Dear Editor,

Very disappointed with Epsom and Ewell Council, this would have been a simple arrangement. I myself stayed in the borough of Bucha only a few weeks ago on my way to Odesa. I was only a few miles from the area occupied by the Russians, they were only stopped by the Ukrainians destroying the bridge. Imagine living in Epsom and enemy forces occupying Ewell killing people in the streets. Shame on the council members voting against this.

Yours faithfully,

Richard Gough

Dear Editor,

As a Ukrainian, I want to sincerely thank the people of Epsom and Ewell for everything they have done to support Ukraine over the past more than four years. Your kindness, generosity and the incredible humanitarian support you have provided have meant more than words can express.

Humanitarian aid has saved lives. But today, a statement of friendship and solidarity matters too. It tells Ukrainians that we have not been forgotten and that we are not standing alone.

The war has not become easier. Every day people continue to die, and cities continue to be attacked. We all hope this war ends in Ukraine, because if Russian aggression is not stopped here, its consequences will not stop at Ukraine’s borders.

Thank you for speaking up, for raising these issues, and for continuing to stand with Ukraine. It means more to us than you may ever know.

Yours faithfully,

Natalia Pankratova

.

.

.

.

.

.

Dear Editor,

Why no review?

I read with interest your article of 2 June about the recent Local Plan consultation.

Mr Brown’s contention that the consultation was unconstitutional was undoubtedly correct. This is because the Local Plan documents being consulted on were required first to be ‘considered and approved’ by the Licensing and Planning Policy Committee (LPPC) under the council’s constitution.

Digging a little further into this failure of the elected councillors to review Local Plan documents indicates that this is a pervasive and deeply concerning issue.

The Local Plan is the single most important output, by the council, for the future of the borough. Given the local government reorganisation, it should also be the council’s swan song; an opportunity to provide clear and positive strategic direction for the next 14 years.

How has the council gone about achieving this? There are a plethora of articles in this paper highlighting repeated failures of the Residents Association-led council to direct, review or challenge the Local Plan process over several years. This would be concerning enough on its own, but is exacerbated by not just a reluctance, but an outright refusal by Residents Association (RA) councillors to undertake the role they were elected to perform.

Reviews of Local Plan documents should have been happening frequently and as a matter of course. As they weren’t, opposition councillors took the unusual step of working together to try to hold the council to account.

Motions have repeatedly been brought both to full council and to the LPPC attempting to require councillors to review Local Plan documents, but on every occasion they have been voted down by RA councillors.

There appears, to interested observers, to have been a systematic and ongoing attempt to confound any and all attempts to scrutinise the Local Plan. This has happened for several years, with the three most recent examples being:

• The request by Cllr Lawrence in the 10 March 2026 LPPC meeting to review the new Local Plan documents before they were submitted to the Inspector. The Monitoring Officer advised against allowing this request. The Chair, Cllr O’Donovan confirmed he hadn’t even seen the documents being submitted but refused the request to allow the committee to review them. Cllr Reynolds encouraged the Chair to put the decision to a vote but was turned down. 

• The mid-March 2026 request by Cllrs Persand, Freeman and Geleit to hold a Special meeting of the LPPC to agree to review the Local Plan documents before they were submitted to the Inspector. The Monitoring Officer delayed holding the meeting for 2 months until 19 May 2026, after the documents were submitted. The RA councillors voted not to review the documents. 

• Given the urgency of the matter and the failure of the LPPC to perform its role, on 11 June 2026, a request was made by Cllrs Persand, Freeman, Geleit, Ames, Howells, Lawrence, McCormick and Goldman for an Extraordinary Council Meeting. The motion was to require the LPPC to review the Local Plan consultation documents, and if appropriate approve them, in accordance with the constitution. The meeting should clearly have been scheduled by the Monitoring Officer to occur prior to the 2 July public hearings on the consultation documents. The Monitoring Officer has instead delayed the meeting until 21 July and tagged it onto the pre-existing council meeting, after the consultation hearing has been completed.

The councillors mentioned above, from all opposition parties, should be applauded for their tenacity and their willingness repeatedly to stand up for the residents they represent.

Residents are asking why the Monitoring Officer appears to repeatedly obfuscate, delay and obstruct, and why RA councillors are not taking the lead, or at least supporting, attempts by opposition councillors to execute the roles they were elected to perform.

Given all the above, it perhaps should come as no surprise that the RA was all but wiped out in the recent East Surrey Council elections. Despite this, or perhaps because of it, the RA should take the opportunity to do what they should have been doing all along, actively engaging with, and reviewing the Local Plan documents. They should be ensuring the documents are factually correct (which in many instances they have not been), that they align with the council’s strategy and that they represent the views of the borough’s residents.

This is the RA’s last chance either to redeem its reputation and leave the door open to a future return to council membership, or to leave residents bitterly resenting the final failures of the group so many of us voted for over the years, as they hammer nails into the coffin of the RA group’s legacy. 

Whose Local Plan is it anyway?

The Local Plan is written by the council and is the responsibility of the council throughout its drafting and execution.

Since the examination started last summer, council officers and councillors have repeatedly distanced themselves from the changes officers have specifically proposed to the inspector. These council proposals include building on extensive additional areas of green belt land such as Downs Farm, Priest Hill, Burgh Heath Road and Cuddington Glade.

Having actively put these sites forward, officers and councillors have denied responsibility, repeatedly arguing that it is ‘the inspector’s Local Plan’ and that they have no say in what happens.

It is worth highlighting that the government guidance says quite the opposite. When reviewing the council’s Local Plan, the government is at pains to clarify that:

‘The Inspector will always bear in mind that the plan belongs to the LPA, and subject to the duty to ensure the plan’s soundness, will not seek to impose his or her own views on its vision or its content.’

(The ‘LPA’ is the Local Planning Authority, in this case Epsom and Ewell Borough Council).

It couldn’t be much clearer, councillors, the plan is your responsibility before, during and after the examination. If you choose not to review proposals to put in deeply unpopular sites for development, you remain responsible for the proposals and accountable to residents for them.

Will the RA councillors perform the role they were elected to perform and that the constitution requires, or will they continue to shirk that responsibility? Time will tell, but that time is running out.

Yours faithfully,

Ben Cronin

Cheam Road

Epsom and Ewell

Related reports:

Fresh Local Plan row as residents challenge legality of latest Epsom and Ewell consultation

Roy Deadman Reflects on Election and the Road Ahead

Dear Editor,

I am writing with a full heart and a great deal of gratitude following my election as councillor for the Epsom Town & Downs ward, and to give a short update on the progress and challenges ahead. To every resident who placed their trust in me, thank you. It means more than I can properly put into words.

Over the past six months of canvassing, I had the privilege of hundreds of conversations on doorsteps right across the ward. Those conversations were the most valuable part of the entire campaign. Residents shared their personal stories and experiences with me, from the frustration of persistent potholes and the importance of protecting our precious green spaces, to concerns around local planning decisions.

I heard about the need for safer, better-lit walkways that properly connect our town, and the challenges facing families trying to access local SEND support. Public transport came up repeatedly, with many residents, particularly those in Langley Vale, calling for more frequent and better-connected services. Road safety and speeding through residential streets was a consistent theme, as were concerns about anti-social behaviour, e-scooters, and inconsiderate moped parking.

The Chalk Pit and the importance of holding firm on the agreements in place was raised by a number of residents, and I want to assure you that this remains very much on my radar. People also spoke passionately about maintaining funding for the brilliant local groups and organisations that already make Epsom and Ewell such a great place to live, and that support must continue as we navigate the significant changes ahead.

Now that the election is over, I want to be very clear: staying connected to this community is not optional, it is essential. In due course my fellow councillors and I will be arranging local meetups, and we will be back out on the doorstep listening and asking for feedback. Representing this ward is a privilege, and we intend to earn that trust every single day.

I want to give a very special thank you to Helen Maguire and her entire team. Their support throughout this campaign was extraordinary. Helen ran a professional, values-driven campaign and set a standard that we will all carry with us into our roles as councillors.

What made it particularly special was that Helen did not just support from a distance. She was out canvassing alongside us in the evenings and at weekends, making sure that as a team we were genuinely listening to residents and placing their views at the centre of everything we do. The trust she placed in us as candidates, and now as councillors, was humbling and deeply motivating.

I also want to thank the incredible volunteers who delivered thousands of leaflets, supported our canvassing, showed up to events, and were there at the end of some very long evenings knocking on doors, sometimes with a well-earned pint to follow. Your dedication was the backbone of this campaign.

And to my fellow Liberal Democrat candidates, now councillors, I want to say how proud I am to have stood alongside each of you. Over these months, we have built something genuinely special, a team bound together by trust, hard work, shared values, mutual respect, and a real desire to do what is right for the communities we all call home. We have also, crucially, managed to make each other smile along the way.

Looking ahead, we face significant challenges. By 31 March 2027, we will see the formation of the East Surrey Unitary Council, as Surrey County Council is divided into two new authorities, East and West, with the borough and district councils merging into the new East Council. As Shadow Councillors, we must ensure that on vesting day, local services continue without disruption. The residents of Epsom and Ewell should feel nothing but continuity and, in time, genuine improvement.

I also want us to recognise the officers, the dedicated employees across the councils involved in this transition. Their combined skills and experience will be absolutely vital to the success of the new Unitary Council, and we must support and value them throughout this process.

I am pleased to share that I will be sitting on the East Surrey Authority Employment Committee, where I hope to play a constructive role in making this transition work well for everyone.

The work has already begun in earnest. There have been local discussions and planning meetings with the Liberal Democrat Epsom and Ewell team, as well as wider meetings involving all 40 Liberal Democrat councillors representing East Surrey, laying the groundwork and ensuring we fully understand the challenges ahead.

We recently held a full councillor induction day, where I had the pleasure of meeting colleagues across all parties who will help form this new team. I was proud to be present at the first inaugural full Shadow East Surrey Council meeting, where we elected senior roles, cabinet positions and committee members, building the structures we need to move forward at pace.

The mix of skills, different backgrounds and wealth of experience amongst the shadow councillors has put us in a strong starting position to deliver on our objectives.

This is also, I believe, a unique opportunity. A fresh start means we can shape how this new council works, how it manages its budget, and how it delivers services. I am determined that we bring real efficiencies, hold outsourced contractors firmly to account against their contractual obligations, and negotiate future contracts that deliver genuine value for our residents.

Until midnight on 31 March 2027 we will be Shadow Councillors focusing on what I have outlined above. Until then we will support, where possible, the current councillors of Epsom and Ewell Borough Council and continue to listen to residents in preparation for the handover of responsibility to East Surrey.

Finally, thank you to my family and friends. The extra childcare, school runs, family dinners missed, and the many hugs when I needed them most — without that steadfast support, the campaign would have been so much harder. I am deeply grateful.

I look forward to getting to work for Epsom Town & Downs. This is just the beginning.

Yours faithfully,

Cllr Roy Deadman
Epsom Town & Downs Ward

East Surrey Unitary Council

Dear Editor,

Thank you as always for your coverage of last night’s council meeting.

You correctly report that the mayor refused to allow councillors to debate my motion on the constitution, falsely framing it as an attempt to change the constitution, and that I denied this.

As both councillors and the public were prevented by the mayor from even seeing the motion, I thought your readers might like to. It was not a motion to amend the constitution but to amend the recommendation in the report, to add two unarguable factual points. Both were framed as to “note”, meaning that no action was required. 

Had they been allowed, councillors would have been invited to:

• Note that, while the constitution states at paragraph 2.1: “The Code of Conduct for councillors is available in Appendix 1 and the arrangements for making a complaint and dealing with complaints can be found in the council’s Operating Framework”, no such arrangements exist in the Operating Framework.

• Further note that while the live register of delegations and the Terms of Reference for the Full Council and other Council Committees, Sub-Committees, Advisory Panels and Joint Arrangements delegate to hearings panels the determination of complaints referred by an Investigating Officer regarding alleged breaches of the councillors’ Code of Conduct, neither document provides any authority for such panels to issue any sanction.

It was my intention to draw the attention of councillors and the public these deficiencies in the constitution that councillors were being asked to approve, but with no attempt to amend it, as claimed by the mayor.

To be fair to Cllr McIntyre, it was obvious that she was merely reading from a script given to her by the administration, probably by those who are responsible for ensuring that the constitution is fit for purpose and who have a vested interest in concealing its failings. It was her first meeting as mayor and we might hope that she will learn from the incident.

My mistake was not that I submitted the amendment to the recommendation “late”, as there was no requirement to submit it in advance, but that I submitted it in advance at all, giving the administration the opportunity to engage in procedural shenanigans. I will learn from this.

Of course, as Cllr Lawrence eloquently and movingly attested, the absence of a proper procedure for complaints against councillors has real world consequences. The administration has targeted a number of opposition councillors, including myself, with code of conduct complaints while shielding senior Residents Association councillors.

Finally, you are right that the underlying problem with the meeting was that many councillors regard a meeting where matters of such importance as the council’s constitution are considered as a purely “civic” event,  and any discussion to be keeping them from the refreshments provided at council tax payers’ expense.

Cllr Chris Ames

Labour, Court Ward

Related report:

May’s heat infuses Epsom and Ewell Council Chamber with leadership closely contested

Dear Editor

Your criticisms of the silencing of the newly elected Liberal Democrats Councillors by our local MP (8^th May) is well founded, and will concern residents who may well wonder whose interests those Councillors will represent.  However, I wish to raise another issue in relation to the management of the Election Count that I found disappointing and concerning.

Following the announcement of the result for my Division I sought to make the customary speech of thanks to officers, and to the residents who voted for me, but I was told that the Returning Officer in Reigate had determined that there would be no speeches at any Election Count across Surrey.  So, hundreds of years of, sometimes, raucous hustings, elections, and speeches of thanks to the election team and voters, all dismissed by officialdom.

It got worse.  I sought to have a photograph taken in the room following the announcement of the result, but I was told that was not allowed either, as it might “compromise the secrecy of the vote.”  As I watched the news on TV later in the day, with BBC cameras showing footage of a host of candidates in polling stations, and panning out across the counting room, I wondered what was so concerning that required the East Surrey election count to be sanitized and devoid of any of emotion, and the high and lows that come winning and, yes, with defeat.

So, because I could not do this on the day perhaps, through your on-line newspaper, I might be allowed to thank the teams at Epsom and Ewell Borough Council who undertook the work to ensure that on election day, and at the count, all went to plan.  To Kerry Blundell, EEBC’s Electoral Services Manager, whose tireless work over many years ensured a smooth and successful election outcome.  My thanks also to the Polling Station teams, many up at 5.30am and not home until after 11.00pm. It is a long day, yet they maintained their welcoming and efficient presence through to the end.  And to those undertaking the count which, whilst being more complex by voters having two votes, was completed in good time.

Finally, my colleague Cllr Peter O’Donovan and I wish to thank all those residents in Ewell Court, Auriol and Cuddington who voted for us on 7^th May.  We will work hard to repay your trust in us by following through the promises we made, but also by being accessible and responding swiftly to your enquiries.  We will also be working for all the residents in the Ward, and look forward to working with and for them over the next five years

Yours faithfully,

Cllr Eber Kington (Surrey County Council and East Surrey Unitary Council)

Related reports:

Lib Dem Landslide Takes East Surrey

Epsom’s LibDem MP gags her Party’s new councillors in their moment of triumph

Lib Dems sweep up in East Surrey Unitary Council election for Epsom and Ewell

Dear Editor

It is indeed regrettable that our (otherwise rather good) MP, Helen Maguire, wished to control what each and every new Liberal Democrat councillor has to say, and presumably fears they are not competent to string a few words together and celebrate their victory.

Not every Liberal Democrat victory in Surrey belongs to Ms Maguire, much as she wishes it does.

It seems to be a problem for Ms Maguire to be a team player, to delegate and trust — and one of the reasons I left the Liberal Democrats after 25 years, the majority of those years leading the Opposition on Epsom and Ewell Borough Council.

It was also partly the reason Cllr James Lawrence left the Liberal Democrats more recently and similarly became an Independent councillor for the final year of Epsom and Ewell Borough Council.

She would do well to concentrate on giving the new team in Surrey the respect and degree of autonomy they have earned — and will cherish — in local government, and which will be necessary for them to run East Surrey Council and fulfil the promises made in their election literature and on the doorstep.

Cllr Julie Morris

Independent Councillor for College Ward – Epsom and Ewell Borough Council

Dear Editor,

I read the 29th March letter to the editor “Local Councillors react to hospital merger idea” with great interest. The letter mentions a decision ‘taken behind closed doors three weeks ago, without public comment and clearly no intention to engage with residents.’

I agree, this does not augur well. The central theme of the letter is reminiscent of parallel activity at Epsom & Ewell Borough Council. 

Last week I discovered, by accident, that our borough council has supported an Expression of Interest to form a Foundation Strategic Authority as part of the Government’s next wave of devolution. This is a significant move with substantial implications for planning, housing, transport, skills, economic development, net-zero initiatives, police and fire services and perhaps most crucially – mayoral powers.

Cllr Hannah Dalton, the Leader of the Council in Epsom & Ewell has joined some, but not all, councils in Surrey to sign the Expression of Interest. There has been no announcement. 

To obtain the proper authority in signing this Expression of Interest some Surrey councils have called an Extraordinary Council Meeting, some used a committee meeting and some brought a report to their Cabinet delegating authority to their Leader. There are also some councils which expressly give the constitutional authority to act, to their Leader.

Epsom & Ewell Borough Council has done none of these.

I have subsequently written to the Council’s Chief Executive and Monitoring Officer seeking clarity. 

Do residents wish for their thoughts and concerns for the future to be guessed and assumed, perhaps ignored? Is a precedent being set, where a lone councillor can make strategic decisions on behalf of our borough without any of us knowing? Where is the public debate? 

It feels that we have leadership-in-hiding and decisions made in secret. Like they say in Thelma and Louise “You get what you settle for.” 

I don’t think we should settle for this.

Yours faithfully,

Cllr Alex Coley (Ruxley), Leader of the Independents – Epsom & Ewell Borough Council

From Councillors Eber Kington (RA) and Steven McCormick (RA)

Dear Editor,

Your article of 26^th March exposing the plans by Epsom and St Helier University Hospital Trust to merge with St George’s Hospital Trust is most welcome. However, the fact that the decision was taken behind closed doors three weeks ago, without public comment, with no reference on the ESHUHT website, and clearly no intention to engage with residents, is quite alarming.

The stated position, that the Trusts “have not agreed to merge” but will “submit a strategic case for merger to NHS England, asking them to approve developing a full business case” is hard to believe. Of course there is nothing fully worked up, but even a strategic case will have been developed by reviewing and testing options for cost savings such as merging services in single sites or in just two rather than three.

And the fact that patients and residents generally were the last to know of these plans, and only through the press, does not augur well if NHS England does agree that the Trusts can develop a full business case. But if that is what is to happen, the ESHUHT Board must be open from the start about what is within scope of any plan and what is not.

We also note that our own MP was aware of the developing proposal yet also decided not let residents know. She suggests that her priority is to ensure that residents in the Trust area “continue to receive the high-quality healthcare they deserve.”  However, we believe that most residents in Epsom and Ewell will also want reassurance that those key services are not stripped out of Epsom Hospital and located at St Helier and far away St George’s Hospital.

Clearly, the state of the Hospitals’ finances is behind this decision, as Epsom, St Helier and St George’s Hospitals have all been set targets to clear debts, and Government support is due to be withdrawn over the next three years. However, the need to find ways to deliver current and new services in a more efficient way does not have to be done in secret. It can, and must, be an open process that encourages patients, members of staff, and residents to be part of the work that shapes their hospital services for years to come. And our residents need to know right now, that greater openness will be the case.

Yours

County Councillor Eber Kington and County Councillor Steven McCormick

Related report:

Epsom Hospital to “merge” with St Georges in Tooting?

From the committees of Surrey Stands With Ukraine and the Bucha-Epsom Association to all Councillors of the Borough of Epsom and Ewell.

Re: Motion to Support Twinning with Bucha, Ukraine – Full Council, 10 February 2026

Dear Councillors,

We write to you as a residents of Epsom and citizens of Ukraine resident in Epsom who believe we should stand shoulder to shoulder with Ukraine. Surrey Stands With Ukraine was founded in Epsom — a grassroots, volunteer-run charity formed at the outset of Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022.

Since then, our community has come together in ways few could have imagined. Epsom and Ewell has sent over £5 million worth of humanitarian aid to Ukraine. Through initiatives by Surrey Stands With Ukraine, Epsom and Ewell Refugee Network, local schools, churches, and dozens of individual volunteers and host families, we have built bonds of solidarity, compassion, and friendship with Ukraine — and especially with the people of Bucha.

This is why we urge you to support the motion at Full Council on 10th February to endorse a twinning arrangement between Epsom and the town of Bucha.

Now is the time: 

This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to do something meaningful — not just symbolic — that reflects the values our Borough has shown in abundance since 2022.

The hand of friendship has been extended to us by Bucha, a town now known around the world for both the suffering it endured and the resilience it has shown. Its Mayor, Anatolii Fedoruk, has held office for 28 years and has personally asked that Epsom become its first UK twin. That offer may not remain open forever. Delay may see it pass to another town.

This is not a political issue. Nor should it be subject to any “party line”. We appeal to you all to treat this matter as a free vote of conscience, guided by your role as civic leaders, not party representatives.

This twinning initiative has nothing to do with sending aid or diverting council resources. No funding or council officer time is required. As with our Town’s twinning with Chantilly, the operational side will be entirely run by a dedicated Bucha-Epsom Association — a volunteer-led, self-financing group which will invite councillors and community leaders on to its committee and work closely with the Chantilly association to avoid duplication.

What is needed from the Council is a symbolic yet vital endorsement of the principle of twinning — the first step to recognising what our community has already built, and what it can go on to achieve.

Twinning with Bucha now — during the war, not after — carries a deeper meaning. True friendship is shown in hard times as well as good. Kindness should always be forefront of our minds in all our actions. That is the kind of friendship Bucha seeks, and one we should be proud to offer.

Imagine the future educational and cultural benefits:

• Our children participating in moderated online exchanges with students from Bucha.
• English-learning Ukrainian youth paired with Epsom school pupils for real-life conversation.
• Artists, musicians, sportspeople, and teachers collaborating across borders.
• Civic resilience and peace building projects that our Borough could help shape.

At a time when war continues and local government reorganisation looms, it may feel tempting to delay. But we urge you not to let that be an excuse. If anything, the imminent changes make it more compelling that Epsom and Ewell makes this decision now, while it still exists as a borough council with a distinct identity. Let our legacy be something enduring, generous, and globally visible.

This proposal brings no burden, only benefit. It requires no budget, only goodwill. It demands no partisanship, only perspective.

We ask each of you, as elected representatives of our community, to do what Epsom and Ewell has done again and again since 2022: extend your hand, open your hearts, and lead with humanity.

With hope and determination,

Alan Avis

Tetyana Bilyk

Lionel Blackman

Roy Deadman

Galyna Donstova

Denise Faulkner

Vladimir Nakonechniyi

Lisa Stewart

Pierre-Michel Tarrant

Surrey Stands With Ukraine

Bucha-Epsom Association

Dear Surrey,

The countryside is your greatest achievement. A beautiful masterpiece built by centuries of collaboration between people and nature. From meadows and woodlands to rivers, coasts, and the green spaces that bind us together, the countryside connects and sustains us all.

For a century, the Campaign to Protect Rural England has been its guardian. Despite the relentless, growing pressure on our landscapes, we’ve stood up for the countryside and helped give the people who love it a voice. That will never change.

Many of the pressures facing our countryside today were familiar to our founders – not least the challenge of providing homes, infrastructure and prosperity on a small island. But new pressures have emerged with more catastrophic impacts on the land we love. Nature is in freefall and climate change threatens to alter our landscapes for good.

Now more than ever, decisions about how we use our land are leading to the needless loss of landscapes and everything they support. Without drastic action, much of what makes our countryside unique and beautiful will be lost.

Wherever we live, we rely on the countryside for clean air, home grown food, thriving wildlife and resilience in the face of climate change. Yet these foundations are being chipped away. Too often decisions are shaped by profit, not what’s needed most – and the countryside pays the price.

Here in Surrey, we have even been faced with a series of major housing developments, access roads, ‘solar farms’ and ‘battery energy storage systems’, in Green Belt countryside. Many of these sites are on the edge of the Surrey Hills National Landscape itself.

Now, as 2026 dawns we are now battling a growing number of planning applications which rely on councils downgrading Green Belt land to so-called ‘grey belt’, as well as excessive and unsustainable housebuilding targets imposed on local communities.

Our centenary vision is for a countryside that’s greener, more resilient and protected for future generations.  There is a better way – one we’re calling for, and one everyone can be part of:

• Stop the loss of countryside. Let’s protect what we love and do everything we can to make sure green fields and woodlands aren’t needlessly lost.

• Improve the quality of the countryside for future generations. That means thriving communities, clean rivers, healthy food and resilient landscapes rich in nature.

• Inspire more people to care for the countryside. A countryside for all where more people take action to enjoy and protect it.

Across the country, people are already showing what’s possible – restoring hedgerows, rethinking development and sustainable farming, and making space for nature.

As we begin our centenary year, we’re sending this message to everyone: love your countryside and be part of its future. This is just the beginning – and we all have a part to play in shaping what comes next.If you share this vision, join the movement today, add your name to this letter and stand with us.

Yours faithfully,

Andy Smith

Campaign for the Protection of Rural England (Surrey)

Photo: Surrey Hills Credit Aleksey Maksimov CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 DEED

From Councillor Alex Coley.

Dear Editor,

I read Emily Dalton’s article Ewell’s “UFO” shaped Bourne Hall to take off anew in the Epsom & Ewell Times with great interest, for a number of reasons.

I took part in the LGA Cultural Peer Challenge which looked at options for the future of Bourne Hall Museum in August last year. At that time, I was the lead Independent councillor in England for sector-led improvement, which is the local government policy area under which LGA peer challenges take place.

The peer challenge was notable for two things: firstly, the short notice and brevity of information provided; and secondly, the non-attendance of all but one Residents’ Association councillor (a former employee of Bourne Hall) at the group session where we met with the peer team. Seven RA councillors were invited, including the Leader of the Council. All four leaders of the opposition political groups were in attendance.

In October, I wrote to the Council’s Chief Executive asking when the report would be published, as is expected in all LGA peer challenges. I was told it would form part of the Community & Wellbeing Committee papers on 13 January 2026. When I noticed that the report was not included in the committee papers, I wrote again to the Chief Executive asking why not, and was told this would be sorted out, with the admission that she had thought it would be included. Yet it was never published or shown to members at the committee.

The day after members voted on the decision, I received a further email from the Chief Executive explaining that it had been decided to incorporate a high-level executive summary of the peer challenge report instead, as this was felt to better fit with the focus of the committee report. I was told this decision was taken in conjunction with the committee chair, Cllr Clive Woodbridge. The peer challenge report has still not been made public and, as such, I have submitted a Freedom of Information request to obtain it.

Internally, I understand that the report contains findings by the LGA peer team which are not favourable to Epsom & Ewell Borough Council. These reportedly include:

• General confusion and mixed messages about the museum’s closure
• A decision to exclude stewardship and governance questions from the scope of the museum’s future
• Failure to complete work recommended in a 2023 review of Bourne Hall
• Disproportionate recharge costs which do not reflect the true running costs of the museum
• Frustration on the part of the peer team at being unable to access more detailed income and expenditure information relating to Bourne Hall
• Fragmented staffing structures which may be contributing to gaps in communication, information-sharing and missed opportunities

Should I infer that the reason the report has not been made public is embarrassment to the Council, rather than a genuine desire for a high-level summary to better fit the focus of the committee report?

Cllr Clive Woodbridge, Chair of the Community & Wellbeing Committee, accepted that, “in hindsight”, the LGA report should have been included in the committee papers, after being challenged by Cllr Bernie Muir and Cllr Rob Geleit during the meeting. And yet, at the time of writing, it has still not been shared with the public.

Will it be made public before the Strategy & Resources Committee considers the £359,000 requested spending?

Yours faithfully,

Cllr Alex Coley

Independent – Ruxley

.

.

.

.

Related reports:

Ewell’s “UFO” shaped Bourne Hall to take off anew

Another Epsom and Ewell Borough Council cover-up of criticism?

Dear Editor,

In his letter of 13 January Trevor Burt makes a number of good points, including rightly calling out the determination of the ruling Residents Association (RA) clique to impose parish councils on the residents they claim to represent without giving them the opportunity to express support for an alternative “community governance” model.

He is also correct that Epsom and Ewell residents will have proportionately more influence in the smaller council of East Surrey than in the bigger pond of Surrey County Council.

But the RA’s determination to force through the creation of parish councils that have little support in the borough is explained by a simpler mathematical calculation. Even in the unlikely event that the political party that claims not to be a political party were to win all the seats available in our current borough, it would still be in a minority on the new council.

As I and others have said, parish councils are about preserving the relevance of a clique that is used to seeing Epsom and Ewell as its fiefdom.

In the meantime, the RA will continue to mismanage the council, as the latest fiasco over the Rainbow Leisure Centre shows, as it wastes the valuable time of council tax payer-funded officers on the pursuit of the RA councillors’ vanity project.

The Rainbow Centre fiasco also shows how determined the RA are to keep the truth of their incompetence from residents. It may interest your readers to know that I have written to the administration to seek confirmation that the decision to keep the huge repairs bill secret included an assessment of what the public interest required.

Yours faithfully,

Cllr Chris Ames (Labour – Court Ward)

Dear Editor,

Sadly, in his support and criticism of my stance on both SCC’s Neighbourhood Councils and the Town Council alternative, Trevor Burt (Letters to the Editor 13/01/26) seems to miss my point.

As I state in my penultimate paragraph, the engagement of residents in determining the outcomes of policies and spending in their area does not necessarily require replacement frameworks, large expenditure and more elections.  It can be undertaken by devolving funds to Unitary Authority Councillors individually or jointly to spend on local priorities, more local consultations, the co-designing of local services with residents, regular pulse surveys, as well as transferring local assets to communities. These opportunities provide for real localism and for all residents, if they choose, to have their say.

Yours faithfully,

Eber Kington

Residents Association County Councillor

Ewell Court, Auriol and Cuddington

.

.

.

Related letters:

Is Epsom and Ewell getting “proportional representation” under Council shake-up?

Long serving Epsom Councillor blasts LGR and NACs