Exclusive to the Epsom and Ewell Times we report on the housing targets of every Surrey borough council. Epsom and Ewell is the smallest borough in Surrey with the highest density of population. Yet aims to have the highest density of new housing, according to the draft Local Plan, out now for consultation.

The table below contains the population stated in a Local Plan, if evident in the document. Otherwise the latest population figure from Wikipedia is used.

The Local Plans vary in the period covered and some are in drafting flux. The table provides the average per annum new build over a 15 year period for each Council as far as stated or indicated.

Many plans were submitted or adopted before Michael Gove, Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, indicated November 2022 that “Housing targets remain, but are a starting point with new flexibilities to reflect local circumstances” and “If we are to deliver the new homes this country needs, new development must have the support of local communities. That requires people to know it will be beautiful, accompanied by the right infrastructure, approved democratically, that it will enhance the environment and create proper neighbourhoods. These principles have always been key to our reforms and we are now going further by strengthening our commitment to build the right homes in the right places and put local people at the heart of decision-making.”

The table above does not reflect many variables that may justify different housing targets. For example areas designated as areas of special scientific interest or areas of outstanding natural beauty. Also, there are many demographic variables: distribution of the ages of populations, family sizes and average incomes.

Furthermore, the mix of different housing types of the new builds envisaged in the plans vary from one Council to another. Big houses, small houses or flats etc.

However, the table does provide a broad overview.

_{Epsom and Ewell’s Draft Local Plan states: “The housing need for Epsom and Ewell generated by the standard method is 576 dwelling per annum, which equates to 10,368 dwellings over the Local plan period. The Councils Housing and Economic Development Needs Assessment (2022) confirms there is no justification to increase the housing need figure over that generated by the standard method.”}

_{“The council considers that the scale of unmet development / housing needs in the borough that would result from pursuing a brownfield only approach provides the exceptional circumstances and justification to make changes to the Green Belt boundaries in the borough.”}

You can meet planning officers of Epsom and Ewell Council at the following times and discuss the draft Local Plan.

Monday 13 February 14:30 – 19:30 Bourne Hall, Azalea Room

Thursday 16 February 12:00 – 17:00, Ashley Centre, Central Square

Tuesday 21 February 14:30 – 19:30, Bourne Hall, Azalea room

Wednesday 22 February 10:30 – 15:30, Community & Wellbeing Centre, Sefton Road

Saturday 25 February 11:00 – 16:00, Ashley Centre, Central Square

Tuesday 28 February 10:30 – 15:30, Community & Wellbeing Centre, Sefton Road

How you can express your views on the Local Plan can be seen HERE.

See today’s editorial

Related reports:

Green-belters belted up and beltless

Local Plan battle heating up?

Green-belters seeing red on Local Plan?

Lessons for Epsom in Mole Valley’s “shouty” Local Plan struggle?

Crucial month for local Local Plans?

Gove gives pause for thought on Local Plans?

Local Plan Battle: early skirmishes on Downs Farm

MP’s housing solution for Epsom and Ewell

Epsom and Ewell Borough Council has embarked on a public consultation on its Draft Local Plan. The consultation ends on 19th March 2023. As we report today it appears that already the most densely populated borough in the County, the Council envisages a growth of new housing that also tops the target unit/KM sq density table.

The voluminous documentation supporting the draft Local Plan predicates the target volume of new housing units on “need”.

Epsom and Ewell is a most desirable place to live in. Served by three mainline London railway stations, close but not too close to the M25 and short journeys to the two main airline gateways to the world. We enjoy many publicly accessible open spaces including Epsom Downs, Epsom Common, Horton County Park and The Hogsmill Open Space. No wonder you hear new neighbours say “We came to Epsom for the green space and access to London”.

Controversially, the Local Plan proposes turning Horton Farm over to a minimum 1500 housing development. The question the Draft Local Plan raises is if piece by piece open countryside in Epsom and Ewell is given to housing will the place become less desirable? Should those who live here, born here, moved here ….. not now enjoy the space they live in, were born in or moved to? Should other boroughs with more space not carry a greater burden of meeting need? Should housing targets be a County wide responsibility? The three Councils of Guildford, Woking and Waverley joined forces in establishing housing targets through a West Surrey Housing Needs Assessment.

Is the Council catering for those who want to move here or for new generations born here?

The Council is providing the residents of the Borough with every opportunity to ask questions and make their views known.

We suggest you do so.

Sutton & Epsom RFC 5 – Wimbledon RFC 42 – Saturday 11th February. When these two clubs met last season the dominant Dons arrived at Rugby Lane as the unbeaten leaders after eight matches and overwhelming favourites against a Sutton and Epsom XV who were languishing with a couple of wins that included a walkover against the
hapless CS Stags. S&E upset the odds and added a further dose of unpalatable medicine to their neighbours when they also beat Wimbledon at SW20 for good measure. That happy memory for Sutton & Epsom fans now seems like Ancient History as the Wimbledon juggernaut arrived on Saturday as league leaders with 17 wins on the bounce, including a November 41-10 victory over the Black & Whites, and pressing for promotion. There was
to be no Hans Christian Andersen storyline nor a story penned by Roald Dahl as the visitors departed as 42-5 victors.

_{Image courtesy Robin Kennedy}

Wimbledon kicked off on an afternoon unaffected by the elements and most suitable for 15-man rugby. Sadly Sutton and Epsom could not resist the Circean charms of the modern fad of aerial ping-pong that resulted in conceding the opening score. The Dons pounced on an ineffective clearance and ran the ball back past the grandstand crowd with outside centre Paul Hendry scything through the defence for his first try of a personally very productive afternoon. Ed Morgan effortlessly added the extras for a 7-0 lead. Sadly S&E’s starts have often been more pedestrian than express pace this season and the Cape Town centre added his and Wimbledon’s second try moments later. The hosts won a lineout in their 22 and Ross Parsons exploited the blindside but the ravenous visiting pack stole the ball and released their backs and Paul Hendry made the break to saunter home. Ed Morgan did the necessary and the centre was set for the fastest ever league hat trick against the Black & Whites as the hosts trailed 14-0.

The SW20 outfit were determined to turn the screw and continued to dominate proceedings with their excellent winger Ollie Kitto to the fore. Ollie Kitto is not a winger who languishes forlornly on the flank waiting for service but buzzes around the pitch like the most irritating and evasive mosquito. He was denied an assist when his legerdemain was dropped in the but he was soon crossing the whitewash. Wimbledon burst into the 22 and the ball nestled in the winger’s hands and he made light of the surrounding traffic to dance his way under the posts. Ed Morgan made it 21-0 at the end of the first quarter.

Things needed to change for the Rugby Lane team and quickly. The team dusted themselves off and reminded themselves that this was a derby game by evoking memories of not only former glories against the Dons but also of their performance against Camberley the previous Saturday as they belatedly entered the contest. Sutton and Epsom began to play with more urgency and worked tirelessly to deny their exalted visitors time and space. Their reward was instantaneous as they were awarded a penalty that they kicked into the corner. From the lineout the forwards ushered Tom Boaden over the line with clinical efficiency. The conversion from the flank drifted wide but the try injected confidence into the body of the Black & Whites. Though the league leaders enjoyed the statistical superiority in terms territory and possession for the remainder of the first period the hosts were far more competitive. The back row triumvirate of London, Hegarty and Caddy were tenacious in the tackle and on the deck and Ollie Baptiste-Wilson started to gain yardage on the extremities. There was a far more determined defence that thwarted the visitors in their quest for the vital fourth try that would secure their bonus point. Steely resolve was evident in abundance as S&E defended for the final five minutes of the first half. A flurry of a 5-metre lineouts and 5-metre penalties were all overcome as Mr Priestley ended the half with Wimbledon 21-5 to the good.

The table-toppers looked for a reprise of the start of the match and Ollie Baptiste-Wilson was forced into defensive duties as he fly-hacked the ball through the dead ball area to prevent a try. Once more Sutton stayed strong five metres from their line. The sniping effort of Rhys Morgan was denied and a subsequent surge was held up over the line. The siege was relieved as a grateful S&E accepted the drop out from under the posts.

As the Black & White defence pressed hard to deny their opponents time on the ball the error count mounted for their illustrious opponents as passes were knocked on. The cool, calm machine that had swept all before them in the opening exchanges was becoming increasingly frustrated in their search for the fourth try. What had been a ceremonial procession for the soon to be anointed champions was now a serious contest. Throughout this period the Rugby Lane team’s attempts at narrowing the deficit were thwarted by the defensive excellence of Wimbledon. Too often the host’s possession was disrupted at the breakdown by the scavenging efforts of Messrs Freeman and Pearce.

The Dons tackled with the ferocity of a side who relish their defensive duties and stripped the ball in contact on more than one occasion. In the dying embers of the third quarter the leaders finally secured their fourth try after a frustrating forty fruitless minutes. The vital score followed excellent Sutton defence that included a backpedalling interception and an excellent Austin Bell tackle but the weight of numbers finally told as Paul Hendry completed his hat trick. Ed Morgan bisected the uprights for 28-5.

The game entered the final quarter with the Dons hoping to improve on their impressive points difference in the table and Sutton searching for consoling scores. From the restart replacement Mark Scott powered his way to halfway but the support failed to fully capitalise on his break. The Barham Road Boys, more relaxed after the bonus point, forced another drop out as they encamped in Black & White territory. They were rewarded with a fine score from a scrum. A quick strike was gathered and a couple of passes exchanged saw fullback Ally Duddell surge to the line. The impeccable Ed Morgan converted for 35-5. From the restart the hosts pressed hard to add to the scoreboard.

Ross Parsons took a quick tap penalty and made yards but it was brought back for Sutton and Epsom to have a second chance with a kick in the corner. Despite a fine take by Josh Glanville there was no repeat of the first period success as the Dons halted the drive and earned a scrummage. The final flourish came from Wimbledon as they countered from deep and a flyhack ended up in their grateful hands and replacement Tim Ridler scored try number six. Ed Morgan kept his 100% record with the boot to extend the lead to 42-5. Soon after the referee brought proceedings to a close. Wimbledon were excellent value for their deserved victory with periods of sustained power and pace. Additionally at the breakdown and in their tackling they were disruptive. Who knows why Sutton and Epsom so regularly begin a contest in a lacklustre fashion? Please send answers on a postcard to the Club Secretary. Then they transform into a team trading blows toe-to-toe with the opposition and play with great spirit and no little skill.

This result has propelled Wimbledon closer to the Promised Land of Promotion. For Sutton and Epsom, nails and coffins spring to mind but one must never give up hope and their followers should find solace in the story of Gilbert’s poteroo. Next Saturday they travel to Hampshire to take on Havant who currently lie second in the table.

Sutton & Epsom
Ciaran Mohr, Austin Bell, Sam Hurley, Lawrence Elliott, Ollie Baptiste-Wilson, Freddy Bunting, Ross Parsons, Tom Boaden, Alex Mount, Will Lloyd, George Drye ©, Josh Glanville, George London, Rob Hegarty & James Caddy.
Replacements: (all used) Jack Howes, Chris Farrell & Alex Mawdsley.

Wimbledon
Ally Duddell, Ollie Kitto, Paul Hendry, Jack Reville, Max Lufkin, Ed Morgan, Rhys Morgan, Tom Boot, Jake Farnworth, Sam Gratton, Matt Grobler, Jack Cooke ©, Max Freeman, Connor Pearce & Zane Dillinger.
Replacements: (all used) Bradley Ugodulunwa, Mark Scott & Tim Ridler.

Hailsham Town 2 – 4 Epsom & Ewell FC. Southern Combination League – Division One. Saturday 11th February.

Cast your mind back to the 19th of November. It was the day we made our last visit into Sussex when we made the journey to Wick and came away with a 2-0 win. That was also the last time we won a match, so it’s pleasing to report that we now have another positive result to our name after this 4-2 win at Hailsham Town.

What made the result even more impressive after this chaotic week at the club is that there were more new faces on show, replacing others who had departed, including a new keeper in Toby McKimm. However, he was harshly sent off after just 27 minutes of his debut and the ten men, including emergency keeper Nick Wilson managed to produce the goods when we really needed it.

McKimm was not the only player making his debut this week as new signing from Raynes Park Vale Jaan Stanley played up front and later on George Owusu from Sutton Common Rovers would come on to score on his first appearance.

We were missing Gideon Acheampong, Jamie Byatt and Johnny Akoto who were all advised as injured, while Josh Owen became the latest player to leave the club. Also on the bench was the returning Alex Penfold; a decision which surprised me, but will have annoyed other supporters, given his sending off and subsequent suspension and release from the club last season. I have always found Alex to be a decent chap, but bearing in mind the tumultuous events of the previous match against Oakwood, his arrival just in time for the next one could definitely have been timed better.

With Steve Springett coming in for the released Aaron Bogle, Kevin Moreno-Gomez retained his position at left back, while Wilson played at right back for the first time, although of course, not for that long as it turned out and later on the spot would be filled by another unlikely full back in Jaevon Dyer.

Another knock to our club history and traditions occurred when we took the field in our red third kit, seeing as our club colours have been blue for 105 years, and on a pitch likened by one of our supporters to a crumpet, the ball took a number of odd hops and bounces so it was clear that passing football was not going to be the order of the day. We would have to be a little more direct. We had a little scare on the quarter hour mark when the home side sent the ball in from the right, but the striker failed to make a decent contact and it drifted wide of McKimm’s goal. A Ryan Smith corner was headed on, but over the bar by Springett at the near post before Ryley Tate picked up an early booking for a cynical trip on Athan Smith-Joseph with just eighteen minutes on the clock.

Two minutes later we nearly went ahead in bizarre circumstances. The referee allowed a good advantage and Smith-Joseph attacked down the left wing, with his low ball in being deflected onto the post by George Whitley and then out for a corner. However, from the corner in the 21st minute we went ahead anyway after Smith’s corner was met by the giant Adeyemi and his header landed at the feet of Stanley who simply laid it back for Ollie Thompson to poke the ball into the opposite corner from around six yards out to register his first goal for our club.

Unfortunately celebrations were short lived as just four minutes later a harmless enough long ball led to a miscommunication between Thompson and McKimm and under pressure from a Hailsham striker an arm struck the ball just outside the area, for which McKimm would receive his marching orders a couple of minutes later. However, the view I was given by a number of people nearer the incident than I advised that the Hailsham player pushed Thompson into the ball where his arm then knocked the ball. Either way, it appears that McKimm was harshly dealt with and Wilson then took over between the posts; a job I’m told he had done before at Croydon in similar circumstances. Our defenders would protect him fairly well in this match, but he did well when called upon.

The resultant free kick was deflected off our wall for a corner amidst some appeals for a penalty and the corner was then cleared to Smith-Joseph, standing just inside his own half, from where he promptly ran fifty yards at goal from an angle down the right wing and from about twelve yards out literally lashed the ball as hard as he could past Ed Cooper and into the roof of the net for our second goal with 29 minutes on the clock. It was a fantastic strike and provided that little cushion a team needs when it is low on confidence and down by a player. The game continued in a fairly stop start fashion until the break with the only notable item to report being a yellow card awarded to our Manager in the 41st minute, presumably for something he said.

As the second half got going Adeyemi picked up an early yellow card for a handball, but the match settled into a pattern, with the home side trying to break through, but not having much success. Wilson was forced into a decent save in the 67th minute from a shot out on the right, with the rebound bouncing up a little too far for the incoming striker who couldn’t keep the shot down from close range.

In the 73rd minute though, we saw another brilliant goal as Smith-Joseph fed Dyer on the overlap and his cross was met by a stunning scissor volley from Adeyemi which flew into the roof of the net from fifteen yards to become the second Epsom player in this match to register his first goal for the club and put us three – nil up.

And another would follow as Owusu forced in a great low Smith-Joseph cross six minutes later after only being on the field for nine minutes. However, in between these strikes Hailsham had pulled a goal back through Tate after the ball reached him a few yards out after Wilson and / or a defender had done well to keep the original threat out, with a little help from a post in the 77th minute.

The final words went to the home side as Luca Bish, better known to younger supporters as a partner of footballer Michael Owen’s daughter Gemma on TV’s Love Island in 2022, but this time he did manage to score! It was another decent strike from just inside the area and gave Wilson no chance, although with the clock already showing the third minute of injury time, there was to be no further fightback and the match ended in a 4-2 victory to maintain our perfect record at the Beaconsfield of four wins from four visits dating back to 1993.

This result may just re-start our season on the field and may prove to be one of the most important results of the year when we look back.

Epsom & Ewell: Toby McKimm, Nick Wilson, Kevin Moreno-Gomez, Ryan Smith (c), Steve Springett, Oliver Thompson, Jaevon Dyer, Gavin Quintyne, Jaan Stanley, Thompson Adeyemi, Athan Smith-Joseph

Subs: Alex Penfold for Moreno-Gomez (51), George Owusu for Stanley (70), Musa Beegun for Adeyemi (81)

Creative Businesses in and around Epsom are being encouraged to sign-up to Surrey’s first Creative Growth and Business Summit. Taking place on March 1 and set-up by the University for the Creative Arts, the free-to-attend event will bring together the region’s creative trailblazers, entrepreneurs, and creative academic experts to look at how Surrey can build on its global reputation in the sector.  

Part of a £450,000 project to fund collaborations and innovation in Surrey’s creative sector, the summit will also see the launch of the Creative Industries Network.  

Professor Simon Macklin, Deputy Vice-Chancellor at UCA, said:

“Surrey is home to some of the world’s most innovative companies, practitioners, and entrepreneurs in the creative industries. This summit is all about bringing the creative sector together so that we can look at how we can share the University’s research, expertise and international connections to turbo-charge growth in the sector across Surrey.”

As well as providing opportunities to network, the summit will also provide information on how businesses can access the University’s expertise in securing funding to develop new opportunities. 

The summit takes place on March 1 at UCA’s Farnham campus. Visit uca.ac.uk/growth for more information and to sign up.

The University for the Creative Arts is a specialist art and design university in the south of England. It was formed in 2005 as University College for the Creative Arts at Canterbury, Epsom, Farnham, Maidstone and Rochester when the Kent Institute of Art and Design was merged into the Surrey Institute of Art & Design, which already had degree-awarding status;[4] both constituent schools had been formed by merging the local art schools, in Kent and Surrey respectively. It was granted university status in 2008, and the name changed to the present one. In 2016, it merged with the Open College of the Arts

A Surrey County Councillor has criticised the reduction in the number of Police Community Support Officers in recent years. PCSOs are non-warranted but provided with a variety of police powers and the power of a constable in various instances by the forty-three territorial police forces in England and Wales and the British Transport. Surrey Police employ about 2,153 warranted officers.

Analysis of new Home Office statistics commissioned by the Liberal Democrats from the House of Commons Library has shown the drastic cuts to PCSOs in Surrey. They claim a total of 88 full-time equivalent PCSOs were employed in Surrey as of September 2022. This is in stark contrast to the 123 that were employed in March 2015 – meaning there have been 35 PCSOs cut from Surrey Police in that time.

Epsom and Ewell Times asked Surrey Police for their take on the figures and a spokesperson said: “In 2022, to contribute to savings across the force, we reduced the number of Police Community Support Officers in Surrey Police to 96, 22 posts fewer than our previous staffing level of 118 full-time equivalent PCSOs. This reduction did not involve redundancies and achieving this staffing level did not result in a reduction in overall numbers in our Safer Neighbourhood Teams; we maintain a strong blended mix of police officers and PCSOs in these key frontline posts.

In September 2022, Surrey Police employed 88 PCSOs. This is lower than our desired number of PCSOs, so it is inaccurate to say that 35 PCSO roles have been cut by the Force. We are actively recruiting to bring our establishment level back up to 96.

We know how important a visible police team with local knowledge is to residents in each of our boroughs. A trusted, knowledgeable, and proactive local policing presence is just as important to us, and PCSOs are a valued and integral part of that.”

What is you view about visible policing in Epsom and Ewell? Write in to Epsom and Ewell Times.

Image West Midlands Police – https://www.flickr.com/photos/westmidlandspolice/7042127963/ CC BY-SA 2.0

Ever wondered where are those tower-blocks on the west horizon from Epsom Downs? Our LDRS journalist reports on Woking Council’s consideration of the height of its buildings:

Plans to limit high-rise development in Woking is akin to slamming the stable door shut after the horse has bolted, Surrey County Council’s ex-head of planning has said. On Thursday February 2, Woking Borough Council’s executive committee agreed to press ahead with its goal to create a masterplan that would “provide a long-term vision” for the town centre’s skyline.

It continues work that began in 2021 that included a six-month consultation which garnered more than 850 responses from about 450 individuals and organisations. According to council documents, though, there remain several legal issues the borough must overcome before it adopts the full masterplan, including the fallout of the Planning Inspectorate decision on the Crown Place from December 3 2022 that granted planning permission three towers of  23, 25 and 28 storeys respectively.

The appeal decision has had a “clear implication” for the Masterplan, the report read, “in that it has changed the nature of the townscape” and that “as a minimum, the design principles for this site, including what prospective heights may be appropriate, will need reconsidering.”

Furthermore, the report states, during the public consultation phase, Woking Borough Council received representations from developers regarding the possibility of legal challenges if it were to be adopted.  There is also the financial risk with officers identifying “significant” cost implications and suggesting the only way to “avoid unnecessary additional expense to the taxpayers purse” is not to proceed to adopt the Town Centre Masterplan in its current draft form.

This has caused the council to seek legal advice on how to proceed. Whether the masterplan can ever have the impact the council desires – fewer high rises in the town centre is debated.

Catriona Riddell is a former head of planning at Surrey County Council and current director at Catriona Riddell & Associates. She said: “Woking is a very tiny, very constrained borough with a lot of debate about how high up the developments go. Anywhere from Surrey you can see Woking. Some love it, some hate it. It’s very much Marmite.
“The Government is trying to help local authorities restrict the number of high rises but with Woking, it is going to be difficult as it already has so many. The local plan is in place in Woking and is up to date – that’s what developers will look at. Any supplementary planning won’t have the same status. Developers are used to playing this game. It’s going to be difficult for the council to change this.”

According to council papers, the masterplan will establish an “overarching vision for the town centre to enable designled, sustainable development, such as building new homes, cultivating a thriving retail and business environment and strengthening Woking’s cultural and leisure offer”. 

The report said that the “ambition and need for a clear and robust plan to guide development in the town centre, to give certainty to developers wishing to invest, and provide officers with an effective tool to assess planning applications and defend decisions on appeal remains”. 

This, Ms Riddell says, may be the best way for the authority to move forward. She added: ‘It will be about how to make the area a good place to live and work and the only way is through a masterplan so they are right to go ahead with it but it will be difficult with developers looking to build highrises. It will be very difficult for the council to argue its out of character. Woking has changed massively over the years, that horse has bolted.”

Surrey residents will pay nearly £50 a year more to the county council for its share of council tax from April.
The 2.99 per cent increase was confirmed at a full meeting of the authority on Tuesday (February 7) though opposition parties did not vote for the budget.

The raise, which is less than the 4.99 per cent councils can increase bills by without a referendum, is made up of 0.99 per cent on the core bill, and two per cent which will go towards adult social care. It will mean the average band D property will pay 94p per week, or £48.69 per year, more from April.

Surrey’s district and borough councils are still to confirm their increases.

The council’s Conservative leader, Tim Oliver (Weybridge) told the meeting the rise came in the context of the cost of living crisis, inflation and interest rates all impacting the council as well as Surrey residents. He added: “Everything we do has simply become more expensive to deliver. That can be seen in our budget papers, showing increased spending in almost every area.” Cllr Oliver said it was a “challenge” each year to deliver a balanced budget which nonetheless “prioritised those most in need of help and support but equally recognising that residents don’t always see or access many of our services“.

He said a “caring and democratic society” expected that people who needed to could turn to their local council for support, and pointed to nearly half of the council’s budget going on adult social care “looking after people with disabilities or extra needs as they get older”. The rise, he said, was less than inflation and less than in many other parts of the country.

But opposition group leaders on the council pointed to problems with the council’s home to school transport arrangements, families going to tribunals for SEND support and cuts to budgets.

Cllr Will Forster (Lib Dem, Woking South) highlighted £30m of cuts to adults and children’s social care, where “efficiencies” had been found in the budget. He said: “This budget has the wrong priorities. Rather than protecting services that vulnerable people rely on, they are targeted for cuts.”

The Lib Dem group also called on the council to spend some of its £150m of reserves, or savings, on highway repairs, saying residents wouldn’t understand why the council was “squirrelling” away money it could spend on improving the roads.

Residents’ group leader, Cllr Nick Darby (Dittons and Weston Green Residents, The Dittons), said £11m spent on an IT project that was still not operational, anger from residents over a proposed Guildford road closure and the “shambles” of school transport issues were signs of poor communication and consultation at the council. He said there was a need to “acknowledge problems, recognise them and then deal with them” adding that “not everything” in the budget was wrong.

Cllr Darby told the meeting: “On the one hand, we can and do provide figures which balance. It’s more difficult to fulfil our duty to residents by spending their money well, putting them first, especially the vulnerable.” He also repeated his call for a rethink of council tax bands, which would need to be done at central government level.

See below for a full breakdown of how much council tax money will be going to Surrey County Council from April:

Band A – £1,116.72 per year
Band B – £1,302.84 per year
Band C – £1,488.96 per year
Band D  – £1,675.08 per year
Band E – £2,047.32 per year
Band F – £2,419.56 per year
Band G – £2,791.80 per year
Band H – £3,350.16 per year

Related reports:

Surrey County Council sets 23/24 budget

Surrey County Council proposes 2023/24 budget

Plans to build 124 homes on undeveloped woodland next to Guildford Cathedral will threaten a memorial to Canada’s First World War military sacrifice, a preservation society has warned. Guildford Cathedral needs to carry out an estimated £3.2million in repairs, but unlike other cathedrals in the UK, it says, has “never possessed endowments of any significance and has always struggled to fund repairs to the Grade II* listed building”.

Image: Grahame Larter

To solve the issue, the cathedral sold a parcel of land to developers which, it says, will “enable the endowment to be secured for the cathedral which is vital for its survival” and secure its long-term maintenance.

The issue, says the Vimy Foundation, which oversees the public historical resources and modern perspectives on Canada’s participation in the First World War, is that land is a memorial to the 650,000 Canadians and Newfoundlanders who fought in Europe during the First World War, 66,000 of whom lost their lives.

Writing to Guildford Borough Council’s planning committee, the foundation said: “This undeveloped wooded area was created on the initiative of R.B. Bennet, prime minister of Canada from 1930 to 1935, who lived near Guildford, to provide a place for reflection and remembrance of Canada’s contribution during the conflicts that shook the first half of the 20th century.”

They added: “While understanding the needs of the Guildford community, The Vimy Foundation wishes to reaffirm its commitment to the preservation of memorial sites honouring Canada’s fallen soldiers. In recognition of the bravery and sacrifice of these men and women, their memory must continue to be honoured. The Vimy Foundation calls on decision-makers, Guildford Cathedral, Guildford Borough Council and developers, to preserve the commemorative and memorial dimension of this site and will support initiatives in this direction.”

There are currently seven homes on the site and used by staff cathedral staff. It is designated as open space as part of the Cathedral land but earmarked for 100 homes within the council’s local plan.  

A previous planning application to build 134 homes on the slopes of the cathedral was turned down, despite officer recommendations, by Guildford’s planning committee. Background papers to the application said it was due to the plans being “poor quality and out of character with the surrounding area”.

This led to the cathedral working with developers Vivid to carry out what it described as a “comprehensive review” that included “extensive work to address the reasons for refusal in the 2015 scheme”. The new plans would demolish the existing staff buildings to create 124 homes, 44 of which would be affordable. Cathedral staff would have use of 13 dwellings, with the remaining 111 consisting of 19 one bed units, 61 two-beds, 28 three-beds and three four-bed homes.

Matt O’Grady, chief operating officer at Guildford Cathedral, said: “The Charity Commission, the regulatory body responsible for these matters, was given the full details of the gift of land, including all associated historical correspondence. After a thorough assessment the commission approved schemes allowing the cathedral to sell the relevant land – allocated in Guildford’s Local Plan – for development.  R Bennet will always be acknowledged as the generous donor who enabled land to be purchased from the Earl of Onslow. 

“His contribution is commemorated in a ledger stone on the south elevation of the Cathedral and the protection of this is encapsulated in the Cathedral’s Grade II* listing and in the Care of Cathedrals Measure 2011. The Grade II* listed Guildford Cathedral doesn’t benefit from a large income in the same way as many English cathedrals; because it is relatively new, it doesn’t have any historic endowments. The sale of land to Vivid for new homes will safeguard the long-term future of the building. 

“The income generated will be used to create an annual endowment that will provide for the long-term repair, maintenance, and improvement of the cathedral.  The cathedral is proud of its community links and believes very strongly that it should play a part in contributing to new homes in Guildford.”

The latest neighbourhood consultation expired in January.  A date has yet to be set for the matter to appear before committee.

A councillor who visited rural India paused his tour to take photos of the roads because they were “in better condition than Surrey’s”. The Labour group leader on Surrey County Council said he visited the state of Karnataka last month and on a visit to a village school, stopped to take a photo of the road.

Councillor Robert Evans (Labour, Stanwell and Stanwell Moor) told a meeting of the council on Tuesday (February 7) that his host had asked him what was wrong with the roads there. He told the meeting he had replied: “Nothing, to the contrary. I just wanted photographic evidence that the road surfaces here in rural India are better than in many parts of Surrey.”

Cllr Evans also said his Stanwell residents asked him why roads in what he called the “forgotten part of Surrey” were worse than in other parts of the county. He told the meeting: “I actually tell them they’re not, they are pretty bad everywhere.”

In the meeting, councillors voted through the authority’s budget for 2023/24, though without the support of the opposition. The county council’s share of council tax will increase by 2.99 per cent from April, which means an increase of 94p per week, or £48.69 per year on the average band D property.

This is less than the 4.99 per cent which the government says councils can increase council tax by without a referendum, though Slough, Thurrock and Croydon councils were this week given permission to raise council tax by 10 and 15 per cent to help pay off huge borrowing costs.

The district and borough councils in Surrey, as well as the Police and Crime Commissioner, will also add their shares to the bills that will be paid by residents. Surrey’s £1.1billion budget, which includes spending of more than £400m on adult social care and £249m on children, families and lifelong learning was described as a “good and fair” budget by the council’s leader.

Cllr Oliver (Conservative, Weybridge) pointed to the council’s “ambitious” capital programme which included highways maintenance as well as low emission buses, flood alleviation measures, independent living facilities for the elderly and more accommodation in the county for looked after children.

A cabinet meeting last week heard that more government funding was needed in Surrey for repairs on the county’s 3,000 miles of roads. The Liberal Democrat group leader called on the council to spend money the council had in reserves rather than “cutting spending on roads and services for vulnerable people”. Cllr Will Forster (Woking South) said Surrey’s roads were “completely falling apart”. He pointed to a highways budget that he claimed would be less than £30m by 2024/25, compared to nearly £70m in the 2023/24 budget. He said: “That is not acceptable. Our residents would find that appalling.”

But another councillor said it would be “bonkers” to spend the council’s savings on road repairs or other projects.
Cllr Edward Hawkins (Conservative, Heatherside and Parkside) said he supported the budget and looking to the situation in the Ukraine, Turkey and Syria, that it was important not to spend money that had been put aside.
He told the meeting: “It’s bonkers to spend the money that you put aside for a rainy day, when we really don’t know what’s coming around the corner.”

The meeting opened with a minute’s silence for the dog walker who was killed in Caterham in January, the Epsom College head and her family who were found dead on Sunday (February 5) as well as those affected by earthquakes in Turkey and Syria.

Related Reports:

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

Surrey County Council proposes 2023/24 budget

Going potty about pot-holes?

Council Officers will be available to speak to you in person at the following places

• Monday 13 February 14:30 – 19:30 Bourne Hall, Azalea Room
• Thursday 16 February 12:00 – 17:00, Ashley Centre, Central Square
• Tuesday 21 February 14:30 – 19:30, Bourne Hall, Azalea room
• Wednesday 22 February 10:30 – 15:30, Community & Wellbeing Centre, Sefton Road
• Saturday 25 February 11:00 – 16:00, Ashley Centre, Central Square
• Tuesday 28 February 10:30 – 15:30, Community & Wellbeing Centre, Sefton Road

The incident at an address within Epsom College in the early hours of Sunday, 5 February is now being treated as a homicide investigation.

Officers were called to the property at around 01:10am by the South East Coast Ambulance Service. On arrival they found the bodies of three people who police are confident are Emma Pattison (45), her daughter Lettie (7), and her husband George (39).

The deaths have been reported to the coroner for formal identification.

The family’s next of kins have been informed and are being supported by specialist officers. We ask that their privacy is respected at this difficult time.

An investigation is being carried out to establish the full chronology and circumstances of the incident. At this stage, officers are confident there is no third-party involvement and there is no wider threat or risk to the community.

A firearm was found at the scene and has been recovered by officers, however, causes of death will not be confirmed until post-mortems have been completed later this week.

We can confirm the firearm was licensed and registered to George Pattison.

We had contact with George on Thursday, 2 February after he notified us of a previous change of address, as is routine. Due to the short period of time between that contact and this incident, we have made a referral to the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC).

We are aware of speculation regarding a firing range on the site. We can confirm this range does not form part of our scene or our inquiries. Any reporting to suggest otherwise is inaccurate.

Detective Chief Inspector Kimball Edey, Senior Investigating Officer on the case, said: “This is an incredibly traumatic incident and we are working around the clock to investigate and understand the exact circumstances which led to this point.

“We understand the public concern and upset, and we will clarify what we can, when we can, while respecting the right to a level of privacy for the families of those who have lost their lives.

“We are cooperating fully with the IOPC in relation to the referral we have made, and we await the outcome of its assessment of what further action may be required. Until this has been completed, we will be unable to provide further details on a number of matters.”

Inspector Jon Vale, Epsom and Ewell’s Borough Commander, said: “I know this incident has caused upset and sent shockwaves through the local community. Although we are confident that this incident was contained to one address, and there is no risk to the wider public I fully understand the concern this can and has caused members of our communities. Therefore, the public can expect to see a heightened police presence in the local area in the coming days. If you are concerned about anything at all I’d urge you to approach an officer and discuss your concerns with them. They will be ready and happy to help you however they can.

“I would like to send my continued thanks to the school and our public for their understanding while the investigation progresses.”

[Epsom and Ewell Times adds: The BBC reported at 6pm 07.02.23 on R4 that Surrey Police believe that Mr. Pattison shot dead his wife and daughter and then killed himself.]

Epsom & Ewell FC 1-2 Oakwood, Southern Combination League – Division One. Saturday 4th February 2023.

Ten weeks to the day since we last had a League contest on a Saturday and nearly five since we had a match of any kind, we emerged from our hibernation with an absolute shocker of a performance as we lost 2-1 to Oakwood; a team we had beaten by five clear goals on their own ground in August and who were sitting in the bottom four of the table. This was our fifth defeat in a row, which represents our worst run of form since 2019 and our first defeat on this date since 1995 after six previous straight wins.

Unfortunately, this awful performance is only one half of the story as our club’s name was sullied further by a frightening incident at half time when one of our players chose to leave the field of play to “have it out” with a spectator, who just happened to be the father of our goalkeeper Kamrun Zain. He was then promptly and correctly sent off by the referee whilst both were actually standing in the main body of terracing on the clubhouse side of the ground; a quite bizarre sequence of events quite unprecedented in our club’s history.

But back to the start. The club had heralded the arrival of three players in the last few days, yet none of them were in the squad, while our Coach Jack Porter was named as one of the subs, which, with no offence to Jack, usually happens when we are short. The irony here was that only one man actually made his debut in the starting eleven, Thompson Adeyemi and the club hadn’t ever mentioned him joining! Our Manager Anthony Jupp was unavoidably absent for this match so Matt Chapman and Kevin Espinosa took charge in the dugout.

Despite our healthy league position and the fact that we had been without competitive football for so long, only 84 were present on a perfect day for football and it was a shame that there was so little of it on display. The club described the figure in their brief report as “good”, but on a day when mid table Selsey registered 192, and with title rivals Shoreham getting 182 at home the week before, I would beg to differ. We were missing our main striker Jamie Byatt, Ben Bauchop and Johnny “Sonic” Akoto while Ryan Smith took over the armband, following the departure of Brad Peters to Step Five Broadbridge Heath, where according to our Chairman’s programme notes he is now playing Step Four football! There was no Josh Alder to take Byatt’s place after he joined Alfold and so Josh Owen took on the central striker’s role.

The first half was without doubt, the worst forty-five minutes supporters will have witnessed at this club this season as we failed to impose ourselves in any way against a team that were extremely limited in their ambitions at first, and understandably so, following our August win and a 6-0 drubbing last time they visited us. However, it became apparent after around fifteen minutes that we were only able to play one way; sideways, followed by balls down the flanks to either Athan Smith-Joseph or Jaevon Dyer, both of whom failed entirely to create a single delivery of note for Owen. With few other midfielders appearing willing to join the attacks, they were seen off with relative comfort.

Nick Wilson sent a powerful shot over the bar after Dyer’s pull back to the edge of the area, but in the 23rd minute the visitors took the lead from a completely innocuous free kick way out on their left flank. The ball in looked like it would reach Zain, but Adil Raman nipped in front and poked the ball past our keeper from eight yards. Whose fault was this? It’s hard to know for certain, but the absence of the commanding presence of Peters was instantly noticed as no one took charge of the situation and we paid for it.

This was concerning. Neither team had really looked like scoring to this point and it was a horribly frustrating half of football to watch as passes went astray. Oakwood were no better, but for a team like ours with substantial experience of playing at a higher level it was extremely disappointing to witness nobody really taking control of the situation. The referee was also being a bit fussy by this time and Wilson and Owen both received warnings for complaining about decisions before the latter picked up a petulant yellow card for raising his boot to try and block a goal kick; the sort of thing you learn not to do in kids football.

The whistle blew for half time and the crowd began to conduct its own post-mortems. However, something was going on in the opposite corner of the ground to me. It transpired that a spectator had been loud and abusive throughout the first half, so much so that it could be heard on my side of the pitch by some spectators. Most of the abuse being given out was in the direction of Aaron Bogle, and it was from our keeper’s father who was clearly upset with some of the communication Bogle was giving to his son between the posts. As the players went off for the break it spilled over and although Bogle was originally escorted away from the area, he returned and confronted the spectator on the terracing with an altercation between them resulting right in front of a number of our supporters, some of whom feared for their safety.

Almost out of nowhere the referee appeared and he had no alternative but to send our player off for this atrocity. There is no excuse for leaving the field of play, even under provocation and we await further news of what further actions will follow, once the referee’s report is studied.

The second half commenced, quite probably with many people being completely unaware of what had actually happened while they had their half time pints! Strangely, despite being a man down we were actually better in the second half, although admittedly that wasn’t hard to achieve! Smith-Joseph was much more prominent in this period and was involved in most of the attacking threats we created, setting up Dyer for a low shot in the 50th minute which was just wide. A corner shortly afterwards was met by an Owen header that was well tipped over by the Oakwood Captain, Andrew Graves and then Smith-Joseph’s ball in was only punched clear to Adeyemi in space just fifteen yards out, but his powerful strike at goal flew inches over the crossbar and hit the facia of the Bernard Edwards stand instead.

Almost immediately we paid for this miss as the visitors scored a second goal, when from just short of forty yards Darrell Agyemang spotted Zain a little off his line and struck the ball over him and into the net in the 65th minute. It was a superb goal and the absolute highlight of a match of such low quality. In response, we threw on Musa Beegun for his debut and Gavin Quintyne and in the 76th minute we had a goal back as Beegun and Dyer linked well before threading the ball to the advanced Gideon Acheampong. His deep cross caught Graves out and looked like it may go in on its own, but the ball was bundled over the line by Smith-Joseph who admitted after the match that it may have gone in off his arm!

Our winger almost scored again after a wild defensive pass went straight to him in the 86th minute, but his shot was well blocked and cleared. The Oakwood bench made it quite clear to their player what they thought of the wayward pass as it had nearly cost them two points, but apart from a late Wilson header that just missed the far post, we were all out of ideas and Oakwood claimed all three points to give them an excellent chance of escaping relegation.

I wrote after the Chessington defeat that we had worked hard to get up the League, but that another poor performance would not receive such a forgiving report. Quite simply this one was completely unacceptable to our extremely patient supporters and bearing in mind that our visitors are one of many clubs in this league without a playing budget, our players should be handing their wages back after this one. There was not a single redeemable feature to take from this match, yet worryingly, this was not the worst part of the day.

So what happens now? Well, for starters I can advise that our keeper has chosen to leave the club, as a screenshot of his message saying so was put out on social media in the last 24 hours. Maybe this is not a surprise, but either way, our Manager will have his hands full finding replacements in time for our trip to Hailsham Town next weekend. Be clear of one thing though. Promotion from the play offs is not the biggest disaster, particularly as Shoreham are now way clear of us at the top. However, further performances like this one will see us start to slip out of the playoff positions, which would not be acceptable to supporters.

What happens to Aaron Bogle is less clear as I write this some twenty-four hours after the event. Our club have belatedly put out a statement advising that the incident was unacceptable and will be dealt with accordingly. You would therefore draw the conclusion from this that he is to be released, but it is bizarre in the extreme that this hasn’t happened yet. It is easy to think back to December 2021 when the club’s decision to release Alex Penfold was publicised within a couple of hours of that match being abandoned, yet in my opinion, this Cantona-esque episode was worse and can only result in his release and subsequent long period of reflection from the sidelines. Concerningly, and as evidence of the club’s disjointed Media policy, there is no appearance of the statement on the club’s “official” website, and literally just one sentence in its match report covering the half time fracas, almost as if the club want to bury things and pretend they didn’t exist. Our club seem quite simply unable to grasp the situation and the number of times they have “read the room” wrongly is embarrassing in the two and a half years since the “new regime” and its new culture came in.

At a time when our club is about to ask for help from its supporter base with reference to its plans for the Hook Road Arena sporting hub, this club cannot afford to have such a situation hanging over it. Supporters at the game genuinely feared for their safety and I have had a number contacting me to express their disgust and explaining how the matter could have been handled better. Rather oddly I have also seen one occasional supporter has commented along the lines that the club could do no more at this time than to issue what was a vague and poorly written statement. That is their opinion, but I vehemently disagree with it. The Surrey FA will be watching and waiting for an extremely quick response here as charges will surely follow and our club’s reputation needs to be protected. We need to be doing something and should have done this already.

This horrible incident at what tries to portray itself as a family and community club could and should have been prevented by its officials. Committee members advised supporters that they had not heard the extremely loud abuse going on during the first half, but this is hard to believe as evidenced by people hearing it across the other side of the ground. Then, when it all happened, the player was removed from the area rapidly enough, but the supporter was not. In fact, he then wandered to the other side of the pitch. The person concerned was finally escorted from the ground by our Vice-Chairman Barry Gartell midway through the second half, but the moment he walked away from the entrance, the supporter just walked back in and watched the remainder of the match.

Epsom & Ewell: Kamrun Zain, Gideon Acheampong, Kevin Moreno-Gomez, Ryan Smith (c), Oliver Thompson, Aaron Bogle, Jaevon Dyer, Nick Wilson, Josh Owen, Thompson Adeyemi, Athan Smith-Joseph

Subs: Musa Beegun for Adeyemi (72), Gavin Quintyne for Owen (72)

In the early hours of Sunday morning 5th February, Surrey Police was contacted by the South East Coast Ambulance Service to a property on the grounds of Epsom College. Officers attended at around 01:10am where they, sadly, found the bodies of three people, including a child.

Surrey Police can confirm that the bodies found were Emma Pattison (45), Head of Epsom College, her daughter Lettie (7), and her husband George (39). The family’s next of kins have been informed and are being supported by specialist officers. We ask that their privacy is respected at this difficult time.

An investigation is being carried out to establish the circumstances of their deaths. At this stage, police are confident that this is an isolated incident with no third-party involvement.

Detective Chief Inspector Kimball Edey said, “On behalf of Surrey Police, my team, and I, I first want to express my sincerest condolences to the friends and family of Emma, Lettie and George, as well as to the students and staff of Epsom College, for their tragic loss. I want to give my assurance that we will conduct a thorough investigation into what took place last night, and hope to be able to bring some peace in these traumatic circumstances. I would ask that their privacy is respected at this very difficult time.”

Inspector Jon Vale, Epsom and Ewell’s Borough Commander, said: “We’re aware that this tragic incident will have caused concern and upset in the local community. While this is believed to be an isolated incident, in the coming days, our local officers will remain in the area to offer reassurance to students, parents, teachers, and the local community. I would like to thank the school and the community for their understanding and patience while the investigation continues.”

The three deaths have been reported to the Coroner.

Dr Alastair Wells, Chair of the Board of Governors at Epsom College, said, “On behalf of everyone at Epsom College, I want to convey our utter shock and disbelief at this tragic news. Our immediate thoughts and condolences are with Emma’s family, friends and loved ones, and to the many pupils and colleagues whose lives she enriched throughout her distinguished career. Emma was a wonderful teacher, but most of all she was a delightful person. In time we will commemorate Emma and her family, in the appropriate way, and in line with the wishes of her family. But for now, we ask that we are all given the time, space and respect we need to come to terms with this tragic loss.”

There is currently a significant police presence at the location, and the surrounding area, and we would like to thank the local community for their understanding while our officers continue their investigation.

Image – Epsom College –  Copyright Naveed Barakzai/Maxal Photography, but licenced under Creative Commons ShareAlike 2.5.

When is a question not a question? This issue was the subject of heated discussion at the 2^nd February meeting of the Epsom and Ewell Borough Council’s Audit and Scrutiny Committee. Former Stamford Ward councillor Previn Jagutpal, who resigned his seat in December, used the council’s procedures to ask a question at the start of the meeting: “When an outside agency such as … the Local Government Ombudsman [LGO] makes a determination about the functioning of this council, what is the process for the Chair of Scrutiny … to be informed?”

The chair, Cllr. Steve Bridger (RA, Stamford Ward), referred the question to a legal officer attending the meeting. “I believe the process,” the officer reported, “is that there’s going to be an annual report which will come to the committee which reports on any decisions made by the Ombudsman.”

Invited to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Jagutpal, then asked the Chair if he was “satisfied that all communications from outside agencies such as … the LGO in your 4 years as Chairman of this committee have followed that process and you have been informed of all such decisions?”

The Chair was again prompted. “You will receive a written answer in due course,” he said.

Mr. Jagutpal then requested to ask a second question. However, the officer ruled that his supplementary question was his second question. Mr Jagutpal argued that, according to the council’s constitution, a question followed by a supplementary question is one question, then a second question may be asked. But the officer responded that “You have asked a second question. There are no further questions we can answer tonight.”

“Are you going to deny me my constitutional right?” Mr Jagutpal asked. “As far as tonight, that’s it in terms of questions,” ruled the officer and Mr. Jagutpal left the council chamber.

Cllr. David Gulland (Lib Dem, College Ward) wanted to discuss the matter further “Obviously that question and the answers raised further questions in many of our minds,” he said and asked if the committee could discuss the matter.

Another pause from the chair was followed by “No, we continue with the agenda.”

But Cllr Gulland was not so easily put off. During the course of the evening he asked many other questions relating to the information being provided to the Committee and the Council’s internal processes. But he left his most damning speech for the final agenda item.

“Under the constitution,” he argued, “the monitoring officer is meant to report to all councillors on any breach of regulation or of data protection or where the ombudsman has reported it to us … I had to go and look for it, [but] I’ve found the letter of 20th July 2022 from the ombudsman to our interim chief executive, a public document, [which says that] ‘during the year your council failed to respond in time to our correspondence during three investigations. On each occasion, we had to escalate the matter internally and were forced to consider issuing a witness summons and a public report for non-compliance. Such delays in our investigation undermine our role and can result in further distress to complainants.’

“There’s a big elephant in the room,” Cllr. Gulland continued, “that our processes are not working and, more importantly, this committee has not been told about that. I would welcome comments from the chairman or the officer about my comments on the ombudsman and also about data protection issues.”

Again, it was the officer who responded. “You are referring to an old letter from the ombudsman,” he said, the letter being barely more than six months old. “I’m very happy to look into that. We’ll come back to you on issues about data protection.”

The July 2022 letter from the LGO acknowledges the challenges faced by local councils coping with pandemic working practices and the impact on services. The LGO seeks to encourage and assist EEBC in improving its procedures.

Meanwhile, members of the public and possibly even members of the committee may remain in the dark about possible breaches of regulations.

When is a question not a question? You decide. These are the relevant paragraphs from the council’s constitution:

1.9 At the Meeting the Chair/Chairman will ask the questioner if the response

answers their concern or if they wish to ask one supplementary question. If a

supplementary question is asked, it must arise from the reply given.

1.11 If a member of the public asks or wishes to ask more than one question, their

second question (written or oral) shall be taken after all other individuals who

wish to ask a question have been given the opportunity to do so.

Related Reports:

Man wrongly labelled ‘vexatious complainant’ by Epsom and Ewell Council

Sutton & Epsom RFC 26 – Camberley 50. Saturday 4th February. This fixture was scheduled for December but fell victim to the freezing weather. Camberley arrived smarting from a most unexpected defeat, only the second of their campaign, at the hands of lowly Bournemouth and were keen to return to winning ways. In contrast Sutton hoped to gain inspiration from the Chapel Gate upset and record a priceless win. After a wonderfully entertaining
encounter with a dozen tries it was the visitors who claimed the victory, but not all the plaudits, with a 50-26 success.

Image courtesy  Robin Kennedy

Liam Prescott kicked off towards the clubhouse for Camberley and S&E were soon awarded
a penalty at the breakdown. Sutton had the first opportunity to open the scoring from the line out
on the opposition 22. Rob Hegarty carried well and that began an onslaught on the opposition line.
Probing runs from George Drye and Stefan Cooksammy saw the ball move from one side of the
pitch to the other against sterling defence by their lofty opponents. Then, agonisingly, George
Owen intercepted the ball 5 metres from his line and after some juggling secured the ball and
sped away down the touchline to score the first of his hat trick of tries. Liam Prescott impressively
slotted the conversion from touch for 7-0. Undeterred by the setback Sutton stormed back and the
sidestepping Kyren Ghumra was stopped 5 metres short. The ball was quickly spun to the opposite
flank for Ollie Baptiste-Wilson to score. Freddy Bunting levelled it for 7-7. It was a mightily
impressive reply considering the deflating nature on the earlier score.

Sutton & Epsom had started impressively and had met Camberley’s first sorties were met
with resolute defence as both sides tried to assert themselves territorially with well-placed kicks.
As the end of the first quarter approached the Watchetts XV kicked a penalty into the corner. Their
lineout very efficient lineout catch and drive set up prop Adam Pickett for a try. Though Liam
Prescott failed with the conversion they had regained the lead at 12-7. This score initiated 20
minutes of stunning rugby as Camberley produced the best passage of play seen at Rugby Lane
this season or, indeed, on any of the Black & Whites’ travels this campaign.

From another attacking line out the well-oiled machine churned out another try as Dom
Sammut powered over. Liam Prescott added the extras for 19-7. If these two scores were
functional and efficient the next four were far more thrilling in their execution. As if to prove they
were not one trick ponies the next line out ball was spun wide to be to be touched down in the
corner by George Owen. Liam Prescott converted from the touchline for 26-7 and the vital bonus
point was secured. A clinical finish that was a mere hors d’oeuvres to the sumptuous feast that
was to follow. Camberley won a scrum near halfway and went left and Liam Prescott put the
runner into space as wonderfully angled running and passes were interchanged to see centre Alex
Young score. Liam Prescott bisected the uprights for 33-7. Sutton cause was not aided as they lost
Stefan Cooksammy to a dislocated shoulder. The emboldened visitors were in no mood for
sympathy and were running the ball from everywhere. A 50-metre burst from their 22 down the
left was then recycled and spun to the right as brisk well-timed passes saw try number six.
Moments later try number seven was a replica of the previous one for 43-7. The timing of the
passes, the pace and the unselfish play were breathtaking as Nick Barry scored and Alex Young
collected his second try. The only surprise was that Liam Prescott’s conversions had drifted wide.
Sutton were dealt another injury blow when winger Kyren Ghumra withdrew injured. The
rearranged back division saw Ross Parsons off the bench to 9, Austin Bell retreat to 15 and
Lawrence Elliott slot in in the centres. Meanwhile Captain Chris Farrell was press-ganged into the
backs. From adversity sprung hope as the half ended with prop Alex Mount crossing the whitewash
and Freddy Bunting converting to make the score 43-14 at the break. It had been a half of
fabulous rugby but the Rugby Lane crowd must have been a little bit concerned over their interval beverage how their emergency three-quarter unit would cope against the expected second half
onslaught.

The contest resumed and Sutton put on a display of rare character and courage against
their esteemed opponents and making light of adversity they threw themselves into attack in
glorious style from the first whistle. Replacement prop Joe Reid was added to the mix and Sutton
won a penalty from the scrum they had been awarded from the restart. Ross Parsons took it
quickly and broke down field as excellent support play saw Josh Glanville score. Freddy Bunting
made it 21-43 for a perfect start to the second half for the hosts. Both sides threw caution to the
wind confident in their ability to add to their tally of tries. It was breathless stuff with S&E with
limited possession not only resolute in defence but attacking with panache at every opportunity.
The hosts secured a bonus point with their own catch and drive try that saw George Drye touch
down which was a deserved reward for a superb display by the lock forward. The only blemish
was a rare miss from Freddy Bunting as the Black & Whites now trailed 26-43.

Camberley attempted to reassert their scoreboard superiority but the Rugby Lane team
was emboldened by their tries and were now formidable in defence. Ross Parsons and Chris Farrell
in quick succession stopped the visitors near the line. S&E withstood a 5-metre catch and drive
and turned the ball over on the line. The siege was lifted and Sutton returned to the front foot
seeking another score. Indeed, it took until the final play of the game for the Black & White line to
be breached. It needed a deft piece of skill by Liam Prescott to deflect the pass under pressure to
George Owen who squeezed in at the corner to complete his hat trick. The redoubtable Prescott
converted from touch and Mr Powdrell concluded proceedings with Camberley 50-26 winners.
The visitors were excellent from 1 to 15, they not only had power and pace but clinical
precision exploiting every overlap in a thrilling display of 15-man rugby. However, by keeping
Camberley to a solitary second half try in the final moment was a measure of the quality, character
and determination of S&E’s performance in the second period. Making light of the mitigating
circumstances of the injuries they again showed at Rugby Lane they are a XV that plays well
above their lowly position in the table.

Next Saturday S&E host local rivals Wimbledon who are on the crest of a wave having won
every game this season following an opening day blip against Camberley. Having not being
inconvenienced by the elements they sit on top of the table with the handsome advantage of
points secured on the board. At Barham Road in the reverse fixture against S&E the Dons were
41-10 winners despite a very spirited display by the Black & Whites. The match will kick off at
Rugby Lane at 2:30pm.

Sutton & Epsom
Lawrence Elliott, Ollie Baptiste-Wilson, Sam Hurley, Stefan Cooksammy, Kyren Ghumra, Freddy
Bunting, Austin Bell, Alex Mount, Chris Farrell ©, Will Lloyd, George Drye, Josh Glanville, George
London, Rob Hegarty & Tom Brooker.
Replacements: (all used) Joe Reid, Tom French & Ross Parsons.

Camberley
Victor Hardwicke, Max McCarthy, Alex Young, Jaid Wiltshire, George Owen, Liam Prescott, Alistair
Walton, Adam Pickett, Michael Clarke, Nicholas Barry, Sam Voight, Dom Sammut, Ed Grosvenor,
Chris Bird ©, Alex Hughes.
Replacements: (all used)
George Franzel, Josh Watson & Joseph Wood.