£125,000 for Surrey schools to tackle the impact of climate change
18 June 2026
Surrey County Council is investing a further £125,000 to help schools across the county adapt to the growing impacts of climate change.
Schools can apply for grants of between £5,000 to £10,000 to install climate resilient measures such as green walls, Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) planters, shading structures and tree planting, supported by expert guidance from the council to ensure value for money.
Last year, £120,000 was awarded to 21 schools, in addition to Guildford Grove Primary School and Town Farm Primary School each receiving around £17,000 to deliver more comprehensive interventions and share best practice.
Surrey continues to lead nationally on environmental education, with more Eco‑Schools Green Flag awards than any other county in England for the third year running. All participating schools will be encouraged to work towards this accreditation and embed sustainability across their curriculum.
Marisa Heath, Surrey County Council Cabinet Member for Environment and Planning said: “We know that our climate is changing and seasons are becoming more extreme, this is something we all witnessed during the recent heatwave. It’s important we support schools to adapt to these changes and make sure children are able to learn and thrive at school. By offering further grant funding to schools, not only are we helping schools be more climate resilient but we are inspiring the next generation of environmental leaders.”
Rona Mackie, Headteacher at Guildford Grove Primary School said: “We needed to respond to the fact the climate is changing and we’ve been really lucky as a school to benefit from working with Surrey County Council. They have worked with us to think about areas around our school that we could develop and it will have such an impact on our school, the current pupils and future generations.”
Helyn Clack, Cabinet Member for Children, Families and Lifelong Learning said: “It’s fantastic that we are offering Surrey schools the opportunity again to apply for this funding to enable them to make adaptations and improvements in light of the impacts of climate change. I’d encourage schools to apply and look at the improvements Guildford Grove Primary School and Town Farm Primary School implemented earlier this year to see the benefits they offer.”
The deadline for applications is 31 July 2026. Schools can find out more and apply on the Together for Surrey website.
Epsom & Ewell Council blocks release of Rainbow Leisure Centre condition papers
18 June 2026
Epsom and Ewell Times to appeal to Information Commissioner after EEBC withholds inspection and dilapidation records linked to reported £500,000 repair exposure.
Epsom and Ewell Borough Council has upheld its refusal to disclose key papers concerning the condition of the Rainbow Leisure Centre, despite continuing questions over how the public facility came to face a reported repair and dilapidations bill of up to £500,000.
The Council has confirmed that it is withholding the 2025 inspection report and related information about backlog maintenance, dilapidations and financial exposure. It says the material is covered by legal professional privilege because litigation is now a live issue and the Council is already consulting lawyers.
The decision follows a Freedom of Information request by Epsom and Ewell Times seeking documents about the Council’s landlord inspection rights, use of inspection powers, condition surveys, backlog repairs, financial exposure and committee consideration of the Rainbow Leisure Centre.
The Rainbow Leisure Centre, one of the borough’s major public leisure assets, changed operator in October 2025. The issue later became controversial after it emerged that urgent works and dilapidation issues had been identified, with a confidential urgent decision reportedly warning that the final cost was not yet known but could be up to £500,000.
Epsom and Ewell Times asked the Council to disclose what it knew, when it knew it, and what inspection or condition records had been kept over the life of the previous contractual arrangements.
The Council did provide some contractual clauses showing that the operator was required to allow the Council’s representative to inspect assets, equipment or materials used in the provision of leisure services. But it refused to release the 2025 inspection report, any related backlog or dilapidation assessments, and financial liability estimates.
In its original refusal, the Council said the withheld information fell under section 42 of the Freedom of Information Act, which protects information covered by legal professional privilege. The Council argued that releasing the material could undermine its legal position and affect recovery of public funds from the former operator.
Epsom and Ewell Times sought an internal review, arguing that the exemption had been applied too broadly. The review request pointed out that routine inspection records, condition surveys and factual reports do not automatically become privileged merely because litigation is later contemplated. It also asked the Council to consider partial disclosure, with any genuinely privileged legal advice or litigation strategy redacted.
The Council has now upheld its refusal.
In its internal review response, the Council stated: “We take the point that the survey reports would not normally be withheld, but that was a long time ago and under different circumstances. It is not the case that litigation is possibly contemplated, we are already talking to our lawyers about progressing this, so it is a live issue.”
The Council also said it believed the public interest arguments in its original response were sufficient.
That leaves residents with limited public information about a central question: whether the Rainbow Leisure Centre’s condition arose from recent events, historic under-maintenance, inadequate inspection, failures by the previous operator, failures by the Council as landlord, or some combination of those possibilities.
The refusal also raises a further issue. The Council has stated that inspection and survey reports prior to 2025 are not held. If correct, that may prompt questions about how the Council monitored the condition of a major public asset over more than two decades of external operation.
The Council has also stated that it does not hold the dates on which councillors, committee chairs or Cabinet/Committee members were first informed that the Rainbow Leisure Centre required significant remedial or dilapidation works, or that the cost might be material to Council finances.
The Freedom of Information Act does allow public authorities to withhold legally privileged material. However, the exemption is not absolute. Authorities must show that the material is genuinely privileged and, where the exemption is qualified, must weigh the public interest in maintaining the exemption against the public interest in disclosure.
The paradox being that if there were to be litigation then under the rules these documents would be disclosable to all parties involved. “The truth will out”.
Epsom and Ewell Times is now preparing a complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office. The appeal will argue that the Council has not shown, document by document, that all the withheld information is privileged; that it has not properly considered partial disclosure; and that the public interest in understanding the management of a major public facility and potential exposure of public funds is substantial.
The newspaper will also ask the Information Commissioner to consider whether the request should have been dealt with, at least in part, under the Environmental Information Regulations, because the withheld material concerns the condition of a public building, plant, fabric and remedial works.
The dispute is not simply about one report. It goes to the wider question of how the borough’s public assets are monitored, how risks are reported to councillors, and how much residents are entitled to know when public money may be at stake.
Epsom and Ewell Times will report the outcome of the appeal when the Information Commissioner has considered the complaint.
Epsom town centre licensing clampdown rejected — for now
18 June 2026
Epsom and Ewell councillors have decided not to begin work on a tougher licensing policy for Epsom town centre, after a debate over whether late-night crime and anti-social behaviour justify stronger controls on new pubs, bars and late-night venues.
The Licensing and Planning Policy Committee met on 16 June to consider a request from Cllr Alex Coley to explore the work needed for a Cumulative Impact Policy, often shortened to CIP, for licensed premises in Epsom town centre.
A CIP is a licensing tool used where a council has evidence that the number or concentration of licensed premises in an area is contributing to problems such as crime, disorder, public nuisance or risks to public safety. Before adopting one, the council must first carry out a Cumulative Impact Assessment, or CIA, gathering evidence from sources such as police data, complaints, residents, businesses, health bodies and other responsible authorities.
If adopted, a CIP does not automatically ban new licences. But where objections are made to a new licence or a variation, it creates a presumption that the application will normally be refused unless the applicant can show that the proposal will not add to the existing problems.
That is stronger than the “Special Stress Area” policy already proposed for Epsom town centre. Under that approach, the town centre is recognised as an area of concern, particularly for night-time crime and disorder, and applicants are expected to address those concerns in their operating plans. But there is no presumption of refusal.
Principal Licensing Officer Paul Holliday told councillors that a CIP would require “a detailed evidence gathering process to demonstrate that the cumulative impact of licensed premises is undermining the licensing objectives”. He said adopting such a policy would introduce “a presumption of refusal for new licence applications and variations within a defined area”, unless applicants could show they would not add to the impact.
However, officers recommended that no assessment should be started at this stage. They said existing licensing powers, together with the proposed Special Stress Area, gave the council a proportionate framework for dealing with problem premises. Mr Holliday said the proposed approach would allow the council to focus on “problem behaviour rather than imposing broad restrictions”.
He warned that a CIP would need “robust and up-to-date” evidence and that without it the council could face appeals, legal challenge and financial costs. He added that a CIP could also have unintended economic effects by “discouraging investment from new operators” and limiting business diversity.
The officer report said no Surrey district or borough currently has a CIA in place, with Croydon and Merton cited as nearby examples outside Surrey. It also noted that an external estimate obtained in December 2023 put the likely cost of a CIA at £21,300, with no budget currently allocated.
Cllr Alex Coley (Independent Ruxley) argued that the proposed Special Stress Area may not be enough. He told the committee: “I learned about the special stress area when I was a member of this committee. I sat on a licensing panel hearing where it was my impression that it wasn’t going to make a great deal of difference. It is about mitigation and conditions.”
He questioned the impression that Epsom town centre had no significant licensing-related problems, saying: “There’s no complaints, no reviews, no nuisance, no noise, no problems. There’s nothing to see here. We all know that’s not true.”
Cllr Coley added: “I think my concern is that the town centre has gotten out of control more and more. We do have more trouble at night. I’ve talked to some of the local residents, I talked to the business, to the manager of the BID, Business Improvement District, it’s pretty clear there are problems.”
He stressed, however, that he was not insisting the council immediately spend more than £20,000 on a formal assessment. He said: “I’m not saying that we must have this… I’d like to see it explored and reviewed.”
Other councillors took a different view. Cllr Julian Freeman (LibDem College) said he had direct experience of Epsom at night through volunteering as a street pastor. “I probably have a very different perception than Councillor Coley,” he said. “When I go out on a Friday night with my colleagues, what I do notice very much is the professionalism of the door staff outside most of the nightclubs and bars, which is really quite impressive.”
He added: “I don’t see it as the den of iniquity and licentiousness that is perhaps being portrayed. When I wander around there, normally between sort of 10 o’clock to about three in the morning, I find it increasingly quiet.”
Cllr Steve Bridger (RA Stamford) opposed spending money on a CIA, saying: “This to me will be a total and utter waste of money.”
Cllr Phil Neale (RA Cuddington) said he was “puzzled” by the request, given that officers considered the council’s present and proposed policies adequate. “We don’t have any reports back from the police that this is required,” he said.
Cllr Neil Dallen (RA Town), the committee’s vice-chair, declared at the start of the meeting that he was “a member of the Business Improvement District, which looks after the town centre”, but said he came to the meeting “with an open mind and not influenced in any way by that”.
During the debate, Cllr Dallen said: “I do occasionally go into the town centre late at night because I live there, and it is now a lot better than it used to be. The further back you go, the better it is. It has steadily got better over the last 15, 20 years.”
That declaration may nevertheless raise questions for some observers, because Business Improvement Districts are funded by levies from eligible businesses within the BID area, which includes the Town centre’s licensed premises. A CIP would apply primarily to new licence applications and variations rather than existing licences, but the evidence-gathering exercise behind it could still involve scrutiny of the current night-time economy and the operation of existing venues.
Cllr Kieran Persand (Conservative Horton) sounded a note of caution. Referring to recent events in Epsom, he said: “I don’t think we should take this concern too lightly,” adding that £25,000 was “a lot of money for a council like us to spend right now”, but that he wanted to understand whether there was a “middle ground”.
When he asked whether there was data to support Cllr Dallen’s view that Epsom was getting safer, Mr Holliday replied that earlier work on the licensing policy had found “elevated levels of ASB and violent crime in Epsom town centre”. He added that, as an urban town centre, some higher levels would be expected, but that the data and councillor discussions had led to the proposed Special Stress Area.
Published Police.uk data for Epsom & Ewell Central shows that in April 2026 the area recorded 198 crimes. The most commonly reported categories were violence and sexual offences, with 47 reports, anti-social behaviour with 36, shoplifting with 27, and criminal damage and arson with 23. The monthly total rose from 151 in January to 198 in April, although monthly figures fluctuate.
Compared with other Surrey town policing areas for April 2026, Epsom & Ewell Central recorded fewer crimes than Guildford Town, which had 315 crimes, including 72 violence and sexual offences and 41 anti-social behaviour reports. But it recorded more than Woking Town, which had 102 crimes, including 29 violence and sexual offences and 28 anti-social behaviour reports; Staines Town, where the top categories included 25 violence and sexual offences and 24 anti-social behaviour reports; and Farnham Town Centre, which recorded 14 anti-social behaviour reports and 14 violence and sexual offences.
Those comparisons suggest Epsom town centre is not unique among Surrey towns in facing crime and disorder pressures. But the figures also support the officer’s acknowledgement that Epsom town centre has elevated levels of anti-social behaviour and violent crime when compared with quieter local areas. What the published statistics do not prove, on their own, is whether those offences are caused by the cumulative impact of licensed premises — the key evidential step needed for a legally robust CIP.
The committee ultimately endorsed the officer recommendation that no action should be taken to initiate a CIA at this time. There were two abstentions.
The issue may return. The council’s proposed licensing policy says the need for a cumulative impact policy and the Special Stress Area will be kept under review, and officers suggested that the new East Surrey authority may revisit the matter after local government reorganisation.
Surrey County Council’s outgoing leader says he will not seek to become the county’s mayor if and when the role is created.
Councillor Tim Oliver, who has led the county council since 2018, is serving a final stint in office ahead of the area’s move to two new unitary councils in East and West Surrey – which will take full effect next April.
It comes as part of a wider restructuring of local government, in which many areas with separate county and district councils are seeing them merged into single, unitary authorities.
While this transition is going ahead in Surrey, central government has not yet signed off on a subsequent phase that would see the county get a directly elected mayor.
However, Councillor Oliver has told the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS) he will not stand for the mayoralty when the office is formally established.
He said: “We’re entering a different world, and at some point perhaps I would have gone for the mayoralty, but I decided a couple of years ago that I would sort of see through this restructuring, and then dip out.”
“One of the things I’m hoping that will happen is these two new unitaries will create their own new culture,” he added.
West and East Surrey’s first elections were held last month, which saw the Liberal Democrats gain majorities in both “shadow authorities”.
These authorities will now be tasked with getting the new councils up and running in time for April 2027, when they will formally take the reins from Surrey County Council and the various district councils.
Unitary authorities exist to manage all local government functions in their area, while the previous model of county and district councils saw these responsibilities split between the two.
District councils would manage services such as council tax and bin collections, while the county council oversaw social care, education and highways.
Councillor Oliver said the new unitary system had the potential to be “a much simpler, more streamlined, more resident-focused system”.
Reflecting on his time as leader, Councillor Oliver said getting the county council onto a “strong financial footing” was among his proudest achievements, saying: “I think we can hold our head up high, certainly compared with many other councils.”
Moving the county council back into the county was also high on his list of top accomplishments over the past eight years.
“That meant that we then got on and got ourselves properly set up for agile working just before Covid hit – and had we not done that, there would have been real difficulties.”
He added: “I think ultimately I would like to think we have changed the culture from a kind of ‘the answer’s no, now what’s the question’ to a ‘can-do’ authority.”
Councillor Oliver said his “expectation” is that Surrey could be ready for the 2028 wave of mayoral elections – alongside new authorities Greater Essex, Norfolk & Suffolk, Hampshire & the Solent, and Sussex & Brighton – if the green light is received from central government.
“We’ve got a conversation with the other Surrey leaders about going forward with a foundation strategic authority, which is the next stepping stone before you can get the mayoral strategic authority,” he said.
“And the government is saying push on with the creation of a foundation strategic authority by the first of April 2027 and if we do that it’s not an expensive next step.”
The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government was contacted for comment.
The department previously told Surrey Live that a decision on whether Surrey will get a mayor “has not been confirmed” and that they are simply “committed to working with partners to establish a strategic authority for the area”.
Cllr Tim Oliver, Surrey County Council leader, making his final address to full council as the outgoing leader. (Credit: Surrey County Council livestream)
Surrey praises Libraries of Things as Ewell scheme offers test borrowing
18 June 2026
Surrey County Council has hailed its growing network of “Libraries of Things” as a smarter and greener way for residents to borrow useful household items rather than buying them — even as the proposed full service at Ewell remains affected by unresolved questions over storage and lease arrangements.
In a release issued during Great Big Green Week, SCC said Libraries of Things were now operating in eight libraries and community spaces across the county, including Cranleigh, Dorking, Epsom and Ewell, Godalming, Guildford, Haslemere, Redhill and Woking.
The schemes allow residents to borrow items such as DIY tools, gardening equipment, kitchen items, leisure equipment and other household essentials. SCC said the service helps people save money, reduce waste and support local climate action.
Councillor Mark Nuti, Surrey County Council Cabinet Member for Health and Communities, said:
“Libraries of Things are a brilliant example of how we can help residents save money while also doing the right thing for the environment. They also show the power of working with local charities and community organisations to deliver practical services that really make a difference to people’s everyday lives.
“By sharing resources locally, we’re reducing waste, supporting our communities and making sustainable choices more accessible to everyone across Surrey.”
The Epsom and Ewell Library of Things website now states: “FULL SERVICE OPENING LATER IN THE YEAR”. It says test borrows are available by email appointment, with pick-up and drop-off on Thursday mornings at 10.30am from a temporary store.
The website describes the scheme as “just like a book library, except for things” and says Epsom and Ewell residents can borrow useful items such as carpet cleaners, DIY tools, gardening equipment and party gear “FREE OF CHARGE” rather than buying them new.
The borrowing process set out online invites users to become a member, browse the inventory, reserve an item, select dates and then collect it from the Bourne Hall Library issue desk with a reservation number and identification. Users must be at least 18 years old, and although the service is free, they may be required to provide valid debit or credit card details to cover loss, damage or non-return. Late return fees may also apply.
The website says the Library of Things is run by volunteers from Epsom and Ewell Climate Action Network, known as eeCAN, in partnership with Ewell Library and supported by Epsom and Ewell Borough Council and Epsom Repair Café.
However, the website also confirms that the issue of larger-item storage is not yet resolved. It states: “Large items are currently stored off site. We are in the process of organising storage for large items with access to Bourne Hall car park.” A further note says one week’s notice is required for items listed as large items and kept off-site.
That matches correspondence copied to the Epsom and Ewell Times, which shows that although a limited test system is available, the wider service remains dependent on agreement over storage at Bourne Hall.
As previously reported by Epsom and Ewell Times, the project has been delayed by disagreement over the respective roles of Surrey County Council and Epsom and Ewell Borough Council. SCC operates the library service at Bourne Hall, but the land and building are owned by EEBC. That has left the volunteers seeking clarity on who must approve, lease or authorise the external storage needed for larger items.
The latest correspondence suggests the matter will now go before EEBC’s Environment Committee on 23 June.
Cllr Liz Frost, an RA councillor for Woodcote and Langley Vale, wrote to William Ward of eeCAN on 10 June saying the lease would need to be considered by the committee. She said that, in preparing the report, officers had to take account of the council’s responsibilities “as both landowner as well as wider operational and site-related matters”.
She warned that the lease proposal would need to include conditions which were “likely to differ” from what the group had previously envisaged and “may have implications for the scheme as currently approved by planning”.
In particular, she said it was expected that any agreed arrangement would require “a smaller and more secure form of storage”, similar to more compact examples put forward as part of the Community Infrastructure Levy application.
Cllr Frost added that no works should be undertaken on site until a formal decision had been made and communicated by the council.
In reply, William Ward, chair and co-founder of eeCAN, asked for an urgent meeting before the committee date so that councillors could be made aware of “all facts and options” before reaching a decision.
He said eeCAN had first asked for a meeting about the lease in December 2025 and had repeatedly sought discussions since March. He argued that “a two way conversation” earlier in the process might have avoided the present difficulty.
Mr Ward said volunteers had been working on the basis that the service would open to the public on Earth Day, 22 April, using a temporary store, with construction of the permanent store by volunteers planned for May. The website now indicates that the project has instead moved to test borrowing by appointment, with the full service still to come.
Mr Ward also said eeCAN had already spent more than £2,000 of an SCC grant on wood for the store to comply with a planning requirement for a green roof.
The group says it has local residents already signed up as members who are asking when they can borrow donated items.
Mr Ward said the approved store was intended not only for current large items but also to allow the service to expand as demand increases. He also referred to an SCC-supported “Borrow a Bike” scheme, saying the larger store had been designed to allow space for occasional-use items and bicycles.
He argued that because the service needs to be “fit for future use”, the decision should now involve the newly elected councillors for the future South East Surrey unitary authority area.
The correspondence also raises a financial concern for eeCAN. Mr Ward said the group’s Community Infrastructure Levy bid had been submitted before it knew that planning permission or a lease might be needed. If the current planning permission were now to prove unusable, he said the group would seek a refund of the £83 planning application fee.
The position remains that both councils say they support the Library of Things in principle. In the earlier joint response to Epsom and Ewell Times, Surrey County Council and Epsom and Ewell Borough Council said SCC Libraries enables external providers to operate Library of Things services across the county, while providers are responsible for organising off-site storage for larger items where necessary.
They said Ewell Library is located at Bourne Hall, which SCC leases from EEBC, and that EEBC, as both planning authority and freeholder, is responsible for approving external storage within the grounds.
The councils also said that eeCAN had been advised at an early stage that planning permission and landowner agreement would be required for an external store to house larger items. Planning permission was granted earlier this year and the proposal is expected to be presented to EEBC’s Environment Committee on 23 June.
The dispute therefore appears to have shifted from whether the scheme is wanted to what size and type of storage EEBC is prepared to approve, and on what lease terms. In the meantime, the Ewell website shows a partial service is available to residents prepared to book by email and collect by appointment.
For residents keen to borrow rather than buy, the county council’s Great Big Green Week message is clear: Libraries of Things are now part of Surrey’s environmental offer. For Ewell, the question is whether a test borrowing service can soon become the full service volunteers had hoped to launch earlier in the year.
“Are Epsom and Ewell Borough Councillors adults?” Bourne Hall row continues
18 June 2026
Epsom and Ewell councillors have backed a proposal to invest £250,000 over two years in Bourne Hall Museum, but only after another bruising debate over transparency, councillors’ access to information and the continuing fallout from the withheld museum service review.
At a special meeting of Epsom and Ewell Borough Council’s Community and Wellbeing Committee on 9 June, members voted by six votes to none, with one abstention, to support “Option 2” — investment in improvement of the museum. A funding request and business case will now go to the Strategy and Resources Committee in July.
The alternatives before councillors were to continue with business as usual, with no additional funding, or to close the museum.
In a media release supplied after the meeting, the council described the decision as “a significant step forward” and said the investment would help the museum remain “relevant and sustainable”. Committee chair Cllr Clive Woodbridge (RA Ewell Village) said Bourne Hall Museum was “a much-valued cultural asset” and that, with Local Government Reorganisation approaching, “ensuring a lasting legacy is more important than ever”.
Yet the meeting showed that the question of Bourne Hall Museum’s future has become inseparable from a wider dispute over how much information councillors and the public should be allowed to see before decisions are made.
The report before the committee referred to two 2025 reviews: the Bourne Hall Museum Service Review and the Local Government Association Cultural Peer Challenge. It stated that the reviews were relevant to all three options, including maintaining, developing or closing the service. However, the full Service Review was still not included in the public committee papers.
The report said the council’s Proper Officer had been invited to reconsider attaching the redacted service review, but had concluded that it would “not be appropriate” in order to “ensure the impartiality of information presented to members as the decision-making body”.
That explanation was fiercely challenged.
Cllr Chris Ames (Labour Court), who is not a member of the committee but addressed the meeting with the chair’s permission, argued that councillors had a right under section 100F of the Local Government Act 1972 to inspect documents containing material relating to business before a committee unless they disclosed exempt information.
He told the meeting that “impartiality” was not a lawful exemption. He said councillors were “elected adults capable of weighing evidence” and accused the council of operating in an “Alice in Wonderland world” in which selected councillors were given a report but, he said, were being required to act as though they had not seen it.
Cllr Ames also raised the question of public access, saying that section 100B of the same Act required relevant background papers to be published unless a legal exemption applied. He said no such exemption had been claimed and warned that the decision could be vulnerable to call-in or legal challenge.
Cllr Woodbridge said members had “all had a chance to read the report” and tried to steer the discussion back to the future of the museum. But the disclosure issue repeatedly resurfaced.
Cllr Bernie Muir (Conservative Horton) said that, having now seen the information, she could not understand why it had not been provided in the first place. She described the situation as “appalling” and said councillors should be trusted unless they had demonstrated otherwise.
She then turned to the substance of the review, saying that if the document seen by councillors was the full consultant’s report, “they’ve completely wasted their money”, because much of it amounted to basic organisational advice.
Cllr Kate Chinn (Labour Court) also expressed concern about what councillors were or were not allowed to say about the service review. She said she had left a pre-meeting briefing “more confused” about what she could quote or refer to. When she asked whether “bias” was a lawful reason for withholding material, she said she had been told it was “not about the law” but about the Proper Officer’s decision-making.
The chair said he was sure legal advice had been taken, but that the decision was one for the Proper Officer, made on her own judgment.
Epsom and Ewell Times has seen a confidential email sent by Chief Executive Jackie King to members of the committee before the meeting. In it she said it was “not about confidentiality, sensitivity or lack of transparency” but about “impartiality of information presented to members as the decision making body”.
The Chief Executive wrote that the Service Review was “not unbiased” and would not be suitable in its “raw” form for inclusion in a committee report comparing options, because it “repeatedly emphasises the need for continued investment in the existing museum” and could steer readers towards a preferred conclusion. She said she was willing to share the operational report with committee members, with sensitive data such as names redacted, but maintained that it was not suitable to append it to the public options appraisal.
The council’s public agenda for the special meeting stated that no matters were scheduled which would appear to disclose confidential or exempt information under Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.
Financial questions also dominated the meeting.
The committee papers put the museum’s current annual budget at around £232,168. Of that, £65,785 related to employee costs for 1.5 full-time equivalent staff, while £123,840 was listed as “accommodation” — described in the papers as a central recharge for use of the space. Central services charges were £32,110, insurance recharges £2,292, other costs £12,180, and income from museum activities £4,039.
The “recharge” point was important because it raised doubts about what the museum really costs and what closure would actually save.
In simple terms, a recharge is an internal accounting allocation. The council incurs general costs for buildings, management, support services and overheads. It then spreads those costs across different services, so that each service appears in the accounts as bearing a share of the council’s wider running costs. That does not necessarily mean the museum is paying rent to an outside landlord, or that closing the museum would save the whole sum shown against it.
Cllr Woodbridge described these as “accountancy charges rather than real charges” and said that if the museum closed the council would not necessarily save that cost, because it was not a cost generated only by the museum.
That distinction matters. On the face of the papers, the museum appears to cost the council £232,168 a year. But more than half of that figure is the £123,840 accommodation recharge, and another £32,110 is central services charges. If those sums are mainly internal allocations of overheads which would remain elsewhere in the council’s budget, the direct cash saving from closing the museum could be far lower than the headline budget suggests.
Cllr Muir queried why such a large accommodation cost was charged to a free public museum located in a council-owned building. She asked why the museum had been put in that position when it was a public service occupying space within Bourne Hall. Ian Dyer, Head of Operational Services, accepted that the charge was historic and “would need to be challenged”.
Cllr Alex Coley (Independent Ruxley) said the recharge model could also make it “extremely unlikely” that the museum would succeed in major external funding applications, because funders would not want their money effectively being used to support internal council recharges. He said the LGA Cultural Peer Challenge had identified this issue.
Cllr Coley also questioned whether councillors were being asked to approve a meaningful investment or simply a process. He said some of the proposed actions — such as replacing long-form text in displays, creating strategies, branding work and social media planning — sounded like business as usual rather than a major transformation. He called for “concrete, tangible” outcomes rather than more paperwork.
Mr Dyer said some short and medium-term recommendations had already been completed by museum staff and that the next stage would be to bring back a business plan setting out what changes would be made with the proposed £125,000 per year.
Cllr Chinn, who proposed supporting Option 2, said any report to Strategy and Resources would need much more detail, including timescales, costs and the implications of Local Government Reorganisation. Cllr Woodbridge agreed that the committee was being asked to decide the principle, not the full business case.
There was little appetite in the room for closing the museum. Before the vote, Cllr Woodbridge said he sensed members appreciated the value of the museum and noted that Option 3 — closure — had not been pursued in the debate.
The committee’s decision does not itself release the £250,000. That decision now passes to Strategy and Resources, where councillors will have to decide whether the business case is strong enough, whether the museum’s accounting model is sustainable, and whether the long-running argument over the service review has been resolved or merely postponed.
For now, Bourne Hall Museum has survived another political test. But the controversy over who gets to see the evidence, and when, remains very much alive.
Roy Deadman Reflects on Election and the Road Ahead
Dear Editor,
I am writing with a full heart and a great deal of gratitude following my election as councillor for the Epsom Town & Downs ward, and to give a short update on the progress and challenges ahead. To every resident who placed their trust in me, thank you. It means more than I can properly put into words.
Over the past six months of canvassing, I had the privilege of hundreds of conversations on doorsteps right across the ward. Those conversations were the most valuable part of the entire campaign. Residents shared their personal stories and experiences with me, from the frustration of persistent potholes and the importance of protecting our precious green spaces, to concerns around local planning decisions.
I heard about the need for safer, better-lit walkways that properly connect our town, and the challenges facing families trying to access local SEND support. Public transport came up repeatedly, with many residents, particularly those in Langley Vale, calling for more frequent and better-connected services. Road safety and speeding through residential streets was a consistent theme, as were concerns about anti-social behaviour, e-scooters, and inconsiderate moped parking.
The Chalk Pit and the importance of holding firm on the agreements in place was raised by a number of residents, and I want to assure you that this remains very much on my radar. People also spoke passionately about maintaining funding for the brilliant local groups and organisations that already make Epsom and Ewell such a great place to live, and that support must continue as we navigate the significant changes ahead.
Now that the election is over, I want to be very clear: staying connected to this community is not optional, it is essential. In due course my fellow councillors and I will be arranging local meetups, and we will be back out on the doorstep listening and asking for feedback. Representing this ward is a privilege, and we intend to earn that trust every single day.
I want to give a very special thank you to Helen Maguire and her entire team. Their support throughout this campaign was extraordinary. Helen ran a professional, values-driven campaign and set a standard that we will all carry with us into our roles as councillors.
What made it particularly special was that Helen did not just support from a distance. She was out canvassing alongside us in the evenings and at weekends, making sure that as a team we were genuinely listening to residents and placing their views at the centre of everything we do. The trust she placed in us as candidates, and now as councillors, was humbling and deeply motivating.
I also want to thank the incredible volunteers who delivered thousands of leaflets, supported our canvassing, showed up to events, and were there at the end of some very long evenings knocking on doors, sometimes with a well-earned pint to follow. Your dedication was the backbone of this campaign.
And to my fellow Liberal Democrat candidates, now councillors, I want to say how proud I am to have stood alongside each of you. Over these months, we have built something genuinely special, a team bound together by trust, hard work, shared values, mutual respect, and a real desire to do what is right for the communities we all call home. We have also, crucially, managed to make each other smile along the way.
Looking ahead, we face significant challenges. By 31 March 2027, we will see the formation of the East Surrey Unitary Council, as Surrey County Council is divided into two new authorities, East and West, with the borough and district councils merging into the new East Council. As Shadow Councillors, we must ensure that on vesting day, local services continue without disruption. The residents of Epsom and Ewell should feel nothing but continuity and, in time, genuine improvement.
I also want us to recognise the officers, the dedicated employees across the councils involved in this transition. Their combined skills and experience will be absolutely vital to the success of the new Unitary Council, and we must support and value them throughout this process.
I am pleased to share that I will be sitting on the East Surrey Authority Employment Committee, where I hope to play a constructive role in making this transition work well for everyone.
The work has already begun in earnest. There have been local discussions and planning meetings with the Liberal Democrat Epsom and Ewell team, as well as wider meetings involving all 40 Liberal Democrat councillors representing East Surrey, laying the groundwork and ensuring we fully understand the challenges ahead.
We recently held a full councillor induction day, where I had the pleasure of meeting colleagues across all parties who will help form this new team. I was proud to be present at the first inaugural full Shadow East Surrey Council meeting, where we elected senior roles, cabinet positions and committee members, building the structures we need to move forward at pace.
The mix of skills, different backgrounds and wealth of experience amongst the shadow councillors has put us in a strong starting position to deliver on our objectives.
This is also, I believe, a unique opportunity. A fresh start means we can shape how this new council works, how it manages its budget, and how it delivers services. I am determined that we bring real efficiencies, hold outsourced contractors firmly to account against their contractual obligations, and negotiate future contracts that deliver genuine value for our residents.
Until midnight on 31 March 2027 we will be Shadow Councillors focusing on what I have outlined above. Until then we will support, where possible, the current councillors of Epsom and Ewell Borough Council and continue to listen to residents in preparation for the handover of responsibility to East Surrey.
Finally, thank you to my family and friends. The extra childcare, school runs, family dinners missed, and the many hugs when I needed them most — without that steadfast support, the campaign would have been so much harder. I am deeply grateful.
I look forward to getting to work for Epsom Town & Downs. This is just the beginning.
Yours faithfully,
Cllr Roy Deadman Epsom Town & Downs Ward
East Surrey Unitary Council
Late hour Epsom kebab decision gets a grilling
18 June 2026
Fans of late-night burgers, kebabs, and wraps are in for a treat after the Epsom Grill was given permission to extend its opening hours. The hot food takeaway in Waterloo Road, between High Street and Epsom Railway Station, can currently keep cooking until 2am to close at 2:30am at weekends. On Monday to Thursday it can serve until 1am, and on Sundays this is brought back to midnight.
Now, following a January licensing application that granted the extension, and a ‘Pythonesque’ planning meeting where Epsom and Ewell Borough Councillors almost voted against its own decision – those hours are to be extended.
The grill originally applied to allow service and closure until 4am, with all remaining days unchanged, but this was revised to 3am on weekends, subject to a condition requiring security door staff until 3:30am.
It then went to planning to be confirmed.
Councillor Robert Leach (Residents Associations of Epsom and Ewell: Nonsuch Ward) told the May, Thursday 28 planning committee. “This area is next to a railway station that has two lines going up to London. Every few minutes 300 tons of metal storms through Epsom station creating socking great sound and we’re worried about the disturbance from a few people sitting in a grill eating burgers? I mean this is something straight out of Monty Python. I don’t see why we have any restrictions on any hours at all.
“Frankly, if someone wants to eat a burger at 3 o’clock in the morning and Epsom Grill is prepared to stay open and cook them, I mean, why should anybody stop them?”
The meeting, and subsequent vote, went back and forth; between those who thought the matter had already been decided at licensing and that the planning decision was a formality, and those who wanted to reopen the debate.
Cllr Jan Mason (Residents Associations of Epsom and Ewell: Ruxley Ward) said: “It’s far too late, three. I think what the police are saying must be from past experience and my own experience of it all. I feel that that time is far too late, they’ll all be as drunk as lords. They will cook to three, it wont be four until they get out and people live here. They live in flats in Station Approach.
“Surely they want a decent night’s sleep and I think four o’clock is ridiculous. So as far as I’m concerned, I agree with the police.”
Opponents pushed to reject the plan, only for the motion to fail by one vote.
It left the officer recommendation to approve as the sole option remaining – which only passed after the chair’s deciding vote.
Cllr James Lawrence (Independents Group: College Ward) said: “We’re at risk of duplicating the debates that happened at licensing and came to a decision.”
He added: “We have case law in front of us that says…you need to have a really good reason why we are going go against a decision that we just made at our licensing (committee) and why you think it will hold up against a judge’s decision that’s just been made a few months ago.”
LibDem vote kept RA’s Dalton in power — but Cllr Freeman faces questions over his own political past
18 June 2026
The two Liberal Democrat councillors at Epsom & Ewell Borough Council appear to have played the decisive role in keeping Residents’ Association leader Cllr Hannah Dalton in her Council leadership role despite the dramatic collapse of the RA’s electoral position in the new East Surrey Unitary Council elections.
At the Borough Council’s annual meeting, Dalton survived a leadership challenge from former Residents’ Association councillor, now Independent, Alex Coley, by the narrowest possible margin — 15 votes to 14.
The arithmetic of the vote suggests that at least two RA councillors backed Coley against their own group leader. Equally significant, had just one of the two Liberal Democrat councillors voted with the wider opposition bloc, Coley would have been elected leader.
The Liberal Democrat councillors, College Ward councillor Julian Freeman and Stamford Ward councillor Alison Kelly, backed Dalton.
Their decision has attracted attention because the Residents’ Association’s dominant local position has been severely weakened following the East Surrey Unitary Council elections, in which the RA was effectively wiped out, retaining only two successful candidates.
Asked by Epsom and Ewell Times why he supported Dalton, Cllr Freeman said he objected to politicians leaving the group under whose banner they were elected.
He stated: “I do not support people who are elected as a representative of one political group and then decide to turn their back on those that voted for them. This is something that is happening with increasing regularity on the council at present.”
However, that explanation prompted questions about Freeman’s own political history.
Material reviewed by Epsom and Ewell Times records that in 2006, while a councillor in the London Borough of Sutton, Freeman resigned from the Liberal Democrat group and sat as an Independent councillor. A published council decision notice recorded: “Resolved: To note that Councillor Julian Freeman has resigned as a member of the Liberal Democrat Group and will sit as an Independent Councillor.”
When asked to explain the apparent inconsistency, Freeman disputed the comparison.
He replied that there was an “important distinction”, stating: “I was not approved as a candidate at the time due to an internal dispute with a ward colleague and stood as an independent at the following election. At no point did I willingly decide to change parties as this was not my decision.” He added: “Your facts are wrong as I did not leave during my term of office.”
After EET provided him with evidence of the Sutton council record showing him resigning from the Liberal Democrat group and continuing as an Independent councillor, Freeman refined his position, replying: “You can see that this was towards the end of my term of office and for just one full council meeting following deselection as a future candidate.”
Freeman also told EET that the decision to support Dalton was taken jointly between himself and Cllr Kelly. Kelly separately confirmed that account, stating that the leadership vote position followed discussions between the two councillors.
In a further explanation of his thinking, Freeman said he felt “some sympathy for Hannah (Dalton) and Clive (Woodbridge) in losing their seats” and argued that removing Dalton with just ten months left as leader would amount to “rubbing salt in the wound and would achieve nothing of substance.”
The narrow vote leaves unresolved questions about the future direction of politics at EEBC. Since the last Borough Elections there have been seven councillors who have changed their party or group affiliation. The Residents Association losing five councillors and the Liberal Democrats two out of four and those two both having been leaders of the LibDem Group on the Council.
Dalton remains leader — but only just. The voting numbers suggest a council chamber in which party loyalties and traditional group boundaries are under strain, with dissension inside the Residents’ Association itself and two Liberal Democrat votes proving decisive to the survival of an administration whose wider electoral base has been sharply diminished.
Fresh Local Plan row as residents challenge legality of latest Epsom and Ewell consultation
18 June 2026
A fresh dispute has erupted over Epsom & Ewell Borough Council’s embattled Local Plan process after residents challenged the constitutional validity of the council’s latest planning consultation.
The row follows an email issued by the council’s Planning Policy Team reminding residents that consultation remains open until 15 June on “Additional Documents Submitted by the Council during the Local Plan Examination”, ahead of a further examination hearing scheduled for 2 July at Epsom Town Hall.
The consultation concerns documents submitted during the government inspector’s examination of the borough’s long-running Local Plan — a process that has already generated years of political controversy, debate over Green Belt development, and repeated questions about governance and committee oversight.
In one of a number of near-identical emails reportedly circulated by concerned residents to councillors and senior officers, resident Philip Brown argued that the current consultation “appears to have been launched in breach of the council’s constitution” and therefore could not be regarded as valid.
Mr Brown’s complaint centres on the role of the Licensing and Planning Policy Committee (LPPC), the council committee whose constitutional terms of reference include responsibility to “consider and approve” Local Plan documents for public consultation. According to the resident correspondence, there is no evidence in the published minutes of LPPC meetings in late 2025 and early 2026 that the seven consultation documents had been reviewed and approved by the committee before the consultation was launched.
The email goes further, alleging that at the LPPC meeting of 10 March 2026, “the Chair explicitly declined a request to allow the committee to review the Local Plan documents”.
On that basis, the resident contends that “the current consultation appears not to be constitutionally compliant and is therefore invalid”, adding that it would be “both inappropriate and pointless for consultees to comment on an invalid consultation”. The email asks the council to arrange for the documents to be considered by LPPC and then to issue what it terms a “constitutionally-compliant consultation”.
The issue touches on themes previously explored by the Epsom and Ewell Times during coverage of the borough’s Local Plan disputes.
The Local Plan has divided opinion sharply over housing targets, Green Belt release, infrastructure pressures and the extent of member oversight of the process. Recent EET reporting on the LPPC proceedings highlighted tensions over whether councillors were being afforded sufficient opportunity to scrutinise crucial planning material and the degree to which committee oversight was shaping the evolving plan.
The controversy arrives against a backdrop of political transition. Following local government reorganisation, powers will ultimately pass to the new East Surrey Council in 2027, although Epsom & Ewell Borough Council remains the planning authority for the present Local Plan process.
Among those responding to the resident correspondence was David Buxton OBE, Liberal Democrat Shadow Councillor for Epsom West and Shadow Cabinet Executive Member for Adult Social Care and Health on East Surrey Council.
Cllr Buxton stated that he was not involved in the current EEBC Local Plan process and therefore could not determine whether the consultation complies with the borough council’s constitutional requirements, saying those matters are for “the Borough Council, its officers and, where necessary, independent legal advice”.
However, he described the issues raised as “important matters” and said he would encourage relevant officers “to provide clarification so that residents can have confidence in the process and in any representations submitted”.
Cllr Buxton also cautioned elected members involved in future Local Plan deliberations against prejudging specific proposals, saying councillors should remain able to consider evidence, hear residents’ views and participate fully in future decision-making processes.
Restating the Liberal Democrats’ previously expressed planning position, he said development should prioritise brownfield sites first, “underused land second”, and only consider Green Belt land “as a last resort”, adding: “no GP provision, no infrastructure, no development.”
The latest consultation was initiated following a request by the government-appointed planning inspector in a letter dated 23 April 2026, according to the residents’ correspondence.
EEBC has advised that interested members of the public may attend the further examination hearing on 2 July as observers. Those wishing actively to participate must indicate this in their consultation response and notify the Programme Officer before the consultation closes.
Epsom Councillor’s disclosure claims Bourne out on review
18 June 2026
The future of Bourne Hall and its museum has become one of the most contentious issues in Epsom & Ewell local politics in recent months. Debate has ranged from ambitious proposals for the landmark “UFO-shaped” building’s revival to sharp disagreements over governance, transparency and access to information. Earlier this year, councillors on the Community & Wellbeing Committee challenged elements of the Council’s approach, while a decision connected with the matter was later suspended by the Council’s Chief Executive acting in her statutory capacity. Central to the dispute has been a service review of Bourne Hall Museum, parts of which were initially withheld from councillors and the public.
In the following letter, Independent councillor Alex Coley sets out his view following a review and the subsequent disclosure of much of the report’s contents.
A fuller background is provided in the following Epsom and Ewell Times reports:
Amidst all the excitement of the Annual Council meeting on Tuesday 26 May, I received the outcome of an internal review into the FOI request that I submitted for the Service Review of Bourne Hall Museum at the beginning of February.
We should be very grateful to the service review author for the depth of understanding and breadth of appreciation for the questions they were asked to explore. This document is absolutely fundamental for elected members to deliberate the future of the museum. It should never have been withheld.
Comparing the redacted and unredacted versions side by side, it becomes apparent that an almost paranoid sensitivity to potential embarrassment has played a part in non-disclosure.
Unredacted sections describe the absence of any visitor data or visitor research, siloed working at EEBC, and the lack of structured objectives for the museum. Yet all these were laid bare in the LGA Cultural Peer Challenge and disclosed in full.
Recognising and acknowledging these issues are crucial to assuring councillors that the issues are understood sufficiently and that an injection of new funding will be used appropriately and effectively. This cannot be achieved behind a veil of secrecy. Trust must be earned rather than demanded.
From the original FOI request to the delayed response took 109 days — almost four months. The normal expectation is 20 days. The initial response was a mish-mash of erroneous case law and political deflection disguised by the application of Section 43(2) of the Freedom of Information Act — “to prejudice commercial interests”.
I had to make a formal complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office when our Council failed to conduct an internal review within 40 days. The resulting correspondence makes it clear that it was ICO intervention which led to the information being disclosed properly.
Subsequently, the Council has disclosed most of the information unredacted.
However, the belated introduction of Section 36 of FOI in the response is an intriguing piece of code-switching. This relates to the “effective conduct of public affairs” and was not used in the original response. In layman’s terms, this concerns the ability of council officers to give free and frank advice.
Section 36 was engaged as a reason not to disclose advice given by a consultant to council officers. While I agree that it is important for such advice to be given freely, the need to do so openly, honestly and transparently is critical when spending public money — not least to the decision-makers who are accountable for public expenditure.
Fortunately, with ICO involvement, a strong public interest has been shown to outweigh concerns.
For those who explore the response in full, you will note that the respondent decides: “the majority of the report contains high-level, non-controversial analysis and recommendations that do not meet the threshold of demonstrating a likelihood of prejudice.”
Well, hurray!
I must conclude that significant effort and energy is being expended by both officers and councillors in battles over secrecy. This is a waste of public money and an affront to the representation of electors. Councillors should not have to become investigative journalists to know what is going on in the organisation they have been appointed to run.
Transparency is significantly better value for money and, as the unredacted contents of the service review reveal, a far better means for deciding how public money should be spent in future. Democracy should be done and seen to be done.
I hoped that this item would be brought back to the Community & Wellbeing Committee to be determined in the manner it always should have been — openly and with all the information available.
However, recent correspondence to councillors on Thursday 28 May seems disconnected from the FOI request. It refers to a Special Community & Wellbeing Committee on 9 June and states:
“Following the invitation to revisit the non-inclusion of the Bourne Hall Service Review in the previous committee papers, it is the decision of the Council’s Proper Officer for access to information that the decision will not be overturned.”
The missive goes on to say:
“However, in order to move this item forward, the Council’s Proper Officer proposes to limit access to the Bourne Hall Service Review to the voting members of the Community & Wellbeing Committee that shall be in attendance at the 9 June special meeting and she will be present to discuss why the information will remain restricted.”
Finally, the message concludes:
“Please note that no photographs or copies of the exempt document are permitted to be taken.”
Readers of a certain vintage may recall sitcoms of the 1970s and 1980s — Dad’s Army, ’Allo ’Allo and, of course, Yes Minister. What a pity the writers never delved deeper into local government. There is a richness of material for satire and farce that is unmatched.
Perhaps we should reach for some of that Sir Humphrey comedy wisdom:
“If the right people don’t have power, do you know what happens? The wrong people get it. Politicians, councillors, ordinary voters!”
As we say in Epsom & Ewell: None Such.
Alex Coley Independent Councillor – Ruxley
A motion in note or a note in motion?
18 June 2026
Dear Editor,
Thank you as always for your coverage of last night’s council meeting.
You correctly report that the mayor refused to allow councillors to debate my motion on the constitution, falsely framing it as an attempt to change the constitution, and that I denied this.
As both councillors and the public were prevented by the mayor from even seeing the motion, I thought your readers might like to. It was not a motion to amend the constitution but to amend the recommendation in the report, to add two unarguable factual points. Both were framed as to “note”, meaning that no action was required.
Had they been allowed, councillors would have been invited to:
• Note that, while the constitution states at paragraph 2.1: “The Code of Conduct for councillors is available in Appendix 1 and the arrangements for making a complaint and dealing with complaints can be found in the council’s Operating Framework”, no such arrangements exist in the Operating Framework.
• Further note that while the live register of delegations and the Terms of Reference for the Full Council and other Council Committees, Sub-Committees, Advisory Panels and Joint Arrangements delegate to hearings panels the determination of complaints referred by an Investigating Officer regarding alleged breaches of the councillors’ Code of Conduct, neither document provides any authority for such panels to issue any sanction.
It was my intention to draw the attention of councillors and the public these deficiencies in the constitution that councillors were being asked to approve, but with no attempt to amend it, as claimed by the mayor.
To be fair to Cllr McIntyre, it was obvious that she was merely reading from a script given to her by the administration, probably by those who are responsible for ensuring that the constitution is fit for purpose and who have a vested interest in concealing its failings. It was her first meeting as mayor and we might hope that she will learn from the incident.
My mistake was not that I submitted the amendment to the recommendation “late”, as there was no requirement to submit it in advance, but that I submitted it in advance at all, giving the administration the opportunity to engage in procedural shenanigans. I will learn from this.
Of course, as Cllr Lawrence eloquently and movingly attested, the absence of a proper procedure for complaints against councillors has real world consequences. The administration has targeted a number of opposition councillors, including myself, with code of conduct complaints while shielding senior Residents Association councillors.
Finally, you are right that the underlying problem with the meeting was that many councillors regard a meeting where matters of such importance as the council’s constitution are considered as a purely “civic” event, and any discussion to be keeping them from the refreshments provided at council tax payers’ expense.
May’s heat infuses Epsom and Ewell Council Chamber with leadership closely contested
18 June 2026
On one of the hottest days of the year, with councillors and guests in Epsom Town Hall using agenda papers as improvised fans, Epsom & Ewell Borough Council held what was in effect the beginning of its final chapter — the Annual Council meeting that will oversee the borough’s last year before abolition under local government reorganisation.
The evening of 26th May combined civic ceremony, nostalgia, political tension and procedural wrangling, culminating in a knife-edge vote for Council leadership and a heated row over the Council’s constitution.
Councillor Lucy McIntyre (RA) was elected Mayor for what will be the borough’s final mayoral year, with veteran Independent councillor Julie Morris chosen as Deputy Mayor.
McIntyre, among the younger and longer-serving members of the chamber, described the appointment as “particularly special because this borough really has always been my home”, speaking movingly of family ties, her late brothers, and the borough’s impending disappearance into the new East Surrey Council.
“This will be the final mayoral year of Epsom and Ewell in its current form, as we know it,” she said. “It makes it even more of an honour and a privilege to serve you all.”
Her chosen charities include Fab for Epsom & Ewell, Girlguiding Epsom District and Sunnybank Trust, with ten principal events planned during the roughly ten months remaining before the borough’s end. “The countdown has already begun,” she told the chamber, “because after all, it’s the final countdown — so let’s make it unforgettable.”
Outgoing Mayor Councillor Robert Leach offered a characteristically humorous farewell, reflecting on a year that took him from the Derby and Buckingham Palace to community groups, Ukrainian refugees, disability charities and opening Primark.
“It has been a great honour to be the mayor of the borough for the last year,” he said. “This was a position I had not expected and… not one that I sought.” He praised the borough’s “more than 100 charities and voluntary groups”, remarking that a mayoral visit “means so much to the people”, and expressed hope that some civic role might survive local government reorganisation.
But the political temperature rose sharply when councillors turned to the appointment of Council Leader.
Councillor Hannah Dalton (RA), the incumbent leader, was nominated by Councillors Liz Frost and Christine Cleveland. Frost urged members to back continuity in the borough’s final year.
“This… is going to be the last year of the council,” she said. “It is really, really important that we all pull together… and leave the council in a good position.”
Cleveland praised Dalton’s work through “very turbulent times” in local government and added: “It would be really nice to end our time in Epsom with a female leader of the council as well.”
The challenge came from Independent councillor Alex Coley, once a prominent Residents’ Association figure before breaking away from the ruling group.
Nominating Coley, Councillor Kate Chinn (Labour Court) launched a stinging critique of the outgoing year.
“Last year this council agreed strategic priorities,” she said. “It’s safe to say these did not go according to plan.”
She referred to “a committee meeting where the leader of the council [was] absent from a vote to fund a strategic priority” and another where “an RA CIL (Community Infrastructure Levy) bid was proposed and not voted through by the RA members.”
“If the leader stays the same, these priorities will not be worth the paper they are written on,” she argued. “We need a new leader… one who will deliver and work across all political groups… As long as this ship is still afloat, we must look after it. But it’s time for a new captain.”
The most striking intervention came from RA Councillor Kim Spickett.
Visibly framing her choice as a painful one, she revealed the intensity of lobbying behind the scenes.
“The choice today… has been very difficult for me,” she said. “I’ve had a lot of calls, I’ve had a lot of messages, and I’ve had a lot of pressure put on me. I’m not happy about it. It’s made me very sad.”
Declaring pride in the borough and its people, she nevertheless backed Coley as the person to steer the authority through its closing months.
“We need the proven leadership of a councillor who’s dedicated to delivery and puts outcomes first… somebody I’m proud to call my friend.”
“Delivery is what we need to set this community up for success… and I believe Alex will deliver.”
The vote that followed demonstrated just how finely balanced the chamber had become.
Dalton survived — but only narrowly.
The official tally: 15 votes for Hannah Dalton, 14 for Alex Coley.
Having retained the leadership by a single vote, Dalton struck a conciliatory note.
“Being leader is never easy, and you’re not going to take everybody with you all of the time,” she said. “I’d say the last year to 18 months has been the hardest it has ever been.”
She acknowledged the challenge of leading a Residents’ Association group that, she insisted, operates without a formal whip: “Whatever they do say, they do not have a political whip, and they discuss everything.”
In remarks that reflected the strains of both local government reorganisation and evident political divisions inside the chamber, she appealed for unity.
“We’ve got to deliver a lot. We need stability. We need to get to the end of next March in one piece, without ripping each other apart, or leaving this council in a really bad way.”
“We’ve been here for 90 years, we’ve done an incredible job together. Let’s keep it together, just for the last ten months.”
If the leadership contest exposed the chamber’s political fault-lines, the next item — approval of the Council’s constitution — produced a procedural clash that left tempers noticeably frayed in the overheated room.
Mayor McIntyre announced that a late proposal concerning the constitution would not be accepted, ruling that substantive constitutional changes required proper routing through the Standards and Constitution Committee, officers, or a formal motion process.
Councillor Chris Ames (Labour) objected fiercely.
“As might have been predicted, the administration has sought to close down debate about this,” he said.
“We’re going to be asked to agree a constitution that we should know is defective.”
Denying that he had proposed a constitutional amendment, Ames said he had merely sought to highlight concerns. “The usual procedural shenanigans that we get here doesn’t surprise me one bit,” he said. “It’s absolutely disgraceful. It’s the typical corruption of this administration.”
Councillor James Lawrence (Independent) followed with his own criticism, citing what he said were deficiencies in the complaints process as described across the Council’s constitution, operating framework and website.
He argued that a councillor complaints procedure was either missing or unclear, describing a complaint against him that had remained unresolved for months.
But when Lawrence attempted to continue, the Mayor curtailed him.
“The meeting this evening is for a civic event,” she said, directing him instead toward the processes set out elsewhere in the Council framework.
Lawrence pushed back, asking: “Can you point in the constitution why I can’t speak?”
The exchange carried a certain irony: debate was being restricted on the basis of the meeting’s civic character while the approval of the constitution itself remained a formal agenda item before members.
When the vote finally came, the constitution was approved 15 votes to 9.
The meeting then moved on to committee appointments and other routine business without further fireworks.
Yet for a council entering its final year of existence, the evening had already revealed much: pride in civic tradition, uncertainty about the future, visible political strains — and a leadership retained by the narrowest of margins in a chamber made short-tempered by heat, history and the approaching end of the borough council era.
Image: Cllr Kim Spickett addresses the Council – Epsom and Ewell Borough Council YouTube
.
.
.
Don’t Believe Everything You Read Online? EET Stands By ‘Gagging’ Report After Epsom MP’s Westminster Jibe
18 June 2026
A row over media access to newly elected Liberal Democrat councillors has escalated after Epsom & Ewell MP Helen Maguire publicly challenged an Epsom and Ewell Times report – only for subsequent correspondence to confirm that a restriction on councillors speaking to the media did in fact exist.
The dispute centres on events at the Count for the East Surrey Unitary Council elections at Bourne Hall on 8 May.
In an earlier report, Epsom and Ewell Times’ (EET) Lionel Blackman described being in a media interview room speaking with a soon-to-be-elected Liberal Democrat candidate when Helen Maguire’s communications officer entered and stated that Lib Dem candidates were not to talk to the press and that journalists should speak only to the MP.
The report described the instruction as neither “liberal” nor “democratic” and criticised what it characterised as a “gag” on successful candidates.
Ten days later, at a reception at the Palace of Westminster hosted by Ms Maguire and attended by a couple of hundred leading figures from Epsom and Ewell’s business and voluntary sectors, the MP appeared to reference the controversy directly.
Introducing newly elected councillors present at the event, she said: “There are a number of our new Councillors present today and contrary to what you may have read in the press they are free to speak and if there are any members of the press here you may talk to them. Do not believe everything you read online.”
The remark prompted EET to challenge the implication that its reporting had been inaccurate.
In a subsequent email exchange, Helen Maguire’s communications officer, Esther Holland, denied that the MP had imposed any “gag” on councillors but acknowledged that a restriction on media engagement had indeed been in place.
Ms Holland wrote: “Helen can confirm that while she knew the East Surrey campaign team had asked for a pause in media engagement during the election week, this was entirely the East Surrey campaign team’s decision. Helen played no part in directing this; she did not ‘gag’ her new councillors.”
She later provided a statement attributed to an East Surrey Liberal Democrats spokesperson saying: “The pause in media engagement was a decision made by the central campaign team for the Liberal Democrats in East Surrey — not Helen Maguire MP — based on the advice to make the incoming leadership contest as democratic and fair as possible.”
That explanation narrows, but does not extinguish, the dispute.
EET’s original report did not merely allege that Helen Maguire personally invented the policy. It reported that the instruction was delivered by her communications officer, directing journalists away from councillors and towards the MP.
Mr Blackman replied that, in the circumstances, it had been entirely reasonable to report the matter as “Helen’s gag”, noting that the instruction had been communicated by an employee acting under the MP’s banner and that the strategy would have been ineffective without at least some degree of cooperation from the MP’s operation.
The exchange then moved into more sensitive territory concerning the role of MP’s parliamentary staff in party political activity.
Responding to questions raised by EET, Ms Holland stated she had been acting “in my capacity as local party communications, not as an employee of Helen Maguire MP” when communicating the media strategy at the Count, adding that her role was “split between parliamentary and local party work.”
That explanation may itself invite wider questions about the sometimes blurred boundary between parliamentary communications roles and local party political operations.
No evidence has been produced that any parliamentary or IPSA (Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority) rules were breached. However, parliamentary staffing arrangements are ordinarily expected to distinguish between parliamentary duties funded through MPs’ allowances and party political campaigning or organisation.
The issue here is not merely semantic.
If, as the correspondence confirms, a restriction on councillors speaking freely to journalists existed, then the remaining questions become who owned it, who delivered it, and whether the MP’s Westminster remark – “Do not believe everything you read online” – fairly represented EET’s reporting or risked leaving a large public audience with the impression that the newspaper had reported something untrue.
EET stands by the factual accuracy of its original report.
