Robots will be performing more operations, including general surgery and gynaecology at a Surrey NHS hospital trust seeking to introduce “significant savings”, a board meeting heard.

The Surrey and Sussex NHS trust held its much delayed annual general meeting on Thursday, March 30, where attendees heard from its chairperson, chief executive, and head of finance.

The afternoon meeting, which board members suggested may have led to its lower than usual attendance, was broken into three sections: a review of the year, a run through of its financial health, and questions from the floor.
Chairperson Richard Shaw led off proceedings explaining the AGM should have taken place in autumn last year but was delayed because of the late filing of its 2021/22 audited accounts.

Chief executive Angela Stevenson told the meeting that the 2021/22 year was heavily influenced by the “significant impact” of covid with “very tired”  staff “having to work under pressure”. This created a backlog the trust was only beginning to get back under control.

She said: “Staff were working with a disease that we didn’t know how to treat. We had high staff absences due to covid or due to family members having covid. Since then we’ve really got to grips with the backlog. We started to work through but at the start of 2022 these numbers were at their peak.”

Post pandemic, she said,  there was a huge increase in patients seeking primary care  compounded by the increase in “baseline complexity” as cases were left untreated during the pandemic.”

Ms Stevenson praised the trust for delivering robotic surgery for the first time and that it would be rolled out further to include general surgery and gynaecology services. They will also be investing in services with a new MRI department on the horizon – including new CT scanners at East Surrey and Crawley hospitals.

The trust also plans to work in partnership with other groups to better manage the health of the population rather than solely focus on its role as an acute hospital.

On finances, the meeting heard how its deficit continues to grow – even  not including the covid years.  It expects to run at a £26.5m deficit  for 2022/23.  This will be the first time the trust has run at a deficit since at least 2013/14 as spending pushes towards £400m a year.

Chief finance officer Paul Simpson said this could be partly attributed to an increase in staff costs. The hospital expects to take on an extra 130 new nurses. He said: “Now we have to recover the growth in costs that has happened and now we are (looking at) a significant savings plan.”

They were, however, quick to say “there should be no reason why we accept any reductions in quality of (care) for patients  and that before any cuts were made there would be full impact assessments on cost improvement plans.”

Image: Nimur at the English-language Wikipedia CC BY-SA 3.0

Surrey County Council has spent more than £800,000 in pothole compensation payouts in the last five years but it hopes front-loading the road maintenance budget will help end the broken-road scourge.

In that time it repaired about 221,456 potholes along its rundown road network, at an average of 121 per day. It was also announced that the Government was to give the county £3million to tackle the problem but some say this is “just a drop in the ocean” compared with how much the road budget falls in future years.

County hall’s finances this year include a capital fund of £69.8million for highways maintenance as part of a front-loaded £188m that was announced in February. 

That is set to fall back to £29.5m a year – for the next four years – much more in line with the spending under its previous highways strategy which has led to the roads we have today.

It was also announced that individual councillor allowances of £100,000 to spend in their divisions would go, meaning any individual projects earmarked by members can not go ahead.

If highway’s can not be maintained, the opposition leader at Surrey County Council warned, then the roads will fall into further disrepair and the number of potholes, and motorists insurance claims, will rocket.

Councillor Will Forster said: “The cut to is to the road maintenance budget, this will mean the road surfaces will get worse. The cut is notable in the next financial year 24/25 and makes the £3m to repair the potholes from the Government look like a drop in the ocean.”

In 2018, Surrey County Council paid out £399,189 in compensation payments for claims relating to potholes – on both carriage and footway.

This declined to £135,949 in 2019 and was followed by two years where people were off the roads during the pandemic £83,415 and £79,364 in 2020 and 2021 – before climbing again as roads got busier in 2022 to £118,553.

These figures, the council said, relate to both property damage and personal injury with the “best endeavours” made to only include  compensation payouts, however, “some figures may also include elements of legal costs and disbursements.”

A spokesperson for Surrey County Council said the road maintenance, capital, budget agreed by council in February totalled £188m for the next five years. 

They added that the budget was front loaded, because work had been accelerated in order to realise the benefits sooner. 

Image: Potholes in Surrey (Surrey Ad)

Related reports:

On the Hunt for pothole repairs

Don’t blame us for potholes say Surrey’s highway authority.

Going potty about pot-holes?

The owners of a Surrey oil field have signed an agreement to “deliver increased production and revenues” that will allow it to focus on its Dunsfold site.

Environmental campaigners, however, are still holding out hope the Supreme Court stops the drilling.

Uk Oil & Gas (UKOG) announced to shareholders that it was to “farm out” production at Horse Hill to the US-based Pennpetro Energy.

The Texas firm is to takeover 12 kilometres at the site, just north of Gatwick Airport, at a maximum cost of £4.6m.
Announcing the tie up Stephen Sanderson UKOG’s chief executive said: “This mutually advantageous transaction will inject new activity into Horse Hill, aiming squarely to deliver increased production and revenues from the oil field. 

“The farmout enables UKOG to move this asset forwards without the need to raise capital, enabling our resources to be firmly focussed upon the appraisal and development of the Loxley gas discovery, our most material petroleum asset.  We look forward to a close working relationship with Pennpetro and a mutually successful future at Horse Hill.”

UKOG refers to its holdings at Dunsfold as its Loxley site and hopes to drill for £123 million of oil near the  Surrey Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty – pending its own High Court review.

Environmental campaigners who have been fighting against oil drilling at Horse Hill are still confident that the new company’s involvement will not change things materially.

In June the Supreme Court will sit for a legal challenge against Surrey County Council’s 2019 decision to grant planning for the four extra wells at Horse Hill. The same year the county also declared a climate emergency.

The application will go before the UK’s highest court after three judges were split in their findings –   that the county council’s decision to grant permission for 25 years of oil drilling and production was lawful.

According to UKOG the Horse Hill site has so far produced about 185,000 barrels of with approximately 1.362 million barrels still available.

Campaigner Sarah Finch of Redhill argues that the permission is out of touch amid the global climate crisis, 
Sarah Finch said: “We are taking legal action that is going through the Supreme Court in June.

“Currently the planning is subject to a legal challenge. There is still a possibility that the Supreme Court will not give it the go ahead. There has been low level production for a while there even though they got permission for expansion in 2019. I don’t think this new company’s involvement will change anything.”

Sarah started the campaign against the drill site on climate impact grounds -not just from the impact the drilling would have in the immediate area but the wider overall effect from burning the collected oil.

She added: “It will take us away from keeping climate change within limits. Horse Hill will just make hitting those targets more difficult. I’ve been concerned about climate change for a very long time and when a new oil well was proposed near my home I was horrified and we really needed to stop it going ahead. And it’s not just me, lots of residents have been involved. There have been a series of planning applications for the site but these four new wells were agreed in 2019, such a huge ramp up. That is why I decided it needed a legal campaign.”

The Supreme Court is due to sit on June 21 after the Court of Appeal reached a split decision.

Epsom and Ewell Borough Council is slap in the middle of the 11 Surrey boroughs table of band D council tax charges for 2023/2024. The difference between the highest and lowest is £78.20 per annum. As reported by The Epsom and Ewell Times it should be no surprise to find debt ridden Woking having the highest. Emily Coady-Stemp LDRS reports on the full Surrey County wide picture and Epsom and Ewell Times produces the table.

Related reports:

Budget Report: More council tax for Epsom and Ewell

Epsom and Ewell Council raises tax 2.99%

2023/2024: average of £50 more to pay Surrey County Council

Council tax bills for Surrey residents will go up from April 1 after authorities confirmed their budgets for the coming financial year. Surrey County Council, the Police and Crime Commissioner, and each of the county’s 11 districts and boroughs, confirmed their increases separately last month, with council tax bills and collection being the responsibility of the districts and boroughs.

The Police and Crime Commissioner, Lisa Townsend, confirmed a rise of £15 per year for residents amid an increase in Surrey Police’s fuel bills of more than £500,000.

While Surrey County Council, which is responsible for adult social care as well as services including road repairs and schools, increased its share by £50 per year on Band D homes.

See below for a breakdown of the council tax bands in your area.

Elmbridge Borough Council
The average Band D property in Elmbridge will pay £2,229.00, except in the Claygate parish, where the bill for a Band D home will be £2,243.15.

Band A: £1,486.00
Band B: £1,733.66
Band C: £1,981.33
Band D: £2,229.00
Band E: £2,724.34
Band F: £3.219.67
Band G: £3,715.00
Band H: £4,458.00

Epsom and Ewell Borough Council
Residents in Surrey’s smallest borough will see council tax bills of £2205.25 from April, for the average Band D property.

Band A: £1,470.17
Band B: £1,715.19
Band C: £1,960.22
Band D: £2,205.25
Band E: £2,695.31
Band F: £3,185.36
Band G: £3,675.42
Band H: £4,410.50

Guildford Borough Council
The bill for Band D households in Guildford will be £2178.06, excluding parish and town councils. For Band D the parish share ranges from no extra charge in Wisley to £2291.71 for a Band D property in Normandy.

Band A: £1,452.04
Band B: £1,694.04
Band C: £1,936.05
Band D: £2,178.06
Band E: £2,662.07
Band F: £3,146.08
Band G: £3,630.1
Band H: £4,356.11

Mole Valley District Council
In Mole Valley, the average Band D property will pay £2,184.84, except where there are parish councils. In Charlwood, with the highest parish council precept, residents in a Band D property will pay £2,259.09.

Band A: £1456.56
Band B: £1699.32
Band C: £1,942.08
Band D: £2,184.84
Band E: £2,670.36
Band F: £3,155.88
Band G: £3,641.4
Band H: £4,369.68

Reigate and Banstead Borough Council
A Band D home in Reigate and Banstead will pay £2,235.36 from April, while residents in the Horley Town Council Area will pay £2,283.12 and in Salfords and Sidlow will pay £2,265.08.

Band A: £1,490.24
Band B: £1,738.61
Band C: £1,986.98
Band D: £2,235.36
Band E: £2,732.11
Band F: £3,228.85
Band G: £3,725.60
Band H: £4,470.72

Runnymede Borough Council
Runnymede residents in Band D property will pay £2,170.57.

Band A: £1,447.05
Band B: £1,688.22
Band C: £1,929.39
Band D: £2,170.57
Band E: £2,652.92
Band F: £3,135.27
Band G: £3,617.62
Band H: £4,341.14

Spelthorne Borough Council
Residents in a Band D property will pay £2,201.79 for their council tax in Spelthorne.

Band A: £1,467.86
Band B: £1,712.50
Band C: £1,957.14
Band D: £2,201.79
Band E: £2,691.08
Band F: £3,180.36
Band G: £3,669.65
Band H: £4,403.58

Surrey Heath Borough Council
Surrey Heath’s amount for a Band D property is £2226.30, plus the amounts paid to parish councils throughout the borough. Bands listed below are for the most expensive parish, in Bisley.

Band A: £1,523.45
Band B: £1,777.35
Band C: £2,031.26
Band D: £2,285.17
Band E: £2,792.99
Band F: £3,300.8
Band G: £3,808.62
Band H: £4,570.6

Tandridge District Council
In Tandridge, a Band D property’s council tax will be £2,223.53 2023/24. Parishes in the district range from no additional charge, to £2,311.97 in the most expensive, Crowhurst.

Band A: £1,482.36
Band B: £1,729.41
Band C: £1,976.47
Band D: £2,223.53
Band E: £2,717.65
Band F: £3,211.76
Band G: £3,705.89
Band H: £4,447.06

Waverley Borough Council
A Band D home, excluding parish council charges, is set at £2,187.29 in Waverley. The most expensive parish bills are in Godalming, and shown below.

Band A: £1,530.45
Band B: £1,785.52
Band C: £2,040.60
Band D: £2,295.67
Band E: £2,805.82
Band F: £3,315.97
Band G: £3,826.12
Band H: £4,591.34

Woking Borough Council
In Woking, residents in a Band D home will pay £2,248.77.

Band A: £1,499.18
Band B: £1,749.04
Band C: £1,998.90
Band D: £2,248.77
Band E: £2,748.50
Band F: £3,248.22
Band G: £3,747.95
Band H: £4,497.54

Arundel FC 5-1 Epsom & Ewell FC. Saturday 25th March.

Arundel, nicknamed the Mullets, secured their first ever competitive victory over us in comprehensive circumstances at Mill Road on Saturday afternoon with a 5-1 drubbing, and make no mistake, we could have no real complaints here.

_{Top of Southern Combination League Division One}

We made some changes once again from our narrow but comfortable win over Montpelier Villa two weeks previously. Jaan Stanley and Athan Smith-Joseph were not available and originally Jaevon Dyer was listed as a substitute, due to a breakdown on route to the picturesque ground. Fortunately he arrived in time and was then added to the team sheet at the expense of Steve Springett who dropped to the bench. Alex Penfold also joined him there, while Lewis Pearch came in for his first start and we had another new centre back pairing of Dylan Merchant and Oliver Thompson with Kevin Moreno-Gomez also returning to the starting eleven alongside them.

On a blustery day we made an awful start and went behind in the eleventh minute as a harmless enough attack on the left suddenly turned dangerous with a ball across goal that was turned into the net by Carl Brown. Six minutes later Tom Theobald made a decent punch clear of a looping header and appeared to be fouled in the process, yet a corner was awarded and in the 18th minute the inswinging delivery caught Theobald out in the swirling wind and he dropped the ball over the line for Arundel’s second goal.

We had created little to this point although Jamie Byatt fashioned a half chance a couple of minutes after the goal, only to see his shot blocked by a defender. Dyer then made decent progress down the right flank but his pull back was behind both Byatt and Pearch.

Regrettably we then went three nil down in the 33rd minute as a clever pass floated over the top of Moreno-Gomez where Brown was waiting to drill the ball into the net from an angle and it nearly got worse six minutes later when James Crane then hit the bar as we were carved open again. The half ended with the home side having another good chance from a corner but the unmarked Harry Russell headed over the bar.

This was a horrible first half to watch and whilst you always feel that a good start to the second half could spark some sort of comeback, it really looked as though the only win we were likely to celebrate at Arundel was when long-serving supporter John Bonner won a crate of lager in the club raffle!

The other item of note at the half time break was the sight of our entire Management team standing outside the dressing room as the players clearly had some sort of discussion without them. Whatever was said, it seemed to work for a while. We made two substitutions with Rory Edwards and Springett coming on for the limping Smith and Moreno-Gomez respectively and nearly scored straight away as a Springett corner was flicked just over the bar by Nick Wilson. Next up with a decent chance was Gavin Quintyne who tried his luck with his weaker foot and sliced the opportunity wide. However, he made amends in the 50th minute when he weaved his way across the edge of the penalty area before threading a pass through to Byatt, who guided the ball back across Oliver Howley in the Arundel goal from twelve yards which then crept in off the far post to get us back in the game.

Another Springett corner caused trouble as Merchant headed the delivery towards Thompson, whose header was just over the bar, but our only period of superiority in the match was about to end. Thompson limped off with an injured knee and whilst it was good to see Johnny “Sonic” Akoto returning after a few weeks out, his introduction required a defensive reshuffle. Whether this had a bearing on the next Arundel goal in the 63rd minute is hard to say, but a harmless ball in from the right was struck at goal by an unmarked player, and whilst Theobald made a good save from the first shot, Will Breden was also in acres of space and he drove the loose ball home from a few yards out with our defence absolutely nowhere in sight.

In the 72nd minute it got worse still as a low ball in from the right was tapped in at the far post for a fifth goal by Breden once again, and we were lucky not to concede more with Wilson being our latest sin-bin visitor around this time, while Byatt and Quintyne both picked up yellow cards for fouls to go with the first half issue to Smith. Our afternoon was then summed up when Dyer put substitute George Owusu through on goal ten minutes from time, only for him to tread on the ball in the act of shooting!

Now that ten man Shoreham’s victory over East Preston has virtually guaranteed them the title, it is imperative we cling on to second place to guarantee the home playoff matches. The players kept trying in this contest, even at the end and I’m aware that some more new signings are likely as we approach the transfer deadline on 31st March, but if we don’t get back to winning ways on Wednesday at Mile Oak, we could slip out of that position. We cannot make any more mistakes now.

This is not just about us though. We didn’t play well but full credit should also go to Arundel who played with a lot of energy and just appeared to cover a lot more ground per player than we did and will no doubt chase Selsey all the way for that final playoff spot, in which case we may well see them again before the end of the season. However, this is a massive reality check for us. Are we actually good enough to go up? We’ll probably find out the answer to that question on Wednesday as we face a Mile Oak team that have also lost 5-1 this weekend.

Epsom & Ewell: Tom Theobald, Gideon Acheampong, Kevin Moreno-Gomez, Ryan Smith (c), Oliver Thompson, Dylan Merchant, Jaevon Dyer, Nick Wilson, Jamie Byatt, Gavin Quintyne, Lewis Pearch

Subs: Steve Springett for Moreno-Gomez, (HT), Rory Edwards for Smith (HT), Johnny Akoto for Thompson (58), George Owusu for Byatt (76)

Report Source: www.eefconline.co.uk

Following the report on Woking’s woes we have Emily Coady-Stemp from LDRS report on another sister Surrey borough’s woes over property investments:

Spelthorne’s former leader says “hand on heart” he still believes the borough council’s commercial property investments were “utterly legal”. The councillor said the authority had taken legal advice on the decision to purchase the buildings but raised concerns about other councils with high borrowing costs.

_{Image: Spelthorne Borough Council audit committee on March 23, 2023. Credit: Emily Coady-Stemp}

Councillor Ian Harvey (United Spelthorne Group, Sunbury East), who was leader of Spelthorne Borough Council at the time three commercial properties were bought outside of the borough in 2017/18, was responding to a public interest report carried out by its auditors. He told a meeting of the borough council’s audit committee on Thursday (March 23) his first question at the time the possibility of buying properties came up was: “Is it legal?”
He said the advice given at the time by the council’s KC was that it was legal, and that the decision had “repeatedly been determined to be legal subsequently”.

The report, publicly released in November, claimed the council had “acted unlawfully” in its decision to buy properties outside of the borough, and set out five recommendations for the authority.

At a December meeting of the council, councillors agreed the recommendations set out in the KPMG report, and Thursday’s meeting was an update on the action plan to come about from that.

The current council leader, Cllr John Boughtflower (Conservative, Ashford East) said in December the council “should not have any difficulties” accepting the recommendations, because of changes to processes at the council and issues that had been addressed since the purchases.

Cllr Harvery asked auditors at Thursday’s meeting, who were presenting their report into the 2017/18 accounts, if they had assessed the council’s risks “compared to some other spectacularly investing local authorities for example, Slough, Croydon, Thurrock”. He also asked about comparisons to Woking Borough Council, where the current administration has warned an effective bankruptcy may be declared, saying they had “borrowed more than we have without any surety of repayment”.

Later in the meeting Cllr Harvey said: “I can say hand on heart that we were assured, and I still believe, it is utterly legal. And if what we did was illegal then what a lot of other councils have done, and spectacularly failed, at was far, far more illegal.” He claimed the difference in legal opinions was because KPMG had “relied on a much more junior barrister within the same chambers who came up with a dissenting view”.

Cllr Lawrence Nichols (Liberal Democrat, Halliford and Sunbury West) said though the advice was taken from a “very well qualified QC”, it amounted to 19 words of legal advice for more than £200million of expenditure in 2017/18. He also questioned the diversity of the council’s property portfolio and the advice sought from how to manage commercial properties. He told the meeting: “I do think we out to be more realistic about diversification. We are in the office business, whether it’s an engineering company or a dental practice, that’s not the issue. It’s the office market we’re in, so that’s our diversification risk.”

In response to an expected £60m of rental income dropping to £46m for next year, which Cllr Nichols said was a “massive change of direction”, the council’s chief accountant Paul Taylor said £7m rent guarantee income had been released and would be going into the council’s revenue budget.

The meeting heard that a new group head of assets had recently started at the council and that a “fully worked up action plan” would come to the committee’s next meeting in July. Spelthorne’s chief executive, Daniel Mouawad, said the nearly half a decade turnaround in the audit report for 2017/18, the last stage of which was the public interest report, was “by any measure” a “remarkably poor turnaround”. But he added that nearly a year’s delay could be “directly attributed to the actions of one individual Spelthorne councillor” which was currently being investigated under the members code of conduct.

When asking a question on this individual, Cllr Harvey was cut off by the chair, his wife Cllr Helen Harvey (United Spelthorne Group, Sunbury East), though officers did confirm they would revert with a response on the cost of the delay caused by the councillor concerned.

KPMG representatives confirmed an “adverse conclusion” would be issued in relation to the “value for money arrangements” for the 2017/18 accounts, the same as in the 2016/17 accounts where recommendations and weaknesses raised were “still in place in the 2017/18 period”.

The meeting also heard that a review into the council’s borrowing carried out by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities should be coming to an end this week

In response to a public question on the review, the chair said the council was not “privy to the terms of reference or have any expectations to receive the final report within any given period”.

It was hoped this report would also come to the next committee meeting in July, though Terry Collier, the council’s deputy chief executive, said it had been hoped there may be a draft report available by Thursday’s meeting.

Epsom and Ewell Times has followed the finances at this sister Surrey borough. We all should perhaps be concerned and learn lessons from a County borough that can get in such a mess. In contrast Epsom and Ewell Borough Council has been balancing its books for years. At the end of the day where will the money come from to save Woking? Local Democracy Reporter Chris Caulfield reports:

The dire financial future of Woking Borough Council was laid bare with senior figures warning of the “significant risk” of it effectively going bankrupt as its cash reserves run dry.

The council’s executive committee met on Thursday March 23 to hear an update on its financial strategy. It was told of the budgeted shortfall of £9.5m for the next financial year and the swingeing cuts coming as it moved to provide only the minimum levels of services – those it must provide by law.

Woking Borough Council’s financial disaster is the product of years of heavy borrowing to pay for a failing investment portfolio. The previous administration had hoped this would generate income but instead it has saddled the local authority with annual interest repayments of more than £60m a year while only generating £38.5m. 

Councillor Dale Roberts is now the portfolio holder for finance on the council. He said it had gone to the government seeking to lower the minimum amount it can set aside to repay its loans and has been searching for further  “restrictions on expenditure necessary to address the budgeted shortfall of £9.5m for 24/25. He added: “Both of which relate to the ongoing and significant risk of issuing a section 114 notice.”

Councils can not go bankrupt. Instead, they enter what is known as being under section 114 notice and means they cannot make new spending commitments.

He also said the council would seek to try to fund “transformational projects” through any capital receipts.  Cllr Ian Johnson (Lib Dem, Mount Hermon) said: “It shows a stark issue, the deficit next year is £9.5million based on current numbers,  and yet our services expenditure is just under £45m. So that’s a 20 per cent difference. So we need either cost savings or revenue generation to be able to cover that gap of 20  per cent.Because the £62million interest payments we are making at the minute could well go up given today’s interest rate rises.

“Its unaffordable at the present level. We know that DLUHC (the Department for Levelling up, Housing and Communities) have been in the office talking to us for the last couple of months. Until we get their report as well we won’t be able to be definitive in where we’re progressing with any of the business we’ve got including talking to the government  about our debt levels and how we might be assisted in reducing the interest payments we make.”

DLUHC was not expected to return any decision until the start of the new political year in May. Cllr Dale Roberts said:  “The enormity of the task ahead of us for next year, the affordability of the borrowing, the degree that we have to find savings are deeply concerning.”

Cllr Stephen Dorsett (Con. Pyrford)  asked about the possibility of future savings if council was already operating at “statutory spend only” – that is for services the council is legally obligated to provide. Cllr Roberts said: “Even costs savings cost”.

Leader of the council Anne Marie Barker said: “We’re having to put controls on day to day spend and just keep a very tight rein on everything. We’ve got our balanced budget for the year by using reserves but going forward that £9.5m next year, and more than that the following year, we do need to do a fundamental review of what were doing and how were doing it. It’s the only way we can make those budgets balance, the reserves aren’t going to last forever.”

Related reports:

Would you want to live in Woking?

Woking up to a very big debt problem

Surrey County Council and Connected Kerb have agreed a contract to support the rollout of thousands of electric vehicle chargepoints across the county in the coming years. The contract, the largest in the UK to date, will release up to £60million of investment for Connected Kerb to install public EV chargepoints across the county. The aim will be to install thousands over the next five years and Connected Kerb have been licensed to operate the chargepoints for 15 years from installation.

_{Image credit: Andy Hughes.}

Increasing the number public chargepoints in Surrey will support residents who would like to switch to an electric vehicle (or already have done), but do not have a driveway to be able to install a chargepoint at their home. Through this contract, chargepoints will be installed at convenient on-street locations in residential areas and key locations in the community such as on high streets and public car parks.

Connected Kerb will install a mix of chargepoints, depending on location, to suit all needs. This will include slower 3kW and 7kW chargepoints, as well as fast 22kW chargepoints and, where suitable, rapid chargepoints. Their product range includes free-standing and wall-mounted chargepoints, which will cater to those with accessibility needs.

The partnership will see a rapid rollout of on-street charge points, with ambitious plans to install hundreds of charge points within the first year It aims to make one in five of the EV charging bays more accessible to drivers with disabilities, in recognition of the need to make EV adoption a practical reality for the 2.35 million blue badge holders on UK roads[i].

The recent Net Zero Review, published by the Government’s advisor Rt Hon Chris Skidmore MP, highlighted the opportunity for local authorities to take a leading role in the rollout of charging infrastructure. The partnership between Surrey County Council and Connected Kerb supports the delivery of ambitious EV charging infrastructure rollouts at the scale and pace needed to meet targets set by the government and to keep pace with rapidly growing EV adoption – up 40% in 2022 compared to 2021.

Throughout the contract, Connected Kerb will be identifying suitable on-street locations, using residents’ suggestions made through our online map, and approaching public sector and community land owners across the county to identify other suitable locations for public EV chargepoints, including local car carks, NHS sites and educational establishments.

Marisa Heath, Cabinet Member for Environment, Surrey County Council, said: “We know that emissions from transport are a significant proportion of our carbon footprint in Surrey, so supporting residents to switch to an electric car is essential to helping us achieve our aim of being a net zero county by 2050.

“Many residents don’t have access to driveways to charge EVs at home, so a comprehensive network of high-quality, reliable and accessible EV chargepoints is essential to supporting the needs of our local communities.

“We’ve been working with Connected Kerb for almost a year, as part of our pilot phases that have seen us install over 100 chargepoints across Surrey over the last two years. We’re delighted this contract will enable us to speed up the roll-out of further chargepoints and expand our network in the coming years.”

Chris Pateman-Jones, CEO of Connected Kerb, said: “If one local authority can deliver such a significant boost to the UK’s charging network, just imagine what we could achieve by 2030 if every city, county, and combined authority was empowered to do the same. The recent Net Zero Review was clear – local authorities can become the driving force behind the rollout of charging infrastructure across the country, and our partnership with Surrey County Council is case and point.

“If local authorities are the door to a clean transport future, then charging networks like Connected Kerb are the key, providing the tools and expertise needed to unlock the transition at the pace and scale required to reach net zero. Although the Government’s estimate of 300,000 chargers by 2030 may feel ambitious, it’s eminently possible – and necessary – to achieve; this deal proves it.”

In addition to the EV chargepoints, the contract will delivery significant value to Surrey residents through Connected Kerb’s social value projects. These will cover a range of initiatives including working with local educational centres to provide industry support to pupils interested in learning about EV chargepoints, providing employability support to vulnerable young people, as well as supporting a number of charities within the county.

• The contract enables up to £60million of investment to provide public EV chargepoints across Surrey
• Chargepoints will be installed at on-street locations as well as on other suitable public sector and community organisation managed car parks
• Partnership underlines findings of the recent Net Zero Revies which highlighted local authorities as the key to reaching the UK Government’s 300,000 chargepoint target

Epsom and Ewell council voted to “pause” its controversial Local Plan last night, with one Residents’
Association (RA) councillor leaving the meeting after suggesting it was about “forthcoming elections
rather than planning policy”. The length of the “pause” has not been specified.

Local elections are due to take place on 4 May.

Councillor Alex Coley (Residents’ Association, Ruxley Ward) told the council: “Considering this motion on its merits, I feel that a more appropriate location might be the Playhouse around Christmas time.” “We seem to be debating the forthcoming elections rather than planning policy”, he added, suggesting that the pause “ultimately changes very little”. Cllr Coley then told the council: “I will leave you now to your debate.”

The motion to pause the Local Plan was put forward by councillor Eber Kington (Residents’ Association, Ewell Court Ward) and six other RA councillors. Cllr Kington said that a pause would acknowledge “the strength of public feeling” on the Plan, enable a reassessment of brownfield sites, and provide the opportunity to look at options that do not use Greenbelt land at all. He added: “We have to take notice of what residents are telling us, through whatever means they choose.”

The public consultation on the Draft Local Plan ended on Sunday (19 March) with around 1,500 responses. A petition calling to “Keep Epsom and Ewell Greenbelt” has also reached 10,000 signatures, which is thought to be the greatest response to a petition in the borough’s history.

Campaign group Epsom Greenbelt held a protest to “Welcome Councillors” outside of last night’s meeting, and were calling for “Green not greed”.

Councillor Bernie Muir (Conservative, Stamford Ward) said she had “no option” but to vote for the pause, despite believing that “nothing in this motion will actually stop this plan from going ahead in the end”.

The pause was discussed in light of expected changes to government planning legislation, including updated guidance on Greenbelt development and how to calculate housing need.

One part of the motion states: “Under the existing legislation Local Planning Authorities are being required to draft Local Plans on the basis of out of date, 2014, data that does not reflect Epsom and Ewell’s housing need, as shown in more recently available 2018 data.”

Councillor Peter O’Donovan (Residents’ Association, Ewell Court Ward) said that pausing was not an option because the government had not given at timeframe for its legislative changes. He added that without an up-to-date Local Plan, there was a danger of inappropriate development, and said: “we need to continue on our current strategy, to protect the borough, to produce a plan that protects our Greenbelt.”

Councillor Kate Chinn (Labour, Court Ward) said that there was a huge need for housing in the borough, particularly social and affordable housing, but that there should be no development on the Greenbelt until every other option had been exhausted. She said that Labour councillors would be voting to pause the Plan.

Councillor Julie Morris (Liberal Democrats, College Ward) said: “There’s really quite a divide, isn’t there, amongst the ruling group?” She said: “We should have been much more clear about the direction that this document was going in, and that’s the problem you’ve got now – you are now having to do a U-turn because it was all kept secret for quite a long time and the public are not happy, understandably.”

Cllr Morris said that it was difficult to know whether to vote for the motion, especially when it did not include any endpoint for the pause, but said that it was the right thing to do on balance.

Councillor Steven McCormick (Residents’ Association, Woodcote Ward) had five minutes to respond to the points raised because, as chair of the Licensing and Planning Policy Committee, he had led the development of the Local Plan. He said that the proposed pause was reliant on the idea that the government would publish changes
to planning policy in May, but that some legislation change may not come until 2024.

Cllr McCormick added that the motion to pause the Plan would create “huge uncertainty” and said: “the best thing for protecting the Greenbelt is to progress”. Cllr McCormick voted against the pause.

The council voted to pause the Local Plan by a clear majority, with four councillors ( RA Cllrs Dallen, O’Donovan, McCormick and Nash) voting against the pause and Cllr Williamson abstaining.

The text of the motion is HERE.

See editorial.

Letters to the Editor from Peter Prowse and Kevin Meager.

From Peter Prowse – 22nd March 2023

For the past year, Epsom and Ewell French Club has been hiring a room (The Studio) at Bourne Hall for its monthly meetings.  The Council had agreed a discounted hire rate of £20 per hour, so £40 for our two hours, on the third Tuesday of each month. 

Without any prior consultation and with very little notice, the Council has just announced that from April (ie in 10 days’ time) the Club will be charged a new ‘discounted’ rate of £35.36 per hour, so £70.72 for its two-hour booking, plus a new charge of £25 per session for use of the hot water urn (which has until now been provided free of charge). 

Image: Bourne Hall Ewell Credit Bobulous – Own work. CC BY-SA 4.0

That would put the cost to the club up from £40 per booking to £95.72. 

The club cannot possibly afford these prices.  Other community groups who use Bourne Hall will be in the same position.  Unless small, local clubs and societies can continue to use Bourne Hall for something very close to the 2022 prices, many will have to close.

Epsom & Ewell French Club is a non-commercial community group, provided for the benefit of its members and anybody else who want to come to its meetings.  It is closely allied to the Epsom and Ewell Town Twinning Association, which is supported by the Borough Council.  

The club almost folded during the Covid pandemic and its committe worked very hard to build it back up to the point where it is now attracting enough interest and support to keep going – provided it does not have to pay these new ridiculously expensive room hire costs. Bourne Hall exists for the benefit of local residents.  This latest price hike means that many of them will no longer be able to use it.

Peter Prowse.

Letter from Kevin Meager

23rd March 2023

I would like to follow up on the letter to the editor regarding the hike in hire charges at Bourne Hall. I organise weekly dance classes in the main hall on Monday evenings through my organisation, Ceroc Surrey and we’ve been hit with similar charge increases with little to no notice. If this increase remains in place, we will have to stopping running classes at Bourne Hall as the new hire charges are unaffordable. The vast majority of our dancers are local, many are of retirement age and this is either their main or only weekly social event. Apart from lockdown, we’ve been using the venue continuously for over 20 years!

Your faithfully,

Kevin Meager

A mother claims Surrey County Council “makes her sick” as she says delays to assessing her son’s special educational needs are causing “a lot of stress”.

At a protest held outside the authority’s Reigate headquarters, the mother, along with others, called for change at the council in how Surrey’s children with additional needs are treated.

_{Image: Parents protesting outside Surrey County Council headquarters in Woodhatch Place, Reigate. Credit: Emily Coady-Stemp}

Anna Sutherland, protesting for the fifth time outside the Woodhatch Place building, said parents being sent down the tribunal route, as they are if they want to appeal against a council’s assessment of their children, “put a lot on families”.

She claimed the education, health and care plan (EHCP) issued to her 11-year-old son by the county council was “unlawful” but that because she knew the law, and knew what he was entitled to, she would “get there in the end”. Ms Sutherland told the LDRS: “This makes me ill. Surrey council make me sick.”

With her 9-year-old daughter’s EHCP also up for an annual review soon, Ms Sutherland feared she may have two tribunals on her hands. On previous protests, cabinet members on Surrey County Council have come out to talk to the parents present, but did not on Tuesday (March 21).

When the group of parents decided to attend the council meeting taking place that morning, they were told they could only do so if they left their placards in the building’s reception downstairs.

Ms Sutherland said many families with children with additional needs had “a lot to deal with in the first place” and additional chasing of EHCPs, tribunals and school places was “a lot to put on families”. Saying many families also had to work, may also have neuro-diverse conditions themselves and the “huge impact” on a parent’s mental health of going through a child’s diagnoses she said the parents at the protest were representing a “much huger group”. She added: “On top of the stress they put on you, then having the additional strength or the additional drive to protest, a lot of families just can’t do that.”

Clare Powdrill said delays to the EHCP process for her son had led to her spending more than £30,000 in two tribunals, both conceded by the council the day before the hearing. She said: “I am protesting because Surrey County Council have seriously let my son down.” Another parent, Charlotte Lewis, also said EHCP processes had been delayed “at every step” and timelines not been met by Surrey County Council. She said: “Many parents are being forced into a lengthy and expensive appeals process which is usually won but can delay children’s access to an education by years in some cases. ”

A council spokesperson said: “We are not able to comment on the details of any individual children, but we can confirm that all current EHCPs were updated in line with statutory timescales to enable children’s transition to the next phase of their education. If a parent is unhappy with the content of their child’s updated plan, we would urge them to contact their case officer as soon as possible, so that any issues can be resolved.

“We always aim to resolve disagreements without families needing to go through a tribunal process, however, they do have the right to do so, and if it remains the view of the local authority that the latest education health and care plan accurately reflects a child’s needs and the provision required to meet their needs, then, in these rare cases the tribunal is the appropriate route to resolve the dispute.”

Surrey councillors have confirmed written communications are ongoing with Transport for London over the impact of the ULEZ expansion. Surrey County Councillor Robert Evans (Labour, Stanwell and Stanwell Moor) asked cabinet members at a full council meeting on Tuesday (March 21) to confirm that the mitigations the council was calling for would be followed up with the chancellor.

He claimed previous attempts to extend the Transport for London (TfL) Oyster card zone 6 in several Surrey boroughs had “floundered” because central government would not underwrite potential losses to the train companies.

_{Image: Ultra Low Emission Zone, Stonebridge Park. Credit: Will Durrant/LDRS}

Cllr Evans called on Surrey’s cabinet to “work with TfL and the Mayor of London to make sure that Surrey residents get the health benefits of this, but don’t get negative impacts if ULEZ comes into operation.”
The zone, which sees drivers of older, more polluting cars charged £12.50 per day to enter it, is due to expand to cover all of greater London from August.

The ULEZ currently covers central London and its expansion will see it border several Surrey districts and boroughs including Spelthorne, Elmbridge and Epsom.

In response to TfL’s plans to extend the zone, Elmbridge councillors previously called for the Oyster Card Zone 6 to be expanded further, highlighting the difference between public transport in London and in Surrey.
Cllr Evans said schemes in Bristol, Coventry, Birmingham and elsewhere had seen the government “pick up the bill for a scrappage scheme”.

The council’s cabinet member for transport, infrastructure and growth, Cllr Matt Furniss, (Conservative, Shalford) confirmed face-to-face meetings had been requested with TfL, but said he was “disappointed to say it only took the threat of legal action to get transport London to respond.” He said the council did “ask the government regularly for additional funding” and would be talking to them about the impact of the planned extension.

Meeting documents showed a virtual meeting took place between with TfL, county council officers and Elmbridge Borough Council officers on February 21.

A written response was received from TfL as a follow up to the meeting on March 7, which was being looked at and a response drafted from the council. The documents said: “The council is committed to delivering a greener future, but it must be done in a practical and sustainable way. …..The impact of an expanded ULEZ on many Surrey residents and businesses will be significant, and we will not stand by and watch that happen with no mitigation offered.”

During the meeting, Cllr Evans also reminded the scheme had been brought about by Boris Johnson, during his time as Mayor of London. Former Prime Minister Mr Johnson was London Mayor between 2008 and 2016, and announced the introduction of the world’s first ULEZ in London in 2015. It was introduced from April 2019.

A written response was received from TfL as a follow up to the meeting on March 7, which was being looked at and a response drafted from the council.

Cllr Buddhi Weerasinghe (Conservative, Lower Sunbury and Halliford) said he was supporting a campaign by residents to get Ashford and Sunbury stations, among others in Spelthorne, added to Zone 6. He also highlighted the needs of the expanding Shepperton Studios that he said had been put in a letter to government regarding its work force needing to travel to and from the studios by train.

The Government will give an additional £3.7m for pothole repairs in Surrey. But one Surrey councillor is calling for ministers to “go further” and change the way road funding is allocated from Westminster.

Tuesday’s budget, delivered by South West Surrey MP Jeremy Hunt, announced an additional £200million for 2023/24 across the country for pothole repair.

Surrey County Council’s deputy cabinet member for levelling up, Councillor Rebecca Paul (Conservative, Tadworth, Walton & Kingswood) said she was “delighted” the Government had recognised more funding was needed in Surrey for road repairs. She told the LDRS: “The recent spate of potholes across our county affects every single one of us, so this additional money is much welcomed.” She called on the Government to “go further and give serious consideration” to changing how highways maintenance funding is allocated to take into account traffic volume.

Cllr Paul delivered a petition to Downing Street in June 2022 calling for funding for road repairs to be allocated by usage rather than the current formula which looks at the length of roads. She said: “This would result in a fairer allocation of funds so that Surrey Highways is better able to address the backlog.”

Roads minister Richard Holden said the cash could mean another 75,000 potholes repaired. He also praised Surrey’s lane rental scheme, which he said the county had been “at the forefront” of rolling out. The scheme, rolled out in 2021, charges companies for works which cause delay at peak times on the county’s busiest roads.
Mr Holden said the scheme minimised delays from roadworks taking place because they were more often carried out at the same time, and this also reduced damage to roads. He told the LDRS he wanted to see that rolled out more across the country.

On Cllr Paul’s calls for “fairer funding” from central government, Mr Holden said it was “swings and roundabouts” because a lot of the strategic road network, paid for out of national taxation, was in Surrey. He added: “I’m always willing to listen to local concerns about these issues. I think it’s vitally important that we do get the balance right when it comes to road funding.”

A motion will be brought to a meeting of Surrey County Council on Tuesday, calling for the adoption of a “Vision Zero Safe System” and setting a target date for zero fatalities and severe injuries on Surrey’s roads. Will Forster (Lib Dem, Woking South) will bring forward a motion saying: “Road collision statistics in Surrey have hardly changed over the last ten years. In 2021 24 people were killed and 647 were seriously injured. The effects of a road traffic collision can have a physical, emotional, social and economic impact on everyone involved. In financial terms the cost of road collisions in Surrey was approximately £250 million in 2021.”

A Surrey County Council spokesperson said: “While any additional funding for potholes is welcomed, as highlighted by the Annual Local Authority Roads Maintenance survey in 2022, the condition of roads across the UK would require a one-time catch up cost (over and above what authorities already receive) of £12.64bn. The current commitment from government for English roads funding prior to the announcement in this week’s budget was £2.7bn in total between 2022 and 2025, therefore the funding allocations from government still fall far short of the needs of the UK roads.

“However Surrey County Council recognises the need to invest in our roads and so is investing additional funds beyond government grants and will be spending £188m on improving and maintaining our roads and pavements over the next five years.”

Think of friends or relatives or neighbours who would appreciate a printed version. Not everyone has computers or smartphones. Places of work, dentists waiting rooms, libraries and coffee shops etc., all welcome to print and make available. All the files are pdf and A4 size.

Got a printer at home or work? You are free to print and distribute for free or sell up to the cover price to cover your printing costs. As many copies as you like. If you wish to donate from time to time the proceeds of your sales to Epsom and Ewell Times that would really be appreciated. We do have running costs to cover. Go to our donate link above.

CLICK HERE for our downloadable PRINT editions.

Transport for the South East have received approval from their Partnership Board to progress delivery of their Strategic Investment Plan which includes nearly 300 multi-modal transport interventions to be delivered across the south east over the next 27 years.

The plan sets out a vision for the region, with priorities to decarbonise the transport system, level up left behind communities and facilitate sustainable economic growth in the south east between now and 2050. Included within the ambitious list of interventions is several global policy interventions, designed to address the challenges and opportunities faced not just in the south east but across the whole of the UK. These cover issues such as decarbonisation, public transport fares, new mobility, road user charging, virtual access, and integration between all modes of transport.

This ambitious plan forecasts a total capital cost of over £45 billion over 27 years and interventions that once implemented could generate; 21,000 new jobs, an additional £4 billion growth in GVA each year by 2050, 1.4 mega tonnes less CO2 equivalent emitted, 500,000 more rail trips a day, 1.5 million more trips taken by bus, mass transit and ferry, and take roughly 4 million car trips a day off the south east’s roads.

While £45 billion is a significant sum of money, it isn’t dissimilar to the levels of historical investment in the south east over a similar time period. Not only does the plan identify the investment needed to transform the economy in the south east, it also recognises the financial constraints faced by the bodies that would traditionally fund these sorts of interventions. Delivering this plan requires significant investment and Transport for the South East welcomes ongoing discussions with government, both local and central and with the private sector as they continue to explore potential funding options.

Councillor Keith Glazier, Chair of Transport for the South East said; “This evidence based investment is a once in a generation opportunity to set out a sustainable transport network that recognises the importance of major transport corridors across the south east. Corridors that are fundamental to our economy and our communities.

“This plan is the result of five years of partnership working, it truly is a plan developed by the south east, for the south east.

“Following approval by our Partnership Board we have submitted the plan to the Secretary of State for the Department for Transport with a request for it to be considered as future investment decisions are made.

“We could not be more grateful for the insight, support and challenge shown by our partners, and the Department for Transport in the development of this plan.”

Transport for the South East’s Partnership Board brings together elected members from local transport authorities and district and borough authorities, representatives of local enterprise partnerships (LEPs), protected landscapes, National Highways, Network Rail, and more.

Throughout the development of the investment plan, Transport for the South East held regular stakeholder meetings to gather evidence and seek input. They also held a 12-week public consultation on the plan in the summer of 2022 asking for comments from anyone who lives, works or travels within the region, receiving over 600 responses.

Prior to approval at the Partnership Board, local transport authorities within the region also had the opportunity to present the investment plan to their own council members to secure sign off.

Transport for the South East’s investment plan promises to not only deliver economic benefits to the region but to also make a material contribution towards net zero carbon. It supports a reduction in the need to travel by encouraging integrated planning and a shift to more sustainable modes of travel for both passengers and freight.

It recognises the importance of accessible, affordable, integrated, reliable and attractive public transport, that is fit for purpose and have ensured it is at the core of the Strategic Investment Plan. The transport body promises to work with local authorities and operators to provide better-connected and accessible multi-modal journeys with users easily able to walk, wheel or cycle for the first and last miles of their journeys.

Following approval Transport for the South East’s attention now turns to delivery. They will continue to work with partners from across the region to develop a delivery action plan, setting out the current position of each of the nearly 300 proposed multi-modal schemes within the investment plan. The action plan will focus on the next three years, 2023-2026, and detail what the next steps are and confirm the roles and responsibilities of Transport for the South East and its delivery partners required to make this plan a reality.

You can read the plan in full at www.transportforthesoutheast.org.uk

Transport for the South East (TfSE) is a new body created to improve the transport network and grow the economy of the whole South East area.

It brings together representatives of 16 transport authorities and five local enterprise partnerships covering an area stretching from the English Channel to the border of London, and from the Kent coast to Berkshire, Hampshire and the Isle of Wight. Not only does this area include major airports, ports, roads and rail routes, it is also a powerful economic motor for the whole of the UK – adding £200 billion a year to the national economy.

The aim of TfSE is to support and grow this economy, improve quality of life and protect the environment by choosing the right strategic transport priorities for investment. A thirty-year transport strategy was published in July 2020 with a strategic investment plan to follow by 2022. 

Press release from Transport from the South-East

Dorking-based pie-expert, Fine Piehouse has triumphed at this year’s British Pie Awards, taking home the prize for best Chicken Pie. The pie-maker beat off 31 other mouth-watering entries in this category to take home the prize.

The pie-oneering awards, now in its 15th year, celebrate the nation’s most delicious pies – from the traditionally British to the tantalisingly innovative and totally whacky.

Fine Piehouse won over the esteemed judges this year with its Normandy Chicken with Apple Brandy pie.

Matthew O’Callaghan, Chairman of the Melton Mowbray Pork Pie Association and host of the British Pie Awards, said: “We are always highly encouraged to see the nation’s love of pies at these annual awards, and this year there has been a huge level of excitement and creativity.

On Wednesday we had the pleasure of enjoying some spectacular pies, and Fine Piehouse has overcome exceptionally stiff competition for best Chicken Pie. These awards celebrate the skill of British piemakers across the nation, so I’d like to say a particular congratulations to them for this success.”

The contest comprises 23 different classes or types of pie including traditional favourites and newcomers such as Vegan and Gluten Free Pies.  This year in a surprise twist, meat-based pie entries dominated the top four classes for the first time since 2019, with Beef & Any Flavour topping the entry rankings.

Other memorable entries in the contest included a Marmite and Cheese concoction and Fusion Pies such as Balti Pies, Vindaloo Pies, Kebab Pies, and even Baldy’s ‘Nearly As Good As Mama Joan’s Lasagne Pie’.

Thanks to the British Pie Association.

^{Image – Oddbodz – CC BY-SA 3.0}