.4m by 3.4m. “There has been… a history of unfortunate incidents with break-ins, vandalism, arson, etc. for buildings like [this],” Cllr Frost told the committee. “So the lease would stipulate a police-approved structure.”
A legal puzzle officers could not resolve on the night
Cllr Steve McCormick (Conservative Woodcote and Langley) raised what he called a contradiction in the report between sections referring to the committee “waiving” the council’s Contract Standing Orders in order to grant the lease directly to EECAN (rather than opening it to competitive tender), and a later section stating that the council would still need to establish the land’s market value to satisfy “best value” — the legal principle requiring councils to secure fair value for public assets. “Forgive me, which is it?” he asked.
No legal officer was present to answer. This was itself the subject of some frustration: Cllr McCormick had earlier asked in the meeting why nobody from the council’s legal team was in attendance, only to be told by an officer that “legal don’t attend committee meetings as standard… there was nothing that was foreseen tonight that would require their attendance.” On the specific question about best value, the officer present said: “I think I would have to take that away and go back to legal on it, because I don’t have the answer for you this evening, I’m afraid.”
The case for a longer lease
The most substantial debate concerned the length of the lease. Cllr McCormick argued strongly for extending it well beyond the two years proposed: “This library of things item is great. We should get it done… I would question the duration, actually, of two years. I think it’s incredibly short,” he said, pointing out that other local charities had recently had leases extended to 15 or 20 years, giving them far more flexibility when applying for grant funding. He initially proposed extending the term to 10 or 15 years.
Officers explained that the two-year figure had come from legal advice, given specifically because EECAN was “a new group” without a track record of running such a scheme; the original suggestion, before that advice, had been five years. Officers said they could see no reason why a review clause could not allow for extension after two years “if all was going well,” but that this would need to be confirmed with the council’s legal team.
Cllr Frost, while sympathetic to the case for grant funding, questioned how much external funding a volunteer-led scheme with no office overheads would actually need, but agreed the recommendation could be amended.
Cllr Julie Morris (Independent College) backed a middle way — five years, with a two-year break clause — and spoke warmly of Mr Ward’s track record: “I’ve known William Ward for some time… he’s not the new kid on the block… he has been involved in environmental and sustainability issues for some years.” She argued that a two-year offer, with an uncertain future council to renew it, sent the wrong message: “I don’t see that as commitment from us to a gentleman that’s actually done quite a lot for this borough that has a very good following, and will undoubtedly make a very good job of it. And I think it should be the role of this committee that we say [to] you’re not here, guys: this is what we want you to do. We want five years with the break clause at two years, because we really want to put our weight behind such a good initiative.”
Cllr McCormick accepted the compromise — “I’d like 10, but five, I’ll go for five” — and, with Cllr Morris seconding, the amendment was carried.
The decision
The committee unanimously agreed, as amended, to enter into a legal agreement at nil rent for five years, with a two-year break clause, for a police-approved outdoor store at Bourne Hall for the Library of Things — subject to the risk mitigations set out in the report — and to delegate the final legal drafting to the Head of Property and Regeneration, the Interim Assistant Head of Service for Venues and Community Commercial Services, and the Chief Legal and Monitoring Officer. Cllr Frost thanked Mr Ward “for coming along and making his presentation to us,” and thanked officers for their work on the report.
News that the Government could end the controversial house-extension taxes that slapped Waverley homeowners with huge fines or even the prospect of jail has been welcomed.
The Community Infrastructure Levy was first introduced in 2010 to enable councils to fund projects such as new schools, green spaces and health facilities. The idea was to balance the impact that new developments had on existing communities.
In 2014, exemptions for people building their own homes or smaller extensions were introduced. However, these had to be applied for in advance, creating a ticking time bomb for residents caught out in a labyrinth of paperwork.
It soon became clear that some householders were slipping through the cracks, creating inadvertent or unintentional charges despite qualifying for exemptions. This left them facing huge and unexpected bills, with many Waverley residents directly impacted.
The Government has now said it will look to change the system and launch a consultation in due course. This has been welcomed by action groups and politicians alike. However, until that becomes law, Waverley Borough Council remains bound by the existing system.
For example, liability notices, where a charge is placed against a property, still cannot be lifted. Any changes will have to wait until the Government adopts its new policy.
In a statement following the Government’s announcement, Waverley Borough Council recognised the difficulties some homeowners had faced and said it had written to Ministers highlighting concerns.
Councillor Liz Townsend, Waverley Borough Council’s portfolio holder for planning, said that while the announcement laid out a path forward, there were still limits on what the authority was able to do.
The law still prevents councils from repaying money collected in CIL charges from the so-called CIL pot. Any payment must instead come from general funds, at either the taxpayers’ expense or a cost to services. Equally, while the Government has said it will consult on reform, no dates have been set.
Cllr Townsend said: “We still cannot refund CIL from the CIL pot. We have always been clear that we couldn’t refund from the CIL pot; it will be from the general fund under discretionary review.
“That’s what we’ve already done and we’ve already made a payment, and that was where that was from. It hasn’t changed, as we could make ex-gratia payments under exceptional circumstances.
“Removal of liability notices still can’t be done, and that is so critical for our residents. It’s currently black and white at the moment and we can’t use our discretion. It’s desperately important for residents that this is resolved. That needs to be done through an Act of Parliament.
“The consultation is very welcome. Hopefully it will put things right. We’ve been lobbying the Government for this; it desperately needs to be changed. It’s too inflexible in its current state. We hope there are fundamental changes to housebuilder and self-builds.”
CIL is a set charge on most new developments of 100 square metres or more, as well as on new dwellings of any size. It applies only in areas where a local authority has consulted on and approved a charging schedule setting out its levy rates, and has published that on its website.
It was adopted by Waverley Borough Council on October 31, 2018, and implemented on March 1, 2019.
The Government is now looking to change the system “to ensure that these issues do not arise again in the future – recognising the need to improve the operation of the CIL regime going forwards”.
Its aim is to make CIL clearer and more proportionate for householders and self-builders.
Matthew Pennycook, Minister of State for Housing and Planning, said: “We are confident that these proposed changes will ensure that householders and self-builders who would otherwise be eligible for a CIL exemption are not faced with unexpected liability charges as a result of procedural errors in future.
“We are working to publish the consultation as soon as possible.”
Waverley’s Conservative opposition group has called for the council to go a step further and be proactive in making compensation payments from its general fund to those caught out by administrative errors.
Councillor Jane Austin, leader of the Waverley Conservative Group, said: “This is an important moment for residents hit by huge bills for self-builds and home extensions.
“Government has now confirmed councils are not powerless. Authorities retain discretion over enforcement and may consider ex-gratia compensation in exceptional cases. Let us get on with delivering justice for those hit – no more excuses.”
CIL campaigners described the process to get here as long, challenging and emotionally draining. They said they felt vindicated by the Government’s acknowledgement of the injustice and added: “What has seemed on many occasions impossible has today been made possible.”
A statement from the group said: “After a long, challenging and emotionally draining campaign, the victims of disproportionate Community Infrastructure Levy charges have finally been heard.
“The Government has now acknowledged the injustice faced by homeowners who have been subjected to substantial CIL liabilities as a result of procedural or administrative errors while simply seeking to improve their homes.”
Ministry of Housing, Communities, and Local Government (image Google)
Guildford clean air zone rejected
9 July 2026
A clean air zone will not be coming to Guildford after councillors accepted a report saying the costs would outweigh the benefits of such a scheme.
Guildford Borough Council’s cabinet was presented with a report into measures to stem the level of harmful air pollution in the town.
The possibility of a clean air zone for Guildford was raised in a draft air quality action plan, although it sparked concerns over its potential economic impact on the town.
Councillor Merel Rehorst-Smith said: “A clean air zone scored highly as a measure capable of delivering air quality improvements within a relatively short timeframe.
“However, it was recognised that introducing a clean air zone would have significant implications for residents, businesses, and visitors, and therefore a detailed economic feasibility assessment was commissioned before any decision could be made.”
Clean air zones have become increasingly common in cities and towns across Britain over the past few years, many of which see high-polluting vehicles charged a small fee for entering the area.
However, some schemes opt for traffic control measures instead of charges on motorists.
The London Ultra Low Emission Zone is one of the best known examples, which sees vehicles that do not meet emission standards billed £12.50 to drive within its borders.
A feasibility study into a possible Guildford clean air zone found that such a measure could bring significant costs, and instead recommended targeted interventions in pollution hotspots and incentives for active travel.
It was considered by the council’s overview and scrutiny committee earlier this month, where report lead Dr Margarethe Theseira told councillors: “The reason a clean air zone or low emission zone is not proportionate to local need is that the air quality is very much concentrated on one site, at Park Street.
“And so it made a broader scheme disproportionate in scale and cost. There are alternative measures you can do to improve air quality at Park Street.”
The research found that Park Street saw especially high levels of pollution as vehicles are forced to drive uphill before being held at traffic lights.
Better traffic management and engineering solutions were floated as options to alleviate nitrogen dioxide spikes in the area rather than a blanket clean air zone for the entire town.
Councillor Rehorst-Smith said: “The study concludes that a clean air zone would not be a proportionate or economically justified intervention for addressing the air quality issues identified.
“Instead, the study implements a package of targeted measures focused on promoting active and sustainable travel, improving traffic management, and delivering local mitigation measures.”
Guildford Borough Council’s cabinet resolved to note the conclusions and recommendations of the feasibility report.
Councillors also agreed to report its findings to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and report back on a revised draft Air Quality Action Plan within six months.
Link road to Leatherhead recycling centre disruption
9 July 2026
The critical link road to Leatherhead Recycling Centre is likely to be subjected to weeks of “inevitable” disruption while “long awaited” repairs take place.
It comes as the costs more than double as the details of all the work needed to fix the pothole-filled road, that has seen a spike in the number of insurance claims and complaints, became clear.
The original budget had been just over £300,000, Mole Valley District Council’s June cabinet heard, but that has now leapt to £700,000.
The road is owned by the district council with third party access rights to Surrey County Council and Thames Water – which Mole Valley expects will help with the costs.
The county council has already agreed but Thames Water has yet to make its decision.
The project, will widen the road to allow for easier movement, a full resurface, and improved drainage to stop problems with standing water that plague the road.
Councillor Keira Vyvyan-Robinson (Liberal Democrat: Leatherhead North) said: “Everyone who uses the recycling centre will be fully aware of the condition of the road, largely caused by the heavy use by heavy vehicles, but the result is that there are significant potholes, often standing water and the result of that is an increased number of insurance claims and complaints.”
She added: “It’s an investment that I hope residents across Mole Valley will welcome.”
It is likely that any work carried out will be done by Surrey Highways before the end of the financial year.
It is expected to last for six to eight weeks – with a traffic management plan, understood to be temporary traffic lights in place while it is carried out, once given full council approval.
Cllr Keira Vyvyan-Robinson: “Given the very poor state of the road, given the increasing complaints, the recommendations (which will still need to be approved by council) is to proceed.
“It is inevitable that there will probably be a certain level of disruption.”
Cllr Andrew Matthews (Liberal Democrat: Bookham East and Eastwick) Park said: “It’s been long awaited, it’s going to make the access road up and down to the tip but also for the other users of that road, much safer and easier. ”
Epsom’s Woodcote Stud homes plan approved despite transport and Green Belt concerns
9 July 2026
Epsom & Ewell Borough Council has approved plans to redevelop the former Woodcote Stud site in Wilmerhatch Lane with 14 homes — half of them affordable — and expanded supported-living accommodation.
The Planning Committee backed the scheme by seven votes to one at its meeting on 18 June. The Chair, Cllr Clive Woodbridge, (RA Ewell Village) did not vote.
The approved development involves demolition of the redundant former stud-farm buildings, while retaining Woodcote House. A new supported-living building will expand the existing care provision, alongside 14 new homes including seven affordable properties.
The legal agreement attached to the permission will require affordable housing, biodiversity-net-gain measures and public-transport works, including a new bus stop and pedestrian crossing on Wilmerhatch Lane.
The Planning officer told councillors the former stud farm had not been used for its original purpose for several years. He said the development would provide “an expansion to the existing operation on the site” and new housing, while retaining the historic Woodcote House.
Applicant’s agent Philip Dunphy of Causeway Planning said the family-owned stud farm had struggled to attract a replacement operator following the death of its owner in 2021.
He said: “There has been attempts to attract new operators, such as those in the racehorse training industry, but all have proved unsuccessful.”
Mr Dunphy said potential operators had cited distance from Epsom Racecourse, limited access to training gallops and wider accessibility difficulties.
He argued that the proposals would prevent the site falling into further vacancy and dilapidation, while delivering “much needed housing” and supported-living accommodation.
The scheme was considered under national Green Belt policy and the newer concept of “grey belt” land — previously developed land within the Green Belt that may be suitable for development where it makes only a limited contribution to Green Belt purposes.
Cllr Woodbridge said the officer report made the case that the land was previously developed and did not perform a particularly strong Green Belt function.
He added: “This provides useful housing to a council that’s very short of housing, and 50% is affordable housing, which I think this committee must welcome.”
But several councillors raised questions about whether the site was sufficiently sustainable, given its location between Epsom and Ashtead and limited public-transport links.
Cllr Kate Chinn (Labour Court) said the route through Woodcote Side could provide a more direct pedestrian and cycling connection to bus services, but questioned whether it would remain reliably available.
“The only thing I still don’t understand is it’s in the application that they can use the Woodcote Side entrance, but for pedestrians and cycles, but now I’ve been told that that could be withdrawn at any time,” she said.
Cllr Chinn added that both the Woodcote Stud area and Langley Vale suffered from “very poor public transport”, suggesting that wider discussions might be needed about improving bus links.
Cllr Kieran Persand (Conservative Horton) also expressed concern about the development’s distance from railway stations and the limited frequency of local buses.
He said: “My main concern” was that residents would be likely to depend on cars if sufficient infrastructure was not available. Cllr Persand also questioned the loss of the site’s equestrian use, pointing to Epsom’s racing and horse-related heritage. “I think it’s a highly weighted one in Epsom, because once we lose that, it’s a bit of a domino effect, and the industry itself will suffer from that,” he said.
Officers said no equestrian bodies had submitted objections during the consultation. They said the site had been unused for equestrian purposes for around five years and was poorly connected to the racecourse and training facilities.
The planning officer said the existing access from Wilmerhatch Lane would be widened to enable larger vehicles to enter and pass safely. Councillors had raised concerns about potholes and the condition of the approach road, particularly during construction.
Cllr Humphrey Reynolds (RA West Ewell) praised the quality of the officer report after the decision, telling officers: “It’s an excellent report, well done.”
Permission remains subject to completion of a Section 106 legal agreement (a developer investment in infrastructure). If that is not completed by 18 September, officers have been authorised to refuse the application. The permission also includes conditions covering construction traffic, drainage, tree protection, accessible homes, electric-vehicle charging, cycle storage and a 30-year habitat-management programme.
Woodcote Stud entrance from Wilmerhatch Lane. EEBC planning documents. Maydencroft
Epsom & Ewell Borough Council Invites Community to Share ‘A Million Acts of Hope’
9 July 2026
Epsom & Ewell Borough Council, in partnership with the Epsom & Ewell Refugee Network, is inviting residents to take part in A Million Acts of Hope during Refugee Week this June – celebrating the everyday actions that bring people together and strengthen communities.
A Million Acts of Hope is a national initiative recognising the small but meaningful contributions people make to their community each day. From coaching youth teams and volunteering at food banks to supporting neighbours and caring for shared spaces, these acts may go unnoticed, but they play an important role in building compassionate and connected communities.
Running from 15 June to 21 June, Refugee Week offers an opportunity to recognise the contributions of refugees, while celebrating the diversity, resilience and community spirit that enrich local life. This year, the borough will also mark A Million Acts of Hope during the same week, highlighting how simple actions can help create a more welcoming and inclusive place for everyone.
These shared values are reflected in the work of the Epsom & Ewell Refugee Network (EERN), which supports refugees to feel welcomed, connected and part of the community. EERN, which is partly funded by Epsom & Ewell Borough Council, delivers a range of services, including: group activities, helpdesk support, language classes and community initiatives – all designed to help foster inclusion and understanding.
To encourage residents to get involved, A Million Acts of Hope boards were installed at Epsom Library and Ewell Library (Bourne Hall) this week. The CEO of Epsom & Ewell Borough Council, Jackie King, Councillor Clive Woodbridge, Chair of the Community & Wellbeing Committee at Epsom & Ewell Borough Council, the Mayor of Epsom & Ewell, Councillor Lucie McIntyre and Epsom & Ewell Refugee Network Lead, Jo Sherring, have all added their messages to the board. We encourage visitors to share messages of kindness, gratitude or community spirit.
Participants can write a short note on a postcard, available at both locations, and add it to the display, creating a collective expression of hope across the borough.
Speaking of the upcoming events, Councillor Clive Woodbridge, Chair of the Community and Wellbeing Committee, said:
“Epsom & Ewell is a borough defined by the strength of its community, and initiatives like A Million Acts of Hope highlight the kindness, compassion and generosity that bring our residents together. It has been truly heartwarming to read the many stories already shared on the boards across the borough, each one reflecting small but meaningful acts of care, gratitude and support.
These stories capture what makes Epsom & Ewell such a special place to live, and I encourage residents to continue adding their voices as we come together to celebrate hope and the power of community.”
Image EEBC: rom left to right: Chair of the Community & Wellbeing Committee, Councillor Clive Woodbridge, Mayor of Epsom & Ewell, Councillor Lucie McIntyre and Epsom & Ewell Refugee Network Lead, Jo Sherring.
Surrey County Council launches new home charging option for EV drivers
9 July 2026
Surrey County Council has launched a new option for residents without off-street parking to be able to charge their EVs from home by having a cable gully installed. The cable gullies allow residents to run an EV charging cable across the pavement, safely, to be able to benefit from cheaper home charging rates.
In partnership with Kerbo Charge, the cable gullies were initially trialled in 2024 and, following the successful application for funding from the Department for Transport Electric Vehicles Pavement Channel Grant, the process is now being offered to all eligible Surrey residents.
When it’s time to charge, residents insert their EV charging cable into the channel and the specially-designed lid closes behind like a zip — keeping pavements trip-free. Kerbo Charge is designed and manufactured in the UK and flexes to fit the shape of our pavements.
Residents who are interested first need to complete an initial assessment with Kerbo Charge, to check the suitability of their property, by visiting the Kerbo Charge website. Once this check is complete, residents can apply through the Surrey County Council website, paying a £499 fee.
The total cost would normally be over £1,000 per household, but funding from central government means the cost to residents is reduced to £499.
Aviation, Maritime and Decarbonisation Minister, Keir Mather said: “Charging availability is one of the biggest barriers to switching. Backed by over £250,000 in Government funding, drivers in Surrey without access to off street parking will now be able to save over 50% on the cost of installing cross-pavement charging solutions. “We’re making it easier and more affordable than ever to make the switch by investing £600 million to speed up the roll out of chargers across the country, and our Electric Car Grant has already helped over 120,000 drivers save up to £3,750 on a new EV.”
Surrey County Council Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Economic Growth Cllr Matt Furniss, said: “EV charging needs to be accessible for all Surrey residents, not just those with a driveway. I’m delighted we’ve been able to launch this scheme to help people access home charging for their EVs. Alongside the 500 on-street EV chargepoints we’ve installed across Surrey, we’re making EV ownership a real option for more people – helping to make Surrey a greener, cleaner place.”
Kerbo Charge Co-Founder Michael Goulden, said: “Congratulations to Surrey County Council! We’re delighted to be working closely together – this is simply about offering more choice to residents about how they charge their car and removing barriers to EV adoption. We’re looking forward to seeing lots of residents making the move from petrol/diesel to electric in the months ahead.”
Guildford resident Torkil, pictured, has been using his Kerbo Charge for two years and says: “Given my town centre location, I made the move to electric only after careful evaluation of how I was going to manage charging…. I am happy that Surrey County Council listened to suggestions from those of us who live with on street parking, and now that I can charge at home I feel very confident to stay with electric and help reduce air pollution in Surrey”
For those who are not eligible for the scheme, either because they are unable to park outside their property or they are unable to install a home chargepoint, in partnership with Connect Kerb, Surrey County Council has installed over 500 on-street chargepoints across Surrey.
These are mostly 7kwh chargepoints installed on roads with little to no on-street parking, designed for local residents to be able to charge overnight near their home. A new initiative to install 3kwh lamp post chargepoints is set to significantly increase accessibility to EV charging across Surrey. With 100 installed already, and 1000 planned in total, these chargepoints will be fitted in suitable lamp columns that are adjacent to a suitable on-street parking space.
If you would like to suggest a chargepoint is installed near you, you can register your suggestion on our EV suggestions map.
A Kerbo Charge cross-pavement channel install in Guildford, Surrey.
