On Saturday Epsom and Ewell FC secured an extremely important three points against promotion rivals Selsey, defeating them by the same score line of 3-2 that we had in deepest Sussex back in March. As with that match, this encounter contained some twists and turns but ultimately went our way due to another late winner, this time from Lewis Pearch, whose first goal for our club may turn out to be one of the most important of the season.

Going into this contest, we already knew that two wins from our remaining three matches would guarantee us the second playoff spot, barring a very unlikely swing of goal difference, but we also knew that Selsey still had aspirations to qualify themselves, so this was always going to be a tight encounter. With current Manager Barry Gartell away, Matt Chapman again took charge and we made just one change to the starting eleven from Wednesday’s draw against Mile Oak with Steve Springett coming in for the absent Kevin Moreno-Gomez. However, Springett was not played in his regular left back slot in this match, instead playing in the centre of defence with Gideon Acheampong reverting to right back and Johnny “Sonic” Akoto moving over to the left, maybe as a design to try to use his speed to keep visiting danger man Shane Brazil as quiet as possible, and the pair of them had a decent battle today.

We needed a good start and for the first time in weeks, we got one in the ninth minute. A superb interchange of passes between Jaan Stanley and Jaevon Dyer on the right resulted in a ball across the edge of the penalty area to Athan Smith-Joseph, who took a touch, headed back across to the right before suddenly drilling the ball back across Syd Davies into the Selsey net from 18 yards.

Unfortunately that would prove to be the extent of Smith-Joseph’s involvement as he aggravated his hamstring a few minutes later and limped off, to be replaced on the left wing by Pearch. Hopefully he will not be out for very long as it was clear that our replacement didn’t really carry the same threat in a position that admittedly isn’t his primary one.

Another injury would also prove pivotal in the 28th minute as a couple of our players went up with Davies for a right wing cross and Stanley collided with the keeper, catching him around the knee. I’ll be honest, it looked fairly innocuous at the time but despite treatment Davies would require another bit of work with the physio shortly after and was strapped up for the remainder of the half before being replaced at half time by Ryan Matlock.

At this point, I was hoping that our players would get a chance to test him out with a couple of shots, but the visitors were actually getting back into the match and kept the ball away from him for a while. Then things got worse for us as they equalised from a harmless looking free kick over on the Selsey left wing in the 40th minute as Corey Burns nipped ahead of Tom Theobald to reach the near post delivery and flick it past him from close range, although it would have been nice to have seen a defender somewhere near him!

However, before half time we were back in front. Jamie Byatt collected the ball around twenty yards out in the third minute of injury time and decided that he did indeed want to test their limping keeper out, striking a beauty from twenty yards that just sailed over the rather stationary Davies. It was a superb piece of opportunism and of all the 40, yes 40 goals Byatt has now scored for us in under two seasons, this was probably the one that was from the furthest distance!

We were arguably a little fortunate to be ahead at the half, but it was irrelevant soon after anyway as the visitors equalised in the 51st minute. We had already had a scare when Brazil’s shot had gone wide of the goal, but from a corner shortly afterwards, Theobald tried to punch the ball clear, only to knock the ball straight onto the shoulder of Bradley Vaughan from where the ball rebounded into the net.

At 2-2 this match really could have gone either way. We wobbled for a few minutes and Theobald redeemed himself with a superb double save after a Selsey shot had rebounded back to a striker off the foot of his right hand post, blocking the subsequent header and then a follow up shot which he turned wide for a corner.

With the clock on 68 minutes we brought on Thompson Adeyemi and Rory Edwards to give us fresh legs and Adeyemi set up Dyer who crumpled under a challenge from Matlock, even though there was no contact and was fortunate not to be booked for simulation, although Burns did pick up a card for Selsey around the same time for a handball.

As we started to enter the closing stages though, we began to get a little more possession and Springett sent a thirty yard free kick just wide of the post. With George Owusu already on for Dyer, Alex Penfold then came on for Nick Wilson with Springett moving over onto the left wing and releasing Pearch to a more central position alongside Byatt. This tactical move would prove pivotal in the 91st minute as a deep Penfold free kick was only headed half clear by Bradley Higgins-Pearce under pressure from Adeyemi and the ball fell to Pearch, standing just beyond the penalty spot and he guided his header over everyone and into the net for what proved to be the winner.

At the end there was a lot of celebration from our players, perhaps too much when considering that we still have much work to do to gain promotion. However, part of this probably came from the relief of winning a match that looked like it was turning against us and also guaranteed us a playoff spot, so it was understandable. Now we have to make sure that we get three more points to ensure that this home match wasn’t our last ever at Fetcham Grove. We’re not quite ready to leave just yet!

Epsom & Ewell: Tom Theobald, Gideon Acheampong, Johnny Akoto, Nick Wilson, Dylan Merchant, Steve Springett, Jaevon Dyer, Gavin Quintyne, Jamie Byatt, Jaan Stanley, Athan Smith-Joseph

Subs: Lewis Pearch for Smith-Joseph (17), Thompson Adeyemi for Stanley (68), Rory Edwards for Quintyne (68), George Owusu for Dyer (78), Alex Penfold for Wilson (85)

With local controversies about the draft Local Plan eyeing up Green Belt, Epsom and Ewell Borough Council soon decides on two Town proposals. LDRS reports:

Plans for a care home on the site of the former Epsom police station and ambulance station are set for refusal by councillors. The planned building, a 96-bed care in Church Street in Epsom, would be over three to five storeys, but council officers have raised concern about its “overly-domineering” impact on the surrounding area.

A meeting of Epsom and Ewell Borough Council’s planning committee on Thursday (April 20) will make a decision on the application.

The 96 bedrooms in the proposed home would provide nursing, residential and dedicated dementia care, and would have en suite wet rooms.

There are 20 listed buildings in the The Church Street Conservation Area, which wraps around the south and west ends of the site. Officers said the scale, form, design and materials of the plans would cause “cause less than substantial harm” to the nearby listed buildings including Hermitage (Grade II Listed), Ashley Cottages (Grade II Listed) and The Cedars (Grade II* Listed).

A council report into the care home said the building would “represent an overly domineering and incongruous addition that would fail to integrate with the prevailing character and appearance of the area”.

Concerns were also raised about the future of trees on the site including a cedar and a lime tree during excavation works for the development.

At the same meeting, councillors should make a decision on a plan for 20 homes in a five- and six-storey development on the corner of West Street and Station Approach in the town.

The plans, which would include just two affordable homes and five parking spaces, received 51 letters of objection raising concerns about the impact on the character of the town, and the loss of the existing building.
Officers have recommended the plans be approved, which would include the demolition of the current 1905 building which was originally a corn and coal merchants.

The redevelopment of the former Gillespie’s Bakery building has been objected to by the county council’s highways authority, because of the need to reduce the width of the existing pavement and cycle path.

Under a previous application, the highways authority had not objected to plans, but since then a stronger policy had been adopted to improve travel methods for pedestrians and cyclists, leading to the objection.

Despite the five car parking spaces not meeting the council’s guidelines for parking, an officers’ report said: “The site is in a highly sustainable location with access to a number of public transport modes and the displaced parking can be accommodated in adjacent public car parks and via on street parking.”

The two affordable homes in the plans also fall below the council’s affordable housing recommendations, but a 40 per cent provision would “substantially affect the overall viability of the scheme”, according to council documents.

The meeting will take place on Thursday, April 20 at 7.30pm.

Related reports:

West Street developers climbing down enough?

From custody to caring – new plans for Epsom’s old nick.

The High Court legal challenge into oil drilling at Dunsfold has been confirmed for June 8. The case will examine planning permission granted for exploratory drilling of £123million of oil near the Surrey Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

The UK Oil and Gas (UKOG) was originally refused planning permission to search for fossil fuels at Loxley Well in Dunsfold in December 2020 by Surrey County Council’s planning committee.

UKOG appealed in June 2022 after a public inquiry and was given the green light by the Department of Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, led by Surrey Heath MP Michael Gove.

Almost immediately, Waverley Borough Council challenged the appeal decision in the High Court with £13,000 set aside for the legal challenge.

In March this year anti-fracking campaigners celebrated the news that the case would be heard in the High Court after being granted a judicial review.

The June 8 date was pencilled in for the hearing, and this week it was set in stone after some discussion over potentially moving the date.

The case has been picked up by the Good Law Project and is being challenged on two fronts. The first, they argue, relates to the “inconsistency in decision-making by the Secretary of State” who approved Dunsfold drilling the same day he refused a comparable site in Ellesmere Port over greenhouse gas emissions. The second argument relates to the drilling site being on the edge of an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and national policy requires planning decisions to give great weight to “conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty” in AONBs.

Good Law Project legal manager, Jennine Walker said: “Let’s be clear: exploiting our natural landscape for fossil fuels should be a thing of the past and is completely at odds with our crucial efforts to reach net-zero. This is why we are delighted to be supporting the next stage of Protect Dunsfold’s legal challenge which seeks to overturn the Government’s scandalous decision to overrule the local council and give the green light to a gas exploration scheme in the Surrey Hills.

“The High Court recently confirmed Protect Dunsfold’s case is arguable and we now look forward to the hearing in June at which we hope the Judge will overturn the Government’s scandalous decision”.

MP Jeremy Hunt said the plans should be “formally shelved” altogether.

A crowdfunding page has also been launched for those looking to support the legal challenge.

Related reports:

Surrey MPs oppose each other on drills in the hills

The Hills Are Alive With the Sound of Drilling… ?

Fractious Court case anticipated

Image: Residents strongly campaigned against an exploratory well (Image: Surrey Advertiser)

Danny Baker – The Sausage Sandwich Tour– Epsom Playhouse – 12 April 2023. A review by Epsom and Ewell Times.

Once television’s go to cheeky chappie Cockney, Danny Baker demonstrates how much more there is to his life and career than that lazy characterisation: West End record shop assistant at 14, partying with Elton John and Rod Stewart by 17, co-founder of Sniffin’ Glue underground punk magazine at 19, New Musical Express journalist, TV presenter, radio host, script writer to Jonathan Ross, Chris Evans, Peter Kay, Ricky Gervais et al all by 40, and now at 66 add to that list raconteur touring the country and playing to sell-out audiences with his stand-up show.

Stand-up? More like stand still, Danny for Pete’s sake! Baker notches up his 10,000 steps comfortably in the first half as he walks to and fro across the stage in his fezz and brandishing a wand. After four hours we are exhausted, one can only imagine how Baker is feeling. Leaving the Playhouse at 11.20 p.m. after kicking off at 7.30 p.m. you can see that our host is giving the late Ken Dodd a run for his money in giving his audiences value for money.

The wonderful undercurrent of Danny’s life is the sheer unpredictability of it. John Lennon once famously said ‘Life is what happens to you when you’re busy making other plans’, well in Danny’s case life is what happened to him when he was busy making no plans whatsoever. Driven only by the advice from his Dad never to sign on because ‘then, they’ve got you’,  Danny meandered into one fabulous job after another. Of course, if he wasn’t innately talented and possessing a natural connection with audiences of all kinds he would have fallen at the first hurdle. Baker also has bucketloads of gumption.

Danny hurtles through his life until his knee deep in the names he has dropped. But, why not? He has worked with and knows nearly everyone from Q4 20^th century popular culture. But his feet remain firmly planted in Deptford soil as he refused to play the celeb game. Despite it all he remains one of us, not one of them. He’s our imposter in their world. He’s a fighter, shaking off cancellation and cancer along the way. He’s funny. He doesn’t do emoting. He has no messages for us. If there is an opposite to virtue signalling this show is it. He has no lofty pronouncements on his “art”. Instead, he tells us his nice home is “the house that Daz built”, referencing his cringy TV ads from the 1990s. Danny Baker is an unvarnished old school cockney and there are few left. Go and see him while you can.

Epsom and Ewell residents will go to the polls on May 4 to elect their councillors for the next four years.

All 35 seats on the council are up for election in Surrey’s smallest borough, and elections are taking place at the other ten lower-tier authorities in the county as well.

The election at Epsom and Ewell Borough Council comes just six weeks after members voted for a pause to the plan for homes in the borough in order to re-consider the inclusion of green belt sites such as Horton Farm being used for homes.

The council is currently led by Residents’ Association councillors and has been since it was founded in 1938. Residents will elect councillors to 14 wards this year, with a new ward added in Horton.

Below we list all the candidates standing across the borough:

College
Kate Emily Brooks – Residents’ Associations of Epsom and Ewell
Nigel Kenneth Benno Sippel Collin – Residents’ Associations of Epsom and Ewell 
Charlotte Mary Day – Residents’ Associations of Epsom and Ewell 
Julian Peter Freeman – Liberal Democrat Focus Team
James John Lawrence – Liberal Democrat Focus Team
Helen Lewis – Labour Party 
Julie Anne Morris – Liberal Democrat Focus Team 
Christopher Charles Muller – Conservative
Tom Peer – Conservative
Michael John Ware – Conservative
Court
Chris Ames – Labour Party 
Christine Rosemary Beams – Residents’ Associations of Epsom and Ewell 
Kate Chinn – Labour Party
Rob Geleit – Labour Party
David Erwin Lyndsay – Conservative
Geoffrey Christopher Pope – Conservative
Karen Seidel – Liberal Democrat 
Sandy Smyth – Conservative
Mary Catherine Sullivan – Residents’ Associations of Epsom and Ewell 
David Michael Triggs – Residents’ Associations of Epsom and Ewell 
Cuddington
Caroline Barretto – Labour Party
Dan Brown – Liberal Democrat 
Kevin Rhys Davies – Labour Party 
Garrett Michael Doran – Conservative
Alex Paul Hawkes Cole – Conservative
Graham Owen Jones – Residents’ Association of Cuddington 
Phil Neale – Residents’ Association of Cuddington 
Arun Matyjas Saini – Liberal Democrat 
Rajesh Saini – Liberal Democrat
Kim Spickett – Residents’ Association of Cuddington 
Lynn Walker – Conservative
Ewell Court
Tamas Balog – Liberal Democrat 
Tom Chaloner – Conservative
Oliver Nathaniel Clement – Conservative
Dan Edwards – Labour Party
David Walter Gulland – Liberal Democrat 
Debbie Monksfield – Labour Party 
Peter William O’donovan – Ewell Court Residents’ Association
Christopher Robin John Watson – Ewell Court Residents’ Association 
Ewell Village
Christine Gladys Cleveland – Residents’ Associations of Epsom and Ewell 
andrew Nicholas Cook – Conservative
Sandra Noel Hatfield – Labour Party
Kenneth John Kimber – Liberal Democrat 
andrej Kubicek – Liberal Democrat 
David Anthony Lee – Green Party 
Graham Rapier – Conservative
Clive David Woodbridge – Residents’ Associations of Epsom and Ewell 
Horton
Ros Godson – Labour Party 
Eber Alan Kington – Residents’ Associations of Epsom and Ewell
Henal Vinod Ladwa – Residents’ Associations of Epsom and Ewell 
Philip Mclauchlan – Liberal Democrat 
Bernie Muir – Conservative
Kieran Persand – Conservative
Mark Christian Todd – Labour Party
Paul Stephen Vagg – Liberal Democrat
Nonsuch
Jamie Abrahams – Conservative
Janice Baker – Green Party
Stephen William Dixon – Liberal Democrat 
Shanice Goldman – Residents’ Associations of Epsom and Ewell 
Gaye Hadfield – Labour Party
Christine Anne Howells – Residents’ Associations of Epsom and Ewell 
Robert Leach – Residents’ Associations of Epsom and Ewell 
Steven Liu – Conservative
Gary Derek Peters – Liberal Democrat 
Sharon Marie Stead – Liberal Democrat 
Ajay Kumar Uppal – Conservative
Ian Leslie Ward – Labour Party
Ruxley
Rob Adnitt – Labour Party
Joseph Ojo Alawo – Conservative 
Catherine Anne Carver-Hill – Labour Party 
Alex Coley – Residents’ Associations of Epsom and Ewell 
David Raymond John Collins – Conservative
David Michael Kidd – Green Party
Jan Mason – Residents’ Associations of Epsom and Ewell 
Marian Paula Morrison – Liberal Democrat
Stamford
Andrew Darren Bailey – Green Party
Steve Bridger – Residents’ Associations of Epsom and Ewell 
David Colleton Buxton – Liberal Democrat Focus Team 
Richard William Chinn – Labour Party 
Alison Kelly – Liberal Democrat Focus Team
Karen Landles – Labour Party
Martin Olney – Residents’ Associations of Epsom and Ewell
Aaron Persand – Conservative
Stephen Pontin – Conservative
Stoneleigh
Rusmat Roland Arthur Ahmed – Liberal Democrat
Charlotte Ann Angus – Conservative
Hannah Charlotte Emily Dalton – Stoneleigh and Auriol Residents’ Association 
Brian William Fisher – Liberal Democrat 
Anthony John Froud – Stoneleigh and Auriol Residents’ Association 
Sue Hoyle – Labour Party 
Tracy Margaret Muller – Conservative
Ragu Raymond – Labour Party
Town
Arthur Abdulin – Residents’ Associations of Epsom and Ewell 
Neil andrew Dallen – Residents’ Associations of Epsom and Ewell 
Danny Leonard Fullilove – Conservative
John Stuart Gosling – Labour Party
Yvonne Caroline Grunwald – Green Party 
Sarah Louise Kenyon – Labour Party
Rachel Sarah King – Residents’ Associations of Epsom and Ewell 
Gillian Miles – Liberal Democrat
Jamie Joseph O’sullivan – Conservative
Philip Victor Pavey – Liberal Democrat
Meera Persand – Conservative
Sarah Louise Charlotte Whitworth – Liberal Democrat
West Ewell 
Jason George anderson – Labour Party 
Patrick Christopher Campion – Conservative
andrew John Casey – Liberal Democrat 
Linda Martha Chmiel – Liberal Democrat 
Tony Foster – Green Party 
Lisa Zahra Haghir – Liberal Democrat
Nafiz Huq – Conservative
Lucie Kimberley Mcintyre – Residents’ Associations of Epsom and Ewell 
O’sullivan Kitty – Conservative
Humphrey Reynolds – Residents’ Associations of Epsom and Ewell 
Alan Keith Williamson – Residents’ Associations of Epsom and Ewell 
Woodcote and Langley Vale
Abbey Bloom – Labour Party 
Liz Frost – Residents’ Associations of Epsom and Ewell 
Bernice Froud – Residents’ Associations of Epsom and Ewell 
Daniel Charles Martyr – Liberal Democrat 
Emily Lucia Cottam Martyr – Liberal Democrat
Steven John Mccormick – Residents’ Associations of Epsom and Ewell 
Jonathan Neil Parkinson – Green Party 
John Michael Payne – Liberal Democrat
Fiona Peer – Conservative
Henry Strausser – Conservative
Emma Charlotte Ware – Conservative
Mike Westbrook – Labour and Co-Operative Party 

Related reports:

Beginning to line up for local elections

Register to vote deadline for elections

4th May Surrey goes to the polls

Turn up to turn downturn in turnout!

Worrying about voter ID law

No photo – no vote!

People in Surrey are being urged to consider job opportunities in the Probation Service as HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) launches a recruitment drive in the area.

The new roles are open to a wide range of applicants, from those starting out to those with wider life or work experience. The roles are ideal for those looking for a rewarding career where they can both motivate and inspire others to change for the better, and build safer places to live.

HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) is already seeing people moving in to the sector from retail and hospitality with many recent new joiners also quitting office jobs for a more rewarding role in the service. The campaign hopes to inspire others to consider making the switch.

The number of people working in probation in Surrey and across Kent and Sussex has increased in the last twelve months. Currently there are 1,043 people* working in Probation Service roles and in 2022 the region welcomed 213 new joiners. Some have come forward to support the recruitment campaign and encourage other people to consider roles like theirs.

Jordan Hayes-Hussey, aged 25, is a case administrator from Godalming, Surrey. Jordan was working in marketing after completing a communication and media degree when he decided to change career and join the Probation Service. Jordan says:

“I joined the Probation Service because I wanted a role where I could work with people from different backgrounds, make a difference through my work and have opportunities to progress. It can be a fast-paced working environment but every day is different and it’s a really rewarding job.

You’ll need good communication skills, determination and an open mind to succeed but you’ll get training and support from a wider team as part of the role. If you’re interested in building new skills and working in a role that positively contributes to society I’d recommend applying.”

Amber Boyle, aged 24 is a probation services officer from Staines, Surrey. Amber completed a law degree and joined the Probation Service after working in the courts. Amber says:

“I decided to join the Probation Service after witnessing the positive impact probation staff had on offenders’ lives. I started working as a court case administrator and then applied internally to be a probation services officer. I find the role really rewarding and enjoy being able to give people the tools they need to improve their lives and get back on track.

The job, like any role, has its challenges and you need to be authentic and able to adapt your communication skills to suit the people you’re working with, but it’s a really worthwhile endeavour and you’ll be given the training and flexibility you need.”

Probation Service staff support offenders on their rehabilitation journey, helping them to make better life choices and reducing the chances they will re-offend.

HMPPS is looking to fill a number of roles including probation services officers, case administrators and trainee probation officers. The Probation Service works with over 230,000 people on probation serving community sentences and individuals who are pre or post-release from prison. Roles within the service help to support their rehabilitation and protect the public.

2022 data on the diversity of the Probation Service shows a 1% increase to 17% in the number of Probation Service staff from an ethnically diverse background compared to 16% in 2020. HMPPS is continuing to build on this work to attract a wave of recruits who are even more representative of the community they serve.

All roles are challenging and rewarding, with great training, support and opportunities for progression. Specific roles currently include:

Case administrators play a key role, using their great organisational and communication skills to support their probation colleagues and help offenders turn their lives around. Eligibility requirements for the role include strong communication skills (verbal and written) and good IT and keyboard skills.

Probation services officers undertake the full range of work with offenders before and after sentence, and in the community – including, assessments, sentencing and managing people throughout their probation period. Eligibility requirements for the role include a minimum C-grade GCSEs or equivalent, or relevant work experience including sufficient writing skills

Applications to become a case administrator or probation services officer are open now:  https://probationjobs.co.uk/

Through the trainee probation officer programme, candidates will gain a level 6 equivalent professional qualification upon completion, along with a competitive salary and generous leave. When you start your training, you’ll be a probation services officer, learning whilst earning on the job and studying to gain your fully funded Professional Qualification in Probation (PQiP). Eligibility requirements for the role include a Level 5 qualification, or above, such as an honours degree, a foundation degree or a diploma of higher education. Register your interest now: https://www.traintobeaprobationofficer.com/apply/

Young Surrey residents will get the chance to walk out with the finalists of this year’s Surrey Senior Cup final – thanks to Specsavers.

In partnership with Specsavers, who sponsor the competition, Surrey Football Association will offer the opportunity for children to be a part of this year’s team of Surrey mascots. The lucky winners will walk out with both teams competing in the final of the Specsavers Surrey Senior Cup.

In addition, they will also receive a brand-new kit to wear on the day of the final and a free set of tickets for their adult or guardian to attend the game.

The final is scheduled to take place on Wednesday 3 May 2023 at Meadowbank Football Ground, home of Surrey FA and Dorking Wanderers Football Club.

Closing on Sunday 23April, the online competition invites adult guardians to enter on behalf of a child aged four to twelve years. To be in with the chance of winning, the child needs to answer this very simple question:

“What is your most memorable moment either playing or supporting football?”

Specsavers stores across Surrey have been lead sponsors of the Senior Surrey Cup for over five years. Its network of local opticians and audiologists across the county share a common mission with Surrey FA, to better the health of those within their local communities.

Epsom and Leatherhead Retail Director Mihaela Ovadiuc comments: ‘Grassroots sports plays such an important role to instil healthy, active living across all age groups. It’s why all the Specsavers stores across the Surrey region have come together to invest in the Surrey FA. We want to ensure they can keep going for many years to come and keep that passion for football alive and kicking across the county.’

Parents and guardians representing their child can apply to enter the competition here:

http://bit.ly/3nKR2LO

Representatives of Surrey FA will directly contact winners. Terms and conditions apply.

Epsom & Ewell 1-1 Mile Oak. Southern Combination League – Division One. Wednesday 12th April 2023

For the first time since 2006 we played consecutive fixtures against the same team when Mile Oak visited Fetcham Grove on Wednesday evening for their return fixture, following a disappointing goalless draw back in March. It was only the eighth time in club history that we had played both League matches on a Wednesday against the same team, and stats like that will tell you that I have very little to write about this latest encounter, a 1-1 draw!

For those who are interested this was our 101st ever League match played on a Wednesday, but it won’t live long in the memory as the visitors led through a harsh looking penalty only to equalise before the half, although only rarely did we really threaten to take the lead. On another day we might have pinched the points, but ultimately both teams had to settle for just the one.

This match nearly didn’t take place, due to further torrential rain and it is to the club’s credit that they delayed the match inspection in the hope that the pitch was able to deal with the water in time for kick off. It is amazing how many people don’t seem to understand that the weather we are facing is the worst we have seen since the 2012/13 season and sometimes you have to take a chance to get the games played.

In terms of personnel, Nick Wilson came into the starting eleven ahead of Rory Edwards, while Kevin Moreno-Gomez returned for the absent Alex Penfold and Johnny “Sonic” Akoto came in and moved Gideon Acheampong over into central defence in place of the missing Chris Boulter. Up front Athan Smith-Joseph returned after a couple of games away while Lewis Pearch moved to the bench.

We nearly scored in the opening minutes of the match when Jaan Stanley’s strike was blocked, before a quick episode of pinball took place in the Oak six yard area, but the danger was cleared. Jamie Byatt then sent an Akoto cross goalwards, but the offside flag was raised and it wouldn’t have counted.

In the 17th minute the visitors scored with their first attack on goal. A low left wing cross was blocked by Akoto who was adjudged to have used his arm in the process. It looked harsh, but I was a long way from the action and Marriott tucked away the penalty a minute later. We nearly produced an immediate response when Smith-Joseph sent a ball in from the left where Byatt was there to knock the ball in from close range, only to see the offside flag raised in his direction once again.

Mile Oak headed a free kick wide before Smith-Joseph dragged a shot across goal and then on the half hour Byatt was brought down on the edge of the area but Wilson sent the free kick over the bar. We were getting closer though and in the 38th minute Smith-Joseph weaved his way along the edge of the penalty area before unleashing a powerful shot that was met by a top drawer save from Stenning who was then well-placed to deny Wilson as he headed Stanley’s subsequent corner goalwards.

Fortunately though we didn’t have to wait much longer for the equaliser which came in the 39th minute when Stanley produced a slide rule pass across goal from the left which was met by a close range shot under Stenning from Jaevon Dyer. The final threat of the half came from a harshly awarded free kick against us, but our defensive wall did its job and we went in at the break level.

We were a little better in the second half as the visitors appeared to lack a bit of ambition. Byatt saw his header from a Stanley free kick blocked before Smith-Joseph dragged a shot across goal from a good position. However, the game began to meander and very little of note happened until Byatt lost his defender who then pulled him down from behind to earn a yellow card. Wilson’s free kick was then well saved by Stenning who also made a good save to keep out Akoto’s angled drive a couple of minutes later.

We then made a rash of substitutions, but this seemed to kill the momentum we had been building and although one of these, Lewis Pearch nearly earned us a penalty when he appeared to be brought down, the spot kick wasn’t given and his lack of real protest told me that it had been the right decision. A couple of yellow cards for Wilson and Steve Springett followed in injury time before the match ended with the anti-climax of a 1-1 draw.

The draw is not a disastrous result and we know that two wins from our three remaining matches at home to Selsey and away at Chessington & Hook United and at Billingshurst will be enough to secure a home run in the playoffs, but we will have to play a lot better than this if we are to actually come out of those playoffs with any glory.

Oddly enough though, for all the importance of the result there was a bigger story quietly advised in the match programme which was that Leatherhead have terminated their ground share agreement with us after applying a break clause. Why we would have agreed to a clause that could leave us vulnerable to such a short notice termination is beyond me, but it would appear that we will be looking for a new ground to play at in 2023/24. This is especially problematic as any move back eastwards could end with us being moved into the Southern Counties East League if we failed to gain promotion, which I do not imagine we’d want to do. It is hoped that the club will announce something on this urgently.

Epsom & Ewell: Tom Theobald, Gideon Acheampong, Kevin Moreno-Gomez, Nick Wilson, Dylan Merchant, Johnny Akoto, Jaevon Dyer, Gavin Quintyne, Jamie Byatt, Jaan Stanley, Athan Smith-Joseph

Subs: Thompson Adeyemi for Stanley (72), Lewis Pearch for Byatt (77), Hamoud Salum for Dyer (77), Steve Springett for Moreno-Gomez (85), Theo Lukyamuzi for Smith-Joseph (90)

Sadiq Khan’s proposed ULEZ expansion to the Surrey border will be challenged in the High Court after a judge ruled there were valid legal arguments to be heard.

Five councils, including Surrey County Council, launched a joint legal bid against Transport for London (TfL) and the Mayor of London’s decision to expand the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) on a series of grounds including that it failed to comply with statutory requirements, that it unlawfully failed to consider compliance rates. and did not consult on scrappage schemes.

Other matters raised by lawyers in February 2023 were the lack of cost benefit analysis, inadequate consultation and apparent predetermination.

Now a judge has said there is “an arguable case” that the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, has improperly handled the expansion decision.

Councillor Tim Oliver, Leader of Surrey County Council, said: “This is good news and I’m pleased that our challenge to the Mayor of London regarding ULEZ is proceeding. The impact on Surrey’s residents and businesses has been ignored by the Mayor and it’s frankly disgraceful that it’s taken legal proceedings to have our voices heard.

“Our consultation response in July 2022 clearly highlighted that the Mayor’s decision failing to include Surrey residents in any scrappage scheme was unacceptable, and proposed a number of other recommendations to help mitigate both the financial and potential environmental impacts of the expansion. Our concerns have not been addressed by The Mayor.

“We remain committed to delivering a greener future, but it must be done in a practical and sustainable way. We will now await the findings of the Judicial Review.”

Taking to twitter was Gareth Bacon, Orpington MP and one of the London boroughs that joined forces with Surrey. He said: “I am delighted that the five local authorities, including Bromley, challenging ULEZ in the courts, have won the first stage in their legal battle against Sadiq Khan’s decision. While the full legal case is still to be fought, today’s decision is a significant step forward. 

“The Court has decided that there is an arguable case that Sadiq Khan has improperly handled his decision to expand ULEZ across outer London. The Judicial Review will now proceed to a full hearing in the High Court. 2/5
“This means the Court believes there is an arguable case that the Mayor improperly handled the ULEZ consultation and failed to consult affected residents in neighbouring Home Counties properly.

“Sadiq Khan arrogantly dismissed this legal challenge like he ignored outer Londoners’ concerns during the consultation. He was wrong to do so, and this should be a wake-up call. He still has time to cancel ULEZ expansion and spare residents his £12.50 daily road tax.

“Congratulations on today’s success to Bromley, Bexley, Hillingdon, Harrow and Surrey councils, who brought this legal action. Like my constituents, I am pleased they have legally challenged ULEZ expansion, and I wish them every success in the upcoming hearing.”

The court case follows TfL’s November 2022 announcement that it would push on with proposals to expand the ULEZ scheme in August. It is understood that the High Court will sit to hear the matter in July. Should the court rule against the Mayor of London it has the potential to delay the August 29 expansion.

A spokesperson for the Mayor said: “The Mayor is pleased to see the court has refused permission for the majority of the grounds. We will continue to robustly defend his life-saving decision to expand the ULEZ and continue with preparations without delay. It is a shame that some local authorities have chosen to attempt this costly and misguided legal challenge instead of focusing on the health of those they represent.

“Around 4,000 Londoners die prematurely every year due to air pollution. This is a health emergency and the Mayor is not prepared to stand by and do nothing while Londoners are growing up with stunted lungs and are more at risk of heart disease, cancer and dementia due to our toxic air.”

Related Reports:

Surrey Council’s ULEZ talks ongoing with TfL

Can you beat the ULEZ charge?

Will Me’lud halt ULEZ expansion to Epsom borders?

A sign of no signs to come on ULEZ?

ULEZ will come to Epsom and Ewell borders

Yet more on ULEZ….

Surrey Police led the way in Police Dog development by offering a Metropolitan Police Officer, DC Harry Darbyshire, a transfer to the Surrey Constabulary in October 1947, where he was made a Sergeant and put in charge of the Force’s new Police Dog Section.

Top image is Sgt Darbyshire with Anna of Avondale’s son Loki

Whilst dogs had been used by British Police Forces in various limited capacities prior to the Second World War, it was not until after the war that Britain’s Police Forces began to consider the possibility of using working dogs to undertake major Police work on a daily basis.

Sergeant Darbyshire was experienced in breeding dogs and training them according to the German method. This was the method Surrey Police had researched and decided to proceed with.

Sergeant Darbyshire owned a German Shepherd dog called “Anna of Avondale” that had previously belonged to a German soldier, who had served during the war. Anna of Avondale was Surrey Police’s first operational dog and together with her son, Loki, formed the Surrey Police Dog Section that would go on to lead the way in Police dog development in Britain and abroad.

Surrey Police dogs that performed well would be included in the breeding programme, with under achieving dogs being removed from the Police Dog Section altogether.

Sir Joseph Simpson, the Chief Constable, who had recruited SergeantDarbyshire was a member of the Kennel Club and his interest in working dogs led to him sanctioning the expansion of the Police Dog Section and encouraging Surrey Police’s dog handlers to enter civilian Working Trials. This led to the Surrey Police’s Dog Section obtaining even greater recognition due to the high number of awards it won.

The Secretary of the Associated Sheep, Police and Army Dog Society (ASPADS) (also known as the Working Trials Society) has stated that, “Harry Darbyshire did more than any other person to put ASPADS, Working Trials and the Nation’s Police Dog Sections on the map”. Darbyshire was credited with training over 200 dogs in his 29 years police service. He was consulted from around the world, including Kenya and New Zealand.

I was delighted to discover that the photo album containing images of German Shepherd dogs that I had won on an online auction site, once belonged to Sgt. Darbyshire.

Surrey Police’s first Police Dog, Anna of Avondale died in August 1950, but her name lives on in The Anna of Avondale Trophy, which serving Police Dogs and their handlers compete for every year in her memory.
The images accompanying this article were taken from the photo album and show Sergeant Darbyshire, who was awarded the BEM (British Empire Medal), with some of his working dogs.

^{Sgt Darbyshire’s award of the BEM signed by the Monarch of the day.}

55% of inspected rented homes in Epsom and Ewell are below Grade C in Energy Performance ratings. Landlords are required to obtain Energy Performance Certificates for their rentals. To obtain a certificate an independent expert must inspect the property. In an analysis of inspections across the country between 2018 and 2022 Epsom and Ewell’s figures are consistent with the country average. 5% of those below grade C are not going to be able to rise to a C grade in the future because of structural limitations.

The Government has plans to make a C grade mandatory for all rental properties from 2025. The most energy efficient homes are graded A and the worse G. Those tenants living in sub C standard homes are paying more for their heating due to poor insulation. Insulation was the most frequently recommended improvement measure for private rental properties, making up 35% of all recommendations. On average tenants could save one third on their fuel bills if landlords brought their properties up to the C grade.

Inspections for EPCs involve an assessment that looks at heating, windows and doors, insulation and other structural factors, estimating how much it will cost to heat and light the property, what its carbon dioxide emissions are likely to be and how to improve the rating.

Jonathan Winston, occupier support manager at the Carbon Trust said  “14% of UK emissions arise from residences, homes. That means the reductions that need to be made there are very significant in order for the UK to meet its legally binding net zero target by 2050. The emissions are quite difficult to tackle, particularly around heating. There’s a major need to decarbonize our heating sources.”

Chris Norris, Director of policy at the National Residential Landlords Association said “I think there’s an awful lot of misunderstanding and uncertainty about what landlords need to do in terms of energy efficiency.

“But the future proposals are to get to a C or above, because the Government have got this Net Zero target for 2050. The problem is, they consulted on those new rules about three years ago, they closed that consultation two years ago in January 2021, and they’ve never actually confirmed what new rules will be.

“You’ve got lots of landlords that are actually quite open to making changes to their properties, or making decisions at least about what they need to do, but they really don’t know what path to take and they can’t commit to those spending decisions until we find out exactly what the Government wants to do.”

He added: “At the moment the Government is doing very little to support landlords to make these changes. They’ve not even given us the target or the deadline for what we’ve got to do.”

Rachelle Earwaker, senior economist at the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, said: “Living in a home with a poor EPC rating has a range of impacts on the tenants. Homes are colder, often damper. They are much more expensive to heat. At the moment in the energy crisis, that has had a massive impact. 

“What our research has shown is that 35% of low income private renters across the UK said they couldn’t afford to keep their homes warm even before the recent winter that we’ve just had, and we know that a quarter were in arrears with the energy bills in October and November, again before the winter.”

You can check any property’s EPC status on this Government link.

Related Reports:

Cllr Gulland: Insulate & Generate – two key aspects to include in the Local Plan for Epsom & Ewell

Is this Epsom Couple getting their heating for free?

A new Epsom and Ewell Borough Council will be elected on the 4th May. All 35 seats in all 14 wards are open to the competition. Epsom and Ewell Times is providing every candidate standing the opportunity to have published on these pages details of their candidacy and a short statement why they are standing.

The candidates are listed strictly in order of receipt of their details.

CLICK HERE for the Epsom and Ewell Times guide to all candidates – as it stands today.

When nominations close and the official list of candidates is published our list will be verified. We are not responsible if any candidate chooses not to provide details but we will endeavour to include the names and parties represented of all candidates after the official lists are published.

Candidates can supply their details via Form of entry for candidates.

You may find useful this EEBC official map of the Wards. You should have posted to you a polling card stating in which ward you live and are eligible to vote for.

The new ward of Horton and the three most closely contested wards in the last election of 2019 will each have a hustings organised by Epsom and Ewell Times as follows:

Wednesday 26th April:

3rd Scout Hall, Epsom Methodist Church, Ashley Road. Epsom, KT18 5AQ

6.15pm Stamford Ward

7.15pm Court Ward

8.15pm College Ward

Tuesday 2nd May at 7pm:

Southfield Park Primary School, Long Grove Rd, Epsom KT19 8TF, one hustings will be held for the new ward of Horton.

Related reports:

Register to vote deadline for elections

4th May Surrey goes to the polls

Turn up to turn downturn in turnout!

Worrying about voter ID law

No photo – no vote!

Epsom and Ewell residents see and hear planes flying to and from Heathrow Airport. They are usually at a height of 6,000 to 7,000 feet. A new consultation is out for everyone effected by flight noise and pollution from the main London Airports of Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted. Chris Caulfield of LDRS reports generally on the topic and with reference to Gatwick in particular:

Communities living under the Gatwick flight path face trading off quieter modern aircraft for an increase in night flights. Current restrictions on night flights are due to expire in 2025 and the government is seeking views as part of its next night flight abatement policy. 

It says it is aiming to balance the impact of sleep deprivation with the benefits to the wider economy.

Aviation minister Baroness Vere of Norbiton said: “There’s no doubt night flights have an effect on local residents underneath busy flight paths, but as aircraft become quieter, we have an opportunity to strike a balance to make sure we can support the aviation industry without having a debilitating impact on people’s lives. This consultation will help us to shape policy and create a flightpath towards a more sustainable approach to night-time aviation noise.”

Currently about 16 aircraft, about 80 per cent of Heathrow’s night flights, land at the airport between 4.30am and 6am. At Gatwick and Stansted, which are in more rural areas, the figures are higher.

Overall Heathrow can have 3,250 total night flight “movements” during seven summer months and 2,550 during winter. At Gatwick that figure is far higher at 11,200 in summer and 5,150 in winter, with Stansted taking 8,100 and 5,600 respectively.

Paul Beckford, chairperson of HACAN group which acts as a voice for those under Heathrow flight paths, said: “We welcome the recognition of the health impact of night flights which is a shift in the right direction, but we are worried about the change in wording in the economic benefits.”

He said the 16 flights currently arriving before 6am were “the most disturbing” and had a cumulative effect on people. Any one flight could wake a person up “but the real problem is when there are more and more flights coming. You wait for the next one. You are woken up at 4.30am and then you know another one is coming.”

Most night flights, he said, were long-haul trips in demand for their cargo haulage but Mr Beckford suggested these could be reorganised into the normal flight schedule which would both preserve people’s restful nights as well as bring economic benefits.

He cited the drop in aviation traffic post pandemic and the increase in online meetings as reasons for there being greater flexibility in runway slots.

Mr Beckford also questioned the consultation being carried out before the results of the Dr Charlotte Clark report into the health impacts of night noise was published – due out in 2024/25.

Sally Pavey, chairperson of the Community Against Gatwick Noise Emissions, said the group was pleased to see the “long-awaited” consultation but that night flight, and the subsequent noise, was “much hated by residents and well documented to cause health issues”. 

She said: “We would like to see a ban on night flights at Gatwick Airport but we know that the airlines are far too powerful for this to ever happen no matter how many reports are produced by medical officials to the health impacts they have on those seeking sleep.

“The government needs to change its attitude towards aviation and seek to address this health risk that they are subjecting residents to every night in Surrey, Sussex, and Kent all the time they continue to allow holiday makers flying during the night. We can’t believe that bucket and spade travellers seeking all year round sun and leisure overseas really want to travel at night, so we can only keep up pressure on government and the airline to have night flights banned on health grounds.”

The six-week consultation is taking input and evidence from the aviation industry and communities before forming the backbone of to manage aviation noise from October 2025.

Once decided upon, the government said it will pursue the “most cost-effective measures for achieving the desired outcomes”.

Night noise at airports was last consulted on in December 2020 which resulted in rolling over existing restrictions from October 2022 to October 2025.

The consultation closes on May 9 and is available here.

Election day in Surrey takes place on May 4 this year but because of the way the county is broken up, not every poll will be the same. Surrey operates under a two-tier system, so there is a county-wide council that sits atop of 11 boroughs and districts. On May 4 it’s the boroughs and districts that go to the polls.

But even the boroughs and districts are holding different types of election. Surrey Heath, Spelthorne, Epsom and Ewell, and Guildford will have all out elections, where every councillor, in every ward will be decided on election day.  The same process is also happening in Mole Valley and Waverley, although this is because of boundary changes.

In Mole Valley there will be 13 new wards, down from 21, represented by 39 seats rather than the previous 41. Waverley too has undergone major changes and instead of returning 57 members there will now only be 50 councillors. The remaining five boroughs and districts, Elmbridge, Tandridge, Runnymede, Reigate and Banstead, and Woking will be going out in thirds.

This year will also be the first time people will be required to show photo ID to vote in person.

In previous elections, residents of Woking have taken part in the Government’s photo ID pilot tests. The law was changed last year so that voters have to show photo ID before being issued a ballot paper in polling stations for general, local, police and crime commissioner elections, or any future referendum.

Related reports:

Register to vote deadline for elections

Turn up to turn downturn in turnout!

Worrying about voter ID law

No photo – no vote!

The deadline to register to vote in May’s local elections is approaching. Those who need to register, including those who have recently moved house, need to do so before midnight on April 17.

Local elections are being held on May 4 across the country, including for councils across Surrey.

All 11 district and borough councils in Surrey are holding elections, some for a third of their councillors and some for the whole council. There is also a by-election for Surrey County Council in the Walton South and Oatlands division, following the resignation of Cllr Tony Samuels.

Councils have started sending out poll cards to voters, anyone who has not received one or who has recently moved may not be registered to vote.

Registration should take around five minutes on the gov.uk website, and though people may be asked for their National Insurance number, it is possible to register without one.

Registering anonymously is also possible for those who do not want their name to appear on the electoral register.

May’s elections will be the first where all voters will need to bring photo ID to vote, with only certain forms being accepted. Those without the necessary photo ID, which includes passports, driving licence and an Oyster 60+ Card, can apply for a free voter ID document.

While online registration is the quickest way, voters can also print off a paper form to be sent to their local Electoral Registration Office, which is the relevant district or borough council.

To check if they are registered to vote, voters also need to contact the electoral services team at their local council.

Voters must be aged 18 or over on election day and be a British, Irish, European Union citizen, or Commonwealth citizen with permission to enter or stay in the UK, or who does not need permission, as well as being registered to vote.
_{Image – Runnymede Council.}

Epsom and Ewell Times adds: For guidance on photo ID read our report HERE “No Photo, No Vote”.

Related reports:

Turn up to turn downturn in turnout!

Worrying about voter ID law

Another short and tragic life buried in an unmarked grave in Epsom’s abandoned Horton Cemetery is brought to life by one of the volunteer team of researchers. The full story can be read on www.hortoncemetery.org

The story of Valentine Ridley: At just 6 years old, in 1897, we find Valentine and his sister Elizabeth in the Greenwich Union Poor School. Their father George is “in house”, that is, living in the workhouse. There is no mention of Valentine’s mother or his younger sisters. Later in October Elizabeth is released ‘c/o Father’.

In May 1898 Valentine and all three of his sisters were admitted, along with their father, to the Greenwich Union Work House, their address is given as Snead Street, New Cross which is shown on Booth’s Maps as “comfortable” two storey houses, with bay windows, usually shared by two families.  Sadly, by August of that year Valentine was in the Brighton Road, School, Sutton.  His father is now shown as ‘out of house on leave’. In June of this year Valentine’s youngest sister, Florence,  was transferred to the Work House Infirmary where she died in October 1898, having lived a short sad life, so possibly George’s ‘leave’ was due to this event.

Periods of leave were granted to look for work, deal with family problems or celebrations.  Someone like Valentine’s father George, became known as an “in and out” as they spent their lives in and out of the workhouse/infirmary.

The 1901 Census, taken on 31^st March, shows all three children in the Banstead Road School, Sutton, but on 23^rd Dec 1901 Valentine, Elizabeth and Mildred are discharged from the Brighton Rd School and returned to the Workhouse again. These two schools were run by the same authority and seem almost interchangeable.

on 18th November 1909 he is admitted to the Ewell Epileptic Colony where he lived for the next 7 years. According to the 1911 Census he developed Epilepsy when he was 16 years old, just one year prior to being admitted. With no family to care for him we can assume that the Greenwich Union was happy to pass his care to the Epileptic Colony in Ewell.

Valentine died on 21^st February 1916 and was buried in the Horton Estate Cemetery on 25^th February in plot number 2014a, he was just 23yrs old.

The ‘Epsom Colony’, part of the Epsom Cluster of five mental hospitals’ had been opened in 1903 to care for “the Epileptic insane of the Metropolis”. This new approach housed patients in a collection of villas, avoiding the stigma of living in a mental asylum.  The treatment consisted of a specially regulated diet and doses of potassium bromide, the first effective treatment for controlling epilepsy.  The patients were expected to contribute to their costs by working on the hospital farm or in the kitchens, laundry or bakery, all of which supported the Epsom cluster of hospitals.

Lesley Lee

Copyright: The Friends of Horton Cemetery