The Liberal Democrats have won the first ever election for East Surrey Council winning a huge majority on the newly formed authority. The party surged to an early lead as the votes began to trickle in during the Friday, May 8 count and never looked back as seat after seat turned yellow.
When the votes were all counted they won 40 of the 72 seats up for grabs, giving them a huge lead over the second placed Conservatives who managed 10. What had been expected to be a close race with no single party being able to command an outright win soon turned into a landslide with the Lib Dems saying the result offers people a “fresh start” after years of Conservative rule.
The old county council had previously always been under Tory control but in borough elections over the past five years the Liberal Democrats have made significant gains. Today, they said, that the decades-long journey was complete.
Liberal Democrat spokesperson for East Surrey Bridget Kendrick said: “I personally thought we had a very strong chance of taking control and a lot of people underestimated the power of Epsom and Ewell Liberal Democrats but we saw it on the ground day in and day out on the door. We’ve been very clear that this is an incredible opportunity for a fresh start in East Surrey. This is really about a cultural change of transparency.
“Our priority is adult social care and special education, and across Surrey we have been delivering good services and being financially competent. It’s a fresh start for culture and transparency. I’d like to thank everyone who campaigned for so long, for everyone who stood, regardless of parties -for the democratic process. For everyone voting for hope.
“We are going to have our own significant challenges (early estimates suggest the new authority faces an immediate £35m budget shortfall). We need to put people at the forefront of decisions. Turnout was high, it was a good moment for democracy. It’s a good moment for Liberal democrats. We have worked for this moment for decades.”
The new East Surrey Council will sit in shadow for its first year as the old two tier system of Surrey County Council and its 11 boroughs and districts is wound up. East Surrey is the merger of Elmbridge, Reigate and Banstead, Epsom and Ewell, Mole Valley, and Tandridge – and the eastern half of the county council.
West Surrey, which was also won by the Liberal Democrats comprises Runnymede, Spelthorne, Waverley, Guildford, Surrey Heath and the eastern half of the county council.
East Surrey results in full:
Liberal Democrats, 40 seats Conservative, 10 The Green Party, 8 Reform UK , 5 Residents Associations of Epsom and Ewell, 2 Independent, 2 Ashtead Independent, working with Ashtead Residents, 2 Tattenhams Residents’ Associations , 2 The Molesey Residents Association, 1
Epsom’s LibDem MP gags her Party’s new councillors in their moment of triumph
9 May 2026
Bourne Hall, Ewell, Friday 8th May – the Count of the five local divisions in the East Surrey Unitary Council elections.
As reported elsewhere, local Liberal Democrats took eight out of ten seats in the Epsom and Ewell Area on Thursday’s local elections.
Our reporter, in the room reserved for media interviews at the Count, was talking to soon to be elected Liberal Democrat candidate Roy Deadman. Entered the room Helen Maguire’s communication (sic) officer who stated her party’s candidates were not to talk to the press! The press were only to talk to her boss.
What hare-brained politics studies undergraduate idea this was of a communications strategy is any body’s idea. Neither “liberal” nor “democratic”. Ms Maguire, you can do better than this.
Somewhat handicapped by this injunction your reporter had more time to gauge feelings and responses from the other parties.
Clearly a very poor showing from Labour who had a proud record of consistent representation in Court Ward and a succession of highly respected Labour Mayors.
Reform posted substantial votes in most of the five divisions but failed to get even a second place.
The Conservatives appear to be saying goodbye to Epsom and Ewell as a safe Conservative parliamentary seat, that it had been for ever, up to Helen Maguire’s Liberal Democrat victory in July 2024.
The Greens polled admirably but failed to make the breakthrough that they were hoping for.
The Residents Associations’ faces were saved by the personal appeal and integrity of Eber Kington and Peter O’Donovan who won their seats by substantial margins. Elsewhere, the RA leaders Hannah Dalton and Neil Dallen fell woefully behind both Liberal Democrats and Reform by hundreds of votes.
It would seem that the direction, motivation and relevance of the long-ruling Residents Association has been lost and a new era has dawned.
The full EAST SURREY election results will be published HERE in due course.
On a lighter note. Council issued coloured rubber thimbles sparked controversy. Handed out to the dedicated and hard-working counters, they were brightly coloured green, red and yellow. Were they for counting particular party votes? No, just a co-incidence but that did not stop one Reform candidate asking why there were no purple ones.
Lib Dems sweep up in East Surrey Unitary Council election for Epsom and Ewell
9 May 2026
The results are in.
Of the 10 seats in Epsom and Ewell the Liberal Democrats dominate with the election of 8 of their candidates. The Residents Association took 2. None of the other parties gained any seats. See full results below.
Announced from the count by deputy returning officer and EEBC CEO Jackie King at Bourne Hall in Ewell on Friday 8th May.
You may need to refresh your browser during the results period for the updating to appear.
The top two in each division are elected.
Epsom Town & Downs
Epsom West
Ewell Court, Auriol & Cuddington
Ewell Village, Stoneleigh & Nonsuch
West Ewell
According to the Council the full results for the East Surrey Council will be published on the Future Surrey website.
View of Bourne Hall and Museum, Spring Street, Ewell. (Credit: Google Street View)
You can now watch online the Epsom & Ewell Times Election Hustings
9 May 2026
Residents from across the borough gathered at NESCOT on Wednesday (29th April) evening for a wide-ranging East Surrey unitary council election hustings, hosted by Epsom and Ewell Times and chaired by local solicitor Lionel Blackman.
Six candidates representing the main political groups contesting the forthcoming elections addressed the audience, setting out their priorities and responding to questions on key local issues. Those taking part were Eber Kington (Residents’ Association), David Buxton (Liberal Democrats), Robert Geleit (Labour), Kieran Persand (Conservative), Yvonne Grunwald (Green Party) and Ben Cronin (Reform UK).
Opening statements revealed both shared concerns and sharply differing approaches to local governance. Conservative candidate Kieran Persand emphasised his party’s campaigning record on issues such as Green Belt protection and crime, arguing that “track record” was the key distinction between parties.
Labour’s Robert Geleit drew on his long experience as a borough councillor, highlighting community engagement and investment in disadvantaged areas, while also reflecting on his own personal journey overcoming adversity.
Liberal Democrat David Buxton focused on what he described as the need for “practical, joined-up solutions”, particularly in road maintenance, special educational needs provision and infrastructure planning, arguing that current systems were not delivering for residents.
Green Party candidate Yvonne Grunwald highlighted cost-of-living pressures, environmental protection and the need for more community and youth spaces, pointing to her party’s growing representation locally.
Reform UK’s Ben Cronin centred his remarks on transparency and accountability, calling for a “full review” of council decisions and criticising what he described as wasteful spending, including issues surrounding the Rainbow Leisure Centre.
Residents’ Association representative Eber Kington positioned his group as a non-party alternative focused purely on local issues, stressing a positive campaigning approach and independence from national politics.
A lively question-and-answer session followed, with residents pressing candidates on practical concerns.
Road maintenance and potholes dominated the opening exchanges. Candidates broadly agreed the current system is too reactive, though solutions varied. Conservatives pointed to increased funding and a need for more strategic planning, Liberal Democrats argued for improved management and more in-house delivery, while others called for a return to long-term resurfacing programmes rather than repeated short-term repairs.
Youth provision emerged as another major concern, with audience members highlighting the decline of youth clubs and accessible spaces. Candidates across the political spectrum acknowledged the gap, suggesting a mix of direct council investment, partnerships with charities and sports organisations, and better use of existing community facilities.
Questions on the future structure of local government prompted discussion on how communities would be represented under the proposed East Surrey unitary authority. Candidates spoke of the need for stronger consultation, local committees and improved transparency, though some warned that new structures must avoid becoming ineffective “talking shops”.
Throughout the evening, a common theme was the challenge of translating broad promises—on roads, youth services and local accountability—into deliverable policy within a new council structure.
The hustings provided voters with a rare opportunity to hear directly from candidates across the political spectrum ahead of polling day. While there was broad agreement on the issues facing residents, the event highlighted clear divisions over how they should be addressed—and who is best placed to deliver change.
Photo: Hustings platform – L to R: Buxton, Persand, Kington, Blackman, Geliet, Grunwald, Cronin
Solar Panels green-light in Mole Valley a grey area?
9 May 2026
Solar panels powering up to 5,500 homes have been approved for prime Surrey agricultural land that could have been used to put the “wheat in our Weetabix”. Mole Valley District Council’s April development committee green lit the renewable energy plant for Little Flanchford Farm in Flanchford Road, Leigh.
The former green belt site was considered to be some of Surrey’s best and most versatile agricultural land, but the plans were recommended because the council sees renewable energy as central to achieving a sustainable, low-carbon future. The panels will convert light into electricity and contribute enough renewable electricity and low carbon energy to cut 4,052 tonnes of CO2 per year from the atmosphere, with the development standing for up to 40 years before being decommissioned and the site returned to agricultural use.
Residents objecting said special circumstances of the solar farm were not enough to outweigh the harm it would cause to green belt land, with one saying it would significantly affect the area for up to 10 years as planting would be ineffective for the first quarter of its lifespan and, even when fully in place, would not provide screening for several months a year, adding: “A decade of admitted damage is a serious policy conflict.”
Councillor Joanne Willoughby of Leigh Parish said the council was not against the principle of solar development but was concerned that open undeveloped agricultural countryside within the wider rural green belt was being classed as grey belt. The solar farm’s agent said the plant would improve local energy resilience and support businesses and homes through lower network charges, and would also curb the need for pylons crisscrossing the country.
Councillor Simon Budd (Conservative: Brockham, Betchworth, Buckland, Box Hill and Headley) said: “Saying that it is a grey belt, that is an absolute nonsense. That is green belt all day long. Nothing is out there. I’m told that green belt is only to protect Dorking and Reigate merging, well I don’t think it is. I think the green belt is there to protect the villages. I’m in favour of solar panels on top of buildings, on top of car parks, but not now on ‘best and most versatile land. And that is what it is, that is the land that feeds us, that puts the wheat in your Weetabix.”
The plans were approved by eight votes to four with three abstentions.
A “beautiful” and “fantastic” high-end luxury hotel, spa and fine dining restaurant set in the Surrey countryside has been approved.
Gatton Manor and Country Club will be transformed as part of a £41 million project to demolish the closed hotel and failing golf course and replace them with 81 guest rooms, two restaurants, and a spa featuring indoor and wild swimming pools, a gym, and treatment and relaxation areas.
The 22-hectare site near Ockley is expected to generate around 290 construction jobs during the two-year build, followed by 145 permanent roles once the development is operational.
Planning officers told Mole Valley District Council’s April development committee that the proposal would create a destination venue in the borough and bring significant investment into the rural economy. They added: “It is such a beautiful site, it is such a large site, it has got woodland, open areas, it is really a lovely, lovely, rural area and because of its size and the amount of landscape it is more than capable of absorbing this amount of development.”
In addition to the hotel, new facilities will be open to the public, including a fine dining restaurant and gym. The scheme also includes two tennis courts and three padel courts, with up to 100 gym memberships offered at preferential rates to residents living within 3km of the site.
Access to the hotel and spa will be via Standon Lane, linking the A29 Stane Street with Horsham Road. The existing hotel closed in 2022, and its adjoining 18-hole golf course had already been earmarked for closure regardless of the planning outcome.
Officers noted the development would also support businesses further along the supply chain. However, some residents objected, raising concerns about the impact on the openness of the countryside and increased pressure on local roads.
Developers acknowledged the loss of the golf course was regrettable but said it had been operating at a loss for several years and was no longer viable.
Councillor Roger Adams (Liberal Democrat, Bookham West) said: “With global warming and rising temperatures I suspect a lot of people seeking a holiday will no longer be heading to the Mediterranean but may well seek to have staycations, and where better to stay for a holiday than Surrey. We’ve got beautiful country here and we do need developments such as this. It will provide employment and enhance the visitor offer.”
Councillor Monica Weller (Liberal Democrat, Bookham West) added: “It really is quite fantastic as far as I’m concerned. A business like this has got to bring something really quite fantastic to our area and that is really to be welcomed.”
Plans for new hotel and spa in Ockley (MVDC)
Saturday 9 May is Surrey Day – and this year, we’re digging deeper
9 May 2026
Now in its eighth year, Surrey Day is about bringing communities together to celebrate everything that makes this county so special. In 2026, the theme is Going Underground, and it’s an invitation to see Surrey as you’ve never seen it before. Forget what you think you know about this beautiful county. Beneath the rolling hills and the familiar high streets of its market towns lies a world of hidden treasures just waiting to be unearthed.
Whether you fancy venturing into the literal underground or uncovering something altogether more unexpected, Surrey Day 2026 has something to spark the curiosity of all the family. Enjoy hands-on activities, torchlit tours, guided walks, unseen histories, a disco in a tunnel and stories in caves, re-enactments in shelters, castles to explore, fossils galore – and so much more!
While there will be events and activities countywide, this year, Epsom is taking centre stage as a key host town for the very first time. BBC Radio Surrey will be broadcasting live from Epsom from 12-3pm so keep your ears open – or better still, get down there and join in! The headline act is the extraordinary Ashley Road Deep Level Air Raid Shelter – a grid of brick-lined tunnels constructed 50 feet underground to shelter 1,500 people from the Blitz. Now hidden in woodland on the edge of town, there will be torchlit guided tours, but book early as these will sell out.
Many Surrey museums will also have Going Underground events such as Bourne Hall Museum in Ewell with an exciting full day of discovery, including an archaeological walk-and-talk, coin identification drop-ins and the remarkable story of the Epsom Aurochs which was a 3,500-year-old giant prehistoric animal unearthed locally in 2023. Or nearby in Dorking, there are castle and cave tours, guided history walks, and a chance to get hands-on with fascinating old inventions at Dorking Museum & Heritage Centre. A particular highlight is an impressively large-scale reconstruction of the very first Baronyx fossil discovery. On the other side of the county, Guildford Museum has fun hands-on fossil handling sessions, while Surrey History Centre presents a day of talks celebrating some of Surrey’s lesser-known artists. At Brookwood, you can be taken on a guided tour of the American Military Cemetery or if you head out further towards Tilford, you can get involved in 2 thrilling days of re-enactments at the open-air Rural Life Living Museum, finding out what daily life was like amid rationing and air-raids. If you’ve never visited, this is an experience you won’t forget in a hurry!
Find out more and plan your Surrey Day at visitsurrey.com/surrey-day and if you like a podcast, the BBC Secret Surrey series is a great companion to the day’s events.
A call to vote at the new East Surrey Council election 7th May
9 May 2026
Voters Urged to Have Their Say in First East and West Surrey Council Elections
With just one week to go until polling day on Thursday 7 May, voters across Surrey are being urged to take part in the first elections for the new East Surrey and West Surrey unitary councils.
The vote marks a major step in the reorganisation of local government across the county. From 1 April 2027, the new councils will assume responsibility for all key local services currently split between county and district/borough councils. These include education, waste collection, highways, housing, planning, children’s services, adult social care and more.
Those elected next week will initially sit on Shadow Authorities for East and West Surrey. These bodies will oversee the transition to the new system, including setting budgets and council tax levels, agreeing staffing structures and governance arrangements, adopting codes of conduct, and preparing for the transfer of services ahead of vesting day.
Mari Roberts-Wood, Returning Officer for the East Surrey elections, said: “These elections are your opportunity to choose who represents you on your new council and makes decisions on important local matters, including how the council is set up, so be sure to use your vote.”
Andrew Pritchard, Returning Officer for the West Surrey elections, added: “Electors will be able to vote for up to two different candidates to represent their ward. Remember, your vote is your decision and yours alone. You do not need to tell anyone how you voted.”
Polling stations open 7am–10pm
Polling stations will be open from 7am to 10pm on Thursday 7 May. Voters attending in person must bring an accepted form of photo ID. Without it, you will not be able to vote and will be asked to return with valid identification.
Accepted forms of ID include a UK, EEA or Commonwealth passport, a UK or EEA driving licence, biometric immigration documents, and certain concessionary travel passes such as an older person’s bus pass or an Oyster 60+ card. A free Voter Authority Certificate is also valid. Expired ID can still be used if the photograph remains a good likeness, but the name must match the electoral register.
Voters are advised to check their poll card carefully before attending, as polling station locations may have changed. You do not need your poll card to vote, but it provides useful details including your polling station.
You can find your polling station, ward, and a list of candidates by entering your postcode here:
If you have lost your poll card, you can still vote.
Those voting as a proxy must attend the polling station allocated to the person they are voting on behalf of, not their own.
Postal voting guidance
If you are voting by post, it is important to follow the instructions carefully to ensure your vote is counted. You may vote for up to two candidates where applicable.
Make sure you: complete your ballot paper in secret fill in the postal voting statement correctly place all documents in the correct envelopes seal the envelope yourself
Postal votes should be returned as soon as possible. If you are unable to post it in time, you can hand it in at a polling station up to 10pm on polling day.
Emergency proxy voting
If you are unable to vote in person due to illness, an emergency, or because your photo ID has been lost or damaged, you can apply for an emergency proxy vote until 5pm on polling day.
Polling stations are equipped to support voters with additional needs. This includes accessible entrances, low-level polling booths and assistance from trained staff. Voters are encouraged to ask for help if required.
Further information
You can find more details about the elections, including wards and candidates, at: surreylgrhub.gov.uk/elections
For broader information about the local government reorganisation in Surrey, visit: surreylgrhub.gov.uk
For residents without internet access, local electoral services teams at district and borough councils can provide assistance by phone.
The 7 May elections represent the first stage in establishing the new unitary councils, which will replace Surrey’s current two-tier system in April 2027.
East Surrey Council, an election that calls for distinction?
9 May 2026
As voters in Epsom and Ewell prepare to elect representatives to the new East Surrey Unitary Council on 7th May, two unfolding controversies raise a broader question: how should voters judge those seeking office when key decisions remain unexplained?
At the centre of both issues is a bizarre but all the same political deployment of Section 2 of the Local Government Act 1986 to justify a refusal to answer questions. As previously reported, this provision is aimed at preventing political publicity, not at preventing factual explanation. Yet it has been relied upon in two separate cases to decline engagement with legitimate enquiries.
One concerns the Rainbow Leisure Centre, where a confidential council decision identified potential dilapidations of up to £500,000 shortly after a change of operator. The public is still waiting for clarity on how such a liability arose. The other concerns the signing of a submission in the name of Epsom and Ewell Borough Council relating to a proposed second tier of governance above unitary councils, where questions remain about authority and process.
In both cases, the refusal to answer questions has come at a moment when accountability matters most — immediately before an election.
This matters because local elections are not simply about party labels. They are about judgement, competence and accountability. For nearly a century, the Residents’ Association has governed Epsom and Ewell, attracting many capable and committed councillors who have avoided the severe financial problems seen in a number of Councils in West Surrey. That record carries weight.
But continuity also brings its own challenges. Some councillors, including among the four who have left the ruling group of Residents Association councillors since the last Borough elections, have raised concerns about the “undemocratic” style of leadership in recent years. Others, still within the group, have expressed to Epsom and Ewell Times unease but privately. Many councillors are not political operators by instinct and appear reluctant to challenge leadership decisions publicly or otherwise “rock the boat”. Though the former main opposition LibDems on EEBC have not been without their own divisions; they lost two of their four councillors to independent benches.
For voters, that creates a need to distinguish between individuals as well as affiliations. A candidate’s independence of judgement, willingness to question, and approach to transparency may matter as much as their political alignment.
At the same time, the forthcoming election is not for the existing borough council but for a new authority covering a much wider area. The East Surrey Council will bring together multiple districts into a single body responsible for all local services. That change introduces a second consideration for voters: influence.
Available projections and polling suggest that no single grouping is guaranteed dominance, but that larger national parties — including the Liberal Democrats and others with broader geographic bases — may be well placed to secure significant representation across the new authority. A recent JLP Partners opinion poll has placed the Liberal Democrats a nose ahead at 29% over a split right vote between Conservatives (25%) and Reform (27%). At a national level, the political landscape itself appears increasingly fragmented, with gains forecast for smaller and emerging parties alongside shifts in traditional support.
In that context, voters may find themselves weighing two different questions. One is who best represents Epsom and Ewell locally. The other is which candidates are most likely to have influence within the Unitary Council that will take decisions affecting the area for years to come.
Neither question has a simple answer. Voting for independent or Residents’ Association candidates may prioritise local identity and continuity. Voting for candidates aligned with larger parties may offer a greater chance of being part of the administration of the new authority.
What the current controversies underline is that accountability, transparency and willingness to engage with scrutiny are central to that judgement. When questions about significant public decisions remain unanswered, voters are entitled to take that into account.
The ballot on 7th May is therefore not only about the future structure of local government. It is also an opportunity for voters to decide what standards they expect from those who seek to represent them.
Dalton and Dallen double-down disclosure denial
9 May 2026
Two senior Residents Association Epsom and Ewell Borough Council figures have refused to answer questions from Epsom and Ewell Times, both claiming pre-election restrictions under the Local Government Act 1986 — prompting fresh concerns over transparency and accountability at a time when public scrutiny is arguably most important.
Cllr Neil Dallen (RA Town Ward) is standing with his daughter Lucie McIntyre for election to the East Surrey Unitary Council in the West Ewell Division and Cllr Hannah Dalton (RA Stoneleigh) is standing in the same 7th May election in the Ewell Village, Stoneleigh and Nonsuch Division.
In both cases, Section 2 of the Act — which prohibits councils from publishing material designed to influence support for a political party — has been relied upon to justify a refusal to respond. However, expert advice provided to Epsom and Ewell Times indicates that the provision is directed at political publicity, not factual explanations of decisions already taken, and does not require councils or councillors to remain silent when asked legitimate questions about the use of public powers and resources.
Rainbow Leisure Centre: £500,000 repairs and unanswered questions – the case concerning Cllr Neil Dallen
The first case concerns the Council’s handling of the Rainbow Leisure Centre following a change of operator in October 2025.
A confidential urgent decision taken in December stated: “The costs of the dilapidations are not yet fully known… However, an estimate is that this could cost up to £500k.”
The same document recorded a wide range of issues affecting the building, including fire alarms, lifts, ventilation, damp and possible roof defects, with some matters raising health and safety concerns requiring immediate action.
Such costs are not unusual over the lifetime of a large public building. But they are typically managed through regular inspection and timely maintenance. When issues are identified early, they can be addressed incrementally and at lower cost. When they are not, problems can accumulate — and costs can escalate sharply.
The central question therefore remains: how did a building that had just been handed over from one operator to another without closure come to present a potential £500,000 repair liability within weeks?
Conflicting accounts of the building’s condition
The former operator, Greenwich Leisure Limited (GLL), has maintained that the building was handed back in the condition required under its contract. It stated that the Council commissioned a full survey prior to handover, that all identified works were completed, and that these were signed off on the Council’s behalf.
GLL has further confirmed that the Council provided a condition survey to all tenderers as part of the tender process.
In contrast, the incoming operator, Places Leisure, identified extensive defects shortly after taking over, including issues said to affect the safe operation of the building.
Either the building was handed over in an acceptable condition following survey and sign-off, or significant defects existed which were not addressed and may have been present for some time.
No inspection records despite long-standing rights
In response to Freedom of Information requests, the Council confirmed that it held contractual rights to inspect the building throughout GLL’s 22-year tenure.
However, it also stated that it holds no inspection or survey reports prior to 2025.
If accurate, that absence of records raises further questions about how any accumulating defects — if they existed — were monitored, recorded or addressed over such a prolonged period.
The missing survey and disputed confidentiality
At the centre of the dispute lies the condition survey said to have been carried out prior to handover.
The Council has refused to disclose that survey, citing legal professional privilege and the possibility of litigation. Yet the same document was provided to tenderers, including GLL, during the procurement process.
GLL has indicated that it has access to the survey but has declined to provide it to Epsom and Ewell Times.
This leaves a situation in which a document said to be too sensitive for public disclosure appears to have been shared among commercial parties — raising questions as to whether the exemption is being applied too broadly.
If the survey identified the defects now being asserted, questions arise as to why the incoming operator proceeded with the contract before those issues were resolved. If it did not, questions arise as to whether the survey was incomplete or inaccurate, and who was responsible for its preparation.
Competing explanations
A number of explanations remain possible.
It may be that the former operator’s account is correct and the current dispute reflects differing interpretations of the building’s condition.
It may be that defects accumulated over time and were not identified or addressed due to a failure to exercise inspection rights effectively.
It may be that the survey itself failed to identify the true condition of the building.
Or it may be that the scale of dilapidations has been overstated or differently assessed by the new operator, which is carrying out repairs in return for a reduced management fee shortly after securing the contract through a competitive tender process.
At present, none of these explanations has been confirmed, and key documents remain undisclosed.
Refusal to answer questions
Epsom and Ewell Times put a series of questions to the Council and to Cllr Neil Dallen, Chair of the Strategy and Resources Committee, who supported the urgent decision and its initial classification as confidential.
The response received stated: “We cannot provide any further response as we are within the pre-election period and must follow restrictions governed by Section 2 of the Local Government Act 1986.”
Epsom and Ewell Times submitted a Freedom of Information request seeking to establish who advised that Section 2 applied in these circumstances. At the time of publication, no response had been received within the statutory timeframe.
Second case: Dalton and the FSA submission
A similar position has been taken by Cllr Dalton in relation to a separate matter concerning the signing of a submission connected to proposals for a new tier of local governance, referred to as an FSA (Foundation Strategic Authority).
Questions were put to Cllr Dalton as to the basis on which the submission was signed by her as leader of the ruling Residents Association group and whether it had received the necessary Council authority. Those questions have not been answered, with reliance again placed on alleged pre-election restrictions.
Expert advice
Expert advice provided to Epsom and Ewell Times by Nathan Elvery, former Chief Executive Officer of Croydon Council and now Director of Imagine Public Services Ltd, states: “The questions posed… are factual in character… A factual response explaining what occurred and why would not constitute political publicity within the meaning of the Act… The Council is not being asked to promote a political position; it is being asked to account for its stewardship of public funds.”
He added that reliance on Section 2 in such circumstances risks appearing as “a mechanism to avoid scrutiny during a period when accountability arguably matters most.”
The same advice notes that Section 2 applies to councils as corporate bodies and does not impose a personal duty of silence on councillors responding to press enquiries about decisions they have supported.
Transparency or silence?
The common thread in both cases is the use of Section 2 of the Local Government Act 1986 to justify a refusal to engage with questions about decisions already taken.
The law requires councils to avoid political publicity. It does not require them to avoid explaining themselves.
At a time when significant public decisions are under scrutiny — including those involving large sums of public money — the question for residents is whether the current approach reflects appropriate caution, or an avoidance of accountability.
Have Your Say: Epsom & Ewell Times to Host East Surrey Election Hustings at NESCOT
9 May 2026
With one of the most significant changes to local government in a generation fast approaching, residents in Epsom and Ewell will have a rare opportunity to question those seeking to shape the area’s future.
Epsom & Ewell Times is hosting a public hustings for candidates standing in the forthcoming East Surrey Unitary Council elections. The event will take place at 7pm on Wednesday 29th April at Theatre 53 (formerly The Adrian Mann Theatre), NESCOT, Reigate Road, Ewell, and is open to all members of the public.
The elections on 7th May form part of the wider reorganisation of local government across Surrey, which will see the abolition of existing borough and district councils, including Epsom & Ewell Borough Council, and the creation of new unitary authorities. The new East Surrey authority will assume responsibility for a wide range of services currently split between county and borough levels, including housing, planning, social care, highways and local infrastructure. Decisions taken by the new council will therefore have a direct and lasting impact on the character, services and finances of the area.
Against this backdrop, the hustings offers voters a vital opportunity to hear directly from leading candidates representing the main political parties, to understand their priorities, and to challenge them on the issues that matter most locally. From council tax and development to community services and democratic accountability, the evening will provide a forum for open questioning and informed debate.
Epsom & Ewell Times is grateful to NESCOT for hosting the event, and in particular to its Chief Executive, Julie Kapsalis MBE, for making the theatre available for what promises to be a well-attended and important civic occasion.
The format will allow candidates to outline their positions and respond to questions from the audience, ensuring that residents are able to test the ideas and commitments of those seeking election before casting their votes.
With the move to a unitary system raising important questions about local representation and governance, turnout and public engagement will be crucial. Events such as this aim to strengthen local democracy by giving residents direct access to those who wish to represent them.
Doors will open shortly before 7pm, and seating will be available on a first come, first served basis.
Residents are encouraged to attend, take part, and ensure their voices are heard ahead of polling day.
Surrey’s political map is looking far less predictable than it did five years ago, with Surrey County Council now under no overall control ahead of crucial elections in May 2026.
The Conservative Party has lost its majority for the first time since the 1990s, leaving a fragmented council where no single group dominates. With power up for grabs, the election is set to decide who can harness this opportunity and shape the new East and West Surrey councils.
From safe Tory majority to political battleground
Back in 2021, the Conservatives held a commanding position, winning 47 of 81 seats. The Liberal Democrats secured 14, while Residents’ Associations and independents held 16 seats combined. The Labour Party and the Green Party of England and Wales took two seats each.
Fast forward to now, and that dominance has eroded. A series of by-election losses, defections and political shifts has chipped away at Conservative control, culminating in a high-profile Liberal Democrat win in Hinchley, Claygate and Oxshott last year.
The Lib Dems, buoyed by strong recent performances, believe momentum is on their side heading into 2026 turning parts of Surrey into competing seas of orange and blue.
Fragmented council, rising pressure
Without a majority, the Conservative administration is now more exposed, relying on support from other groups. Criticism has intensified over key issues including finances, service delivery and infrastructure, all likely to dominate the campaign. Adding to tensions, the elections were delayed from May 2025 to 2026, a move opponents say has prolonged uncertainty.
Local politics defies party lines
Beyond the county council’s headquarters, Surrey’s political picture is even more complex.
Areas like Epsom and Ewell have long been strongholds for Residents’ Association groups, where hyper-local issues often outweigh national party politics. In contrast, districts such as Tandridge highlight split loyalties — Conservative at county level, but frequently led by residents’ groups locally.
The result is a county shaped as much by local identity as party allegiance, with independents often holding the balance of power.
Major shake-up: Surrey to be split in two
The 2026 elections come amid one of the biggest structural changes in decades. Surrey is set to be divided into two new unitary authorities, East Surrey and West Surrey, replacing the current two-tier system from April 2027.
The elections will create “shadow councils” to oversee the transition, with new boundaries and significantly fewer councillors. West Surrey will have 90 councillors across 45 wards, while East Surrey will have 72 across 36 wards. This redraw is expected to reshape political representation across the county.
The current councillors at the county, district and borough level will stay in place and act as responsible figures until April 1, 2027.
Key figures stepping down
The political reset is also marked by a wave of departures. Among those stepping down are county council leader Tim OliverOBE and long-standing Labour figure Sir Robert Evans OBE, alongside several senior councillors from across parties and residents’ groups. Their exits add further uncertainty to an already volatile political landscape.
The issues: potholes, finances and the future
Despite structural changes, everyday concerns remain central. Potholes, council debt and the long-term direction of Surrey continue to dominate debate, with parties clashing over how best to manage services and finances during the transition to new authorities.
All to play for
As it stands, Surrey’s politics are more mixed than at any point in recent memory. With no party in control, strong performances from Liberal Democrats, entrenched residents’ groups and a weakened Conservative base, the 2026 elections are shaping up to be a decisive moment.
More than a routine vote, they will determine not just who runs the council but what Surrey’s political future looks like as it diverges in East and West.
Do please consider attending the Epsom and Ewell Times East Surrey Unitary Council Elections. One candidate for each main Party will sit on the stage. Other candidates are invited to attend and there may be an opportunity to ask questions of them as well as the stage representatives.
You can just show up on the night but it will help the management of the event to fill in this form, especially if you want to ask a question of all the representative candidates on stage.
Epsom and Ewell Times is grateful to NESCOT for agreeing to host the event. It will start at 7pm on Wednesday 29th April in Theatre 53 (formerly known as The Adrian Mann Theatre) on the NESCOT campus in Reigate Road Ewell KT17 3DS. There will be ample parking available. The hustings will be chaired by local solicitor and director of Epsom and Ewell Times, Lionel Blackman.
Plans to overhaul local government in Surrey are moving forward but councillors have warned of rising costs, unclear communication and growing confusion among residents.
At a meeting of the East Surrey Joint Committee on April 15, officials confirmed that each new council will receive £900,000 in government transition funding, with strict rules on how the money can be spent.
The overhaul will see Surrey’s current councils replaced by new “unitary” authorities, with a shadow council set to take over preparations ahead of the official launch in April 2027.
Money is tight
While the extra funding has been welcomed, there are concerns the overall budget could be stretched. Of the £35.3m set aside for the overhaul, around £11.2m has already been committed to early work. This includes running the 2026 elections, hiring specialist staff and beginning the complex process of aligning IT systems across councils.
However, most of the expensive work is still to come. Officers explained they will still need to integrate or replace lotus of digital systems, as well as bring in additional legal, HR and technical expertise. They warned that while they are trying to keep within budget, forecasts suggest the full £35.3m could be needed as the project progresses, with IT costs alone expected to make up the largest share and remaining difficult to pin down at this stage.
Councillors repeatedly flagged IT systems as the biggest risk and cost pressure, warning delays in securing staff and resources could cause serious problems later. Cllr Steven McCormick said: “If we end up halfway down through the year and we recognize that we need extra resource it’s going to be too late. it’s going to be too costly.”
Officials admitted IT would be the most expensive and complex part of the transition, with many costs still uncertain. There were also warnings about staff burnout, with officers already under pressure to deliver the changes on time.
Residents “in the dark” over key decisions
A major theme of the meeting was frustration over the lack of clear information for the public. Councillors said residents are asking basic questions like: Where will the new council be based? Will there be local offices? Who do they contact during the transition?
But officers struggled to give definitive answers. Officials confirmed decisions like the location of the new council headquarters and whether there will be satellite offices will be made later by the shadow authority.
Councillors warned that vague messaging is not really good enough. Cllr David Lewis said: “There’s a general awareness of change but there isn’t an awareness of the detail.”
Cllr Catherine Sayer added the current communications are “very high level”. She told the committee: “It’s all very well talking in generalities about what we want to do, how we want a safe transition […] But actually there’s no detail. And I think even if you can’t say what the detail is, it would be very useful to say: ‘At the moment we don’t know’.”
In response, officers agreed to improve FAQs and to take into consideration concerns about clear communication with residents in future.
Confusion over who’s in charge
There are also concerns about who will actually be responsible for what once new councillors are elected in May 2026. During the “shadow year”, existing councillors will still run services and newly elected shadow councillors will prepare the new councils
Cllr Mike Rollings warned this could create “a messy topic” for residents and even for council staff. Another pointed out residents could have multiple councillors covering different boundaries at the same time, making it unclear who to approach.
Officials said clearer guidance will be given through inductions and communications but acknowledged more work is needed to make roles “super clear”.
