East Surrey seeks planning head start as Epsom faces two Local Plans at once
30 September 2026
East Surrey’s incoming council has urged ministers to let it begin preparing a Local Plan before it takes over next April, highlighting a problem already confronting Epsom and Ewell: being required to start another plan while still struggling to complete the current one.
In a letter to Housing and Planning Minister Matthew Pennycook MP, cllr Bradley Nelson (LibDem Dorking), the shadow council’s executive member for strategic planning and growth, has asked for arrangements allowing the new authority to begin plan-making preparations before 1 April 2027.
East Surrey will replace Epsom and Ewell, Elmbridge, Mole Valley, Reigate and Banstead, and Tandridge councils. Its press release warns that requiring those authorities to continue separate planning processes, while their successor cannot formally begin a plan for the whole new area, risks duplication and wasted resources.
For Epsom and Ewell, the request follows months of controversy over Green Belt development, councillor scrutiny and the cost of preparing a plan that will outlive the council responsible for it.
Five councils and competing timetables
The five authorities are at different stages. Mole Valley adopted its Local Plan in December 2024, while the others are progressing existing plans or beginning work under the new planning rules. Epsom and Ewell faces both processes simultaneously.
Cllr Nelson said: “The challenge is that the councils which currently hold planning responsibilities are being asked to continue, or in some cases start work on plans that they may not ultimately be able to complete, while East Surrey Council cannot formally begin the process until it becomes a vested authority.”
He added: “We believe there is an opportunity to make better use of the period before April 2027 by allowing preparatory work to begin sooner. This could help avoid duplication, make the best use of public resources and enable the new council to progress plan-making at the earliest opportunity.”
The shadow council says it wants a single Local Plan to guide housing, employment, infrastructure and environmental protection across East Surrey. Nelson’s letter also identifies rail capacity and sewage treatment as constraints on growth.
Epsom’s long road to a plan
Epsom and Ewell’s current examination follows an already protracted process. The council paused preparation in March 2023 before voting to resume it that October. Its 2022–2040 Local Plan was eventually submitted for examination on 10 March 2025, shortly before a national transitional deadline.
Submission did not end the disputes. EET has reported repeated challenges over additional evidence submitted during the examination and whether elected members had sufficient opportunity to scrutinise it.
At an extraordinary council meeting on 21 July 2026, a motion seeking greater committee oversight was defeated by 15 votes to 12, with three abstentions. Proposed amendments seeking an independent governance review were ruled out of order. The disagreement concerned the use of delegated powers and democratic oversight as well as the planning merits of development sites.
On 22 September, the Licensing and Planning Policy Committee recommended, by six votes to three, that Full Council approve consultation on the Inspector’s proposed modifications. These include 12 additional urban sites and four additional Green Belt sites, with proposals for at least 530 homes at Downs Farm and 275 at Priest Hill.
As EET reported on 25 September, that recommendation was a further step towards consultation, rather than approval to adopt the plan. The Inspector must consider consultation responses before issuing a final report, and Full Council would still have to decide on adoption if the plan is found sound.
Why another plan is required
The requirement to begin a second plan stems from national reforms and higher assessments of housing need.
Government rules require certain authorities whose plans were submitted under transitional arrangements, but provided for less than 80 per cent of the newly calculated housing need, to start again under the new system while their existing plans continue.
Epsom and Ewell is explicitly listed among those authorities. Its deadlines were to publish a notice of intention by 30 June 2026 and a “Gateway 1” readiness assessment by 31 October. That assessment starts the new system’s 30-month plan-making timetable.
In an August letter to the council, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government acknowledged the resource pressures involved in producing two plans simultaneously. It nevertheless rejected impending reorganisation as a reason to defer the new work and reiterated the deadlines.
The financial implications are substantial. EEBC’s September committee report estimated that taking the new plan through to adoption would cost approximately £1 million, plus officer time. No budget had been allocated.
The report also recorded earlier allocations for the existing plan of £75,000 in 2019, £712,000 in 2021 and £629,000 in 2023. These are funding allocations, rather than a statement of final expenditure.
The committee voted seven to two for officers to seek discussions with East Surrey’s chief executive and planning executive member about how to proceed, with the outcome to return to a future meeting.
National pause offers Surrey no reprieve
The Government’s wider pause and review of local government reorganisation does not extend to Surrey.
Planning guidance updated on 24 September expressly confirms Surrey’s exemption. It also says councils must continue plan-making even where they cannot complete adoption before their successor authority becomes operational.
The same guidance exposes the difficulty behind East Surrey’s request. A plan for the new unitary area cannot begin until that authority is operational, although existing councils can collaborate on joint plans, shared evidence and cross-boundary issues beforehand.
Ministers intend to introduce transitional regulations covering unfinished plans, existing adopted plans and the timetable for new unitary-wide plans. However, the guidance describes itself as a statement of intention, rather than finalised policy.
East Surrey’s press release says further details and timings remain unconfirmed. Nelson has requested a meeting with ministers and officials.
Housing need remains urgent
The argument over duplication comes against a stark local record. EET’s latest report on the September committee meeting recorded just 37 homes completed in Epsom and Ewell during 2025–26, none affordable, and an inability to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply.
Cllr Julian Freeman (LibDem College) described the consequences for younger residents: “My own children can’t even imagine owning their own home.”
East Surrey’s intervention therefore raises a practical question: how can councils meet urgent housing needs while spending money on overlapping plans during their final months?
The request does not itself remove EEBC’s obligations or halt its current examination. It asks ministers to make the transition work more efficiently. For Epsom and Ewell residents, the test will be whether that produces a clearer, properly scrutinised route to homes and infrastructure—and a credible explanation of what the additional planning work will cost.
Epsom and Ewell’s New Local Plan sites advance amid clash over scrutiny and cost
30 September 2026
Epsom and Ewell’s Local Plan moved closer to public consultation on Tuesday 22 September, but cllrs clashed over proposed Green Belt development, decisions taken without committee debate and a government requirement to begin another plan before the borough council is abolished.
The Licensing and Planning Policy Committee voted six to three to recommend that Full Council approve a consultation lasting at least six weeks on modifications proposed by the Planning Inspector. Full Council has yet to make that decision; the council expects it to meet next month.
The modifications include 12 additional urban sites and four additional Green Belt sites. Proposals for the latter include at least 530 homes at Downs Farm and 275 at Priest Hill. Planning officers said land south of College Road at Downs Farm would remain in the Green Belt for open space, routes and playing pitches. They said the Sutton and Epsom Rugby Football Club playing fields were outside the proposed Priest Hill allocation.
Who chose the additional sites?
Head of Planning Policy and Economic Development Ian Mawer told the committee that many changes to the plan’s policies arose from examination hearings. Following a further hearing in July, he said, the Inspector’s programme officer asked the council to draft modifications for 12 urban sites and subsequently confirmed which Green Belt sites to include.
“The main modifications are those that the inspector considers are necessary to make the plan sound,” Mr Mawer said. “They must be consulted on as they are presented.”
Cllr Christine Howells (Independent Nonsuch) challenged the absence of a further decision by elected members on the sites. “At no time did elected councillors agree to these material changes, both to the evidence base and the proposals for the local plan,” she told the committee.
Cllr Bernie Muir (Conservative Horton) raised concerns about flooding assessments, school capacity and traffic. Cllr Steven McCormick (Conservative Woodcote and Langley Vale) criticised the opportunity members had been given to scrutinise the changes, calling them “an unprecedented sacrifice of our green belt”.
The dispute concerned both the proposed development and the process that brought it before the committee. Officers said the Inspector had requested the draft modifications as part of the examination. Members were told they could recommend whether the modifications went out to consultation, but could not rewrite the Inspector’s proposals beforehand.
The committee voted seven to two to note the modifications and six to three to recommend consultation. It then voted five to four on each of two delegations: allowing Mr Mawer, in consultation with the committee chair, to make further amendments required by the Inspector after consultation and to update the Local Plan timetable.
The Inspector will consider responses before issuing a final report. If the plan is found sound, Full Council will still have to decide whether to adopt it.
No affordable homes completed in 2025–26
The committee also agreed, by eight votes to one, to publish its Authority Monitoring Report. It records 37 homes completed in the borough during 2025–26, none of them affordable. The council cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of housing land.
Cllr McCormick described the report as “an annual health check on our borough’s planning performance” that showed a serious shortfall. Cllr Julian Freeman (LibDem College) focused on younger residents priced out of housing. “My own children can’t even imagine owning their own home,” he said.
Cllr Neil Dallen (RA Town) agreed that delivery was a problem but said the council could not force developers to build homes for which they had permission. Mr Mawer also pointed to building costs, market conditions and the limited number of large sites ready for development.
Urgent decisions challenged
Earlier in the meeting, members examined EEBC’s responses to Local Plan consultations by neighbouring Tandridge and Kingston. Both had already been submitted using urgent decision procedures. The committee was asked to note them afterwards and did so in each case by five votes to three, with one abstention.
Cllr McCormick called the Tandridge decision a “fait accompli”. He said its consultation had been open for weeks and asked why members had not been convened to consider a response. Cllr Kieran Persand (Conservative Horton) repeatedly questioned why a special committee meeting had not been arranged.
Committee chair Cllr Peter O’Donovan (RA Ewell Court) said he had been advised that the response needed to be submitted and had agreed to it. Asked why a meeting had not been called, he said: “Can’t give you an answer this evening.” He undertook to seek an explanation.
Cllr Phil Neale (RA Cuddington) acknowledged the frustration but argued that the summer holiday period and the unusual pressure created by reorganisation and the Local Plan made urgent decisions necessary in this instance.
The exchanges raised a question that extends beyond these two consultation responses: decisions made by councils shortly before they join East Surrey may affect the new authority, while members of the existing councils have limited time left to scrutinise them.
Government seeks work on another plan
The final item brought a further complication. Mr Mawer reported that new government rules placed EEBC among authorities expected to begin preparing another Local Plan, even though its 2022–2040 plan remains under examination and the borough council is due to be replaced by East Surrey Unitary Council on 1 April 2027.
He said the government recognised the resources involved in working on two plans at once but did not accept local government reorganisation as a reason to defer the new work. He estimated that taking a plan through to adoption under the new system could cost about £1 million, stressing that this was an estimate for a system no authority had yet completed.
Cllr McCormick criticised the absence of money in the budget for the work and called for a costed plan of action. Cllr Alex Coley (Independent Ruxley) asked why it had not been made a priority. Cllr O’Donovan said he would have to find out.
By seven votes to two, the committee agreed that officers should seek a meeting with the Shadow East Surrey authority’s chief executive and executive member for strategic planning and growth, then report back.
Surrey’s local government reorganisation is proceeding despite pauses announced elsewhere. That leaves EEBC facing the cost and staff demands of a new planning requirement during its final months, while East Surrey prepares to take over. The committee was given no assurance of additional government funding. How much work EEBC should commission before April, and who will pay for it, remain unanswered.
Kingswood “blot on the landscape” development approved
30 September 2026
A Grade II* listed site on the edge of the Surrey Hills where a major Hollywood blockbuster was filmed is to be turned into a £200m housing and leisure complex.
Planning permission has been approved to turn the former Legal and General building and surrounding lands into 299 homes, two swimming pools, and office space – with speculation it could be operated by David Lloyd.
The project, led by City and Country Residential, will be constructed in phases, and includes the refurbishment and conversion of the Legal & General House – where the DC hit Wonder Woman starring Gal Gadot and Pedro Pascal spent eight weeks filming.
The site will be split into 122 later living units and supporting facilities, and up to 177 private homes. Its vast 1,500 capacity car park will be reduced to 709 spaces.
Legal and General House, in St Monicas Road, Kingswood, sits within 19 hectares in the green belt nestled about a kilometre from the boundary of Surrey Hills with the designs following a previously approved 2019 application.
Key changes included more market housing and the leisure facility that will feature playing courts and a sports pavilion available for public use.
The Wednesday September 9 planning committee at Reigate and Banstead Borough Council heard the development was needed to fund the repairs of the grade 2* listed building and ensure its future occupancy.
To the disappointment of the committee, the developers said it was unable to provide on-site affordable housing as it would have made the project unaffordable.
Councillor Sam Walsh (Conservative: Banstead Village) said: “I wouldn’t have listed it, if anything, I’d have demolished it. It’s an absolutely awful building.
“Its a dreadful blot on the landscape but actually the application we have in front of us, notwithstanding the points of the viability, bringing more into use and the standalone leisure facility. I think is important for the community.”
He added that the plans “turned around a pretty revolting design of the excesses of the 80s and 90s to quiet a sophisticated residential development.”
Cllr Michael Blacker (Conservative: Reigate) said: “I think we’ve got to welcome the development and the housing and I’m very pleased to see they were going to put a sports centre in, whether its David Lloyd or not.
“I think that will be a very good feature and I hope it will be well used.”
Image: Legal and General House, where the DC movie Wonder Woman was filmed, will be turned into housing (image RBBC)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Tiers not shed for local government in Surrey after all….?
30 September 2026
Surrey’s shadow authority leaders have insisted that devolution in the county must be “done right” after the government proposed beefed up new planning powers for mayors.
Proposals due to be published in the coming week would see mayors across England granted the authority to override councils on certain planning applications – giving them the same powers already held by the Mayor of London.
These “call in” powers would only apply to developments of more than 150 homes, more than 15,000 square metres of commercial space, or of buildings 30 metres or taller, the BBC has reported.
It comes amid widespread change to local government in Surrey, with two new unitary councils in East and West Surrey set to take over from the county council and 11 district councils next year.
But many figures in local government are calling for additional changes that would see the county get an overarching elected mayor covering the whole of Surrey.
East Surrey Shadow Authority leader Councillor Steve Wotton told the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS) he supports the creation of a mayor and welcomes the prospect of additional powers handed over from Westminster.
He said: “We have a national housing crisis, public transport leaves behind rural communities and is wholly centred around London, and there is great potential in the county’s own local economies.
“More power out of Westminster and closer to Surrey, with a mayor, can help tackle these issues if done right.”
Prime Minister Andy Burnham, who assumed office last month, has made regionalism one of his core missions in government.
Mr Burnham previously unveiled proposals to give regional mayors a share of income tax revenue as part of a broader devolution drive.
The upcoming planning changes could also see mayors given the power to grant “up front” development permission, although a government spokesperson said councils will still decide most planning applications.
Under current proposals, Surrey could see a foundation strategic authority (FSA) set up from April 2027, which would allow the two new unitary councils to pool resources on certain service areas.
An FSA serves as a stepping stone towards the creation of a mayoral combined authority, which would involve the creation of a directly elected mayor of Surrey.
Councillor Wotton added: “It will be important that a future mayor works very closely with the two new councils in Surrey.
“We look forward to seeing further detail from government, so that we can help shape what is right for Surrey’s residents and businesses.”
West Surrey Shadow Authority leader Councillor Paul Follows told the LDRS he is “very keen” to see more powers devolved to the county, but that “those powers need to come with the funding to make them meaningful”.
He added: “Local government at every level cannot absorb more un-funded mandates.
“Mayors make sense in some parts of the UK but not all, and I hope that the government will be open to working with local government to develop the most appropriate plans for each area rather than a one-size-fits-all option.”
Work is set to begin on Surrey Police’s long-awaited new eastern headquarters, bringing an end to a saga stretching back to 2023, when the force was compelled to vacate its Reigate base because of dangerous reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete (RAAC).
Surrey Police was granted planning permission for the Cleeve Road site in Leatherhead in November last year. According to papers filed with Mole Valley District Council, preparatory work is expected to begin on 7 September.
The force originally bought the building in 2018 for nearly £20.5 million, intending to move into the site. Those plans were subsequently put on hold while it considered relocating staff to its Mount Browne headquarters in Guildford.
If the project proceeds as planned, the main construction work will begin in February 2027. The new eastern headquarters, accommodating about 500 officers and staff, will be built on what is currently an unused car park.
Planning permission was also granted for 40 affordable homes on the site, although these will be constructed separately.
The second stage of the development will involve demolishing the existing redundant buildings to make way for a residential block containing the affordable homes. Surrey Police has said it would ideally like the homes to be occupied by its own officers and staff.
Once the headquarters is completed, the force will have a permanent eastern base. By then, officers and staff will have spent about four years temporarily housed at Surrey Fire and Rescue Service’s former headquarters at Wray Park in Reigate.
A Surrey Police spokesperson said the new headquarters would provide a financially sustainable base and ensure officers and staff had the facilities needed to investigate crime and keep communities safe.
The force said the Leatherhead site best met its operational needs because of its access to the surrounding area and major road links. It added that the improved facilities would help Surrey Police attract and retain staff.
Image: Illustrative Visuals of the new Eastern Divisional Head Quarters for Surrey Police. (Credit: Pick Everard/ Surrey Police/ Mole Valley District Council Planning
My family moved to Epsom five years ago for many of the same reasons cited by those defending the Green Belt: the space, the schools and the feel of the town. I am 16, and I am conscious that a similar family arriving five years later might not be able to manage it.
For the past month, I have been reading the Local Plan and the objections to it. In all of this debate, I have not found the perspective of the generation it is supposedly about.
Both sides speak the language of protection. Those defending the Green Belt want to protect landscape, character and the reasons families came here in the first place. Those supporting the housing numbers want to protect the ability of younger residents to remain here. Neither is a bad-faith position, although the tone of the debate does not always reflect that.
What neither side says plainly enough is where the cost goes when a needed home is not built. It does not vanish. It comes back as a higher price, a longer commute, three adults sharing a two-bedroom flat, a 28-year-old still living in a childhood bedroom, or a teaching assistant unable to afford the borough in which she works.
Those costs often fall on people who cannot object to the plan because they do not live here yet. They have no residents’ association and they do not write to local newspapers. Their silence is not consent. It is absence.
I am 16, so I will not pretend to know the correct number of houses. But I would put the same question to both campaigns: if your proposal is fair, name the people who will bear its cost – and say whether you have asked them.
I would rather grow up in a borough that answers that question honestly and then decides than one that wins by outlasting everyone who might have disagreed.
My family got here in time. That is exactly why I do not think the door should close behind us.
Emad Rehman,
Water shortage risk drives Surrey farm plan for irrigation pond
30 September 2026
An east Surrey farm is seeking permission to build a new irrigation pond, as climate change has made water supply a “major operational risk”.
Reid Manor Farm Limited has put forward a prior notification application to Tandridge District Council for excavation works to install the pond in a field to the west of Lingfield.
The applicant noted that “mixed farming activities” are currently undertaken in the area, with hay production being the largest operation.
“There are a number of other farming activities the business is currently exploring and in the process of setting up to support the farming business,” the planning documents say.
Blackberry harvesting and jam making are expected to be included among these activities, the applicant states.
But they added that the proposals for a new irrigation pond represent a “critical business asset” in the cultivation of aquatic plants.
“While south east England is historically the driest part of the UK, climate change has worsened summer droughts and unpredictable rainfall patterns, making reliable water access a major operational risk,” the documents say.
They add: “A farm irrigation pond allows a farm to capture and store abundant winter rainfall, securing an independent, year-round water supply that protects the crop from summer water restrictions and heat stress.”
The applicant also pointed to a government statement published in its ‘Farming Roadmap 2050’, which states: “The scientific consensus is clear that the UK should expect wilder, stormier weather with significantly increased flooding as well as summer droughts.
“With 70 per cent of our land currently used for agricultural purposes, it will become increasingly important to hold more water on farmlands to help reduce the impact of flooding downriver and support farmers during drought periods.”
Access to the farm via Brickhouse Lane would not be changed as a result of this development, the documents claim.
They add: “The site currently has no mains water connection, and no water bore holes exist on site meaning the only current water source option is harvesting rainwater.”
Eleven councillors walked out of Epsom and Ewell Borough Council after the Mayor ruled that her father could remain in the chamber and lead a debate on the future of land hired by a company of which he is a director.
Despite the upheaval, the Council agreed on Tuesday 21st July to give strategic priority to the potential development of sports facilities and housing at Hook Road Arena.
The decision does not approve development. It elevates the Council-owned, 14-hectare site between Chessington Road and Horton Lane to one of EEBC’s strategic priorities for its final months before abolition in April 2027.
A feasibility study will examine whether housing on part of the Arena could finance playing pitches and other sports and recreation facilities. Up to £250,000 has already been allocated from the Council’s Corporate Projects Reserve.
Consultants are expected to be appointed by the end of August, with the study intended to be completed before EEBC’s functions transfer to the new East Surrey Council on 1st April 2027.
However, the merits of the proposal were overshadowed by a bitter dispute over the participation of Councillor Neil Dallen (RA, Town), chair of the Council’s Strategy and Resources Committee.
Fireworks company hires Council land
Cllr Dallen is a director of Epsom Fireworks Display Ltd and a trustee of the associated Epsom Fireworks Display Charitable Trust.
The company contracts with EEBC to hire Hook Road Arena for its annual fireworks display. It has done so since between 2019 to 2021 after taking over from the local scouts that had organised the annual event since 1971. The company has a further agreement with the Council for the November 2026 event.
The company has just three directors. Two of those directors are two of the four trustees of the charity that distributes its income to scouting groups and other worthy charitable causes.
Development of the Arena could eventually bring the fireworks display at that location to an end.
At the beginning of the ordinary Council meeting, Cllr Dallen declared that he was a director and trustee of the fireworks organisations and that the Arena was used for the display.
He also disclosed that he had met representatives of Epsom and Ewell Football Club and the borough’s netball club concerning their proposals for the site.
Cllr Dallen told the meeting that he had never expressed a view for or against their plans and was “confident that I have an unbiased and open mind”.
When the Hook Road item was reached, he proposed that development of the Arena be made a strategic priority.
Cllr Alex Coley (Independent, Ruxley) immediately raised a point of order. He said Cllr Dallen had treated the same connection as a conflict on two previous occasions when Hook Road Arena was discussed by the Strategy and Resources Committee.
Cllr Dallen disputed Cllr Coley’s account. He said he had not left the room at the earlier meetings, although on one occasion he had not voted.
Cllr Bernie Muir (Conservative, Horton) supported Cllr Coley’s objection. She said the conflict had caused controversy at both previous meetings and asked for a ruling from the Council’s Monitoring Officer.
The legal officer advising the meeting said Cllr Dallen had declared his connection and had self-declared that it was not a pecuniary interest. The officer said that where a member decided that an interest was not pecuniary, participation was a matter for that member’s discretion.
Cllr Coley tried to point out that Companies House registered Cllr Dallen as a director of Epsom Fireworks Display Ltd and that the company had a financial relationship with the Council.
Mayor Cllr Lucie McIntyre (RA, West Ewell) repeatedly instructed him to stop speaking and sit down.
She ruled that it was for Cllr Dallen to decide whether his interest was pecuniary and said councillors who disagreed could pursue the relevant complaints procedures after the meeting.
After further objections, the Mayor adjourned proceedings. When councillors returned, she announced that Cllr Dallen had confirmed that he did not consider his interest pecuniary and would continue to participate.
Eleven councillors then walked out of the chamber.
Cllr Kieran Persand (Conservative, Horton) put on record his view that “this council is a joke”.
Cllr Chris Watson (Labour, Ewell Court) remained but later defended the absent councillors, saying their walkout was “a perfectly valid democratic process”.
Mayor was ruling on her father
It was not disclosed to the meeting or to members of the public that Mayor Cllr Lucie McIntyre is Cllr Dallen’s daughter.
It does not follow that being Cllr Dallen’s daughter automatically gave the Mayor a disclosable pecuniary interest of her own under the Localism Act. The statutory definition generally extends to a councillor and their spouse, civil partner or person with whom they live as a partner—not to an adult parent or child.
Nevertheless, Cllr McIntyre was making contested procedural rulings about whether her father could remain, speak, propose the recommendation and vote.
No suggestion is made that the family relationship necessarily disqualified her from chairing the whole meeting. However, declaring it would have enabled councillors and the public to assess openly whether the Deputy Mayor (Cllr Julie Morris Independent College) should have ruled upon this particular dispute.
EET asked the Mayor why she did not disclose that Cllr Dallen is her father or invite the Deputy Mayor to chair the objection to his participation and the item. After referring to her reference in her Council website biography to the inspiration her father gave her to be a Councillor she responded: “I am perfectly able to chair a meeting in my capacity as Mayor when my father is in attendance. At the Full Council meeting on 21 July, Councillor Dallen declared that he did not have a pecuniary interest in the item concerning Hook Road Arena, which was his right.”
EET asked the Council’s legal adviser if his legal advice took account of the live company-council contract and the statutory contracts category in the 2012 Regulations? And whether any formal dispensation was granted to Dallen to participate, and whether an external Monitoring Officer will be asked to review the matter?
A Council spokesperson responded: “At the meeting of the Full Council on 21 July, Councillor Dallen declared that he did not have a pecuniary interest in the item concerning Hook Road Arena. There are no plans to review this.”
Five sources allege history of obstruction
Cllr Dallen’s public advocacy of the Hook Road project also contrasts with accounts given privately to Epsom and Ewell Times (EET) about his earlier approach.
Three councillors belonging to Cllr Dallen’s own Residents’ Association group and two sources closely connected with Epsom and Ewell Football Club have independently told EET that he repeatedly impeded progress on proposals for the Arena.
The sources allege that proposals were pushed “from pillar to post” and from one committee or process to another, causing avoidable delay.
Cllr Dallen has also been quoted by more than one source as saying, while discussing the future of the Arena: “I want the fireworks four more years.”
The sources asked not to be named because of their continuing political or organisational relationships. EET knows their identities and considers each to be in a position to have direct knowledge of the events described.
Their accounts do not, by themselves, prove that every delay resulted from Cllr Dallen’s intervention or that any intervention was motivated by the interests of the fireworks company. Large developments involving Green Belt, restrictive covenants, sports bodies, housing and Council land inevitably pass through several stages.
Nevertheless, the consistency of the accounts raises a legitimate question about why a councillor alleged to have resisted or delayed the proposals behind the scenes emerged at Full Council as their proposer and public champion. Was he seeking to publicly erase perceptions that he had been the cause of previous delays?
Cllr Dallen told the meeting that he wanted the work concluded quickly and, ideally, before EEBC ceased to exist, although he acknowledged that this might not be possible.
EET has asked Cllr Dallen to respond to the allegations that he previously delayed the project, to confirm whether he said he wanted the fireworks to continue for four more years, and to explain what caused his apparent change of approach.
At the time of publication, Cllr Dallen had not responded.
What do the fireworks accounts reveal?
Epsom Fireworks Display Ltd’s latest micro-entity accounts show turnover of £109,324 for the year ending 30th April 2025.
Almost the entire amount—£108,890—is placed under the single expenditure heading “cost of materials”, leaving a profit of £434.
The company accounts state that it had no employees, but do not break down the £108,890. They do not separately identify the cost of fireworks, Arena hire, insurance, event services, charitable donations, directors’ remuneration or directors’ expenses.
Accounts filed by the associated charitable trust show total income of £48,623 during the same year, including a £41,250 donation from Epsom Fireworks Display Ltd.
The Charity Commission register states that the charity’s trustees receive no remuneration, payments or benefits from the charity. That does not answer the separate question of whether anyone receives payment or expenses from the limited company.
The company’s accounts neither establish that its directors were paid nor prove that they were not. The donation to the charity must form part of the £108,890 wrongly described as all being “cost of materials”.
Companies House identifies Cllr Dallen as one of four directors. It names another director, Anthony Williams FCCA (Fellow of the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants), as the company’s only registered person with significant control. Cllr Dallen’s directorship therefore does not, without further information, establish that he owns or controls the company. It is a company limited by guarantee with no share capital.
EET has asked Cllr Dallen whether he receives any remuneration, expenses or other financial benefit from Epsom Fireworks Display Ltd.
At the time of publication, no response had been received.
The legal question
The Localism Act 2011 prevents a councillor with a disclosable pecuniary interest from participating in a discussion or vote unless a dispensation has been granted. A beach is a criminal offence.
The prescribed interests include an “employment, office, trade, profession or vocation carried on for profit or gain”, together with specified contractual, property and ownership interests.
Whether Cllr Dallen’s directorship falls within that statutory definition may therefore depend upon facts not revealed by the micro-entity accounts—including whether his office as director is carried on for profit or gain and whether he has a beneficial interest in the company.
The existence of a statutory interest is not ultimately determined by whether a councillor personally “feels” that an interest exists. Members must initially assess and declare their own position, but whether the legal test is satisfied is an objective question of fact and law.
The legislation is preventive. If a disclosable pecuniary interest exists, the prohibition applies regardless of whether the councillor supports or opposes the proposal and regardless of whether the councillor believes that he has an open mind. An ongoing contractual relationship is a disclosable interest regardless of any personal benefit.
There is a paradox in this case. Development could ultimately end the fireworks display at Hook Road Arena. Cllr Dallen was therefore advocating a process which may operate against, rather than in favour of, the future interests of the fireworks company and the charitable causes it supports..
That may be relevant when assessing his motivation and the seriousness of any alleged breach. It does not, by itself, determine whether the statutory definition of an interest was satisfied.
The Council’s wider code of conduct and the appearance of bias are separate issues from the narrower statutory offence concerning disclosable pecuniary interests.
Rainbow row preceded ordinary meeting
The ordinary Council meeting followed an extraordinary meeting convened earlier that evening to debate the governance of the emerging Local Plan.
During that earlier meeting, Cllr Chris Ames (Labour, Court) expressly referred to the controversy surrounding the Rainbow Leisure Centre.
Cllr Dallen had authorised an urgent and confidential Council decision making up to £500,000 available to address an unexpected dilapidations liability following the change of leisure-centre operator.
Cllr Ames told the extraordinary meeting that problems with the Rainbow contract had become apparent early and argued that an officer and urgent-decision process had been used to bypass democratic scrutiny.
Mayor Cllr McIntyre interrupted him twice and instructed him to return to the Local Plan motion.
Cllr Ames replied: “I really don’t think it’s for you to tell me what my speech is to be about, Madam Mayor. Absolutely not. If I think this is relevant, I will make this point. I will not be silenced.”
He said the Rainbow affair formed part of a pattern in which procedural rules had been used to prevent councillors discussing matters for which they were responsible.
Cllr Clive Woodbridge (RA, Ewell Village) subsequently described criticism of officers as “unconscionable” and said the opposition did not like the answers it received.
Sports shortage wins support
After the walkout from the later ordinary meeting, the councillors who remained overwhelmingly supported making Hook Road Arena a strategic priority.
Cllr Peter O’Donovan (RA, Ewell Court) said the borough had a severe shortage of sports pitches. He referred to 84 junior football teams and said the netball club lacked a permanent base and was forced to hire facilities which could be withdrawn at short notice.
Cllr Alison Kelly (Lib Dem, Stamford) said residents frequently raised the shortage of accessible local sports facilities. She described the feasibility study as the first step towards evaluating the available options.
Cllr Clive Woodbridge said the site had “tremendous potential” as a sporting hub but stressed that the Council was not approving the details of development.
Cllr Jan Mason (RA, Ruxley) supported further investigation but warned against simply stamping through a large scheme without careful consideration of the surrounding homes and existing open land.
Council papers acknowledge substantial obstacles. The Arena is in the Green Belt and a 1975 deed restricts its use largely to open space and recreation unless Surrey County Council consents.
Any housing would also depend upon the emerging Local Plan. Development beyond the feasibility stage would require a separate business case and further decisions, some of which would require the consent of the new East Surrey authority.
The recommendation was carried without a recorded numerical vote.
Cllr Dallen ended the debate by reminding councillors that EEBC had adopted a “debate, not hate” motion.
The Council’s decision means the future of Hook Road Arena will now advance as a formal strategic priority. Whether the dispute over Cllr Dallen’s participation also advances through the Council’s standards process—or to the police under the Localism Act—remains to be seen.
After the meeting Cllr Steven McCormick (Conservative and former prominent RA – Woodcote and Langley) said
“To put this forward now is too little, too late. This council had a prime opportunity over many years to clear the path for enhanced sports facilities at Hook Road Arena, yet proposals were repeatedly shuffled from committee to committee while time ran out.”
He added “Instead of proactive leadership when it could have made a real difference, we are left with a last-minute scramble just months before council abolition. Residents and sports clubs were forced to wait years for progress; they deserve to know why momentum was continually blocked until the eleven-hour mark.”
Epsom Council delivers shock rejection to defibrillator kiosk
30 September 2026
Plans to install a communications kiosk including an advertising screen and defibrillator on Epsom High Street have been refused over concerns it would harm the character of the area.
The proposals would have seen the 2.63 metre tall structure placed on the high street pavement, for which the applicant was seeking both planning permission and advertising consent.
As well as holding a publicly available defibrillator in case of emergencies, the unit also would have offered free calls to landlines, free Wi-Fi and interactive wayfinding.
One side of the unit would have featured an LED advertising display, which planning documents describe as “equivalent to the size of display found on bus shelters”.
But the design was met with pushback from a number of residents, with several complaining about its potential impact on the high street conservation area.
One “frequent visitor” to the town wrote an objection to the advertising consent, calling it “ugly, obstructive and unnecessary advertisement hoarding with several cursory additions”.
In their refusal, Epsom and Ewell Borough Council planning officers wrote that kiosk “would create additional street clutter” and “would be excessive and out of character within the street scene”.
They also noted in their report that the council has received 14 similar applications in the past 18 months.
“If each proposal were to be granted approval, the council would have an excess of public payphones and defibrillators, notwithstanding facilities already in existence in the surrounding area,” officers wrote.
“These applications have been submitted over time by different companies, some of which are in very similar locations, which if all were to be granted would result in several similar structures being built within proximity of each other; resulting in over dominance and harm to the street character and visual amenity.”
They added: “As a result of its unsatisfactory siting, design, scale and appearance, the proposed communication hub structure would create significant clutter on the street causing unacceptable visual harm to the wider character of the area.”
“The Planning Inspectorate has dismissed appeals at Epsom Gateway and Capital Square, agreeing with the council that the harm from the advertising screens outweighs the public benefits of including a defibrillator.
“The health and wellbeing of residents is central to the council’s work.”
Defibrillators are currently placed at the following sites across Epsom & Ewell:
Market Place, Epsom.
Ebbisham Centre, Epsom Square, Epsom.
Town Hall (rear entrance).
Harold Bell Solicitors, 174 Kingston Road, Ewell.
St John’s Parish Centre, Station Approach, Stoneleigh.
Auriol Park Café, Salisbury Road, Worcester Park.
The Parade Dental Practice, 177 Kingston Road, Ewell.
Image: Epsom High Street site of intended Defibrillator Hub (Credit: JCDecaux)
Burgh Heath hotel plan rejected
30 September 2026
Plans to demolish and extend a hotel by adding a further 33 bedrooms and a 72-seater restaurant have been rejected after councillors labelled it an “ugly blot”.
Premier Inn had hoped to knock down the existing complex in Brighton Road, Burgh Heath, and replace it with an even bigger one – but councillors overwhelmingly threw out the plans at Reigate and Banstead Borough Council’s July planning committee.
The new hotel and restaurant had been recommended by officers, who thought it would support tourism in the area and have less of an impact on traffic than, for example, a dedicated restaurant at the site. Planning papers read: “The proposal would also provide economic benefits to the local economy both during and post-construction. These factors carry significant weight in favour of the application. There are therefore considered to be no substantive grounds to refuse the application.”
The committee took a different opinion.
Councillor Sam Walsh (Conservative: Banstead Village) said he knew the site very well and was disappointed the original hotel had been approved in the first place. He said: “We are here to enhance the design and enhance the environment. It’s a blot on the landscape, a blot on the Burgh Heath landscape in terms of its style and features. It could be picked up and placed anywhere in any suburbia.”
He added: “It is an ugly building, vastly out of scale with the adjoining properties, it’s a three-storey monstrosity. What was put there in the 70s was pretty bad, what they are proposing to replace it is even worse. It is stark, it is ugly, it is out of character.”
Cllr Michael Blacker (Conservative: Reigate) agreed. He said: “It’s an appalling design, it really is a big disappointment.”
A motion put forward by Cllr Walsh to reject the application was supported by 12 members. It said the plans should be turned down due to the hotel’s sheer size being out of keeping with the area, and the impact the larger car park and lighting would have on neighbours.
Image: Plans to demolish and expand the Epsom South Premier Inn were rejected (image Google)
Application to drill for oil in Surrey Hills renewed
30 September 2026
A Green Party councillor has called for a “rethink” of oil extraction practices in the south of England after research suggested a possible link between drilling and a series of minor earthquakes in Surrey.
Small tremors between magnitude 1.34 and 3.18 were recorded across 2018 and 2019 in the Newdigate area, within a few miles of an oil drilling site at Horse Hill near Gatwick.
Planning permission is being sought to resume oil extraction at the site after its previous approval was quashed by the Supreme Court in 2024 following a long-running campaign.
The court ruled that downstream greenhouse gas emissions should have been considered in any environmental assessment. Surrey County Council said at the time it believed planning rules had been followed.
A UK Oil and Gas Plc (UKOG) statement from the same year said: “A detailed plan for a safe, full suspension of related operations and activities will be implemented following SCC’s concurrence.”
However, charity Friends of the Earth is calling on Surrey County Council to reject this fresh drilling application after presenting a report by Professor Stuart Haszeldine of the University of Edinburgh highlighting a potential link between oil production and earthquakes.
Professor Haszeldine’s work claims there is a “substantial body of evidence” linking the 2018 to 2019 tremors to oil production at Horse Hill.
A 2025 study by University College London researchers published in Geological Magazine also investigated a possible link, running more than one million simulations to assess any correlation.
Lead author Dr Matthew Fox said: “Our study suggests there is a link between the ground earthquakes and oil extraction at Horse Hill but we cannot rule out that this link is a coincidence.”
Dr Fox added that while more work needs to be done to establish if there is a cause and effect, their findings suggest it is “plausible” that oil extraction was behind the tremors.
A UKOG spokesperson previously said British Geological Survey experts “were satisfied it was a natural event associated with movement on a deeper, unassociated fault many miles deeper and distant from the site”.
But Surrey County Councillor Jonathan Essex (Green Party: Redhill East) told the Local Democracy Reporting Service he thinks Professor Haszeldine’s work should prompt “a rethink in how oil drilling is considered in planning terms in the south of England”.
He wants the definition of fracking to be expanded to include all “unconventional oil extraction”, which would see sites like Horse Hill brought under a government moratorium on the practice.
At present, the effective ban only applies to hydraulic fracturing for shale gas – more commonly known as fracking – due to concerns around related seismic activity.
But other forms of hydraulic fracturing in the conventional extraction of oil and gas, such as acid squeezes, are not covered by the government’s moratorium.
Councillor Essex said: “The definition of fracking must be extended to include all unconventional oil extraction – which would then mean that the likes of Horse Hill and other developments across southern England would fall under the current fracking ban.”
The previous Conservative government halted fracking in England in 2019, and the current Labour government has voiced its intent to permanently ban the practice.
Councillor Essex added: “The only way to increase energy security and reduce energy prices in the UK is to increase renewable energy production and to reduce our overall energy demand, such as by insulating our homes.”
A Surrey County Council spokesperson said: “Any comments or issues raised in response to the application will be considered by officers during the determination process in due course.”
UKOG and its subsidiary Horse Hill Developments Ltd did not respond to the Local Democracy Reporting Service’s requests for comment.
A Department for Energy Security and Net Zero spokesperson said: “We intend to ban fracking for good and make Britain a clean energy superpower, to bring energy security, lower bills, and protect current and future generations.”
Photo: Sarah Finch Horse Hill 5 Nov 2021 Redhill climate campaigner Sarah Finch at Horse Hill rally 5 Nov 2021. Credit Denise Laura Baker, cleared for use
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Bitter exchanges in Epsom and Ewell Council Chamber on Local Plan oversight
30 September 2026
A bid to force greater councillor oversight of Epsom and Ewell’s Local Plan was defeated after an extraordinary council meeting descended into bitter accusations of dishonesty, procedural obstruction and democratic failure.
The motion, proposed by Councillor Kieran Persand (Conservative, Horton) and seconded by Councillor Julian Freeman (Lib Dem, College), was rejected by 15 votes to 12, with three abstentions, on Tuesday 21 July.
It sought to instruct the Licensing and Planning Policy Committee (LPPC) to review additional Local Plan documents submitted to the Government-appointed Planning Inspector after the 2025 examination hearings.
It also called for consultation responses not to be sent to the Inspector without LPPC approval. By the time the extraordinary meeting was held, however, the consultation had closed, 346 responses had been submitted and a further examination hearing had taken place on 2 July.
Recognising that events had overtaken parts of his original motion, Cllr Persand attempted to substitute proposals for an independent external review of the Local Plan’s governance.
His amendment questioned whether delegated authority allowing officers to propose “changes and corrections” to the plan and its supporting documents had been used more extensively than councillors intended.
It listed eight additional documents, covering urban sites, the Green Belt, potential housing allocations, sustainability, habitats, infrastructure and transport. Cllr Persand argued that the “scale and significance” of these documents raised questions about whether they should have gone before LPPC.
The proposed review would have examined:
The use of delegated powers during the examination;
Whether LPPC had fulfilled its constitutional role;
Whether councillors received adequate opportunities to scrutinise material changes;
Whether appropriate constitutional and legal advice was available;
How governance and transparency could be improved.
A separate factual report would have listed the documents submitted, the powers relied upon and the reasons they had not been considered by LPPC beforehand. The review’s findings would have gone to the Standards and Constitution Committee, the Planning Inspector and the shadow East Surrey Council.
Cllr Persand said the purpose was “to strengthen governance, transparency and democratic accountability, not to revisit the planning merits of the Local Plan”.
Mayor rejects amendments
Mayor Councillor Lucie McIntyre (RA, West Ewell) rejected the amendment under Full Council Rule 17.5 after taking officer advice.
She ruled that it was outside the scope of the published motion and did not identify a source of funding for an external review.
“The proposed amendment has no relation to the scope of the original motion,” she said. “It would not be in order to allow your proposed amendment, which seeks to make decisions which have no bearing on the original motion and provides no source of funding for the request.”
Cllr Persand disputed the ruling. “You’ve just quoted back my amendment, not really telling me why it’s out of scope,” he said. “It is about the Local Plan, but it’s also about transparency and governance, which the original motion was about.”
The Mayor said she had made her decision and invited him to follow the issue up in writing after the meeting. Following further exchanges, she agreed to adjourn the meeting so that Cllr Persand could prepare a revised amendment.
After consulting the Chief Executive and legal advisers Cllr McIntyre rejected the second version on the same basis.
When Cllr Persand continued to challenge the decision, she warned that she would ask him to leave the meeting if he persisted. “I have made my decision,” she said. “I have given my rationale. I am not going to discuss it any further.”
Councillor Bernie Muir (Conservative, Horton) intervened after another member called out during Cllr Persand’s speech. “This is not normal,” she said. “I haven’t seen this happen at county or anywhere else, where a member of the floor has piped up in the middle of someone’s speech.”
The Mayor then warned all members against interruptions.
“Masterclass” in democratic failure
Forced to proceed with his original motion, Cllr Persand launched a fierce attack on the council’s administration and handling of the plan. “This Local Plan process has become a masterclass of how not to conduct democratic decision-making,” he said. “Time and again, councillors have been denied the opportunity to do the very jobs residents elected us to do – scrutinise.”
He accused the council of cancelling meetings, delaying discussions and relying too heavily on decisions taken under delegated authority.
“Important decisions have been taken away from the committee whose constitutional role is to review, consider and help shape the Local Plan,” he said. “Councillors have too often been told what has been decided instead of being given the opportunity to help make those decisions.”
Cllr Persand claimed LPPC chairman Councillor Peter O’Donovan (RA, Ewell Court) had previously admitted not reading what was submitted to the Inspector.
“Think about that,” he said. “The chairman of the committee responsible for planning policy doesn’t know what was submitted in the council’s name. If that does not ring alarm bells across this chamber, I genuinely do not know what will.”
He also criticised the absence of a legal officer when constitutional concerns were previously raised at LPPC.
“Members were asked to consider important constitutional issues without legal advice being available in the room,” he said. “That should be a concern to every councillor here, regardless of political party.”
Cllr Persand said residents had been encouraged to spend hours responding to consultations but increasingly believed their views had “disappeared into a black hole”.
“Whether residents supported the Local Plan or opposed it is almost beside the point,” he said. “They deserve confidence that their views have been properly considered and that decisions affecting the future of this borough are being taken openly and transparently. That confidence has been damaged.”
He argued that the affair was symptomatic of broader problems at the council, referring to recent Audit and Scrutiny Committee criticism of the procedure followed over an urgent decision concerning Rainbow Leisure Centre dilapidations.
“What we are seeing is not one isolated issue,” he said. “It points to a wider pattern where proper scrutiny is too often treated as optional, where transparency comes too late and where councillors are expected to accept decisions that have already been made rather than being given the opportunity to shape them.”
Motion “out of time”
Councillor Steve McCormick (Conservative, Woodcote and Langley Vale) agreed with the motion’s underlying concerns but acknowledged that one of its proposed instructions was no longer capable of being implemented.
“Major, highly sensitive Local Plan evidence submitted under delegated authority was sent to a Planning Inspector without prior consideration or scrutiny by the Licensing and Planning Policy Committee,” he said. “When the committee tasked with setting out our planning framework is bypassed, our elected members are sidelined and our residents are completely left in the dark.”
However, the consultation had already closed and its responses had been sent to the Inspector. “Recommendation two is simply out of time,” Cllr McCormick said. “All 346 responses have long been sent to the Inspector, and the hearing itself concluded on July 2.” He added: “We cannot rewrite the past, but we must urgently address how we restore transparency, enforce committee oversight and ensure our residents are never shut out again as we move towards the main modifications stage.”
Councillors “struggled” to participate
Councillor James Lawrence (Independent, College), elected in 2023, said he had struggled to become meaningfully involved in Local Plan decisions. “I haven’t been able to be involved in a single public committee, apart from the one committee in November 2024, which released over 1,000 new pages in seven days to read,” he said.
“That’s not a realistic way to run a committee system. We’re not resourcing our committee system properly. You cannot make considered decisions on that basis.” Cllr Lawrence said committees should be properly engaged because they provided the principal means by which backbench councillors could influence decisions. “If we just get presented with 1,000 pages and seven days to read them, you’re not going to get a meaningful decision,” he said.
Councillor Kate Chinn (Labour, Court) said the “spirit of the motion is absolutely correct”. “We need a plan for the borough,” she said. “It needs to go to Licensing and Planning Policy Committee to make those decisions in the authentic and proper way.”
Cllr Muir described three recurring problems: “Transparency, scrutiny and a fair understanding of our concerns.”
“It has been an almighty struggle to actually have any input that’s been considered,” she said. “We cannot treat members like this. When you treat members like this, you are treating our residents like this.” She said councillors in other authorities were astonished when told how the process had operated in Epsom and Ewell. “Every single member in this room should feel appalled – absolutely appalled – at how we are consistently treated,” she said.
Councillor Christine Howells (RA, Nonsuch) said the sole issue should be whether the correct process had been followed. “It is eminently clear that this process was fundamentally flawed,” she said. “Due diligence now has to take place to show transparency, accountability and regain trust in the system.”
She urged members to put “duty, honesty and integrity” above political allegiance, warning: “This vote will be judged and scrutinised by the residents.”
“Democracy is being subverted”
Councillor Chris Ames (Labour, Court) linked the Local Plan dispute to wider concerns about transparency and officer decisions. When he began referring to the Rainbow Leisure Centre dilapidations issue, the Mayor twice directed him back to the motion. The Mayor being the daughter of Cllr Neil Dallen, who Ames has criticised in connection with the alleged “cover-up” of the £500,000 dilapidations Rainbow Centre bill.
“I really don’t think it’s for you to tell me what my speech is to be about, Madam Mayor,” he replied. “If I think this is relevant, I will make this point. I will not be silenced.”
He accused the administration and senior council figures of using procedural rules to prevent legitimate debate.
“There’s a pattern here,” he said. “Procedural rules are being used all the way along to stop councillors discussing things. This is supposed to be a democratic council, and democracy is being subverted.”
Defence of officers and administration
Councillor Clive Woodbridge (RA, Ewell Village) mounted a forceful defence of council officers and rejected opposition claims that the process lacked transparency.
“One of the most disgraceful things about this whole Local Plan process is the way that the opposition criticises officers – officers who work diligently and hard on behalf of us and our residents, and they’re not in a position to fight back,” he said. He described Cllr Ames’s criticism as “unconscionable” and called on opponents to reconsider the appropriateness of their language.
Cllr Woodbridge said opposition councillors had been given time to prepare an amendment which could properly be debated but had failed to do so. “Rather than blaming us, blaming the Mayor or blaming officers for this, they only have themselves to blame,” he said.
He said an officer had given a lengthy explanation at the previous LPPC meeting and the council’s Monitoring Officer had repeatedly stated that the constitution and due process had been followed. “It’s not about transparency,” Cllr Woodbridge said. “They just don’t like the answer that they get.”
He alleged that the opponents’ real objective was to stop the plan. “What they’re dressing up as transparency and integrity is that they want to stop this Local Plan,” he said. “We know we have to deliver a Local Plan for our residents that protects the Green Belt, protects our environment and delivers the housing that our current and future generations need.”
Cllr Woodbridge nevertheless agreed that residents and councillors should be involved when the Inspector’s proposed main modifications were published.
Delegation dispute
Councillor Shanice Goldman (Conservative, Nonsuch) said she had been an LPPC member when the disputed delegated authority was approved. “In no uncertain terms, we were told that the delegated authority was going to be for the purpose of making small changes, including grammatical errors and spelling mistakes,” she said. “We were not told that material changes would be made by way of delegated authority.”
She said members had been misled about the effect of their decision, while stressing that she was not alleging bad faith. “We took a vote with the information that was given to us,” she said. “That information was misleading. It was wrong.”
Councillor Alex Coley (Independent, Ruxley) said he had raised infrastructure issues directly at the examination hearing because he felt unable to do so through the council. “I made the point that I did it in that forum because I’m not able to do it at this council, either by committee or by talking directly to officers,” he said.
Although the Inspector suggested that councillors and officers should communicate, Cllr Coley said he had received no subsequent approach from the planning policy team. “This blanket, umbrella coverage of delegated authority suggests that councillors are not allowed to take part any more in their own process,” he said.
Councillor Alison Kelly (Lib Dem, Stamford) rejected Cllr Woodbridge’s contention that critics wanted to derail the Local Plan. “What we want is a Local Plan that has fulfilled all the consultation that’s necessary,” she said. “My personal disappointment was that we couldn’t have had an extra LPPC meeting before those original documents were submitted.”
She added: “I definitely want a Local Plan because it’s in the residents’ interest to have a Local Plan.”
“Worst-run council”
Cllr Freeman, who seconded the motion, strongly criticised the handling of the meeting itself.
He said the original motion had been available for two weeks, yet councillors received procedural advice shortly before the meeting which raised doubts about what they could debate. “This should have been quite a simple, straightforward process,” he said. “Instead, it has descended into farce, with people shouting out, being accused of things and being told they can’t talk about this and they can’t talk about that.”
Drawing a comparison with the shadow East Surrey Council, where he serves as a member, he described Epsom and Ewell as “probably the worst-run council I’ve ever had experience of….. For me, there has been a complete lack of due process,” he said. “This underlines why it is a good thing, in my view, that this council will soon cease to exist.”
He added: “In the end, I think there has been a failure of adequate oversight over this whole Local Plan process.”
The Mayor subsequently said Cllr Persand’s amendment had been submitted at 6.39pm, but corrected herself after he protested, confirming it had been sent at 5.04pm. The original motion had been published two weeks earlier.
LPPC chairman rejects accusations
Cllr O’Donovan disputed Cllr Persand’s assertion that he did not know what had been submitted.
“I did not read the actual responses, but I was in full conversation with the Head of Planning Policy and Economic Development,” he said. “I knew what was being asked, what was being replied to and therefore I was in full knowledge of what was being sent.”
He stressed that delegated authority did not require him to sign off individual documents. “I have to make it clear: under the delegated authority, it is not for me to sign anything off,” he said. “But I was well aware of what was being said.”
Responding to Cllr Goldman, Cllr O’Donovan said the full wording of the delegation appeared in the committee papers available to councillors before the November 2024 meeting. “I did not mislead anything,” he said. “The full motion was there, and you could have read it.”
Cllr O’Donovan said the necessary political decisions had been made during preparation of the plan. During examination, responsibility for the process rested with the Planning Inspector, who requested additional evidence to address concerns about soundness. “That work was completed under the delegated authority granted in November 2024,” he said.
The Inspector then approved publication of the additional documents for consultation. At the 2 July hearing, she indicated that documents submitted during the examination could only be withdrawn at her direction.
“As the documents and consultation responses have been published on the examination webpage under the direction of the Inspector, both parts of the motion being considered this evening cannot be implemented,” he said.
Cllr O’Donovan said the Inspector appeared likely to find the plan sound, subject to main modifications. Those modifications would be consulted upon before Full Council decided whether to adopt them. “If we decide not to, then the plan will not be found sound, and we will be in serious trouble,” he said.
Cllr Goldman replied that she had read the papers and fully participated in the November 2024 debate.
“Members of the committee queried the scope of the delegated authority,” she said. “We were then given assurances by the chair that the scope would be limited to small changes, including grammatical errors. That’s what we were told.”
Accusations of lying
In his final reply, Cllr Persand accused Cllr O’Donovan of making two false statements and said video evidence supported his account of what the LPPC chairman had previously said. “You did say that you hadn’t read the papers,” he said. “That is on a video recording.”
He accused Cllr O’Donovan of having “passive involvement versus active involvement” as LPPC chairman and said it was inappropriate given the significance of the Local Plan. “You’re under no obligation to read a paper for us, but you are under an obligation not to mislead the committee and to lie,” he said – apparently meaning not to lie.
Cllr Persand maintained that the November 2024 delegation had been presented as covering minor amendments rather than the material changes subsequently submitted. “There is a culture in this chamber and council where scrutiny is treated as an inconvenience, where transparency is something to be managed rather than embraced,” he said.
He rejected claims that the opposition wanted to defeat the plan. “All of us want a Local Plan. All of us want a sound Local Plan,” he said. “It’s the RA who are bulldozing decisions through without proper consultation, notification or working with other councillors.”
Cllr Persand turned his fire on the Residents’ Association’s record in local government, arguing that voters had already passed judgement in the East Surrey elections, at which only two RA candidates were elected. “You will not be leaving a positive legacy,” he told the administration. “Residents made that very clear in the last local elections.”
Cllr O’Donovan immediately objected to being accused of lying. “I’ve been accused of deliberately misleading the council and lying,” he said. “I just think that is unacceptable language.”
“I’m not lying,” he added during a brief exchange across the chamber.
The Mayor ended the argument and called the vote. Twelve councillors supported the motion, 15 opposed it and three abstained.
The motion was therefore defeated, leaving the additional examination documents without the retrospective LPPC review sought by its supporters. No external governance review or factual report will be commissioned under Cllr Persand’s rejected amendment.
