An “extremely vulnerable person” with poor mental health suffered “aggressive” and  “intimidating” behaviour at the hands of Tandridge District Council staff.

The unacceptable behaviour has led to the secretary of state for communities, Michael Gove, to write to the council to formally warn that he be taking “a personal interest” in how it delivers for  residents.

Levelling Up secretary Michael Gove wrote to the local authority after an investigation by the local government watchdog found the behaviour of a housing officer amounted to severe maladministration.

According to the housing ombudsman’s report, the resident as well as an independent mental health advocate said the housing officer’s approach was “aggressive and intimidating” and that “she had never been spoken to in that manner in all her years in the role”.

This carried on until the housing officer left three months later.

The ombudsman ordered the council to apologise to the resident in person, pay £1,000 in compensation and review its Vulnerabilities and Reasonable Adjustment policies.

Mr Gove, writing to Tandridge Council’s chief executive David Ford in August 2023, said:  “I write following a finding of severe maladministration by the Housing Ombudsman for your failure to abide by duties under the Equality Act 2010 or act in accordance with your own safeguarding policy.  In this case you failed an extremely vulnerable resident. 

“Her case was not referred immediately, as it should have been, to the relevant support services. The behaviour of a member of your staff towards both the resident and the mental health advocate supporting the resident was described as aggressive, intimidating and neither appropriate nor solution focused. 

“This is not acceptable. Your residents should expect their concerns to be taken seriously, for reasonable adjustments to be made where appropriate, and that an investigation of any complaint should be fair. Residents, particularly those who are vulnerable, should expect that their needs are understood and acted upon.”

He added: “I will take a personal interest in how you deliver your responsibilities to your residents.”

Richard Blakeway, housing ombudsman, said: “At the heart of this case, there were three different officers involved, but none took appropriate action. Failure to appropriately respond to the resident’s requests for reasonable adjustments or to act in accordance with its own safeguarding policy caused serious detriment.

“The failure by the landlord to demonstrate that it had taken steps to ensure it understood the needs of the resident also led to missed opportunities which adversely impacted the resident. On top of this, there was a complete absence of recognition, acknowledgement or apology from the landlord for its failings, or to take any action to put things right.”

Responding to Mr Gove was Councillor Catherine Sayer, leader of Tandridge District Council. She said they recognised there were problems in how the council dealt with the long-running case, which stretched over several years, and that they failed to fully consider the resident’s needs and vulnerabilities.

Cllr Sayer said: “We are sincerely sorry for the distress and inconvenience caused. Compensation was paid to the resident and we continue to work with and support them with their future needs.

“In January 2023, the Ombudsman did acknowledge several reasonable adjustments were made during the handling of the case.” She said the council had also learned from its mistakes and will put all customer-facing staff into refresher training on safeguarding, vulnerability, equality and diversity and requirements for reasonable adjustments. 

Among the changes the council has since made include a staffing structure review as part of a council-wide programme to ensure a dedicated housing officer is assigned to a case and that each case is reviewed monthly by senior officers.

Tandridge Council has also appointed a resident engagement manager to oversee supporting those with vulnerabilities. Cllr Sayer added: “In addition, we made a referral to the Regulator for Social Housing who was satisfied with the response and action we have taken and they did not require us to take any further action.” 

Dear Editor,

Last week saw the publication of His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services (HMICFRS) Report of Surrey Fire and Rescue Service.

The accompanying press release from the Conservative Leaders of SCC headlined the fact that the “Inspectors praised our fire and rescue service’s cultural improvements and the positive behaviours that were demonstrated during their visit”. Residents might therefore be forgiven if they were to think that the Inspection Report itself was something to celebrate.

However, the HMICFRS Report makes 11 judgments on the Fire Service in Surrey and, of the 11 areas inspected, just one is good and the rest judged as adequate and below.

Under the watch of the Conservatives in Surrey, key factors relating to keeping our residents safe; preventing fire and risk, public safety through fire regulation, responding to fires and emergencies and the best use of resources, all require improvement. And seven of the 11 judgments show the service as less than adequate.

Crucially, our Fire Service Officers are also being failed, with the Inspectors reporting concerns over the lack of adequate training for incidents in tall buildings, failures to identify high-risk premises and delays to the upgrade of vehicles.

Worryingly, the Inspectors also say, “We were disappointed to find that the service hadn’t made the progress we expected since our 2021 inspection”.

The lack of openness regarding the Inspection outcomes is unacceptable. However, far more serious are those judgments themselves. In a letter to the Cabinet Member for Communities and Community Safety I have called for a plan to turn this situation around, to be formulated as a matter of urgency. Our residents, our local businesses and our Fire Officers deserve much better than this.

Yours faithfully,

Eber Kington

Surrey County Councillor (Residents Association – Ewell Court, Auriol & Cuddington).

Related reports:

Surrey Fire service praised

Not such a rosy report on Surrey Fire Service

_{Image: Councillor Eber Kington}

Epsom and Ewell Times has reported on the woes of Woking, the gaps in Guildford budgets and we have spelt out the thorny financial crisis of Spelthorne. Now Surrey Heath may move to asbestos lined offices to preserve its existence. These crises contrast with Epsom and Ewell Borough Council that consistently balances its books. Chris Caulfield reports:

Surrey Heath Borough Council could close its headquarters and move into the vacant, asbestos-lined House of Fraser site as it tries to get out from under its “existential crisis” of its “sheer levels of borrowing”.

It comes as the council’s leader Shaun Macdonald said the borough was as little as two years away from effective bankruptcy.

The council is seeking ways to cover its £176m debts and has launched a project to look into the relocation of civic offices – and papers published as part of its Thursday, September 14, performance and finance scrutiny committee suggest it is considering moving staff into the vacant House of Fraser building in Camberley.

Surrey Heath Borough Council bought the House of Fraser building in 2016 for £18m. The store closed its doors in May 2023  with the lease expiring in August 2023. 

Today the building is said to be worth just £2.9m and requires “multiple millions of pounds” to refurbish. House of Fraser closed the branch in Park Street in May.

The council says it has been working on alternative plans for the building, “including complete modernisation and refurbishment, improved retail and hospitality areas, offices and community facilities such as health and civic uses”. 

According to council documents, it has been negotiating with commercial tenants for the entirety of the third floor, as well as the entirety of the ground floor, and half of the first floor. 

“The second floor could be a potential location for Surrey Heath Borough Council’s relocated office and the remaining half of the first floor for a relocation of Surrey County Council’s library.” 

It could make the move as early as 2026. 

Commenting on the council’s treasury management activity report during the same meeting, Councillor Richard Wilson (LD, Bagshot) said: “It seems pretty obvious that the council has effectively an existential challenge because of just the sheer level of borrowing we’ve got. “This all stems back to 2016 when those failures in decision making on oversight and scrutiny but I wonder if there has also been a failure in treasury management in the period after 2016 while interest rates were still low?”

He also asked whether the loans could have been handled in a “different” way the council could have avoided the “existential crisis” it has now.

Details of the potential move were published as part of the council’s property and economic development service performance report.

A spokesperson for the council said: “In common with many buildings of this age, asbestos is contained in the fabric of the former House of Fraser building, which is safe if not disturbed. “This would need to be removed by specialist contractors as part of any future plans.”

House Of Fraser Camberley (Image: Google Street View)

Related reports:

The knives are out in Woking

Woking’s debt crisis explained

Guildford Council to cut to the bone

Guildford contemplates financial “Armageddon”.

Spelthorne’s neediest lose out on housing

Spelthorne’s thorny property problems spelt out

A last-minute intervention from Michael Gove continued the uncertainty around the Surrey Borough Council of Spelthorne’s plan for 9,000 new homes. The Surrey Heath MP ordered the council not to pause its local plan, in a letter sent by the housing and planning minister, limiting Spelthorne’s options at a crucial meeting.

After what the council’s chief executive described as an urgent ministerial meeting at 3pm on Thursday (September 15), a letter was sent to the council’s leader setting out Mr Gove’s intentions.

An extraordinary meeting of the council on the same day was set to vote on the options to continue with the plan, keep it on pause, or withdraw it altogether. The plan has been on pause since councillors asked the government inspector for a hiatus in June, after hearings had started at the end of May.

The letter from MP Rachael Maclean stated Mr Gove had legal powers to intervene if necessary if he thought an authority was “failing or omitting to do anything it is necessary to do” regarding preparing, revising or adopting its local plan.

While the chamber was told voting to withdraw its plan, outlining where new homes will be built in the borough up to 2037, was no longer a lawful action, councillors ultimately voted to extend the pause on the plan.

They also voted to seek further legal advice to “confirm the validity of the minister’s directive”.

The council voted by 20 votes to 16 to extend the pause, pending the publication of changes to national policy, due this autumn.

The council’s leader, Councillor Joanne Sexton (Independent Spelthorne Group, Ashford East) said the council would seek further clarification from Mr Gove on the reasons behind the direction. She added: “We will endeavour, in the name of democracy, that we will produce a plan benefiting the residents of Spelthorne by the government’s deadline of June 2025.”

Cllr Sexton said unresolved flood issues in Staines, a plan that delivered “beautiful places” and with the “communities at the heart of it” were some of the concerns and reasons behind the plan that would be made clear to the government.

The question of the cost to the council of seeking further legal advice was also raised. Councillor Karen Howkins (Conservative, Laleham and Shepperton Green) asked how much money further legal advice relating to the local plan would cost. She asked: “Haven’t we spent enough on legal advice regarding the local plan, haven’t we wasted enough money? Isn’t it time that we stopped wasting money that we haven’t got?”

Officers confirmed the cost of further legal advice should be “not more” than £2,000.

While other councillors raised the “cost to the local community” both of putting through the “wrong plan” or of further delays.

The current draft plan allocates more than 5,400 of the borough’s 9,270 new homes to be built in Staines.

Councillor Howard Williams (Independent Spelthorne Group, Staines) said of the council’s plans to pause its own house building projects indefinitely that it impacted around a third of the flats planned for Staines. The current plan did not protect the green belt, he said, did “nothing” to deliver affordable or social housing and included more than 5,000 flats be built where they were “likely to flood”.

He asked the meeting: “If we stick to the current targets of building 9,000 flats, where are all the flats that can’t now be built in Staines going to go instead? Sunbury, Stanwell, Ashford, Shepperton? They will all have to be built in other towns in the borough. So setting unrealistic targets for Staines does not protect other people’s towns or the green belt. That is a fallacy.”

“Those who need it most” will be the people who suffer most from a council’s plans to abandon its home building projects, according to one councillor.

Spelthorne is a Surrey Borough and its main town is Staines-Upon-Thames. Epsom and Ewell Times occasionally publishes reports about other Surrey districts as they enlighten issues all Councils can face and contrast with experience in the Borough of Epsom and Ewell.

Rising interest rates adding £360million to the cost of developments, increased construction costs and reduced building heights have all contributed to the shelving of the council’s projects.

It means Spelthorne Borough Council is likely to halt projects to provide affordable and social housing and homes for key workers in the borough, where there are nearly 4,000 people on the housing register.
The authority had plans for developments at Oast House and Thameside House in Staines, as well as at the White House in Ashford and Benwell House in Sunbury.

Those developments will now be stopped “to protect the council” from the increased costs.

Meeting documents show the council’s group leaders had decided it was not appropriate for the council to “directly bear the risk and additional financial exposure” from increased borrowing to deliver the schemes.

Ashford North and Stanwell South Councillor Sean Beatty (Labour) said his ward was not only one of the poorest in the borough, but in the whole county. He described it as “extremely galling” that whether in the short, medium, or long term the people who would suffer would be those who needed housing.

Cllr Beatty told a meeting of the council’s corporate policy and resources committee on Monday (September 11) that the only people that would build social housing would be the council. He added that in his experience “very, very rarely” would private providers build social housing. He told the meeting: “It really concerns me that the people in Spelthorne who need it the most, are the ones that are going to suffer the most.”

The council will look at various options for the planned schemes, which could include selling the sites or progressing them with other providers. But councillors were warned that the less risk the council took on in each development, in handing over to a private developer, the less control they would have about how the final projects turned out.

Councillor Howard Williams (Independent Spelthorne Group, Staines) questioned how the council should approach the issue. He said: “I don’t think the residents of Staines would be very impressed if we sold the Oast House site to a developer only on the basis that they can shove 15-storey buildings in there and we walk away with the least cost to ourselves.”

Councillors heard it was unlikely to be a “one size fits all” approach, and each site would be looked at in detail, to have options presented to the committee and to council. But the authority’s chief accountant, Paul Taylor, gave a stark warning about the rising interest rates on government-backed loans, as well as the lower heights of projects going through the planning stages that he said had wiped £70million of revenue out. He told councillors: “We must take action now to protect the council.”

Related reports:

Spelthorne’s thorny property problems spelt out

Nonsuch Park has joined more than 250 cultural institutions around the globe in providing a new digital guide to the formal gardens on Bloomberg Connects, the free arts and culture app created by Bloomberg Philanthropies.

This is the first digital tour of its kind for Epsom & Ewell Borough Council, and is packed full of information, interesting facts, photos, history and more. It is the perfect accompaniment to enhance the experience of those visiting the park, and also makes Nonsuch Park accessible to people anytime, anywhere. Content will be updated throughout the year, adapting to the changing seasons at Nonsuch Park.

The tour is an important part of the council’s Cultural Strategy, which is currently in development. One of the key aims of the Strategy is to increase access to culture and heritage in Epsom & Ewell and to allow people to engage with its colourful and varied cultural past in new and engaging ways.

The Bloomberg Connects app, which also features sites such as Central Park Conservancy, London’s National Portrait Gallery and Anne Frank House, is available to download free of charge from Google Play or the App Store.

Councillor Clive Woodbridge, Chair of Epsom & Ewell Borough Council’s Community and Wellbeing Committee, said “I am delighted to support this new venture which will allow our residents and visitors to access so much more in our wonderful Nonsuch Park. It is exciting that it puts us on the global map of stunning and historic cultural locations and allows people to see a much-loved part of our borough in a new way.”

Councillor Julian Freeman, Chair of the Joint Management Committee of Nonsuch Park, added,

“It’s a pleasure to not only be able to showcase some of the most beautiful areas of the formal gardens to people both in and outside the borough, but also to be able to do this in a format which allows people to journey around the area at their own pace.”

Bloomberg Connects offers free digital guides to cultural organizations around the world. The app platform is part of Bloomberg Philanthropies’ longstanding commitment to supporting digital innovation in the arts. Bloomberg Connects makes it easy to access and engage with arts and culture from mobile devices when visiting in person, or anytime from anywhere. With dynamic content exclusive to each partner organization, the app provides a range of features including video, audio, text, images with alt text to assist the visually impaired; expert commentary; and way-finding maps.

The digital tour has been developed with support from the council’s Arts, Heritage and Culture team, Friends of Nonsuch, Nonsuch Voles, the council’s Operational Services team and Bourne Hall Museum.

About Bloomberg Philanthropies

Bloomberg Philanthropies invests in 700 cities and 150 countries around the world to ensure better, longer lives for the greatest number of people. The organization focuses on five key areas for creating lasting change: the Arts, Education, Environment, Government Innovation, and Public Health.

Three important items were debated at the Epsom and Ewell Borough Council Crime and Disorder Committee meeting on 12 September 2023. The Video Surveillance System Policy (VSS), the Community Safety Intervention Policy, and the Community Safety Action Plan. The press and public were excluded from The Community Safety Review Report discussion.

The Public Protection Manager, introduced the Video Surveillance System Policy (VSS). He clarified the need for the council to update its policy on video surveillance systems, highlighting the growing public concern as well as changing laws and regulations. “This item is really to start to address that,” he said. “By studying the route to adopt a policy which will govern the use of video surveillance for the entire council,” The proposed policy would regulate the use of video surveillance throughout the council, including body-worn cameras, CCTV, and potential emerging technologies like drones and artificial intelligence (AI).

During the discussion, Councillor Phil Neale (RA Cuddington) raised questions regarding funding availability. He asked, “Are there funds available from central government? And have we investigated all those routes to get the funding so that we can have a robust and working CCTV system?”

The officer assured that funds were being sourced effectively. “Yes, I can say that the present system in Epsom town is brand new, as of February of this year, replaced a system that was funded by the Home Office seemingly 30 years ago, and was updated also with Home Office funding for this year.” 

Councillor Alex Coley, (RA Ruxley) the Chair of the Committee added, “That was a sizable grant from the Home Office at £271,000 as part of the safer streets initiative, which that CCTV provision is part.”

After a short discussion, the motion for the Video Surveillance System Policy was passed and is recommended for adoption at Full Council.

The second item discussed was the Community Safety Intervention Policy.The Officer explained that this policy aims to allocate resources efficiently, focusing on high-priority and needy cases, with victims’ interests at the forefront. It seeks to empower individuals to resolve lower-priority issues independently, rather than relying on the council for every concern. 

Councillor James Lawrence (LibDem College) inquired about the policy’s applicability to councillors facing harassment. Lawrence asked, “I was just wondering, and I understand that resources are short in council, but is the policy for dealing with harassment [of a] councillor? Would that be through the same process as this or would there be a different route or more prioritised routes?”

The Officer clarified that criminal harassment falls under the police’s jurisdiction, but the policy complements it and applies to all members of society. “There is such thing as criminal harassment, and that’s under separate criminal law dealt with exclusively by the police, actually. […]. So it certainly would apply to any member of society,” Nelson said.

The community safety intervention policy was recommended for adoption at full council.

The third item was the Community Safety Action Plan.  At the beginning of the discussion, Councillor Alex Coley, the Chair of the Committee said, “This is something that I’ve asked for. It lays out a series of actions that we are committed to taking over, I believe, a two-year period as part of the CSP (Community Safety Partnership), and it will go to public consultation, so that partners, stakeholders and the public, including councillors, have an opportunity to feedback their thoughts, and that can then be adopted at a future committee.”

The Officer emphasised that this marks the first time their service area has released an action plan with the intent to involve the public in consultations. “We are primarily driven by the priorities of the Community Safety Partnership, which is a statutory coming together of partners in which two non-statutory members have also been invited to take part,” he added. He further explained that while the partnership establishes a high-level strategic plan, individual organisations are encouraged to develop their specific strategies for implementing the overarching policy. In this instance, the council has meticulously extracted practical actions from the policy priorities agreed upon within the Community Safety Partnership (CSP). 

Cllr Bernie Muir (Conservative – Horton) expressed concerns about the quality of data and suggested formalising data contributions from partners within the plan’s framework, 

Cllr Coley clarified, “The community safety action plan is a plan for the CSP (Community Safety Partnership) itself.” He also encouraged Cllr Muir to provide recommendations during the consultation. 

All councillors agreed to the draft plan for public consultation and to agree to receive the results of the consultation and any resulting revisions to the action plan at the next meeting of the committee.

The Community Safety Review Report was discussed during the private session of the meeting, which was conducted without press or public participation. The decision is based on legal advice, citing that this portion of the meeting falls under paragraph 3 of Schedule 12 of the Local Government Act 1972. Specifically, it pertains to information related to the financial or business affairs of specific individuals or entities.

Related reports:

Safer nights in Epsom in sights

Safer nights ahead in Epsom with funding boost

Earlier today Epsom and Ewell Times published a press release clearly attributed to Surrey County Council. Below is a report from our BBC Local Democracy Reporting Service partner which casts a somewhat different light on the presentation of the Report by Surrey County Council.

Surrey’s Fire and Rescue Service “needs to do more” to prepare and train for incidents in tall buildings, such as in the Grenfell tragedy, according to inspectors.

In a report released on Wednesday (September 13) inspectors gave a “requires improvement” rating to seven areas they looked at, with three areas rated “adequate” and one rated “good”.

Roy Wilsher’s report said he was satisfied with some aspects of the service’s performance in keeping people safe and secure from fire and other risks, but said improvement was needed in some areas.

He said: “Given the nature of some of the problems we have identified, we will keep in close contact with the service to monitor its progress.”

The fire and rescue service was given a requires improvement rating in the areas of preventing fire and risk, responding to fires and emergencies, best use of resources and promoting fairness and diversity, among others.

The report sets out that Surrey’s fire and rescue service covers an area of 645 square miles and 1.2 million people.

An action plan will look at areas for improvement

Surrey Fire and Rescue Service said it was bringing together an “improvement plan” to address all areas for improvement highlighted in the report.

Chief fire officer Dan Quin said: “We know that there are areas where we can still improve and we will address these issues as a priority. While we had expected a more positive outcome in certain areas we recognise the benefits of an independent inspectorate. This is an opportunity for us to re-evaluate our current programmes and strategies. Our aim is to address the recommendations and further improve our services.

“I would like to thank the inspectors for taking the time to learn about our work, for their recommendations and for holding us to account. We remain committed to becoming an outstanding service as we continue to put our communities first.”

Inspector ‘disappointed’ with tall building policies and procedures

Under the category of responding to major and multi-agency incidents, Mr Wilsher rated the service “requires improvement”.

He said the service needed to do more to “prepare and train for incidents in tall buildings”, such as the Grenfell Tower tragedy in which 72 people died in Kensington in 2017. He said only a “limited amount” of realistic training and exercising at tall buildings had been done, and that it hadn’t included all staff groups that would be expected to respond to such an incident.

Mr Wilsher’s report said: “We were disappointed to find that the service had only developed a limited number of policies and procedures for safely managing this type of incident. It has procedures in place detailing the role of the evacuation officer but no effective tall buildings evacuation policy for operational and control room staff. The service should address these policy gaps as a matter of urgency.”

The inspection also saw a new “cause of concern” given, regarding the service not being able to accurately identify how many high-risk premises it has.

The inspector said within 28 days an action plan should be provided which would look at identifying the highest risk premises and making sure all staff were aware of expectations of them.
What has improved?

While Mr Wilsher did say inspectors were “disappointed” more progress hadn’t been made since a 2021 inspection, he did say there had been “significant change” in the leadership team as well as the transfer of some workforce to London Fire Brigade last year.

The only area rated “good” was “promoting the right values and culture”. According to the report: “We were encouraged by the cultural improvements the service has made. The service is displaying more visible leadership, and the area for improvement we described during our last inspection has been discharged.”

He added there was a “clear commitment” from staff and leaders to improve, with “some good foundations in place” but said it was “important the service gains momentum and moves forward”.

As well as that, Mr Wilsher said SFRS had good systems in place to inform the public about ongoing incidents, helping keep them safe during and after incidents. This was under a “requires improvement” rating for the “responding to fires and other emergencies” part of the inspection.

Mr Quin said: “I am extremely proud of the hard work happening across our service and want to thank all of our team for playing their part. As a service we are committed to creating a fully inclusive workplace where everybody feels supported. The improvement of the service’s culture was a priority for all staff, so we are delighted to see these efforts recognised.”

The full breakdown of services in each category is as follows:

Good: Promoting values and culture
Adequate: Understanding fire and risk, future affordability, right people, right skills
Requires improvement: Preventing fire and risk, public safety through fire regulation, responding to fires and emergencies, responding to major incidents, best use of resources, promoting fairness and diversity, managing performance and developing leaders
Inadequate: None

Related report:

Surrey Fire service praised

Following years of complaints of dust and noise pollution from the Chalk Pit site on College Road, Epsom, residents and local campaigners say that stricter council enforcement is still needed amidst claims that site owners are operating outside of the conditions of their planning permission. 

The land at The Chalk Pit, College Road, Epsom, Surrey is an industrial and commercial site home to several waste management facilities including Skip It Epsom Ltd and Epsom Skip Hire. 

EPSOM AND EWELL TIMES EXCLUSIVE

An application to transform what was a waste transfer site to a materials recycling centre was first made in 2017 but such an upscaling of operations remained unlicensed until 2 May 2023 when retrospective planning permission was granted by Surrey County Council (SCC). The permission is subject to several conditions including limitations on working hours as well as the containment of operations within a secondary building to mitigate resulting dust and noise pollution.

Reports from locals say that the site is much quieter in recent months attributing this to enforcement from Surrey County Council to turn off a loud trommel which previously operated at the site. However, they also report that operations are taking place outside of the agreed hours of working resulting in continued distress. 

Residents and local councillors have expressed repeated concerns since the change of operations in 2020 surrounding the impact of noise and dust to the mental and physical wellbeing of residents, as well as concerns surrounding the impact on the local environment. 

At present a building to contain operations is under construction and operations are continuing pending its completion. Skip It made an application to SCC on 4 May seeking permission to continue processing waste outside of a building for up to 6 months whilst the building is under construction. Residents express strong opposition to the redactions.

Campaigners, including MP for Epsom and Ewell, Chris Grayling, have asked that tighter council enforcement of the planning conditions be implemented as well as urging the Environment Agency (EA) to maintain tight control on the waste permit conditions and to ensure the building to enclose operations is fit for purpose. Residents have also expressed concern over the number of lorries at the site causing noise in neighbouring roads which cannot be contained. 

Skip It, who own the recycling centre, claim that their business has been victim to disproportionate targeting of complaints, saying that many of the passing vehicles belong to other site users and that their vehicle numbers are within council guidelines.

Skip It director, Mo Maan, told the Epsom and Ewell Times: “We modified a few things to suit our operation…no major change, because the building is going up.”

He continued: “If there was illegal activity, the Environment Agency and the council would have shut the site down, which they’re very good at doing. The same situation with dust – if the dust was so bad, don’t you think that we would have been shut down by now?”

Planning documents, which can be found on the Surrey County Council website, show information regarding the extent of noise and dust assessments. 

In July 2021 a Noise Impact Assessment by the EA (known as the ‘Tofts report’) stated that “NJB [land now operated on by Skip It Epsom Ltd] was at least 10dB louder than [Epsom Skip Hire] and was responsible for all of the measured noise” and stated the presence of “noise abnormal and prolonged enough to cause significant effect on human senses”. 

In November 2021, however, a report by 7th Wave Acoustics stated that “it is likely that the noise from the on-site active processing operations will not result in adverse noise impact” and the site was “acceptable in noise assessment terms.”

Skip It director Mo Maan told Epsom and Ewell Times: “We’ve had noise assessments done, which cost me a fortune to get done – independently, and by the Environment Agency  and the council.” Maan continued: “We’ve got planning permission, we’re putting a building up, but they’re still complaining.” 

Former College Ward Epsom Councillor Nigel Collin told the Epsom and Ewell Times: “History has shown us that the operator plays the game well when it comes to observing the licence when a planning application is under consideration. Normal disruptive service resumes once the planning outcome is determined.”

On 25 July 2023 Councillor Bernie Muir put a motion to council proposing that they install professional noise measurement equipment around the Chalk Pit site, leaving the equipment in place for a minimum period of three months, and responding to any breaches of noise regulations on the site with the imposition of a noise abatement order. It was suggested that £60k be allocated to the project. A vote on the motion has been deferred to the next Environment Committee on October 17.

Cllr Muir told the Epsom and Ewell Times that previous monitoring had not been sufficient in identifying which landowner was causing the nuisance and hence the results of the assessments were “unactionable”.

Epsom and Ewell Borough Council (EEBC) has faced criticism from residents for failing to issue an abatement notice to cease operations during the period of unlicensed operations to put a stop to the resulting noise pollution.

Nigel Collin described the council’s handling of the situation as “inept” and expressed concern over the lack of an overarching person or body taking responsibility for the situation. 

EEBC told the Epsom and Ewell Times: “The areas of responsibility around the Chalk Pit site are complex and EEBC, SCC Planning and the EA all have different roles. EEBC have taken a leading role in co-ordinating a multi-organisational response to the various issues arising from the site. This includes regular multi-agency co-ordination briefings and a commitment to continue working with all agencies in trying to improve the lived experience of those living near to the Chalk Pit.”

“EEBC takes its responsibilities to all residents seriously and will always act where sufficient evidence is found of a statutory nuisance. The evidence gathered during the noise monitoring demonstrated that there was certainly audible noise at times from the site which could be considered as having a negative impact on the local amenity, but not enough to be considered a statutory nuisance.”

Nigel Collin, who has been a key figure in the fight against the unlicensed operations, said the definition of statutory nuisance was ‘more than met’.

Efforts from councillors to enforce restrictions at the Chalk Pit have been cross-party with councillors Steve McCormick (RA), John Beckett (RA) and Bernie Muir (Con) and Kieran Persand (Con) at the forefront of negotiations.

Epsom and Ewell Borough Council said that they have not closed the case and that they will continue to work with the SSC and the  Environment Agency to ensure statutory nuisance thresholds are not exceeded.

A football academy, a 130-place children’s nursery, and a cycling hub, have all been approved in Dorking as the Pixham Lane masterplan steps up a gear.

The site had been seen as an opportunity for a new Dorking Wanderers FC stadium but that was kicked into the long grass when it became clear the club’s future was at Meadowbank.

Now, developers Stonegate Homes have been granted planning permission by Mole Valley councillors for three new community buildings as part of a grander vision for the site that could also feature a senior living home for about 200 people and 300 new homes.

The largest of the buildings approved last week is a 414 square metre nursery, which will be built over two floors, and have space for up to 130 children across four classrooms.

A new youth academy will be used by Dorking Wanderers Football Club and features classrooms for up to 40 students at any time.

The final building will become a cycling hub after the plans sailed through the Wednesday, September 6 meeting with only minor objections from councillors.

The council said it expected the hub to be a hit with cyclists as “a place to meet and relax, as well as a place to repair and purchase cycling equipment and accessories”.

Speaking at the meeting was Councillor Simon Budd who questioned the need for a nursery after two had closed within the past year, suggesting a lack of demand and that “we would be much better building and SEN school rather than a nursery school”.

The site is surrounded by Dorking railway station as well as a train line running north to London and south to Horsham.

_{The application site (measuring 0.68ha) lies to the south of Pixham Lane, just east of the A24 and north of Dorking; within the Built up Area. The site, which lies at the south-western corner of the overall ‘AVIVA site’, comprises car parking which served the former office use. The ground level is generally flat. The site is bounded to the south west by Dorking Railway Station and rail line running north to London and south to Horsham and beyond. To the south east is a public footpath whilst to the north is the remaining part of the Aviva campus. The site itself is in the Built-up Area; adjoining to the east is land designated Metropolitan Green Belt. It is broadly level throughout. Access to the site can be obtained from the eastern end of Lincoln Road.}

Cllr Rosemary Hobbs said: “If anyone has visited this site and walked in from Lincoln Road, they’ll know this is a particularly unpleasant looking, very messy looking, area of Dorking. It will greatly enhance the appearance of that part of the town and I think it is a good use of the land. The nursery will presumably get some business from the number of residents in the properties on the site.”

Cllr Chris Hunt said: “The cycling hub, who can speak against that as a principle?”

The football academy, he said was also for sports, and a nursery would be used by new families moving into the area. He added – given the use of the site “I think its a good proposal”.

Mole Valley Borough Council is currently preparing its new long-term planning bible, the Local Plan, which sets out the types and levels of permitted development in the area.

The council said it has been submitted to the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and is currently under examination by an Inspector. The draft earmarks the site for 276 dwellings and at least three Gypsy and traveller pitches.