More than 800,000 new trees have been planted across Surrey over the past five years – overshooting the council’s own target, according to a report.
Surrey County Council’s climate change progress report analysed the authority’s progress for the first five years of its climate change delivery programme between 2021 and 2026.
The findings note that 116,359 trees have been planted in the 2025/26 financial year alone, bringing the total planted over the past half decade 885,000.
It means the council has exceeded its initial target of 600,000 in the first phase of the programme. Surrey has committed to planting 1.2 million trees by 2030, representing one for every resident.
Tree planting was one of 74 action points reviewed in the report, which is due to be considered by councillors next week.
A total of 45 of these actions were delivered, according to the summary, with 18 partially completed and 11 either seeing limited progress or not delivered at all.
But the council claims it is “broadly on track” to meet its 2030 net zero targets, with the report saying that the authority’s carbon emissions have been reduced by around 60 percent.
“Maintaining progress towards the net zero will require continued investment, clear prioritisation and a focus on the most carbon-intensive assets, alongside planning around offsetting remaining emissions in 2030,” the report says.
It adds: “A major success of the programme has been supporting residents to reduce energy bills and improve their homes.
“More than 1,438 low-income households received energy efficiency improvements, including insulation, solar and low-carbon heating measures, supported by over 3,000 HEAT home visits providing advice and access to funding.”
However, it also noted the challenges ahead in continuing to pursue decarbonisation policies, saying the programme was “significantly affected by external market conditions, supply chain constraints and wider economic pressures”.
Elmbridge Borough Council recently passed a motion calling for the future East Surrey council to update its tree strategy to consider the survival rate of trees, not just how many are planted.
The text said that many trees planted in the borough are dying within the year as a result of not receiving the right aftercare.
In that meeting, Councillor Katerina Lusk (Conservative: Cobham and Downside) told councillors: “There is little point celebrating the number of trees we plant if a significant number of them are dead a year later.”
Thank you for reporting the visit of an Epsom municipal delegation, led by the Mayor, to Chantilly. Their programme sounded interesting and enjoyable.
That Chantilly holds 55 days of racing over 11 months makes racing at Epsom — our major claim to fame — seem rather puny. The Epsom visitors’ other entertainments will make the Chantilly visitors’ return visit here a bit lacking in local colour and character.
This disappointing comparison leads to three questions, all familiar bones of contention over many years:
Is France more or less centralised than the UK? Which country seems to be better governed?
Would Epsom do better under a French mayoral system? Our borough built 37 houses, I believe, last year, which suggests a lack of purpose or belief in the future of our borough.
How does France maintain its vigorous regional diversity and local character while ours is about to be squeezed to death by local government reform?
Would you be willing to let the Mayor illuminate these issues, drawing on her delegation’s experience at Chantilly? It might spark an interesting correspondence.
Yours faithfully,
Edward Clay
.
Related reports:
Epsom and Ewell Mayor leads delegation to Chantilly to celebrate 30th anniversary of twinning Epsom & Ewell Times
Epsom and Ewell Town Twinning Association presents Cyril Frazer Awards for 2026 Epsom & Ewell Times
Epsom and Ewell to have three tiers of government when promised one? Epsom & Ewell Times
Epsom & Ewell Borough Council publishes final Annual Report Epsom & Ewell Times
Latest news from Surrey County Council
10 October 2026
Surrey County Council has issued a flurry of announcements covering school environmental projects, a major Government-backed reform of special educational needs provision and the future of Council Tax support when Surrey’s new unitary authorities take over next April.
For Epsom and Ewell residents, the most immediately relevant development may be a consultation on how Council Tax Reduction will operate under the new East Surrey Council from 1 April 2027.
Council Tax support under the new East Surrey Council
Residents are being invited to comment on proposals for the Council Tax Reduction scheme which will apply when Epsom and Ewell Borough Council and the other existing councils in eastern Surrey disappear next year.
At present Surrey’s 11 district and borough councils each operate their own Council Tax Reduction scheme. Eligibility and the amount of help available can therefore vary depending on where somebody lives.
From 1 April 2027 those councils, together with Surrey County Council, will be replaced by East Surrey Council and West Surrey Council. Each of the two new authorities will consequently require a single Council Tax Reduction scheme for its entire area.
Council Tax Reduction is intended to help people on low incomes or receiving certain benefits by reducing the amount of Council Tax they have to pay.
Draft schemes for both new authorities have now gone out to consultation. Surrey County Council says no final decisions have been made and existing support will continue while consultation takes place.
The East Surrey consultation runs from 7 October until 3 December 2026, with current recipients of Council Tax Reduction and organisations supporting them particularly encouraged to respond.
East Surrey Shadow Councillor Andy Burton, portfolio holder for finance and resources, said residents’ responses would help decision-makers assess the effects of the proposals before a final scheme is agreed.
The exercise is one of the many pieces of administrative plumbing required before Surrey County Council and the borough and district councils cease to exist next April. Services which are currently administered differently across council boundaries will have to be combined into common systems for each of Surrey’s two new authorities.
Government approves Surrey SEND reform plan
Meanwhile, the Department for Education has approved Surrey’s three-year Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) Reform Plan.
The Government told Surrey that its plan had met the required threshold and provided a basis for moving into implementation.
Of substantial financial significance is the Council’s eligibility for an indicative £205.2 million High Needs Stability Grant. SCC says this represents 90 per cent of the Dedicated Schools Grant deficit accumulated up to the end of the 2025/26 financial year.
The scale of the problem is considerable. Surrey County Council’s more recent budget monitoring has referred to a cumulative Dedicated Schools Grant deficit of around £238 million, against which approximately £205 million of Government stability funding was anticipated.
The reform programme is intended to place greater emphasis on earlier intervention and supporting more children with additional needs within mainstream education.
One element, called “Experts at Hand”, is intended to bring specialists including educational psychologists, speech and language therapists, occupational therapists and specialist teachers closer to mainstream schools and colleges. Surrey’s Cabinet was told in July that £8.3 million would be available in 2026/27 for this part of the programme.
The wider plan includes increasing the SEND workforce, expanding provision, improving governance and seeking better transitions for young people entering adulthood.
Government approval was not, however, an unqualified endorsement. The Department for Education said further work was required on delivery capacity, partnership working and governance, together with clearer measures of success, post-16 pathways, co-production with families and assessment of future early-years and specialist provision requirements.
SCC Cabinet Member for Children, Families and Lifelong Learning Cllr Helyn Clack said the Council would now move from planning into delivery.
The success of that delivery will matter more to families than approval of the plan itself, particularly against a longstanding background of pressure on specialist places, Education Health and Care Plans and Surrey’s high-needs education budget.
Surrey tops Eco-Schools table
On a rather different educational front, Surrey says it has retained the highest number of Eco-Schools Green Flag awards of any English local authority area for the fourth year running.
More than 200 Surrey schools are taking part in the Eco-Schools programme, with 105 achieving Green Flag status, its highest accreditation.
SCC says about 55,500 pupils are involved, including around 1,900 pupil eco-leaders. Projects range from wildlife-friendly areas and plastic-free lunches to sustainable food, monitoring energy use and encouraging active travel.
According to figures supplied by the Council, participating schools over the past year diverted 362,452kg of waste from landfill and saved 61,107kWh of electricity and 152,223kWh of gas.
The County Council has supported the Eco-Schools programme for 13 years and says it has also provided more than £120,000 in grants during the past 12 months to help schools become more resilient to the effects of climate change.
Marisa Heath, SCC Cabinet Member for Environment and Planning, described the Green Flag results as evidence of the work being undertaken by Surrey school communities, while Cllr Clack said environmental projects also allowed children to develop knowledge and skills which could benefit their schools and wider communities.
Taken together, the three announcements illustrate the unusually broad range of responsibilities still resting with Surrey County Council during its final months – from children with complex educational needs and environmental education to preparations for the entirely new local government structure that will replace it on 1 April 2027.
A nearby ‘carbuncle’ means a 64 bed care home that may only have seven visitor parking spaces has been approved for Banstead – despite widespread criticisms of the plans.
Councillors at Reigate and Banstead Borough Council’s latest planning committee spoke out about the site’s lack of spaces and the impact this would have on neighbouring roads, as well as the overall density of the project.
However, they felt their hands were tied because its height and depth was in keeping with the recently approved replacement building at Roseland, which was allowed at appeal in February 2026.
If a council loses an appeal against a planning refusal it is liable for significant costs.
The new 64 bed care home will replace the former adults-with-learning-disabilities site which had been disposed of by Surrey County Council.
Officers told the meeting: “There was no objection to the loss of the existing building and its use as a specialist facility.
“The site was disposed of by Surrey County Council in 2024.
“Evidence has been proved by the applicant that demonstrates that the building is no longer fit for purpose.
“Particularly in view of Surrey County Council moving away from large institutionalised care for people with learning disabilities towards a more supported independent living approach, for which there are a number of facilities locally in Banstead.”
The two-storey Arundel House building in Garratts Lane will be demolished with its replacement set back to not detract from the area or nearby locally listed buildings.
Councillor Sam Walsh (Conservative: Banstead Village) was among those to criticise the plan’s lack of parking and the impact the development will have, but said it would be difficult to reject the application given the recently approved, on appeal of the Roseland site.
He said: “We know there is going to be a problem because on Garratts Lane there is no parking facility there, but we are constrained by these planning matters.
“It is dense, it is much greater than one would have hoped, but because it has been approved for the carbuncle on Garratts Lane, we have not any opportunity (to reject it).
“If I were to propose any reasons for refusals they would be easily challenged because we’ve got this big one coming up.
“This is going to hurt Banstead but it’s already been (decided), its water under the bridge.
“I don’t like it, its over intensification, the bulk scale of massing.”
Cllr Rich Michalowski (Conservative: Redhill West and Wray Common) added: “There are 18 spaces provided and by calculations in the report, it suggests that a maximum of 11 will be used by staff which leaves seven for visitors and deliveries.
“What is the adequacy of that car parking space for visitors, partially at weekends.
“Where will people park when those seven spots are taken? They will attempt to go to the neighbouring streets which are problematic.
Epsom and Ewell Mayor leads delegation to Chantilly to celebrate 30th anniversary of twinning
10 October 2026
Epsom and Ewell enjoys a robust, and mutually beneficial, twinning arrangement with Chantilly in France and this year marks the 30th anniversary of the close fraternal ties between the two historic horse racing towns. To commemorate the occasion a 14-strong delegation from Epsom and Ewell, led by the Mayor, Cllr Lucie McIntyre, made the journey to Chantilly for a packed programme of events.
The visit, which was paid for by individual contributions, also included representatives from Nescot and the Jockey Club, four current borough Councillors, three former Mayors and other members of the twinning association, all with varying abilities in speaking and understanding French.
This was Mayor Lucie’s first visit to the historic twin town, and she was able to meet her opposite number, Benedicte De Cacqueray, and several Maires-Adjoint (Deputy Mayors). There was a certain poignancy to the visit in that Lucie will be Epsom & Ewell Borough Council’s last-ever Mayor following local government reorganisation and the precise future of twinning arrangements between the two towns is under review.
Of the programme of events provided by the French hosts over the weekend of September 11-13, four were horse related, and some not without incident. A morning visit to the training stables of Alessandro and Ilaria Botti was followed by a drive deep into the forest which is criss-crossed with world-class all-weather training runs. Just as the delegation arrived, a jockey fell from a galloping horse but thankfully neither was harmed.
Marin Lecour-Grandmaison Director of France Galop showed the delegation round the Chantilly race course which operates 11 months of the year with 55 race days. Other equine-related highlights included a visit to the Living Horse Museum and the presentation by Mayor Lucie of prizes at the Polo Club de Chantilly, a facility big enough for seven playing pitches.
The Epsom and Ewell delegation also visited the town’s Lace Museum, home to some exquisitely beautiful pieces, one of which for example took 20 people a year to produce, as well as the Tennis Club of Chantilly. The agenda also included a trip to the historic St Peters Church, which has strong ties with the anglophone community in Chantilly, and a chance to see a new film on the wartime life of De Gaulle, including his time in the UK.
No trip to Chantilly would be complete without a visit to the fabulously beautiful Chateau and a chance to make Chantilly creme – a task that the Mayor excelled at!
Councillor Lucie McIntyre says, “I was delighted to join the Epsom and Town Twinning Association in celebrating this milestone and thoroughly enjoyed the hospitality provided by our French hosts as well as a chance to see so much of the wonderful town of Chantilly.”
While the 30 year anniversary celebrations are taking place in 2026 it was in fact on 30th September 1995 that the Mayor of Chantilly signed the Twinning Charter. However a similar ceremony followed in Epsom in March 1996, signed by our then Mayor, Councillor Cyril Frazer, and this completed the formalities. The Epsom and Ewell Twinning Association was subsequently appointed by the Borough to develop and run the twinning which it has done ever since.
Cllr Clive Woodbridge (RA Ewell Village)
Former Mayor Brian Angus (RA)
The Epsom and Ewell Town Twinning Association
Photo credit: Steve Bridger
.
.
.
Epsom Council declares transparency progress — but Rainbow questions remain unanswered
10 October 2026
Epsom and Ewell Borough Council says it has addressed an audit finding on transparency. Yet a straightforward question about one of its largest public assets remains unanswered: how did the Rainbow Leisure Centre come to face apparent dilapidations costs of up to £500,000?
At the Council’s Audit and Scrutiny Committee on 29 September, Chief Executive Jackie King defended improvements to governance and communication with external auditors.
“This council does not have a governance issue,” she told members.
But for residents, transparency can be measured more simply than through meetings with auditors, constitutional amendments or changes to committee reporting. Can the public find out what happened to a building they own, why substantial expenditure became necessary, and whether anyone is being held responsible?
On the Rainbow Centre, those questions remain unresolved.
A public building, an unexplained liability
Epsom and Ewell Times has repeatedly sought an explanation of the circumstances behind a confidential urgent decision authorising access to Council reserves of up to £500,000 in connection with the leisure centre’s condition and disputed dilapidations.
That figure represents an authorised provision, rather than an established final bill. Nevertheless, the potential exposure is substantial.
The Council has previously acknowledged that it holds no records of routine landlord inspections over the former operator’s lengthy tenure. It has withheld condition papers, relying on claims of legal professional privilege and commercial sensitivity.
Neither position explains how the apparent liability arose.
Were defects identified before the change of operator? Were they reported and left unresolved? Did the Council adequately monitor the condition of its building? What obligations rested with the operator, and what steps did the Council take to enforce them?
Former operator GLL has said it returned the building in the condition required by its agreement and was unaware of any legal claim. EET’s recent requests for clarity on whether proceedings against the previous operator are contemplated have received no response.
The absence of an answer leaves residents unable to assess whether the Council is pursuing recovery, negotiating a settlement, or expecting public funds to meet the costs.
What the committee was told
The September meeting concerned an External Audit Transparency Report arising from Grant Thornton’s earlier finding of a significant governance weakness.
Officers said the problem concerned a failure to inform the auditors promptly about changes to governance arrangements. The report stated that subsequent improvements had satisfied the auditors and that the previous recommendation had been closed.
Cllr Chris Ames (Labour, Court) challenged that account. He argued that the auditors’ published findings covered wider concerns about openness, including changes to the constitution and scheme of delegation that had not been fully discussed publicly.
“This is a question of transparency, and we have a mismatch between what’s being said publicly and what was said privately, and that should concern us all,” he said.
Ms King rejected his interpretation and pointed to the more favourable subsequent audit assessment.
She also described improvements to urgent-decision reporting, including attaching decision forms to committee papers.
Cllr Steven McCormick (Conservative, Woodcote and Langley Vale), a former committee chair, said his written questions had been answered as fully as possible and that he had no supplementary questions.
The committee voted to note the report.
Publishing a decision is only the beginning
Better publication of urgent decisions is welcome. But publishing a form does not, by itself, explain the events that made the decision necessary.
The Rainbow controversy illustrates the difference.
On 16 July, the Audit and Scrutiny Committee concluded that the process followed for the Rainbow urgent decision had not complied with the Council’s stated procedure and was not justified by the information presented to members.
That finding concerned how the decision was taken. It did not establish how the building’s condition had been monitored, why the potential costs arose or who should bear them.
Those are questions about stewardship of a public asset, rather than simply the administration of committee business.
Claims of privilege or commercial sensitivity may protect particular documents or negotiating details. They do not give residents a substantive explanation of whether the Council fulfilled its responsibilities as landlord.
Who is protecting the public interest?
The unanswered questions also concern the role of elected councillors.
Their responsibility is to scrutinise the use of public money and the management of public property. Where possible failures of inspection or maintenance oversight arise, residents should be able to expect councillors to demand an explanation.
There is presently insufficient disclosed evidence to conclude that incompetence caused the Rainbow liability, or that officers are being deliberately protected from accountability. The continuing lack of information prevents those possibilities from being properly examined — and prevents the Council from demonstrating that they are unfounded.
That is why the unanswered requests matter.
A satisfactory audit assessment is relevant evidence of improved arrangements. It does not answer every outstanding question about a particular building or financial decision.
The Council says lessons have been learned. On the Rainbow Centre, the public still needs to know what happened, what the Council is doing about it, and whether taxpayers will ultimately pay.
Until those answers are provided, declarations of transparency remain difficult to reconcile with residents’ experience of trying to obtain information.
Epsom & Ewell Borough Council publishes final Annual Report
10 October 2026
Today, Epsom & Ewell Borough Council has published its 2025/26 Annual Report, marking the authority’s final annual report before local government reorganisation and reflecting on almost 90 years of service to residents.
The report showcases both the council’s achievements over the last financial year and key moments from its history since the Borough of Epsom and Ewell was established in 1937.
The council will be 90 years old when it is dissolved ahead of East Surrey Council’s Vesting Day on 1 April 2027.
The report highlights key achievements over the past year, including:
setting a balanced budget for 2026/27 without cuts to services
allocating more than £1.6 million to Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) projects supporting local infrastructure and community organisations
determining around 94% of planning applications within statutory timescales, including 100% of major applications
progressing the borough’s Local Plan through Public Examination, helping to shape how future development is managed while protecting the borough’s green spaces, heritage and character
progressing the council’s Climate Change Action Plan through energy-efficiency improvements and renewable energy investment
preventing or relieving homelessness for 525 households and supporting vulnerable residents through housing and home improvement services
launching new health and wellbeing initiatives for young people and families across the borough.
As well as highlighting the council’s work during 2025/26, the report celebrates 90 years of local government in Epsom & Ewell, featuring notable milestones from the borough’s history, including the creation of the borough in 1937, the establishment of Bourne Hall and the council’s support for residents through national events including the Second World War and the Covid-19 pandemic.
“This Annual Report is a particularly significant one, as it will be the last published by Epsom & Ewell Borough Council before the authority becomes part of the new East Surrey unitary council in April 2027.
“While the report highlights the achievements of the past year, it is also an opportunity to reflect on almost 90 years of public service and the people who have made that possible.
“Over nine decades, generations of councillors, officers, volunteers and community partners have helped shape Epsom & Ewell into the thriving borough it is today. As we enter a period of significant change for this borough and Surrey as a whole, this report recognises the lasting legacy they leave behind.
“It has been an honour to serve this borough and I hope residents will enjoy looking back on the council’s history as we prepare for the next chapter of local government in Surrey.”
Hannah Dalton, Leader of Epsom & Ewell Borough Council, added:
“This report is an opportunity to reflect on 90 years of service to our communities and the lasting contribution the council has made to life in Epsom & Ewell.
“Since the council was established in 1937, it has been led by the Residents’ Association, with a strong focus on local priorities and community values. As we prepare for local government reorganisation, I am proud of what has been achieved by generations of councillors, officers and community partners working together on behalf of residents.
“While this chapter is coming to a close, the legacy of Epsom & Ewell Borough Council and the strong sense of local identity that defines our borough will endure.”
East Surrey seeks planning head start as Epsom faces two Local Plans at once
10 October 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.
Care planning gap exposed as most Surrey residents aged 60 and over have yet to plan ahead
10 October 2026
Seven in 10 Surrey residents aged 60 and over are concerned about how they would pay for care and support if they needed it, yet only around one in 10 have made specific plans for the future, new research shows.
The YouGov survey, commissioned by Surrey County Council, reveals a gap between concern and preparation, with men appearing to be more complacent than women about future care needs and financial planning.
The findings also show that many people have yet to put a Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) in place, despite its importance in helping families manage future decisions.
While awareness of LPAs is high, with 82 per cent saying they fully understand what they are, over half (55 per cent) have not put one in place. An LPA allows a trusted person to make decisions on someone’s behalf if they are no longer able to do so themselves. It can cover health and welfare, property and financial affairs, or both.
The findings will help inform the county council’s ground-breaking Planning for your Future programme, run in partnership with Age UK Surrey, which supports residents to plan ahead and discuss their wishes with loved ones. 130 people registered for the programme’s first dedicated finance and legal event in Leatherhead on 22 September, highlighting the demand for trusted information and advice to help residents plan for the future.
The YouGov survey of nearly 300 Surrey residents found that 70 per cent are concerned about how they will finance any future care needs, while even more are worried about losing their independence (81 per cent) or having to rely on others (77 per cent). Women were significantly more likely than men to report concerns about how they will pay for care (78 per cent compared with 61 per cent).
The findings suggest that residents have a realistic understanding of care costs in Surrey, with 68 per cent estimating care homes fees to be more than £1,400 a week, yet this awareness isn’t translating into action to prepare for them.
Just nine per cent of respondents have made any specific plans for their future care and support needs, which could include making financial plans or agreeing arrangements with others, while a further 18 per cent are considering their options or discussing them with family, but have yet to put firm plans in place.
The research comes against a backdrop of continuing wider public misunderstandings about how social care is funded and provided. National research by Ipsos UK for the Health Foundation in 2025 found that 31 per cent of people believe the NHS provides the majority of social care services for older people, and 33 per cent believe that social care services are generally free at the point of need.
Sinead Mooney, Surrey County Council’s Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care, said: “Nobody knows what the future holds but we do know that planning ahead can make a real difference. Our research shows that many people are worried about future care and support needs, yet relatively few have started preparing.
“It was encouraging to see so much interest in our recent finance and legal event, and I hope these findings prompt more people to start thinking about what matters to them and make use of the information and support available. Whether it’s understanding the costs involved, having a conversation with loved ones or putting a Lasting Power of Attorney in place, taking some steps now can save a lot of worry later on. We’re committed to helping Surrey residents access the information they need to make decisions about the future with confidence.”
Jane Finnerty Joint Chair of the Society of Later Life Advisors (SOLLA) said: “It’s clear that many of us worry about paying for any future care we might need. Talking to an accredited adviser is a simple first step towards better planning and can offer peace of mind for people and their families.”
Liz Dalgetty, Consultant Solicitor representing the Association of Lifetime Lawyers added: “Don’t leave it too late. It is never too early to plan ahead with help from a trusted and qualified advisor.
“Hope for the best, plan for the worst, and be prepared for the unexpected. No-one knows what the future will hold. Planning ahead whilst you are well gives you time to understand and think about what is best for you and your family. You will then all have support in place to help you in the future.”
Visit www.ageuk.org.uk/surrey/planningforyourfuture to learn more about future free events taking place around Surrey, access more information and download a free planning checklist. More than 5,200 people have already attended sessions.
The council’s Care Cost Indicator, which can be found at www.surreycc.gov.uk/carecostindicator, is an online interactive slider to help people estimate the long-term financial costs of social care.
*All figures, unless otherwise stated, are from YouGov Plc. Total sample size was 296 adults. Fieldwork was undertaken between 26th August – 1st September 2026. The survey was carried out online.
East Surrey Council did not pass a motion declaring a climate emergency – including a commitment to decarbonise by 2030 – following a spirited debate over costs and the pace of action.
At a meeting of the full shadow council this week, Councillor Jonathan Essex (Green Party: Redhill East & North Earlswood) put forward a motion that would see the new council commit to ambitious climate targets.
Surrey County Council – which will be abolished next year and replaced with the new West and East Surrey Councils – declared a climate emergency in 2019 amid a wave of local authorities issuing similar statements.
Councillor Essex’s motion called on East Surrey to “meet or exceed” the current climate targets and for the council itself to achieve net zero emissions by 2030 – along with a 2050 target for the area as a whole.
It also calls for a cross-party working group to be set up after East Surrey assumes local government power in April 2027, which would review ongoing climate actions against their targets.
Councillor Essex said: “The climate science is now unequivocal. It has stared us in the face all summer. Five heat waves. The hottest UK summer on record.”
“We must reclaim hope in the space between a now locked-in brutal future of increasing disasters and the now slim possibility of avoiding something far darker and apocalyptic.”
He added that “a step change by governments, local and national” is needed to address the challenge.
But while there was broad acknowledgment of the threats posed by climate change among councillors, a debate ensued over the costs of implementing these targets.
Councillor Andy Burton (Liberal Democrats: Esher, Claygate & Oxshott North) praised Councillor Essex for putting forward an “important motion raising a critical topic”.
He said: “I agree, we are in a climate crisis. We now must look at climate resilience and adaptation measures as well as mitigation and net zero targets.”
However, he was among the voices raising concerns over the cost of pursuing the targets outlined in the motion.
“As we don’t know either the cost of this commitment – or the affordability of it – I don’t think we can give this current commitment now,” he said.
“However, it is a commitment I would like to be able to give. So I fully support, wholeheartedly, the second limb of this motion [that called for a working group to analyse climate targets].”
His comments were echoed by opposition leader Councillor David Lewis (Conservative: Cobham & Oxshott South), who further pointed to Surrey County Council’s progress in meeting emissions targets since the 2019 climate emergency declaration.
Councillor Lewis said: “While we all recognise the risks posed by climate change, we must ensure that the actions we commit to are affordable, achievable and evidence-led.”
Other councillors spoke out against the motion to argue it did not go far enough in pursuing action on climate change.
“The creation of East Surrey Council gives us a unique opportunity to start afresh – to do something stronger, to mitigate climate change, adapt to what is already happening and build resilience.”
But other members of the council blasted the broad hesitancy to back the motion, with some saying that investment in climate mitigation measures would save money in the long term.
Councillor Jeremy Pursehouse (Independent: Warlingham) said: “We have run out of time, we haven’t got it anymore.
“Yes, some things are going to cost a bit more to do it the right way, but experience shows us that those actually save us money in the long run.”
The motion’s preamble noted the Met Office’s provisional report that warned summer 2026 was the hottest on record – during which time vast swathes of England were placed into drought.
Surrey’s Climate Change Strategy from 2020 sets out the outgoing council’s intention for the county to achieve carbon neutrality in time for the national deadline of 2050.
Councillor Nick Greenfield (Reform UK: Lingfield) commented: “This is a very passionate subject for everybody, and the quality of the debate has been great.
“I really do think that unless we have proper costings – and a more concrete proposal – we can’t vote positively today for this motion.”
But wrapping up the debate, Councillor Stephen McKenna (Green Party: Redhill East & North Earlswood) said: “Acting now is cheaper than paying for the consequences later.”
Despite broad statements of support for climate action from councillors, the motion was ultimately defeated, with 40 of the council’s 72 members voting it down.
While some councillors opposing the first part of the text calling for ambitious climate targets were more supportive of the second part backing a working group on the topic, the motion had to be voted on as a whole.
Epsom and Ewell’s New Local Plan sites advance amid clash over scrutiny and cost
10 October 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.
East Surrey is still going ahead – so what happens next?
10 October 2026
Readers may have seen the recent national news that the Government has stopped or paused Local Government Reorganisation in several parts of England. Understandably, some people have asked me: does this mean Surrey is stopping too?
The simple answer is no. Surrey is going ahead.
The Government has confirmed that its review of Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) does not affect the decision already taken for Surrey. We are further down the road: elections for the new East Surrey and West Surrey councils took place in May, and we are now working towards the new councils formally taking over on 1 April 2027.
For us locally, East Surrey Council will bring together Epsom & Ewell, Elmbridge, Mole Valley, Reigate & Banstead and Tandridge, alongside the relevant services currently provided by Surrey County Council.
Until 1 April, residents should continue to use their existing councils as normal. Behind the scenes, however, there is a huge amount of work taking place.
Since being elected in May, my fellow councillors and I have been serving on the Shadow Council. In plain English, our job is to build the new council before it takes over. This includes bringing together services, staff, budgets, buildings and systems, while making sure essential services continue without disruption.
As the Shadow Cabinet Executive Member responsible for Adult Social Care and Health, I am particularly focused on services supporting older and Disabled people, carers and some of our residents.
We also need to be open about the financial challenge ahead.
The Government is changing how councils are funded, with more emphasis on levels of need and deprivation. This will mean significant financial pressures for our area over the coming years. At the same time, demand and costs are rising, particularly in adult social care and children’s services.
Creating one council gives us opportunities to reduce duplication, work more efficiently and make better use of public money. But reorganisation will not magically solve every financial problem.
That is why I believe we must be completely open with residents. If difficult decisions have to be made, you deserve to know why, what choices we have, how much they cost and what they could mean for local services.
We must also listen. East Surrey will be a large council serving different communities. Epsom and Ewell must continue to have a strong local voice.
There is still a lot of work ahead between now and 1 April. I hope through these regular articles to explain what is happening in clear, plain English – the progress we are making, the challenges we face and, most importantly, what it all means for you, your family and our wider community.
David Buxton OBE
Shadow Councillor for Epsom West (East Surrey Council)
Shadow Cabinet Executive Member for Adult Social Care and Health
