Will Middlesex get in Surrey West’s title after all?
10 November 2026
West Surrey should just “crack on” with changing its name to include South Middlesex, the secretary of state for devolution has said. The new authority is set to take over all services from Spelthorne, Runnymede, Guildford, Surrey Heath, Waverley and Woking councils from next April – as well as take on its share from the dissolved county.
In what was one of its first orders of business the authority, which will inherit around £4billion in debt, was to approve a petition to rename itself West Surrey and South Middlesex Council. It argued the new name, better reflected the entire community and recaptured an identity lost since Middlesex, which was featured in the Doomsday book, ceased to be a local authority in 1965.
Spelthorne itself was named after one of the administrative ‘hundreds’ of Middlesex in 1086 when it was called Speletorne. The campaign to call on the government to resurrect Middlesex was then approved – with a deadline set for October to allow time to rebadge ahead of launch, only to be told it was the council’s, not the government’s decision, to do so – leaving the whole renaming process in limbo.
Pressing the matter was the MP for Spelthorne Lincoln Jopp who took to the House of Commons floor on Monday, November 2. He said: “West Surrey unitary authority wrote to the Secretary of State asking her to change the name of that authority to West Surrey and South Middlesex, a move that I thoroughly support.
“The local government minister wrote back to them and said, ‘It’s nothing to do with me; just change your name yourself’. Will the minister confirm what his spokesman said to the BBC, which was that, ‘West Surrey Council has the power to change its own name to include Middlesex if it chooses to do so, and we’ve set this out in a letter to them’?
Jim McMahon, minister for local government, devolution and regional growth replied: “As explained in the letter, it is not for the secretary of state to determine the names of local authorities; local authorities have the legal right and ability to change them themselves. My advice is to crack on with it.”
The new council is currently seeking legal advice to best understand government’s position. A spokesperson for West Surrey said: “We appreciate there are questions about the name of the new West Surrey council after full council voted for the name change.
“We are seeking legal advice so that we can fully understand the government’s position. We will provide a further update as soon as we are able.”
Cllr Harry Boparai with fellow councillors (image Harry Boparai) with Middlesex flag
Ignorance of ULEZ is no bliss for Surrey drivers
10 November 2026
Surrey County Council has stood by its decision not to allow ULEZ signs in the county, despite data showing tens of thousands of Surrey motorists have been hit with fines for breaking the zone’s rules.
More than £15 million in penalties has been charged to addresses in Surrey for breaching the terms of London’s Ultra Low Emission Zone, figures obtained through a freedom of information request have revealed.
The ULEZ, which imposes a £12.50 daily charge on high polluting vehicles that enter its boundaries, was first implemented in central London in 2019, but has since grown to cover almost the entirety of Greater London.
Surrey County Council vehemently opposed the 2023 expansion into the outer London suburbs, and refused to install ULEZ signage on Surrey’s roads.
But tens of thousands of Surrey drivers have received penalty charge notices (PCNs) for not paying ULEZ charges almost every year of its existence, hitting a peak of 76,305 fines handed out in 2024.
The council’s transport lead Councillor Matt Furniss (Conservative: Pilgrims) told the Local Democracy Reporting Service the council’s stance on refusing ULEZ signage and cameras in Surrey would remain “unchanged” as no measures to mitigate its impact on motorists had been agreed.
He said: “Many other local authorities also refrained from entering into this agreement. This situation remains unchanged as sadly none of the mitigation measures put forward to support Surrey residents have been put in place by the Mayor of London or Transport for London (TfL).”
A scrappage scheme to replace older, non-compliant cars was offered to London residents by Mayor Sadiq Khan, but this was not extended to people living in the home counties – many of whom commute by car into the capital.
Councillor Furniss added: “We continue to urge the Mayor and TfL to do what is right and extend the scrappage scheme outside of London for those that are impacted, provide exemption for key workers, and provide more and better bus routes between Surrey and London.”
The figures, which came from a freedom of information request to TfL, showed that £15.513 million in fines to drivers for not paying ULEZ charges have been issued to addresses in Surrey since the scheme started in 2019.
TfL’s data revealed Surrey accounts for around three percent of all ULEZ penalties issued across this time period.
Fines are typically issued at £180, but this is reduced to £90 if it is paid within 14 days. However, if the PCN is still unpaid 28 days after it was issued, then a £270 charge certificate can be sent out.
In addition, tens of thousands of Surrey motorists have appealed fines imposed upon them for this reason – with more than two thirds being successful at the first appeal stage according to TfL data.
When a motorist receives a PCN, they can first appeal directly to TfL itself – and the figures showed that 43,664 appeals reached this stage from Surrey since 2019, of which 29,931 were accepted – meaning the fine was cancelled.
If an appeal is rejected at this stage, there remains the option to pursue it further at a tribunal.
A total of 2,049 Surrey appeals reached this stage over the same period, although 1,107 of these were refused. Some appeals listed at both stages remain pending.
Sadiq Khan has vigorously defended the ULEZ scheme as a vital measure to reduce dangerous levels of pollution in the capital – with recent air quality studies suggesting it has been successful to this end.
However, critics say it is punitive to lower income households, and that many motorists in the home counties who frequently drive into London were given no say over its introduction.
A TfL spokesperson said: “Those outside the London boundary are also benefitting from cleaner air, with drivers outside the capital shifting to vehicles that meet the standards.
“The ULEZ is not about making money. It is generating ever smaller net revenues as it matures, with the most recent data showing that more than 97 per cent of vehicles seen driving in the zone are compliant.”
Any income raised by ULEZ charges is invested into improving TfL’s public transport network, some of which stretches into Surrey.
The spokesperson added: “We worked with councils on the boundaries of London ahead of the expansion of ULEZ and rely on their cooperation to put up ULEZ warning signages on the approach to the zone.
“There is extensive signage on the boundary itself and to raise awareness, we launched a multi-channel campaign targeting Londoners and home counties drivers, including radio ads, ahead of the expansion and welcomed their views on our consultation.”
Image: ULEZ signs on A3 near New Malden Google Street view
Bourne Hall in Ewell to lodge social housing
10 November 2026
A historic Surrey building is set to return to use as social housing after “sensitive” renovation works were given the green light. Planning permission and listed building consent have been granted for The Lodge at Bourne Hall in Ewell to be turned into residential use.
Epsom & Ewell Borough Council submitted an application to itself for the works to go ahead, which have now been approved by the planning committee. “The primary driver for this application is to rescue the vacant building from deterioration and render the property fit for modern human occupation,” the council’s planning documents read.
“The property is intended to be brought into service as social housing. To achieve this, the applicant is legally and morally bound to meet the decent homes standard in terms of thermal comfort, safety, and structural integrity.”
They noted that the property in its current state is “unhabitable”, with defects ranging from joinery failure to fabric decay and inadequate insulation. While planning officers had to consider potential impacts on the Grade II listed property’s heritage assets, they nonetheless deemed the benefits of the scheme would outweigh any harms.
Councillor Clive Woodbridge (Residents Associations of Epsom and Ewell: Ewell Village Ward) told the planning committee: “The best way to protect the historic building is to have somebody living there and looking after it. And that’s what this application does.”
The internal layout of the property is expected to broadly remain the same, although the internal staircase is earmarked for replacement. “The existing inappropriate, non-period external doors will be removed”, the planning documents add.
“They will be replaced with bespoke, four panel doors engineered to match the early 19th-century aesthetic dictated by the Lodge’s listing context. They will incorporate modern high-performance draft seals and security features hidden completely within period-accurate panelled designs.”
While the site will remain car-free, the documents note that “the site is sustainably located close to Ewell town centre and to public transport”.
How three Epsom and Ewell wedding venues came into public hands
10 November 2026
On Wednesday 29 September 1937 the Lord Lieutenant of Surrey presented Epsom and Ewell with its Charter of Incorporation, from a platform put up for the day in Epsom High Street. The same day, Nonsuch Park had its official opening.
The mansion in that park is one of six places in the borough licensed for civil ceremonies. Three of the six are at Epsom Downs Racecourse, Epsom College and the Royal Automobile Club’s Woodcote Park.
The other three, Nonsuch Mansion, Ewell Court House and Bourne Hall, are in public hands, and each got there by a different route.
Bought by four councils
Nonsuch is named after the palace Henry VIII began there in 1538. It was mostly pulled down in the 1680s.
The house in the park today took its shape between 1802 and 1806, when Jeffry Wyatt, later Sir Jeffry Wyatville, enlarged an older house for Samuel Farmer, MP for Huntingdon. Historic England’s listing calls it an early commission in the Tudor Gothic style that Wyatt later took to Windsor Castle. He modelled its entrance front on pictures of the lost palace.
Beside the front door is a terracotta tablet inscribed with the date 1543 and Henry VIII’s name in Latin, which the listing describes as a fragment of the palace.
The Farmers held the estate for more than a century. Between the wars new houses went up along its southern edge, and work began on an arterial road through the park.
Four councils bought the mansion and 263 acres of the Little Park as public open space: London County Council, Surrey County Council, Sutton and Cheam Borough Council, and Epsom and Ewell, then still an urban district.
The road was abandoned, though its embankment can still be traced. A joint committee has managed the park ever since.
Couples now marry in the mansion’s Orchid Room, which has stained glass and large bay windows.
Saved by its neighbours
Ewell Court House on Lakehurst Road was rebuilt for a marriage.
It began as Avenue House, named for the elms that lined its approach from Kingston Road. It was one of the gentlemen’s houses built after the fame of Epsom’s spa drew London merchants here in the late 1600s.
The house passed to the Bridges family, whose money came from gunpowder mills on the Hogsmill. The mills closed in 1875 because they could not meet new safety laws.
Four years later John Henry Bridges married Edith Tritton and set about making a new home for them both. J. Alick Thomas, a local architect then new to practice, rebuilt the house in the Old English style, keeping its old core, and the millpond became an ornamental lake.
Stonework and panelling were marked with a B and an anchor, for the family motto, “Heaven My Haven”.
The Stoddarts, who followed the Bridges, sold the house to the council in 1935.
In the autumn of 2003, the Epsom and Ewell History Explorer records, the council resolved to dispose of it for residential development. Local residents formed the Ewell Court House Organisation, ECHO, whose business plan for a mix of commercial and community uses persuaded the council to reverse its decision.
Ceremonies are held today in the Social Suite, with its polished maple floors and high moulded ceilings, which opens onto a terrace overlooking the lake. The grounds still have their cascades, rock pools and grotto.
Listed for its space-age flair
Bourne Hall in Spring Street takes its name from an older house. Garbrand Hall, a country house of about 1770, was praised in the gardening press of the 1870s for its chrysanthemums and orchids. It was renamed Bourne Hall when it was bought for a school in 1926.
The council later bought the estate on condition that the grounds were preserved. The old house, in poor repair, was demolished in 1962.
In its place A.G. Sheppard Fidler and Associates designed a round building under a copper dome, with twenty precast concrete ribs rising out of it and a glass-fibre rooflight at the centre. It opened in 1970.
Historic England, which listed it at Grade II on 30 April 2015, says the result resembles a flying saucer and was designed to sit low in the mature grounds. The café inside is the Flying Saucer Café.
The listing also cites its generous, top-lit interior and a ramp and lift that built in disabled access from the start. It notes a stainless steel plaque in the foyer recording the official opening by the Lord Lieutenant of Surrey.
Bourne Hall holds weddings and civil ceremonies, and some of Garbrand Hall’s trees can still be seen in its grounds, above the springs where the Hogsmill rises.
All six are on Surrey County Council’s list of approved venues. The Wedding Venue List, which covers every licensed wedding venue in England and Wales, has them on one page at weddingvenuelist.co.uk/venues-in/epsom-and-ewell.
Guildford seeks Sanctuary status
10 November 2026
A Surrey borough council leader has warned of an “increase in propaganda” from people seeking to “spread hatred” in the community.
Guildford Borough Council’s leader Julia McShane (Liberal Democrats: Westborough) praised the authority’s “strong record” of supporting vulnerable people and groups during a council debate this week.
It came as councillors considered a motion to apply to be a recognised Council of Sanctuary – a network of local authorities that are committed to supporting asylum seekers and vulnerable migrants.
Councillor McShane hailed Guildford’s aid for Ukrainian, Afghan and Syrian refugees, and thanked members of the community for their “kindness and support”.
However, she added: “Sadly, we have seen an increase in propaganda from those whose sole interest is to spread hatred and disharmony amongst our communities.
“We cannot stand by and let this go unchallenged, and we cannot turn a blind eye to the suffering of those who are victims of racism, discrimination or intimidation.”
The motion, tabled by Councillor Carla Morson (Liberal Democrats: Ash Vale), called on Guildford to seek Council of Sanctuary status and promote the inclusion of vulnerable people in society.
It also recommended the council leader ask the incoming West Surrey Council to consider taking on this status too.
Councillor Morson said: “Although the initiative has a particular focus on refugees and people seeking asylum, I think it’s important to recognise that its principles go much wider than that. It’s about the sort of borough we want Guildford to be.”
While the motion was resoundingly adopted by the council, some members attempted to pass an amendment that would have seen the proposals go through public approval before adoption.
Proposed by Councillor Philip Brooker (Conservative: Worplesdon), the amendment asked for a four-week public consultation on whether to proceed, that would have a majority of at least 2,000 respondents to get the green light.
Councillor Brooker said he has “absolutely no problem” with the wording of the motion, but wanted it to be “put to the residents first”.
However, other members of the council pushed back at the need for a survey to reach this decision, with Councillor Joanne Shaw (Liberal Democrats: Merrow) saying “I think it’s ridiculous to ask for a consultation when we’ve been elected to represent our residents on something like this.”
And Councillor Maddy Redpath (Residents for Guildford and Villages: Castle) added: “My concern about going to 2,000 residents and getting them to reply is it would get hijacked.
“It would become a political statement, and it wouldn’t be representative of the Guildford borough of 150,000 people.”
The motion as originally presented was adopted by councillors following the debate, while Councillor Brooker’s amendment was defeated when put to a vote.
Guildford’s MP says she is “concerned” at the lack of public consultation over the introduction of an elected mayor in Surrey.
Liberal Democrat Zöe Franklin told the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS) that any devolution deal must provide “real benefits” for the county as major changes to local government loom.
The government revealed in supporting documents to last week’s Budget that several new mayoral combined authorities are on the cusp of creation, including one for Surrey.
If followed through, a new Mayor of Surrey would be directly elected by voters and would work alongside the new West and East Surrey councils on key strategic priorities – the details of which would be cemented in a final devolution agreement.
However, Ms Franklin, who is the Liberal Democrats’ local government spokesperson, told the LDRS: “While I welcome the government’s commitment to devolution, I am concerned by the lack of a vote or public consultation – which is odd considering their promise to not impose mayors without local approval.”
She added: “I am surprised by the lack of engagement from the government with MPs and local council leaders given the statement that talks are at an ‘advanced’ stage for establishing a mayoral authority in the area.”
It comes as Surrey faces major changes to its local government structure in the coming months, with the current county and district councils all slated for abolition next spring. The new unitary councils in West and East Surrey will take their places in April 2027.
Under the current system, local government responsibilities are divided between the two types of council, but the two new councils will instead be in charge of all services in their respective areas.
If a mayor is adopted, they would oversee the entire county, focusing on certain issues set out in any final devolution agreement – as currently seen in areas like Greater Manchester, the West Midlands and the Tees Valley.
Other options for regional devolution deals would include a foundation strategic authority, in which several councils pool resources on major issues – but without an overarching mayor guiding the process.
Ms Franklin added: “Once we see more detailed information, I shall work hand in hand with my fellow West Surrey MP’s and the leadership of West Surrey Council to evaluate the pros and cons of a mayoral strategic authority versus a foundation strategic authority for Surrey.
“It must provide real benefits for local people, businesses, and communities.”
She added that the proposals would “do nothing” to address the levels of debt inherited by Surrey’s incoming councils, as well as the major challenges facing SEND and social care services.
However, other political figures in Surrey have been more welcoming of the proposals for a regional mayor.
Surrey County Council’s outgoing leader Councillor Tim Oliver (Conservative: Weybridge) previously said: “I hope the incoming leadership of East and West Surrey councils go full throttle in working with government to deliver it.”
And West Surrey’s opposition leader Jane Austin (Conservative: Waverley Eastern Villages) said: “With an economy worth more than £50 billion, Surrey has enormous potential to drive growth, attract investment and create opportunities for our young people.
“A mayor with meaningful powers over transport, infrastructure, skills and economic development could help us unlock that potential for residents and businesses across East and West Surrey.”
A Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government spokesperson said: “The government is in the final stages of agreeing a mayoral strategic authority with Surrey, and this includes gaining formal consent from local councils.
“This is part of our ambitious programme of devolution as we give communities greater control over the decisions that shape jobs, transport, housing and public services in their area.”
Image: Official Portrait Of Zöe Franklin MP (Credit: House of Commons / Roger Harris)
A Surrey Mayor is on the horizon
10 November 2026
Surrey is on the verge of getting its own elected mayor like those in Greater Manchester and the West Midlands, according to plans announced in the Budget today.
Chancellor John Healey unveiled fresh devolution measures in the Budget – which set out the government’s finances and fiscal policies for the coming year.
Mayoral combined authorities – such as in Greater Manchester, the Tees Valley and the West of England – see several unitary councils pool resources on key strategic issues, overseen by a directly elected mayor.
The news was welcomed by Surrey County Council leader Tim Oliver (Conservative: Weybridge), who has long pushed for the creation of a Mayor of Surrey.
He said: “I absolutely welcome the government’s intention to secure a mayor for Surrey and I hope the incoming leadership of East and West Surrey councils go full throttle in working with government to deliver it.
“Surrey needs to grab this opportunity with both hands to unlock the funding, infrastructure investments, and local decision-making powers that our residents deserve.”
In the Budget, Mr Healey promised a “radical rewiring of the state” in a push for greater devolution of power to England’s regions – which has been a key priority for Prime Minister Andy Burnham.
Other measures to this end included plans for regional government to keep 100 percent of business rates income by the decade’s end and allowing strategic authorities to charge an overnight visitor levy – often known as a tourism tax.
From next April, Surrey County Council will be abolished along with the 11 district councils and replaced with the new West and East Surrey councils.
A mayor for Surrey would be elected separately to these two new councils, but work alongside them on any strategic issues on which they decided to collaborate.
East Surrey’s council leader Steve Wotton (Liberal Democrats: Horley West , Salfords & Sidlow) said: “A Mayor of Surrey could mean more decisions closer to our communities and help secure the strategic leadership and investment they deserve. We’ll engage with government to explore that potential.
“There are examples elsewhere in the UK of mayors helping improve public services and drive economic growth, and we’d like to secure similar opportunities to improve life for the people we represent.”
And West Surrey’s leader Paul Follows (Liberal Democrats: Godalming South, Milford & Witley) said: “We will work closely with Government, our partners across Surrey and local stakeholders to ensure that any future governance arrangements are designed in the best interests of West Surrey residents and businesses.
“However, it is essential that discussions about future structures do not distract from the key issue of resolving the significant financial and structural challenges that local government in Surrey continues to face.”
A Surrey village is set to get a new traffic camera to protect its streets from heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) following a residents’ petition – although many believe this measure does not go nearly far enough.
Oxshott community group Fedora launched a petition this summer calling for stringent new actions to stem the flow of large vehicles through the village’s narrow roads.
The petition gathered more than 800 signatures, and Surrey County Council has now agreed to install a single automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) camera in Oxshott. It will be placed at the Copsem Lane end of the A244, and is expected to be operational in early 2027.
But the original petition demanded more sweeping measures to improve road safety – including ANPR and speed control cameras in both directions and building continuous pavements so pedestrians do not have to cross the busy road so frequently.
Fedora chair Ian Dilks told councillors that installing just one ANPR camera would only solve “half of the problem” as HGVs travel in both directions through the village.
His petition noted that Oxshott has more than 1,000 children attending its schools, many of whom have to walk to school through the village despite the lack of continuous pavements.
“All of this has a direct impact on the quality of daily life,” he said. “Residents face noise disturbance, particularly at night – and it creates health and safety risks. Road conditions continue to deteriorate.”
Mr Dilks wants the council to further consider the full list of requests in his petition, saying: “We welcome [Surrey County Council’s] recognition of the problems, but we are concerned by the response.”
He added: “On behalf of Oxshott residents, we ask you to respond positively to these requests and suggestions and agree to work with local residents on solutions.”
Surrey County Council’s transport lead Councillor Matt Furniss (Conservative: Shalford) noted there had been a similar situation in Farnham, where the deployment of a single ANPR camera quickly brought down the number of vehicles exceeding weight restrictions.
He said: “As soon as the camera was introduced, it dropped off dramatically within a matter of weeks once the tickets started to be issued. We do know it is an effective solution.”
The Fedora petition had welcomed measures from three years ago to bring in a night time HGV ban and a 20mph speed limit in the village centre, but claimed the problem was lack of enforcement.
Division Councillor Andy Burton (Liberal Democrats: Hinchley Wood, Claygate and Oxshott), who supported the petition, said further measures should be considered to control the “unacceptable” weight of traffic bearing down on Oxshott.
“The cause of all of this is the volume of traffic going through Oxshott, and I think at a strategic level, something needs to be done about that,” he said.
“There are things that we could talk about now, a ULEZ expansion potentially, maybe a charging regime going through the road, or a daytime HGV ban. I think all of these things need to be tabled and considered at a strategic level.”
While Surrey County Council is currently responsible for the county’s highways, this will pass over to the two new unitary authorities in the West and East from next April.
Councillor David Lewis (Conservative: Cobham) said: “We’ve mentioned the fact there are currently plans just for a single ANPR camera.
“I think two cameras would be better – and I think if there’s anything the county council can do between now and the end of March to obtain funding for a second camera, that would be very welcome.”
But Councillor Furniss warned that ULEZ-style measures – such as London’s Ultra Low Emission Zone, which charges high polluting vehicles to drive – could be “deeply unpopular”.
“There needs to be a bit of a realisation about what can and cannot be done on the network,” he said. “We can target particular vehicles such as HGVs, which is what we’re doing in this case.
“But I do think we need recognition that we have the highest car ownership and twice as many vehicles on our roads as other areas do.”
He also expressed his desire to see the impact of a single ANPR camera before considering a second one. “If it’s having the impact already, without having to install a second camera, that would be particularly key,” he said.
Bourne Hall will launch its Christmas celebrations on Saturday 28 November with a day of family entertainment culminating in the switching on of its festive lights.
Santa’s Grotto will open at 10am, with children able to meet Santa and receive a small treat for £3. No advance booking will be required for visits on the day, and the grotto will remain open until 5.30pm.
The main Christmas Lights Switch-On event begins at 3pm, when visitors will be able to browse a Local Makers Market offering handmade gifts, crafts and other festive products.
Fairground attractions, including teacup rides and trampolines, will also be available during the afternoon.
Music and entertainment will be provided on the main stage by the I Play Music Collective, with local singers and musicians performing a programme of seasonal numbers.
The cast of this year’s Bourne Hall pantomime, Snow White, is also due to make an appearance before the main countdown.
At 6pm, the Mayor of Epsom & Ewell will switch on Bourne Hall’s Christmas lights following a short address to those gathered.
Cllr Clive Woodbridge, Chair of Epsom & Ewell Borough Council’s Community and Wellbeing Committee, said the annual event was “one of the highlights of our community calendar”.
“It is wonderful to see residents, families, local groups and businesses coming together to celebrate the start of the festive season,” he said.
Christmas activities at Bourne Hall will continue through December. Families will be able to visit the grotto on weekdays free of charge to write letters to Santa, while Saturday visits to meet Santa on 5, 12 and 19 December must be booked in advance.
Bourne Hall’s museum, library, café and surrounding grounds will also remain available to visitors during the festive period.
Bourne Hall Christmas Lights Switch-On
Saturday 28 November, Bourne Hall, Ewell.
Santa’s Grotto: 10am–5.30pm, £3 per child, payable on the door. No prebooking required on 28 November.
Christmas Lights Switch-On event: from 3pm.
Lights switched on: 6pm.
Advance booking is required for Santa visits on Saturdays 5, 12 and 19 December.
East Surrey’s open cabinet: a new culture or a honeymoon?
There is something refreshing about a council cabinet meeting at which the outcome does not appear to have been settled before the public arrives.
East Surrey’s debate over the relocation of Reigate Priory Junior School offered residents something worth watching: cabinet members expressing different views, arguments being challenged and a decision reached by a divided vote.
Cllr Ashley Tilling (LibDem Walton South & Oatlands), the shadow authority’s lead for children and youth services, opposed the move. Seven colleagues supported it. He lost the argument and the vote.
Should that cost him his position? Apparently so, according to Conservative opposition leader Cllr David Lewis (Conservative Cobham & Oxshott South), who suggested that he should “consider his position”.
But what, precisely, was the offence? Expressing a judgement openly? Failing to agree with the majority? Allowing the public to discover that a difficult decision had produced disagreement among those responsible for making it?
Cllr Tilling described the proceedings as a “healthy debate”. On the evidence of the report, that seems a reasonable description.
A contrast with Epsom and Ewell
For residents accustomed to Epsom and Ewell Borough Council, the contrast is striking.
The ruling Residents’ Association group’s practice of meeting privately to settle its position before public council meetings has left an obvious question hanging over proceedings: how much opportunity remains for public debate to change the outcome?
Private political meetings are legitimate. Councillors need opportunities to discuss proposals, test arguments and organise their work. Every political group will sometimes want to talk behind closed doors.
But there is a democratic cost when those discussions effectively determine decisions that are subsequently presented to the public for formal approval. Residents can watch the speeches and count the votes while remaining unable to see where the decisive arguments were made, whose objections were overcome or what persuaded anyone to change their mind.
A meeting can satisfy the requirements of public access while revealing remarkably little about how power is exercised.
The Residents’ Associations’ claim to stand apart from conventional party politics makes this particularly relevant. Independence is less convincing when the public sees a settled group position but cannot follow the discussion that produced it.
Disagreement is useful information
East Surrey has, on this occasion, shown another possibility.
Residents know that the school relocation divided the cabinet. They can examine the objections, assess the majority’s response and hold individual councillors accountable for their votes.
That is useful democratic information. Public unanimity would have told them less.
Nor should opposition councillors discourage this openness. They are entitled to challenge a cabinet member’s judgement, expose inconsistencies and question whether a policy is workable. But suggesting that losing a cabinet vote makes someone’s position untenable risks encouraging the very discipline that turns public meetings into rehearsed performances.
There is a distinction between opposing a proposal before the decision and obstructing its implementation afterwards. The report establishes the former. It provides no basis for assuming the latter.
The harder test lies ahead
Nevertheless, one divided vote does not establish a lasting culture.
East Surrey is a new authority, still enjoying some of the freedom that comes with a fresh start. Is this the beginning of a more open approach, a honeymoon, or an experiment that experienced political operators will eventually dismiss as naive?
The real test will come when disagreement becomes electorally inconvenient.
Will cabinet members remain free to dissent when budgets tighten, services disappoint and opposition campaigners turn their words into leaflets? Will the leadership defend open debate when headlines describe it as division? Will councillors tolerate public uncertainty when the next election approaches?
Or will they retreat into the familiar safety of private group meetings, settle the difficult questions there and emerge with an agreed position for public consumption?
The answer will depend partly on how dissent is treated now. Demand resignation whenever a cabinet member loses a vote and the incentive to resolve every disagreement behind closed doors becomes stronger.
East Surrey deserves credit for allowing residents to witness a real difference of opinion. As Epsom and Ewell’s borough council approaches its end, that offers a welcome contrast with the RA’s closed approach to settling its position.
The challenge is to make openness a habit that survives political pressure. Residents should remember this meeting—and expect the same candour when governing becomes harder.
East Surrey Cabinet member will not be moved, but school will be
10 November 2026
A leading East Surrey councillor has defended his dissent over a major school move decision after the opposition leader suggested he should “consider his position” in cabinet.
The plans, which were ultimately approved, will see it move to a newly built site at Woodhatch Place, Cockshot Hill after a 2024 consultation deemed it “not fit for providing a 21st century education to its pupils”.
But Councillor Tilling was among those to voice concerns about the plans, which included fears over increased traffic and the new site’s more detached location from the centre of Reigate.
He told cabinet members they would leave a “legacy of a boarded up, looking rather ugly Grade I building” if the move were approved.
However, East Surrey’ opposition leader David Lewis (Conservative: Cobham & Oxshott South) blasted Councillor Tilling’s move to oppose the plans, saying he believes it is “difficult to see” how he can carry on in his cabinet role.
“I was astonished to hear Councillor Ashley Tilling, East Surrey Executive Member for Children’s Services and Education, say that he was opposed to the relocation plans for Reigate Priory Junior School,” Councillor Lewis said.
“His arguments against giving the approvals for the new school were roundly defeated with seven colleagues voting in favour and only Councillor Tilling, and one other executive member, being against.”
He further told the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS): “He is in a minority within the East Surrey executive, and I would suggest that he should consider his position.”
At the meeting, Councillor Tilling said he wished for the shadow authority to work with the Department for Education to explore alternative options for Reigate Priory.
But he has dismissed calls to stand down from his post, and told the LDRS his disagreement was part of a “healthy debate” to reach a decision at the cabinet meeting.
“The meeting was held in public and both executive members and local members shared their views on this complex issue,” he said.
“Although there were some differing opinions, there was a fair, open and democratic voting process to determine the outcome.
“I am looking forward to continuing work to establish East Surrey Council alongside other executive members and the wider council in this open and transparent way.”
Image: Ashley Tilling (Credit: East Surrey Council)
The cost so far to the Epsom taxpayer of Cllr Neil Dallen’s “arrogance”.
10 November 2026
£8,567 complaint bill prompts calls for Dallen to withdraw
External fees arising from Cllr Neil Dallen’s standards complaint against Cllr Chris Ames have reached £8,567.64, Epsom and Ewell Borough Council has disclosed. The figure excludes the uncalculated cost of council officers’ time and comes as two councillors call for the complaint to be withdrawn.
Cllr Alex Coley (Independent Ruxley) and Cllr Steven McCormick (Conservative Woodcote and Langley) were the only councillors to respond by publication to an Epsom and Ewell Times enquiry asking other members whether Cllr Dallen should withdraw. Both said he should.
Cllr Dallen (Residents’ Association Town), responding separately through the Council’s communications team, said the standards process should be allowed to run its course without external pressure.
What the Council has disclosed
In a Freedom of Information response dated 22 October, the Council identified two invoices, for £5,568.14 and £2,999.50, relating to the complaint. Understood to be the fees of an “independent” investigator and a legal expert. Together they total £8,567.64.
The request covered costs incurred from receipt of the complaint to 27 September, including the standards hearing on 22 September and its adjournment. The disclosed figure is therefore a snapshot of invoiced costs within that period, rather than a final bill for the proceedings. The Council said both invoices remained unpaid at the time of the request.
It withheld supplier names, descriptions of the work, billing periods and itemised fees, citing the Freedom of Information Act’s commercial-interests exemption. It argued that disclosure could prejudice suppliers’ competitive positions and the Council’s ability to negotiate for similar services. Its response did not clarify the VAT treatment of the disclosed totals.
The Council holds no separately calculated figure for officers’ time spent handling the complaint, including the Monitoring Officer’s involvement. Nor does it hold separately recorded expenditure for the September hearing. It also said it held no approved budget, purchase order or current estimate for further work beyond the invoices already received.
The £8,567.64 therefore does not capture the full resources devoted to the case.
Putting the bill in perspective
Against the Council’s approved 2026/27 net budget requirement of £12.038 million, the external invoices represent approximately 0.071 per cent — about £1 in every £1,405 of that budget.
The borough council’s own annual Council Tax charge for a Band D home is £239.85. The invoices are equivalent to almost 36 households’ annual payments of that borough share.
The complete Band D bill, including Surrey County Council and Surrey Police, is £2,530.84. Measured against that figure, the invoices equal approximately 3.4 households’ entire annual bills. The distinction matters because most of the Council Tax collected locally funds the county council and police, rather than EEBC.
Spread across the borough’s Council Tax base of 34,083.2 Band D equivalent properties, the disclosed external fees amount to approximately 25p per Band D equivalent property. These comparisons put the scale of the spending in context; they do not establish whether pursuing the complaint represents good value.
The Rainbow exchange behind the complaint
The complaint arose from the Strategy and Resources Committee meeting on 27 January 2026. Cllr Chris Ames (Labour Court) questioned the confidentiality surrounding an urgent decision making up to £500,000 available for repairs at the Rainbow Leisure Centre.
Cllr Dallen had supported the urgent decision and was chairing the meeting at which it was questioned. Ames wanted to know who had decided that the public interest justified withholding the decision document.
During the confrontation, Dallen asserted: “It does say in the Constitution that this is the chairman’s meeting”. He subsequently declared: “It is my meeting”. Ames called him “arrogant” and alleged a “cover-up”.
Ames later told EET that he regretted calling Dallen arrogant and should instead have raised a formal point of order about Dallen continuing to chair the item.
EET questions the constitutional basis for describing a committee meeting as belonging to its chairman. A chair has powers to control debate, but that does not resolve whether those powers were properly exercised to stop questions about a decision in which the chair himself had participated.
The procedural issue was allowed to become a personal confrontation. Ames did not formally raise the point of order; Dallen did not hand the chair to his vice-chair while his own involvement was considered; and the Monitoring Officer did not guide the meeting towards resolving that issue. No other member intervened to secure that procedural clarification.
An external investigator subsequently recommended a finding that Ames had failed to show respect. That recommendation is not a determination by the hearing panel. The September hearing adjourned after challenges concerning the Council’s complaints arrangements, without deciding whether Ames had breached the Code of Conduct.
Two councillors call for withdrawal
Cllr McCormick told EET: “Yes, I believe Cllr Dallen should immediately withdraw his complaint.”
He said Ames’s questions were legitimate and that robust questioning and open debate were essential to democratic accountability.
“As Chair of Strategy and Resources, one should have thick enough skin to take challenging scrutiny and forthright remarks from fellow councillors on the chin,” he said.
“At a time when public finances are under pressure, continuing to waste taxpayers’ money on this matter is completely unjustified.”
Cllr Coley was similarly critical: “Yes, Cllr Dallen should give up the continued waste of tax payers money, pursuing a fruitless endeavour to seek satisfaction over hurty words. Cut and thrust is nothing new in democracy.”
Coley also reported an earlier conversation with Dallen: “I exchanged words with Cllr Dallen last month asking why he would not withdraw from this damaging process and he claimed that it was Cllr Ames that was keeping the matter going.”
He added: “I put it to you that if the complaint were withdrawn there would be nothing to keep going.”
EET asked both Dallen and Ames to comment on the suggestion that Ames was keeping the matter going. Cllr Ames responded to this suggestion:
“To suggest that I am keeping this farce going is ludicrous. It is Neil Dallen who launched this vendetta and has the power to stop it, to prevent any further waste of residents’ money. But Dallen and indeed the administration as a whole are determined to punish me for calling out how he tried to cover up his own cover-up of the Rainbow Centre scandal.”
Cllr Dallen has responded “I refer you to the response received earlier” (the statement reported below received from the Council’s communications team). He did not deny the comment attributed to him by Coley.
Dallen says process should run its course
Asked separately whether the disclosed costs made withdrawal appropriate, Dallen supplied the following statement through the Council administration communications team rather than from his own email account:
“Complaints made under the Member Code of Conduct should be considered fairly, impartially and in accordance with the Council’s adopted arrangements.
“The matters to which your questions relate form part of an ongoing Standards process that has not yet concluded. It would not be appropriate to comment on matters that may fall to be considered by the Standards Hearing Sub-Committee, as this carries a risk of undermining the integrity and perceived fairness of the process.
“The process should be allowed to run its course without external pressure being placed on any of those involved. The appropriate forum for considering these matters is the Standards process itself, not the media. Until that process has concluded, I do not intend to comment further.”
That response does not offer to withdraw the complaint. With external invoices already exceeding £8,500, internal costs uncalculated and no estimate disclosed for further work, the question remains whether continuing these proceedings is a proportionate use of public money.
Epsom and Ewell Borough Council will be no more in less than six months time. Neither Ames nor Dallen have any local government elected mandate thereafter. Some may think the head of steam at the January meeting was precipitated by Cllr Dallen’s own ineptitude in the chair or the silencing by him of dissent or both.
Despite persistent efforts the Epsom and Ewell Times still has received no satisfactory answers from the Council as to whether its own officers’ negligence allowed the dilapidations bill for the Rainbow Centre to accumulate unaddressed for 20 years. And maybe that is really at the heart of this matter.
Cllr Neil Dallen has a decision to make. How much more public money should be spent deciding whether another councillor was sufficiently respectful towards him during an argument about public money?
The external invoices arising from his complaint against Cllr Chris Ames already total £8,567.64. Council officers’ time has not been separately costed. Further proceedings could add to the bill, and the Council has disclosed no estimate for completing them.
This is not expenditure on finding out how the Rainbow Leisure Centre came to require up to £500,000 of repairs. It is expenditure on investigating and adjudicating upon the conduct of a councillor who pressed for answers about the secrecy surrounding that decision.
The distinction ought to trouble every councillor responsible for safeguarding the public purse.
A failure of collective judgement
The confrontation at January’s Strategy and Resources Committee was avoidable.
Dallen had supported the urgent Rainbow decision and its confidential treatment. He then chaired the meeting at which Ames questioned those matters, putting himself in the position of controlling scrutiny of a decision in which he had participated.
His declaration, “It is my meeting”, captured the problem. A committee meeting belongs to the Council and serves the public. The chair’s authority exists to facilitate its business, including uncomfortable scrutiny.
The Constitution gives a chair powers to regulate debate. EET questions the suggestion that those powers justified closing down questions about the chair’s own involvement without first addressing whether he should hand over to his vice-chair.
Ames, too, mishandled the confrontation. Calling Dallen arrogant personalised a legitimate argument and made it easier to divert attention from the unanswered questions. Ames has acknowledged that he should have raised a formal point of order.
Dallen should have recognised the difficulty of presiding over scrutiny of his own actions. The Monitoring Officer should have helped the meeting resolve that difficulty. Other councillors could have intervened to bring the discussion back to proper procedure.
Instead, a collective failure of judgement became a disciplinary case against one participant.
Who stands outside the dispute?
The position of Monitoring Officer Piero Ionta deserves particular scrutiny. He advised during the January exchange, supporting Dallen’s position. His advice was itself challenged by Ames.
The subsequent external investigation was commissioned on the Monitoring Officer’s behalf. Ames’s complaint about Dallen’s conduct at the same meeting was rejected without an equivalent external investigation.
Those facts create an obvious question about the separation of roles. An officer whose advice formed part of the dispute should not simply assume that commissioning someone else to investigate removes every concern about his continuing involvement.
The investigator’s independence must be respected. Being paid by the Council does not establish bias. But an external appointment does not, by itself, answer questions about who decided that an investigation was warranted, who settled its scope and who controlled the subsequent process.
Dallen’s personal decision to complain did not itself justify committing public resources. That required an official assessment under the Council’s arrangements. Responsibility for the expenditure therefore extends beyond the complainant to those who authorised the machinery to proceed.
The investigator’s recommendation against Ames is also a recommendation, not a verdict. The hearing panel has yet to determine the complaint. The September proceedings instead became entangled in questions about the arrangements under which the Council was acting.
A process invoking standards should be able to demonstrate its own.
This is no criminal prosecution
Dallen’s statement that the process should run its course invites examination of what kind of process this is.
In a criminal case, there are institutional divisions between investigation, prosecution and adjudication: police investigate, the CPS makes independent prosecution decisions in cases within its remit, and courts determine guilt. Those divisions provide safeguards against one institution controlling the whole course of a disputed allegation.
A council standards complaint is a different system. Here, a powerful councillor complained about an opponent; the Council’s own administrative machinery assessed and progressed the matter; an investigator commissioned at Council expense recommended a finding; and a Council panel is to determine it.
That does not automatically make the proceedings unfair. It makes transparency about independence, conflicts, authority and proportionality essential.
Dallen chairs Strategy and Resources, the Financial Strategy Advisory Group and the Shareholder Sub-Committee, and is vice-chair of Licensing and Planning Policy. He is among the borough’s most influential councillors. Scrutiny of how the institution responds to his complaint is entirely proper.
Whose answer was the Council sending?
EET asked Dallen whether, in light of the costs, he would withdraw his complaint. The Council’s communications team supplied a statement attributable to him.
Why was the Council’s publicly funded communications machinery answering a question about whether an individual councillor would continue a complaint he had personally chosen to lodge?
There may be an administrative explanation. Councils can properly explain their procedures and assist with enquiries concerning public duties. But the distinction between explaining an institutional process and providing communications support for its complainant matters.
The Council should explain the basis on which that assistance was provided, who authorised it and whether equivalent assistance would be available to the councillor complained about.
Otherwise, the appearance is that the institution funding the complaint’s progression is also helping its initiator defend its continuation.
Public scrutiny is not improper pressure
Dallen said: “The process should be allowed to run its course without external pressure being placed on any of those involved.”
He also said the appropriate forum was the standards process, rather than the media.
A panel must decide the complaint fairly on the evidence. EET is not asking it to decide according to newspaper opinion.
But whether continuing the complaint justifies further public expenditure is a question for public debate. So are the handling of apparent conflicts, the treatment of competing complaints and the deployment of Council staff.
A complainant cannot place those questions beyond scrutiny merely because proceedings remain unfinished.
For residents unable to attend meetings, examine committee papers or pursue unanswered enquiries, the local press is often the only practical means of discovering what their Council is doing. Public questioning of public expenditure is accountability in action.
A senior councillor who seeks protection from that scrutiny should consider what his position says about his understanding of public office.
The choice now
The disclosed external fees are a small fraction of EEBC’s annual budget. They nevertheless equal almost 36 households’ annual payments of the borough council’s Band D Council Tax share.
The issue is proportionality. What useful public outcome now justifies spending more?
A finding, a censure, an apology or training might mark the Council’s disapproval of Ames’s language. None would explain the Rainbow repair liabilities or answer the original questions about confidentiality. With EEBC due to disappear in April 2027, the practical benefit of prolonging this dispute becomes harder to identify.
Dallen received £17,057.52 in councillor allowances in 2025/26. The external invoices alone amount to slightly more than half that sum.
If he withdraws, residents may reasonably ask whether he should voluntarily return some allowance to acknowledge the resources consumed. Withdrawal would not establish a legal obligation to repay, nor would it make him solely responsible for expenditure officers authorised. It would, however, leave a political question about taking responsibility.
Continuing the complaint cannot sensibly be justified by a desire to avoid that question. Money already committed is no reason to commit more.
The most troubling appearance is that Ames faces formal condemnation after trying, however intemperately, to obtain answers about public money, while Dallen faces no equivalent proceedings for stopping those questions. A complaints system that concentrates on the language of challenge while leaving the obstruction of scrutiny unexamined risks teaching councillors the wrong lesson.
Ames should have chosen his words and procedure better. Dallen should now demonstrate the financial judgement expected of the chair of Strategy and Resources.
He should withdraw his complaint and ask the Council to bring the matter to a proportionate close. The Council should explain whether any further action is necessary, what it would achieve and what it would cost.
The public has already paid enough for a meeting that those present should have managed properly.
Mayor’s casting vote sends Epsom and Ewell Local Plan changes to consultation
10 November 2026
Epsom and Ewell councillors have agreed by the narrowest possible margin to consult residents on proposed changes to the borough’s Local Plan, after a contentious extraordinary council meeting yesterday evening.
The vote was tied at 13–13 before Mayor Cllr Lucie McIntyre (RA West Ewell and daughter of Cllr Dallen) used her casting vote in favour. The decision allows consultation on the Planning Inspector’s proposed main modifications; it does not adopt the Local Plan or grant planning permission for individual developments.
The changes include additional Green Belt sites at Downs Farm and Priest Hill. An amendment seeking a formal council objection to Green Belt development was ruled out of order by the Mayor and was not put to a vote, although councillors were shown its wording and later referred to it during the discussion.
Why was the amendment ruled out?
Cllr Kieran Persand (Conservative Horton) submitted the amendment, seconded by Cllr Shanice Goldman (Conservative Nonsuch).
An earlier version supplied to Epsom and Ewell Times would have retained the recommendation to hold the consultation, while asking the council to oppose the proposed release of Green Belt land at Priest Hill, Downs Farm and Horton Farm. It also called for further scrutiny of brownfield alternatives and for the council’s objections to be communicated to the Inspector.
After the version before the meeting had been displayed, the Mayor ruled it out of order. She described her decision as procedural, rather than a judgement on the merits of the proposed changes.
Her stated reason was that the item before councillors was concerned with whether to consult on the proposed modifications. She said that, under that item, the council could not determine whether the evidence base was adequate because that went beyond the scope of the recommendation being considered. She said individual councillors and residents could object to allocations through the proposed consultation and ask the Inspector to consider whether they were justified.
The distinction appears to have been between allowing the Inspector’s proposed changes to go out to consultation and adopting a formal council position on whether particular sites were justified. The Mayor did not give a detailed explanation at the meeting of why the latter could not be added to the former as an amendment.
Persand challenged the ruling and asked for an opportunity to revise his amendment. The Mayor said her ruling was final and declined to adjourn the meeting. She indicated that another amendment could be considered if it was ready in writing; later, when Cllr Alex Coley (Independent Ruxley) asked whether he could put one forward verbally, she said it had to be written.
Persand said he had followed the procedure suggested to him and had corresponded with officers before the meeting. The Mayor later said there had been exchanges about suggested changes but that she had not had time to respond to the final version, which she said arrived at about 3pm that day. Persand disputed that account.
Cllr Bernie Muir (Conservative Horton) argued that the constitution allowed amendments to be amended. “I do not understand how you could preside over a matter of such import” and allow available procedures to be blocked, she told the Mayor.
Housing and the Green Belt
Persand said residents wanted councillors to protect the Green Belt, but insisted he recognised the need for housing.
“I was born and raised in this borough. I’ve lived here my entire life. I work in London alongside my council responsibilities. Yet I still can’t afford to buy a home in the very place I grew up,” he said.
He added: “Our green spaces provide amazing opportunities for biodiversity and carbon storage. And once they are developed, they are gone for generations.”
He said he could not support consultation on the plan in its current form.
Muir said the Conservative amendment would not have stopped consultation. “Our residents have a democratic right to be heard,” she said, but the council should also submit a corporate objection to the Inspector. She argued that opportunities in the town centre and commercial areas should be maximised “before a single blade of grass is cut”.
Goldman questioned why Downs Farm had previously been considered unsustainable but was now included. “As far as I’m aware, nothing has changed. No infrastructure has changed,” she said.
“An impossible dilemma”
Cllr Steven McCormick (Conservative Woodcote and Langley Vale), a former chair of the planning policy committee, said he had expected the amendment to be debated and was disappointed that Persand had not been able to revise it.
He challenged the position that councillors could not alter the schedule before consultation and argued that presenting it as an unchangeable document reduced Full Council to “an administrative rubber stamp”.
McCormick also criticised the choice he believed councillors faced if they rejected consultation:
“The choice presented to this chamber is accept the Green Belt releases inside the plan, or developers will take them outside the plan on appeal. That is an impossible dilemma, not a genuine democratic choice.”
He said elected members had been bypassed while additional sites were evaluated and argued that urban alternatives had not been properly considered. He added that the final decision on adoption belonged to Full Council: if the Green Belt releases remained when the plan returned, he would vote against adoption.
His legal interpretation was disputed by the position set out to councillors: that the Inspector’s proposed main modifications had to be consulted on as presented.
A voice for residents
Cllr Peter O’Donovan (RA Ewell Court), chair of the Licensing and Planning Policy Committee, proposed the consultation. He said councillors were being asked neither to add sites to nor remove them from the plan.
“We’re not asking you to comment on the local plan, what you like, what you don’t like. Are you happy to approve a public consultation?” he said. Responses would go to the Inspector, who would produce a final report before a subsequent council decision on adoption.
Cllr Clive Woodbridge (RA Ewell Village) urged residents to make their arguments through the consultation. He said many emails received from residents contained well-reasoned points about sites, but the Inspector would consider whether the modifications should change.
“What we can do tonight is we can start this consultation and give our residents a voice, give ourselves a voice.”
Woodbridge said he did not think the council should formally object while also acting as facilitator of the consultation. “I don’t think we should simultaneously say, but we’ve already made our mind up,” he said.
Cllr Neil Dallen (RA Town) rejected the suggestion that RA councillors had asked for Downs Farm and Priest Hill to be added. “We put forward a plan without it in,” he said. The Inspector had decided to include the sites in the proposed modifications, and residents and councillors could respond.
Divisions over procedure
Cllr Robert Leach (RA Nonsuch) said he would support consultation “through gritted teeth and under protest”, despite opposing the additional sites. “I hate the local plan with a passion,” he said, but feared that voting against consultation would leave the borough in a worse position.
Cllr Chris Ames (Labour Court) said he supported housing, including on Green Belt land if necessary, and would have opposed Persand’s amendment. Nevertheless, he could not support the recommendation because the amendment had not been debated and voted on. He described the handling of the meeting as “completely undemocratic”.
Cllr James Lawrence (Independent College) said he supported building at Priest Hill and Downs Farm because housing was needed. But he criticised the opportunities councillors had been given to influence site selection and said he would not support the recommendation.
Coley said councillors had not received all the information they needed, referring to correspondence and material exchanged during the examination. The Mayor said the information required to be published had been included.
O’Donovan said that, if consultation were refused, the matter would return to the Inspector for a decision. He urged councillors to let residents have their say and said consultation was expected to start on 3 November.
Following the Inspector’s consideration of responses, councillors are expected to be asked whether to adopt the plan. O’Donovan said that decision would probably come in March, shortly before Epsom and Ewell Borough Council is replaced by East Surrey Council.
