Surrey County Council under pressure over safeguarding review
Surrey County Council is facing growing calls to come clean about when it will publish the findings of its independent review into how it dealt with Pride in Surrey and its former co-founder Stephen Ireland — now serving 24 years in prison for child sexual offences.
Ireland, who co-founded Pride in Surrey in 2019, was sentenced in June to 24 years in prison — plus six years on extended licence — for the rape of a 12-year-old boy and multiple child sexual offences. His partner, David Sutton, who also worked with Pride in Surrey, was jailed for four-and-a-half years.
Rebecca Paul, MP for Reigate and county councillor for Tadworth, Walton and Kingswood, said the council must “urgently clarify” when the long-awaited report will be made public, saying residents “deserve clear answers” over how the authority handled safeguarding concerns
The review, commissioned earlier this year after Ireland’s conviction, was set up to examine the council’s interactions with Ireland and Pride in Surrey, and whether concerns were properly dealt with. But so far, Surrey County Council has not shared the terms of reference or a release date.
Cllr Rebecca Paul previously told the council she raised safeguarding concerns about Ireland in 2023 and gave evidence to the independent reviewer in April this year.
At a full council meeting on October 14, Ms Paul pressed for clarity but got mixed messages
Council Leader Tim Oliver said the report would be published “within the coming weeks”, while Cabinet Member for Health, Wellbeing and Public Health, Cllr Mark Nuti, suggested it would be released “by the end of the year”.
Speaking afterwards, the Conservative MP said: “Stephen Ireland’s despicable crimes against children, including the rape of a young boy, are horrific. Residents deserve clear answers about how public bodies engaged with Mr Ireland and Pride in Surrey over the relevant period, and what approach was taken when safeguarding concerns were raised.”
She added that “it has now been many months since this review was commissioned” and warned the council was “dragging its feet”, saying that accountability was “the only way to restore public confidence”.
Cllr Mark Nuti, cabinet member for health and wellbeing and public health, said: “The review is being conducted by an independent person with experience in complex safeguarding issues. The conclusions are currently awaited, and we are committed to sharing the learning from the review alongside any action plan as soon as possible.”
Cllr Oliver told members that while the review was being finalised, there needed to be “openness and transparency” about what the council knew and how it acted.
However, he also indicated that some names might be redacted before the report is made public.
In a statement, Surrey County Council said it “recognises the very significant concern” raised by Ireland’s conviction and confirmed the review began in March, immediately after his sentencing.
Pride in Surrey has also commissioned its own independent report.
New Surrey County Council HQ, Woodhatch Place on Cockshot Hill, Reigate. Credit Surrey County Council
Surrey County Council LGR leaflet misleading claim
Claims of potential corruptions of due process have been levelled at key figures linked to Surrey County Council’s local government reorganisation (LGR) plans. The charges were put in a letter to the Minister of State for Local Government and Homelessness by the borough council leader at Surrey Heath. It surrounds a publicity leaflet issued by the county council and sent to householders across Surrey. The advert featured the signatures and logos of leading public bodies and figures in the county including Surrey Police, the fire and rescue service and the police and crime commissioner – and publicly backs Surrey County Council plans to merge with its 11 boroughs and districts to form two mega councils.
They did so, he said, before a final alternative position for three new councils had been finalised – meaning it was impossible to know all the options. Councillor Shaun Macdonald has since asked the ministry whether there were reasonable grounds to test whether public bodies, civil servants and elected officials broke impartiality guidelines and due process. He says senior figures, whose roles should be politically neutral, worked together, and spent public money, to push for Surrey’s two mega councils plan.
The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government said the statutory consultation set out information about both proposals, and was available on gov.uk. It added that councils are required to have regard to the publicity code and any concerns should be raised with the council concerned. Surrey County Council leader Tim Oliver said they engaged with their Surrey partners about Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) throughout the process of compiling their recommendation “as government, stakeholders and residents would rightly expect”. He added that many felt the proposal for two unitary councils was the best possible outcome for the county, “which will simplify the system, save money and strengthen community engagement” and that their partners “followed their own governance processes in formally acknowledging their support for the two unitary proposal.” He said: “Importantly, all councils across Surrey have communicated with residents throughout LGR, and will continue to do so, using various channels to ensure people have access to information and given every opportunity to engage with the process.”
A decision on whether to create two or three new councils was expected earlier this month but the Local Democracy Reporting Service understands this has been delayed to give further consideration to the three-council model. A formal decision is expected at the end of this month. Delays to the announcement create a tighter window on the opposite side ahead of next May’s shadow elections.
Surrey Police said it was consulted by the county council over the two unitary councils and that it backed the move as it reflected structures the force already had in mind “before, and independently of, any plans for LGR within Surrey”. A spokesperson for the force said: “Since the proposals reflected the existing ideas of the force as to our likely future structure, it was natural for us to support them. Surrey Police will continue to work closely with our partners to understand how this proposal and any subsequent decisions might affect our own operating model now or in the future.”
Police and Crime Commissioner Lisa Townsend said she set out her support for a proposed two-unitary model of local government in a letter to the leader of Surrey County Council in May. She added: “This was subsequently included as part of the submission to Government who are currently considering what option will be implemented here in Surrey. I believe a two unitary model will not only be a simpler and more cost-effective structure for local residents but it would also be better placed to support the efficient policing of Surrey in the future. Nothing outlined in the three-unitary proposal has caused me to change my mind. The two unitary model fits well with Surrey Police’s emerging plans for a revised policing operating model – work on which had begun long before the white paper for local government reform was even on the table. My office were not consulted directly by Surrey Heath Borough Council during this process. My Chief Executive was approached by another council Chief Executive who requested feedback to help inform the development of the three-unitary proposal and we were very happy to engage in this discussion. I do not consider my support for the two unitary model to be a political decision. My views on this topic are informed by what aligns best with the future plans for Surrey Police and what I believe is right for the Force and the people it serves.”
Part of Cllr Macdonald’s letter read: “Objectivity requires ‘holders of public office must act and take decisions impartially, fairly and on merit, using the best evidence and without discrimination or bias’. It is my view that a reasonable person would not accept that writing a letter of support prior to the publication of final proposals and the start of the statutory consultation process meets the Nolan Principle of Objectivity, as due diligence in the assessment of ‘best evidence’ had not been completed. A safer position for a public body would be strictly balanced, factual information about impacts across all final options as part of the statutory consultation. Police officers, in serving the Crown, are prohibited from engaging in political activity and must remain impartial. Publicly endorsing a specific governance option (e.g. an SCC-led ‘two unitary’ model) or allowing the force’s crest to be used in a marketing campaign risks breaching those duties, even if the issue is ‘cross-party’. He added: “I do request that in assessing all statutory responses due note is taken of the potentially corrupted process and biased publicity resulting from the undue influence of Surrey County Council over these public officials and bodies, and their inputs disregarded to avoid the potential risk of judicial review.”
Surrey’s politicians have clashed over rumours that Conservative council leaders have tried to stop local elections taking place next year.
An article in The Times this week, by Max Kendix, claimed that ministers were “considering accepting private pleas from Tory leaders of seven county councils” to delay local elections currently scheduled for May 2026 until 2027.
The report alleged that council leaders were “lobbying hard” to move the polls back to avoid potential gains by Reform UK and to maintain stability during plans to reorganise local government.
But senior Conservatives in Surrey have strongly denied making any such request.
The story references that fact that the Conservative-held county councils of Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex, Surrey, East and West Sussex, and Hampshire postponed elections until 2026 to prepare for the transition to new councils. But the article does not name Surrey as part of the lobby group nor does it name any other county council.
Surrey County Council leader Tim Oliver said in a post on social media: “Any decision on whether to postpone elections is ultimately up to the government, but we are absolutely not calling for a delay to Surrey’s elections in May next year.
“We expect the government to announce their decision on local government reorganisation at the end of October, and elections to be in May 2026 as planned.”
Since the story was published in The Times, Mr Kendix clarified on X (formerly Twitter) that although some county councils may have their local elections cancelled, Surrey is on a different devolution timeline so “would go ahead”.
Max Kendix X
However, Dr Al Pinkerton, Liberal Democrat MP for Surrey Heath, said he was “deeply concerned” by The Times’ report and had written to the Secretary of State to seek clarification.
He wrote in a social media post: “If such lobbying succeeds, Conservative county councillors could remain in office for up to two years longer than their current mandate allows — an unacceptable democratic deficit.”
Dr Pinkerton accused the Conservatives of “seeking to delay the inevitable verdict of the voters”, citing growing anger over “the state of Special Educational Needs provision, adult social care, our schools, and the county’s deteriorating roads.”
The news comes as the Lib Dems won a clean sweep of council seats at six different by-elections across the county last week, prompting claims the Tories are “running scared”.
A spokesperson for Surrey Conservatives accused the Liberal Democrats of “spreading baseless misinformation” in a Facebook post, adding: “We have not sought to delay any elections, nor will we. Surrey will definitely have elections either to the new unitaries or to the county council if we are not being abolished.”
“Complex and inflexible” rules that unintentionally and “unfairly penalise” homeowners with six-figure fines “for the apparent crime of building a home extension” will be reexamined, the housing minister has said.
The problem of Community Infrastructure Levy charges being unfairly or disproportionately applied to homeowners has inflicted pain on dozens of Waverley residents with the borough council saying it is tied by Government guidelines on how to enforce the charges.
The charges are supposed to help offset the impact of large scale developments in an area – and help fund the infrastructure to support it.
In Waverley, dozens of homeowners have found themselves inadvertently caught in the tangle of bureaucracy. One resident, Steve Dally was stung with a £70,000 ‘contribution’ with others threatened with imprisonment or having their homes repossessed.
The issue came to a head this week in Parliament with Godalming and Ash MP Sir Jeremy Hunt raising the matter to housing minister Matthew Pennycook.
Sir Jeremy said: “My constituent Steve Dally was charged £70,000 by Liberal Democrat-controlled Waverley borough council for the apparent crime of building a home extension. I met the housing minister earlier this year to talk about abuse of the community infrastructure levy. Could he update the House on his plans to stop it?”
Mr Pennycook told the commons that he agreed there had been a number of “unintended consequences of the 2010 CIL regulations—they have unfairly penalised some homeowners.
“I can only reiterate the commitments I gave him during that meeting. In principle, we are committed to finding a solution to this issue, and I am more than happy to meet him again and update him on the steps we have taken in the interim.”
The news has been welcomed by Waverley Borough Council, which has set up its own discretionary review panel to examine cases of wrongdoing – although uptake has been extremely slow with only two cases coming forward so far.
Councillor Liz Townsend, Waverley Borough Council portfolio holder for planning and economic development said: “We welcome the recent comments made in Parliament by the Housing Minister acknowledging the unintended consequences of the current Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) regulations.
“The legislation is overly complex and inflexible, and like many residents we are frustrated by a system that can leave homeowners facing large bills for genuine mistakes. We have been pressing the Government for reform for some time, so it is encouraging to hear a clear commitment to finding a solution.
“While national legislation limits what councils can do, we are doing everything possible to support our residents. She added: “The case of Mr Dally, which was raised in Parliament, was one of the situations that highlighted the need for change.
“Following discussions with him, the council reviewed his case and concluded that his CIL charge should be withdrawn and refunded. His experience helped shape the introduction of our Discretionary Review Scheme, so that other residents would have a clear route to request a review.”
The council said it would continue to lobby Government for urgent reform to ensure the CIL system “is clearer, fairer and more proportionate for homeowners” and called for the collaborative work between themselves, Sir Jeremy and ministers “to help shape a fairer and more compassionate system that still supports local infrastructure.”
Epsom’s Rugby Team Make Light Of Missing Men To Go Top
Gravesend 12 Sutton and Epsom RFC 29. Saturday 18th October.
Sutton and Epsom arrived at the Rectory Field seeking a return to winning ways following their first loss of the campaign at Sidcup. Gravesend, the masters of the close encounter last season, have retained their penchant for fine margins, opening their account with a draw and losing last week by a solitary point to Brighton. In a keenly contested match it was Sutton and Epsom who returned to Rugby Lane with the spoils as their 29-12 bonus point win took them to the top of the Regional 2 South East table.
Absenteeism, unacceptable to previous generations, has become the norm at this level of club rugby and the level-headed must take the approach of the famous phrase involving a couple of playground amusements. However, coaches still curse the slings and arrows of outrageous planning. It was Sutton’s turn to suffer as six players from the Sidcup squad were absent without leave. This offered a chance for players to press their claim for 1st XV status and tested squad depth. Gravesend had their own issues as they were without their talented trio of George Bruce, Ben Kite and Ned Warren who were on their injured list.
Gareth O’Brien kicked off for the visitors in benign conditions on a mild afternoon. The initial sparring saw both sides employ robust runners that were met by thunderous tackling. Defence monopolised attack in the opening exchanges as the sides looked for openings to exploit. After ten minutes Sutton were awarded a penalty 40 metres out and sent it towards the corner. Having secured the ball they demonstrated admirable control through the phases but the forwards were thwarted by staunch Gravesend defence until it was released wide and Finlay Scott waltzed in unopposed. Gareth O’Brien, taking over the kicking duties, impressively converted for 7-0.
S and E were soon on the attack as Adam Bibby’s probing kick forced Gravesend to touch down and restart under their posts. Moments later a tremendous take of a clearance kick by Sutton was followed by an attempted 50/22 that rolled agonisingly into touch in goal. Consolation was swift and bounteous. Gravesend dropped the ball near halfway and Adam Bibby fly-hacked forward. The Kiwi centre burst forward, wisely declined the opportunity to try to scoop up the ball and kicked ahead again and won the race to the line to score. The conversion drifted wide but Sutton had a 12-0 lead at the end of the first quarter.
Gravesend needed a swift riposte and within five minutes they were on the scoreboard. Enjoying a spell of possession they threw themselves on the Black and Whites’ defence and were met with magnificent tackling, with one Gareth O’Brien tackle synonymous of the team effort. The visitors were undone by an infringement and it was the host’s turn to kick it into the corner. The initial thrust was repelled but another penalty gave the Rectory Field team a second chance that they gratefully accepted as lock Josh Mackenzie forced his way over. Rhys Betts’ conversion failed but Gravesend were back within a score at 5-12.
With the interval approaching it was a case of hope springs eternal for the home team. Centre Ben Hope chose the perfect attacking line to make the initial break on halfway, then accelerating and evading the cover he left flailing tacklers in his wake for a stunning solo score. Rhys Betts nonchalantly added the extras and Gravesend were level at 12-12. For those who thought that the first period would end honours even and decided to avoid the half-time rush at the bar they would have missed Sutton’s retort. The men from Surrey, as if affronted by the Kent club’s recovery, put together their best attacking sequence. The ball went to winger Finlay Scott who did superbly in limited space to take the ball to the 22. The Sutton pack took over and went through multiple phases to camp under the posts and hooker Sam Lennie applied the coup de grâce. Gareth O’Brien chipped over the simple conversion to restore Sutton’s lead. Referee Joe Garman’s whistle blew to end the first half with the score at Gravesend 12 Sutton and Epsom 19.
The first period had been an even affair with Sutton having more of the territory and possession but both sides had shown both in attack and defence that the result was far from obvious. Added to the equation was S and E’s bizarre statistic for this season that they had yet to win a second half in their previous five outings. Gravesend kicked off the second half and seized the initiative with a marvellous catch from Ben Hope who surged to the Sutton 22. The cautious optimism of the travelling Sutton support was immediately transformed to “here we go again”. It was a case of “ye of little faith” as the visitors dealt admirably with the situation. Moments later the home support was on its feet as winger Andrew Cooke exploded down the flank threatening to score but at the crucial moment as the cover arrived he lost control of the ball and Sutton survived. From the scrum Sutton and Epsom were indebted to Number 8 Rob Hegarty who picked up from the base and carried them out of their 22 to relative safety.
Having weathered the storm, Dan Jones’ alertness to a loose ball initiated the visitors’ first attack of the second half as he passed to Gareth O’Brien who pegged Gravesend back in their 22. It was the start of a period of Sutton ascendancy and control. However, this did not result in any addition to the scoreboard. A promising attack was undermined by conceding a penalty on the deck 10 metres out. Then what looked like an inevitable score concluded with not only a penalty coughed up inches from glory but also a yellow card being issued to Sam Lennie. S and E coped magnificently with the numerical inferiority and managed to add to their lead when Gareth O’Brien’s penalty made it 22-12 as the match entered the final quarter. The hosts, despite the advantage of the extra man, never set foot in the Sutton half for the statutory ten minutes as even the restart went out on the full.
Restored to 15 men, S and E continued to demonstrate impressive game management. With steely focus and determination they played the game in the Gravesend half and went in search of another try that would not only provide a sizeable lead but also earn a priceless bonus point. The host’s defence had impressed all afternoon and they continued to frustrate the visitors’ best endeavours, with Rob Hegarty being held up over the line. With five minutes to go Gravesend lost the services of their influential Number 8 Bradley Money. It was a yellow card that creates immediate debate as he made contact with winger Archie Fitzgerald’s head as the winger slipped. The decision was harsh as there was no malicious intent but it was the correct call from Mr Garman given the modern laws. Boosted by the extra man, Sutton finally secured their bonus point as Rob Hegarty forced his way over from close range. Gareth O’Brien added the tricky conversion for 29-12 and Sutton ran down the clock without any further additions to the score.
This was a very impressive win for Sutton on the road with a depleted squad. It spoke volumes to the character and team spirit that those who came in looked very comfortable and contributed to an outstanding 18-man performance. Gareth O’Brien stepped in at Number 10 and had a superb game with his kicking, running and tackling as he provided a good measure of control on proceedings. Sutton starved Gravesend of territory and possession for the vast majority of the second half. To the host’s credit their excellent defence only succumbed when they were down to 14 men but they never managed to gain a foothold in the second period to enable themselves to gain points from the game.
Results around the league were most favourable to Sutton and Epsom and the win propelled them to the summit of the table. Lest we forget that next Saturday, 25 October, the Black and Whites entertain erstwhile leaders Beckenham RFC. The Balmoral Avenue club lost for the first time on Saturday and dropped to fourth in this highly competitive league.
Sutton and Epsom Bennion, Scott, Rea, Bibby, Fitzgerald, O’Brien, Wise, Boaden, Lennie, Hilton, Duey, McTaggart (c), Tame, Jones and Hegarty. Reps: Howes, Butt and Lovatt.
Gravesend Barnes, Dean, Hope, Filmer, Cooke, White, Betts, Brooker, Dadson, Shorter, Mackenzie, Falefatu, Williams, Chahal (c) and Money. Reps: Anderson, Bruce and Sims.
The blue wall has crumbled a bit further with the Liberal Democrats having completed a clean sweep in Surrey, winning all six by-elections in a county once seen as the beating heart of Conservative Britain.
The party’s so-called ‘Super Thursday’ victories mark another major step in the slow unravelling of the traditional Tory stronghold across the South East, as Reform failed to make the breakthroughs many had predicted.
Among the winners were Alan Ashbery in Camberley West, Catherine Houston in Guildford South East, and Tony Pearce in Caterham Valley – each elected to Surrey County Council following by-elections. For Caterham Valley, Mr Pearce won 48% of the vote which was enough to flip the seat decisively into Lib Dem hands.
The results mean the Lib Dems have absorbed three more county council seats, taking their total to 19 and cementing their position as the main opposition to the ruling Conservatives. The results signal growing frustration with local Conservative leadership amid complaints about potholes, debt, and children’s services, the traditional flashpoints in county politics.
Surrey Lib Dems group leader, Paul Follows said he was delighted with the results. He said in a press statement:
“These results also underline how Surrey’s political landscape continues to change. It is clear the Conservatives are in retreat and since they cancelled the elections last May, they have not won a single by-election, whereas we have now picked up wins in all six.
“We are approaching a period of unprecedented change in the form of Local Government Reorganisation so I look forward to welcoming the new members to our group so that we can all work together in preparing for the two or maybe three new unitary authorities.”
While the Lib Dems’ surge is striking, the scale of their challenge remains. Conservatives still hold overall control of Surrey County Council, and Reform’s vote share, while not translating into seats, hints at turbulence on the right.
The party also celebrated borough and district-level success in Staines, where Laura Barker was elected as councillor, as well as Mark Johnston in Meadvale and St John’s in addition to Mr Pearce again in Whyteleafe.
Leader of the Lib Dems Sir Ed Davey, buoyed by the results, said: “What remains of the Blue Wall is crumbling away. People across Surrey and beyond have voted for true community champions who will put them first.”
The victories included Camberley, part of the Surrey Heath constituency once held by Michael Gove, and Caterham, in the East Surrey seat of Claire Coutinho, now the Shadow Secretary for Energy Security and Net Zero.
Not only a story of Conservative decline, the Liberal Democrats also gained from the Greens in Spelthorne, suggesting the party’s resurgence stretches beyond anti-Tory protest votes. Although the Lib Dems won decisively in many if the seats, Reform UK was second place in four out of six seats.
When Whitehall speaks of “streamlining” local government, most people imagine fewer tiers of decision-making, simpler accountability, and a shorter distance between citizen and power. Yet, as the picture for Surrey emerges, the so-called “reorganisation” seems to be producing the opposite effect.
Instead of the two existing levels – borough and county – the new design threatens to spawn three or even four. We are told that the twelve boroughs and districts, together with Surrey County Council, will be swept away and replaced by one or more “unitary” councils. But at the same time, ministers promise a directly elected county-wide Mayor and a new Strategic Authority above the unitaries. Meanwhile, below them, parish and neighbourhood councils are to be invented to replace the voice that boroughs once provided. It all begins to look suspiciously like multiplication rather than simplification.
The slogans speak of bringing local government closer to the people. Yet residents may soon find themselves further away from anyone who can actually make a decision. The proposed Mayoral Authority will sit at a distance, occupied with big-ticket issues such as transport, growth and infrastructure. The new unitaries will cover territories so large that many of Surrey’s smaller communities will struggle to be noticed. Below them, the new parish or “community” councils will have limited powers, modest budgets, and uncertain influence.
Epsom and Ewell’s own decision to consult on forming parish councils is both understandable and ironic. For ninety years the borough has prided itself on a direct, residents-led form of local democracy. Now, in the name of devolution, that independence is being dismantled. The new parish layer would exist solely to replace what is being abolished. It may well be the right precaution, but it is a strange kind of progress.
Surrey County Council’s pilot “Neighbourhood Area Committees” add a further tier of consultation. These panels may be useful experiments in local engagement, but they are not elected and carry no statutory power. However well-intentioned, they underline the growing sense that accountability is being replaced by advisory talk-shops.
If the reform was meant to cut complexity, it has already failed that test. Residents will have to learn a new vocabulary of “unitaries”, “mayoral authorities”, “combined areas” and “neighbourhood committees” – each with its own meetings, officers, and costs. The idea of saving money and clarifying responsibility fades the more layers are drawn on the map.
There is still time for ministers to stop and listen. Surrey is not ungovernable; it is merely suffering from the same pressures faced by councils everywhere – tight budgets and rising demand. Reorganisation may change the furniture, but it will not conjure new funds or restore trust.
Before dismantling the one part of local democracy that still feels local, government should ask a simple question: is this truly reform, or is it bureaucracy reborn?
Where do we stand on local government reorganisation in Epsom and Ewell and the County?
The future shape of local government in Surrey is moving into its final stage, with national and local plans converging on the abolition of all borough, district and county councils in April 2027 and their replacement by new, directly elected unitary authorities. Epsom and Ewell Borough Council (EEBC) has already taken steps to ensure residents’ voices are not lost in the process, while Surrey County Council (SCC) continues to pilot new neighbourhood structures that could form part of the post-reorganisation landscape.
Financial pressures driving reform
A new report from the UNISON trade union warns that councils across the UK are facing a combined funding gap of £4.1 billion in 2026/27. Demand for adult and children’s social care, inflation, energy costs and homelessness are all identified as key pressures. UNISON’s General Secretary Christina McAnea said local authorities “are still billions short of the money they need to provide essential services” and that cuts “often hit the vulnerable hardest”. The figures provide the wider context for the government’s push towards larger, self-financing unitary councils and new devolved mayoral regions.
Epsom and Ewell Borough Council’s position
Epsom and Ewell Borough Council voted in May 2025 to support a “three unitaries” model for Surrey, submitting its preferred plan to government. Under that proposal, Epsom and Ewell would join an East Surrey unitary alongside Mole Valley, Reigate and Banstead, and Tandridge. Surrey County Council has argued instead for two unitaries – East and West – while others have urged a single Surrey authority. The final decision now rests with ministers.
EEBC has meanwhile carried out a Community Governance Review to explore creating parish or community councils for the borough once the borough council itself is dissolved. The consultation, which asked residents how local representation should continue under a unitary structure, closed at 11.59pm on Thursday 9 October 2025. Results will be analysed and reported to the council later this year.
Chair of the Standards and Constitution Committee, Councillor John Beckett (RA Auriol), said earlier this year that parish councils would provide “an essential link between Epsom and Ewell residents and a new unitary council responsible for a much larger area in Surrey”. He said the borough’s aim was to ensure “that the interests of our residents and local communities have a platform, and that our vital local voice is not lost for future generations”.
All the political parties on Epsom and Ewell Borough Council were asked by Epsom and Ewell Times for their current views. Cllr Kate Chinn (Labour – Court) said: “The Labour group believes LGR benefits all of us. It reduces bureaucracy and increases transparency so reducing the huge administrative back room costs of the 12 authorities which currently deliver services. As devolution develops we will have mayors with strong new powers serving and delivering services for their local communities. It would be best to have 3 unitary authorities in the county which will enable strong local representation without the additional costs of a rather meaningless additional layer with very limited powers.”
Meanwhile, Cllr James Lawrence (LibDem College) said: “Local government reorganisation is diverting significant attention and resources away from the day-to-day work of councils, all for the promise of future efficiencies and savings from creating larger unitary authorities. Yet those savings may take many years to materialise—if they ever do—given that the government failed to carry out its own cost analysis of what is the biggest council shake-up in decades.
We welcome reforms that genuinely deliver cost savings, greater efficiency and clearer accountability to residents. But as Liberal Democrats, we believe local government should remain as close as possible to the people it serves. Councils must be representative, accessible, and structured so that people from all walks of life can realistically stand for election. We hope the Labour government upholds these principles in shaping a local government system that truly works in the public interest.”
Leader of the ruling Residents Associations, Cllr Hannah Dalton (Stoneleigh) stated to Epsom and Ewell Times “Our proposal submitted in May demonstrated how three unitary councils formed around existing local economies would set the stage for future economic growth in the county, and provide a strong foundation for governance that keeps decision-making closer to residents. We are waiting to hear from government on whether the decision will be to implement two or three unitary councils in Surrey. Following the announcement and what ever the decision is, our task will be to work together with all our partners across the county to ensure that the new councils are set up for future success.
She added: “Throughout this process, our unwavering commitment is to our residents by ensuring that we continue to deliver high-quality services in Epsom & Ewell without interruption, and that we keep residents informed every step of the way. The local elections for the new shadow authority which will take place next spring will be pivotal; I urge residents to have their say to ensure that the new councils truly represent everyone in our local communities.”
Surrey County Council pilots new neighbourhood model
Surrey County Council is testing new “Neighbourhood Area Committees” to bring together partners from local government, health, police, business, education and community sectors. Farnham became the fourth pilot area in early October, joining Cobham and Esher, Dorking and Villages, and Caterham and Warlingham. SCC Leader Tim Oliver said the pilots are part of a “test, learn and grow” approach to “giving residents a stronger voice and more opportunities to influence decisions that matter to them”.
The first committees in the earlier pilot areas are meeting this autumn, and an evaluation is due in December 2025. SCC says the pilots will help shape how local engagement operates within the new unitary councils and the expected county-wide Mayoral Strategic Authority.
Are elected councils being replaced by appointed bodies?
No. The plan remains for directly elected unitary councils to replace the existing county and district authorities. A Mayoral Strategic Authority for Surrey is also proposed, headed by an elected Mayor and a cabinet of members drawn from the unitary councils. The Neighbourhood Area Committees are advisory forums rather than statutory councils. Their future form will depend on the December evaluation.
Does reorganisation bring government closer to people?
Advocates say the structure will reduce the number of principal authorities while increasing neighbourhood-level involvement through parish councils or local area committees. Critics argue that layering a Mayoral Authority above the new unitaries could have the opposite effect. EEBC’s Community Governance Review is intended to ensure that neighbourhood representation remains genuine once the borough tier disappears.
National context: the LGIU’s October 2025 findings
The Local Government Information Unit’s latest overview, published in early October, confirms that Surrey has been placed among the final “Devolution Priority Programme” areas, alongside Essex and Kent. The LGIU says the government aims to settle new boundaries by early 2026, with the most likely outcome being two unitaries under a directly elected Surrey Mayor by 2027. The report highlights that Epsom and Ewell’s Community Governance Review is being viewed nationally as a model for how parish and community councils can preserve neighbourhood representation after borough abolition.
The LGIU notes that Whitehall intends to restrict transition funding to self-financing proposals, requiring counties and districts to reach consensus by December 2025 or face a structure imposed from above. Across England, 14 regions are now engaged in similar reorganisation or devolution talks, with most combining larger authorities at the top with expanded local partnership boards and parish councils beneath.
What happens next
Ministerial decisions on the Surrey map and devolution deal are expected by late 2025.
Shadow elections for the new unitary councils could take place in May 2026.
The new authorities are scheduled to begin operations on 1 April 2027.
EEBC’s Community Governance Review results will be published before the end of 2025.
Surrey County Council will review its Neighbourhood Area Committee pilots in December.
The combined effect of these changes will mark the biggest shift in local government in Surrey for half a century. Whether the result brings decision-making closer to residents, or simply reorganises power at a greater distance, remains to be seen.
A Tadworth mother whose baby died tragically from a rare infection aged only eight days has praised the nurses and midwives who supported her family during “the darkest time in our lives”.
Jodie Picknett gave birth to baby George at Epsom Hospital in April 2023. Shortly afterwards, he returned to hospital to be treated for jaundice but became suddenly very unwell and lethargic. At just seven days old, he was admitted to the Special Care Baby Unit.
That night George deteriorated, and despite the determined efforts of the neonatal nurses, he sadly passed away. A post-mortem later revealed that he had contracted a severe enterovirus — a condition usually mild for most people but which can prove deadly for newborns.
For Jodie and her family, the care and guidance of Specialist Bereavement Midwife Lydia Baker and the Maternity Bereavement Team at Epsom Hospital were a vital source of strength. The team liaised with the coroner and post-mortem services and connected the family with funeral directors experienced in compassionate bereavement care.
Jodie, 37, said: “Lydia supported us through every step – from looking after George and making practical arrangements to simply being there when we needed her. Her compassion and understanding made the hardest moments that little bit more bearable.”
Thanks to funding from Epsom and St Helier Hospitals Charity, Lydia and her team can provide detailed 3D ‘memory castings’ for bereaved families. The casts capture each tiny feature of a baby’s hands and feet, offering parents a lasting, tangible connection. Previously, families received only basic prints, but the charity’s support now enables the team to create intricate castings from the twenty-sixth week of pregnancy onwards.
Lydia said: “When a baby dies, families don’t have a lifetime of memories, so creating something tangible in that moment is vital.”
Jodie is now fundraising for the hospital charity so this work can continue. She is inviting people to donate ribbons that will form a memorial display at their local church, with proceeds supporting more bereaved families.
“After George died, the bereavement team helped guide us through the darkest time in our lives with empathy and respect,” Jodie said. “By fundraising, we hope to help Lydia and her team continue their vital work, ensuring more families receive the same compassionate, specialist care. Our ribbon display is a small gesture, but it offers a space for others to remember their babies too. It’s a way to say: your baby mattered, and they are not forgotten.”
For Jodie and her husband Ben, 41, Epsom Hospital holds special meaning. Their daughter Alice was born there in August 2021 and their third child, Lucy, in May 2025.
Jodie added: “We think about our son every day – he is part of everything we do. We will never get to see George take his first steps, say his first words, or start school. That loss is felt every day. So being able to say his name and honour his memory publicly is incredibly important to us.”
Molly Simpson, Head of Charity and Fundraising at Epsom and St Helier Hospitals Charity, said: “Losing a baby is devastating for any family and we are very proud to support the teams who help them through their grief. We’re grateful to Jodie and her husband Ben for sharing such a personal story and know it will inspire others to give what they can – your generosity will mean our exceptional teams can continue to support bereaved parents when they need it most.”
Jodie is sharing her story during Baby Loss Awareness Week, which offers a space for anyone affected by pregnancy and baby loss to share their experiences.
St George’s, Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals and Health Group
Photo: George with mum Jodie and sister Alice
Epsom Downs leftovers
Heaps of leftover racing dirt and old equipment have been abandoned on Epsom Downs, prompting criticism of the “weed-infested eyesores”.
Epsom Civic Society has raised the alarm over soil heaps and discarded equipment left on the beauty spot. The group claims that in some cases, the rubbish has been dumped on the Downs out of convenience rather than necessity.
The most recent example, at the junction of the path at the top Ebbisham Lane and the lower gallop track, was supposed to be removed a year ago after a new horse slipway was completed.
But it is still there, according to the society, and now adorned with discarded plastic rails.
“It’s difficult to say that these are just there because they’re needed for operational reasons,” said Nick Lock, from the civic society at a Epsom and Walton Downs Consultative Committee meeting at Epsom and Ewell Borough Council on October 13. He said: “They’re just there for convenience of not taking it somewhere else.”
Other spoil piles have been spotted at the 7th Furlong car park, behind the Derby Start of the main racecourse and near the bottom of Six Mile Hill.
The materials vary from soil and chippings to old water containers and tractor equipment. All this contributed to a cluttered, unsightly scene on what should be a natural scenic area, the civil society claims.
The Downs Conservators, who manage the site, say the area is a working environment for racehorse training, and some spoil heaps are awaiting future projects.
Cllr Steven McCormick told the Epsom and Walton Downs committee meeting he will go around the site with the Jockey club and identify the mounds to see what they are there for or not there for.
But Cllr McCormick added there is a “balance” between the council’s responsibility in protecting the Down’s natural beauty and the function of the site as a working training ground. He added the council would also have to find a budget to move the spoils as it will cost money and resources.
Some progress has been made, the committee acknowledged. A large pile from resurfacing the bottom nine-furlong gallop was removed following Civil Society pressure, and most reported flytipped material has also been cleared.
But Mr Lock said more needs to be done. “It still does look quite a mess up there,” he told the committee. “It seems a bit of a shame if you’re sitting looking at the nice view from the grandstand and the grounds and the downs and you’re sitting next to all these piles of rubbish.”
Nigel Whybrow from the Training Grounds Management Board confirmed that current materials in the car park are earmarked for planned projects, and redundant equipment will be removed over the winter with some hoped to end up in a museum.
For now, the Civic Society is urging the Conservators to adopt a clear policy: reusable spoils should be stored neatly in designated areas, and all other material should be removed from the Downs promptly.
