As reported in the magazine Local Government Lawyer (19/08/24) several local councils in England are accelerating the development of their local plans in response to proposed amendments to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) that could substantially increase their housing targets and require reviews of green belt boundaries.

The proposed changes, detailed in a recent government consultation, include the reintroduction of mandatory housing targets and the possibility that a council’s failure to meet its housing needs could justify revising green belt boundaries. Additionally, the consultation suggests alterations to the standard methodology for calculating housing need, which would likely result in most councils being required to plan for significantly more new homes.

Under the current proposals, local plans submitted for examination before June 2025 will be assessed under the existing NPPF rules. This has prompted councils like Winchester and Uttlesford to expedite their plans to avoid the more stringent requirements that could be imposed by the new NPPF.

In Winchester, the council’s planning officer emphasized the urgency of submitting the local plan due to the potential increase in the housing need figure from 676 to 1,099 dwellings per annum. Similarly, Uttlesford District Council, which currently operates under one of the oldest local plans in England, is also moving quickly to submit its plan before the deadline.

Not all councils are in favor of the proposed changes. Wirral Council, for example, is set to hold an extraordinary meeting to express its concerns, particularly regarding the potential impact on its green belt. The council’s draft plan focuses on brownfield development, but under the new proposals, it could be required to deliver an additional 14,000 homes, potentially affecting large areas of its green belt.

Councillors in Wirral have expressed strong opposition, with motions being tabled to challenge the proposed standard method for housing calculations, which they argue could undermine local regeneration efforts.

Epsom and Ewell Times asked Epsom and Ewell Borough Council if it had any plan to accelerate the Draft Local Plan process. Councillor Peter O’Donovan, (Residents Association – Ewell Court) Chair of the Licensing & Planning Policy Committee responded: “Epsom & Ewell Borough Council is currently interrogating the documents for the Government’s consultation on proposed reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework and will prepare a response to the consultation to be submitted within the timeframe. We are dedicated to the development of a Local Plan that meets the needs of current and future residents of Epsom & Ewell. We will continue to consider the implications for the borough following the Government’s consultation, when more detail becomes available.”

Cllr Julie Morris (Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group) (College Ward) said “Unfortunately the ruling Residents Association seems to have only one speed, DEAD SLOW, when it comes to the Local Plan which is already around 12 years late. It has never been a priority for them. We can’t see any possibility of speeding things up now and recent progress is mostly unknown : there has been no open debate on the matter since last year. There is a meeting on 24th September which might throw some light on what’s happening. Even councillors from the ruling group believe that an update on progress and potential changes to the Plan, in the run up to Regulation 19 and (hopefully) final adoption of the document, is long overdue.”

A spokesperson for the campaigning group Epsom Green Belt commented on the Council position: “The NPPF proposals were published a month or so ago online. Without proposals it would not have been possible to launch the consultation, which runs until 24 Sept. The government’s stated plan is to issue the new NPPF in Dec, applicable immediately. 

Waiting until the changes are published and applicable would miss the current, and brief, window of opportunity to avoid their impact, which is why other (more enlightened and forward thinking) councils are choosing quickly to act. Epsom and Ewell Borough Council should be acting immediately to capture this opportunity.”

The Epsom Green Belt spokesperson added: “The current NPPF, issued in Dec 2023, remains in force until or unless replaced by a new version. The Dec 2023 version does not require the release of Green Belt, specifically providing the option not to review any Green Belt boundaries. The Council therefore can retain the existing Green Belt boundaries and focus all housing on identified brownfield sites which, according to the Regulation 18 draft Local Plan can accommodate 3,700 dwellings. If they fail to take the opportunity to accelerate the Regulation 19 process, the target house building will exceed 14k.”

Related reports:

Epsom and Ewell Brace for Government Housing Targets

Here we go again on the Local Plan?

Minister gets heavy on a Local Plan delay

Mystery Local Plan critic revealed

Local Plan costs eat into Council reserves

Local Plan to move forward after passionate debate

and many many more. Search “local plan”.

Sandhurst Town 4-1 Epsom and Ewell. Combined Counties League – Premier Division South. Tuesday 20th August 2024.

We crashed to a 4-1 defeat in our latest League match at Sandhurst Town on Tuesday evening at Bottom Meadow in front of 86 spectators on a chillier than anticipated August evening.

Let’s get one thing straight here though. We did not deserve to lose this match, particularly by such a heavy margin. In fact, some of our passing was the best I’ve seen all season. However, we didn’t help ourselves either by failing to take chances and then by collecting a couple of sin-bins that really hurt us, just when we looked like we were about to take control of this contest.

We made four changes following our F.A. Cup loss to Hayes and Yeading United (who now travel to Margate in the next round by the way). Faebian Witter was absent and replaced by Dan O’Donovan, while Ethan Brazier replaced the suspended Toby Young. Further forward, Kenny Antony and Axel Kodjo dropped to the bench, with their places taken by Adam Green following his suspension and debutant Ali Fofahan, who started out on the left wing.

We made a bright start and Ethan Nelson-Roberts, making his fiftieth appearance for the Salts, was just over the bar with an early strike, before a Green corner led to a shot from Fabian Nunes that was dragged wide from the edge of the area. We had a scare at the other end after the Sandhurst right winger got past Nelson-Roberts and O’Donovan too, but could only find the side netting with his shot. They then attacked down the left and Shane Qoloni got past Ethan Brazier, only to then go down after a collision, with the referee deciding to award a penalty. We’ve seen them given before, and no doubt will do again, but it was definitely in the soft category. Regrettably, Elliott Miles then dispatched the penalty in the 24th minute, although O’Donovan did manage to get something on the shot on its way in.

This was harsh. We had been doing most of the work to this point and we nearly equalised on the half hour when a Nelson-Roberts cross caused panic in the Sandhurst penalty area and Luke Miller and then Fofahan saw their shots blocked by defenders in quick succession. Our next corner was met at the far post by Callum Wilson, but his header back towards goal took a touch off a defender and fell kindly for the keeper to fall onto.

By this time Fabian Nunes had been replaced after suffering a groin injury, but his replacement Felipe de Lima had only been on for about a quarter of an hour when his ill-advised back pass was intercepted by Tshin Kumuaro who ran in and beat O’Donovan with a clinical strike in the 39th minute. Nelson-Roberts then had to be alert to block a shot for a corner as did Stefan Aiwone on the other side of the goal as Sandhurst threatened a third goal before the half which fortunately did not come.

At half time it was hard to comprehend how we could be behind, although to this point we hadn’t forced the keeper into a save, so we could hardly complain just because the other side had taken their chances. Fortunately, we got a goal back quickly and it was Craig Dundas who got on the end of a Green free kick to knock the ball in from eight yards for his first goal for our club, just six minutes into the second period. Both myself and a supporter next to me were certain that it had been knocked in by Dundas’s hand, but no one complained and the referee seemed happy too, so we were back at 2-1 with a long time left to play.

And play we did. We took the game to Sandhurst for a while with wave after wave of attacks. Corner after corner followed as we pushed for an equaliser and it seemed like a matter of time before we would be level. Dundas set up Kendall with a great tackle, but our striker shot straight at the home keeper from just inside the penalty area, while moments later De Lima missed a good opportunity to head at goal from another Green free kick, but in the 65th minute Wilson said something to the referee and was promptly sin-binned in the 65th minute. In that moment all of our momentum was lost.

The pattern of the match changed and we stopped creating opportunities, while the home side tried to take advantage of the extra man and a cross was well cut out by O’Donovan before Nelson-Roberts was adjudged to have brought his man down in the corner of the penalty area. It was a long way away from us, so it was hard to see whether this one was equally soft. Strangely, even with their first penalty taker still on the field, their number 16 chose to take this one in the 77th minute and O’Donovan produced a good low save to his right to keep the ball out, and although the loose ball was turned in by another player, he was deemed to have encroached and the free kick went our way. Wilson returned to the field of play and maybe we could start to press again.

Not this time though. We let the ball go out of play carelessly and from a throw in, allowed to be taken further up the field than it should have been, the home side broke away and Maurice Black smashed the ball past O’Donovan just two minutes after the penalty to make it 3-1. Things got worse a few minutes later when Nelson-Roberts was sin-binned too and as the wheels came off the ten man cart, O’Donovan was alert to make a good save from a one on one situation as we parted at the back. Debutant substitute Joel Onu had a smart shot on the turn in the 90th minute that was well saved, but from the keeper’s clearance they broke straight through and whilst O’Donovan again did well to keep the first shot out, he could do nothing about the loose ball which was fired in from close range to leave the final score looking extremely harsh.

As it turned out, Spelthorne’s 5-0 loss at Cobham ensured that we actually climbed a place in the League table after this defeat, but this was a harsh loss to take. We played really well at times, and yes, a couple of rather odd refereeing decisions didn’t help us, but there were still self-inflicted incidents that let us down and we really need to learn that being reduced to ten men for a throwaway comment is such a severe penalty that it must be avoided at all costs. I am absolutely certain that we would have scored an equaliser in this match had we kept eleven men on the field midway through the second half and may well have gone on to win from there, but the harsh reality is three matches, three defeats, two red cards and two sin-bins. We need to keep working harder, but also work smarter too, if we are to avoid another serious relegation battle.

Epsom & Ewell: Dan O’Donovan, Ethan Brazier, Ethan Nelson-Roberts, Stefan Aiwone, Callum Wilson, Craig Dundas, Luke Miller, Adam Green (c), Will Kendall, Fabio Nunes, Ali Fofahan

Subs: Felipe de Lima for Nunes (25), Joel Onu for Brazier (78)

Report Source: www.eefconline.co.uk

A coroner has called on the government to tighten gun-licensing laws after the former head of Epsom College and her daughter were murdered. 

Emma Pattison, 45, was found dead alongside her seven-year-old daughter, Lettie, in the grounds of the Surrey school on 5 February 2023. Mrs Pattison’s husband, George Pattison, 39, is believed to have shot them at their home before killing himself.

The inquest, which concluded in July, found that George Pattison was legally allowed a shotgun under a firearms licence, but he had lied about his medical history in renewing his application. Richard Travers, senior coroner for Surrey, warned in a Prevention of Future Deaths (PFD) report that “a risk of other deaths will continue to exist” unless gun ownership laws are tightened.

Between 2019 and 2021 George Pattison used an online service to prescribe him “significant amounts” of the drug propranolol to help him with symptoms of anxiety, according to the coroner’s report. This was without the knowledge of his GP. 

He was then able to lie to Surrey Police about his mental health condition during safeguarding checks on his gun-licence renewal application in 2022. When he was asked if he had been diagnosed or treated for medical conditions, which included  ‘Depression or anxiety’, he responded ‘No’. Although his GP’s details were included in the form, they had no knowledge of George Pattison’s use of online medical services. 

Coroner Travers has raised the alarm that online doctors can be used as a loophole for those seeking a gun licence to avoid medical health checks which are meant to be safeguards. These medical checks followed from a PFD report in 2019 where a mother and daughter, Christine and Lucy Lee, were killed after police failed to assess the risk of returning guns back to John Lowe. 

He also raised concerns that controlling and coercive behaviour should be considered in gun licensing after a direct plea from Emma Pattison’s family during the hearing. Coroner Travers called for police leaders and the government to explore how licensing authorities could obtain details about an applicant’s history of coercive controlling behaviour.

George Pattison had first gained a licence in 2012, which was then renewed in 2016 and finally 2022. Surrey Police were notified of a domestic violence incident in 2016, where it was alleged that Emma Pattison had assaulted her husband. The issue was investigated and, according to the PFD report, the shotgun certificate was temporarily removed, but later returned. 

Coroner Travers highlighted it appeared there was no consideration by Surrey Police “whether this might have been an example of coercive controlling behaviour on the part of Mr Pattison”. But, he added, there was evidence of later domestic abuse or coercive controlling behaviour. This evidence did not seem to be brought to the attention of the Licensing Officer when Mr Pattison applied to renew his licence. 

Under current guidance, a GP has to confirm to the police whether an applicant has any relevant medical conditions, including mental health conditions. GPs often have digital markers on patient records if they have a gun licence to help monitor physical and mental health.

The PFD report has been sent to the Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, the health secretary, Wes Streeting, and the chief constable of Surrey police, Tim De Meyer. Coroner Travers has called on the government departments to take action to prevent future deaths. He has also sent it to the National Police Chiefs’ Council and British Medical Association. The authorities have a duty to respond to PFDs within 56 days.

_{Image – Epsom College: Naveed Barakzai/Maxal Photography. Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Generic license}

Epsom & Ewell Borough Council is hosting a walk around Epsom Downs on 10th September to coincide with World Suicide Prevention Day. This event supports the council’s Suicide Prevention Action Plan and aims to raise awareness of support and resources available to help those suffering from mental health issues or directly impacted by the loss of someone to suicide.

Funding has been allocated from the UK Shared Prosperity Fund to We Power On to help residents access support in the borough. Chris, founder of the organisation, will lead the walk for adults aged 18 and above.

Immediately after the walk, Epsom & Ewell Borough Council will host another event where Chris will talk about his story and the importance of having support available for people suffering from mental health problems. A scribe will create artwork which will then go on a ‘tour’ of the borough ending up at the Epsom Picturehouse on 10th October to coincide with Mental Health Awareness Day.

Residents will need to register to attend – 50 spaces are available for the walk and talk, and a further 50 spaces for those who only wish to attend the talk. Register HERE

End Stigma Surrey is also supporting this event, they are dedicated to raising awareness and reducing the stigma of mental health and are part of the council’s wider Suicide Prevention Action Plan.

Councillor Clive Woodbridge, (RA Ewell Village) Chair of the Community and Wellbeing Committee said: “Mental health issues can have a devastating effect on sufferers and those close to them. No one should have to face mental health challenges alone and it’s important as a council that we do all that we can to ensure vulnerable residents are informed, and can access, vital support when they need it.

Working with partners is an essential part of our Suicide Prevention Action Plan and I’d like to thank We Power On, End Stigma Surrey, and The Jockey Club for their support with this event.

I’d encourage anyone experiencing mental health issues to seek help. One life lost is too much.”

Chris, founder of We Power On said: “I’m pleased to be able to support the council with its walk and talk. Walking helped me especially during Covid lockdown and I’m looking forward to leading the walk across Epsom Downs and also sharing my experiences in the following event. It’s important for everybody to know that they’re not alone, encourage conversations and keep highlighting where those people suffering from mental health issues can turn to for support.”

Image credit: Marathon – License details

In a significant policy shift, the newly elected Labour government has reintroduced mandatory housing targets, a move that is set to have far-reaching implications for communities across the UK, including Epsom and Ewell. The ambitious plan aims to deliver 1.5 million new homes over the next five years, following the scrapping of such targets by the previous Conservative government. This sweeping reform has sparked debate over its potential impact on local areas, particularly in relation to the use of green belt land.

Among the key changes introduced by the Labour government is the reinstatement of mandatory housing targets for local councils, which must now be met based on a recalculated assessment of local housing needs and affordability. This approach differs from previous national metrics, focusing on areas where housing is less affordable relative to income. Consequently, regions like Epsom and Ewell, where property prices are high, may face increased pressure to deliver more housing.

Another controversial aspect of the policy is the introduction of the so-called “grey belt” land. This term refers to lower-quality land within the green belt that could be considered for development, in an effort to balance the need for new homes with the preservation of high-quality green spaces. Furthermore, the government has mandated that at least 50% of the homes built on grey belt land must be affordable, with a strong focus on social rent, addressing the UK’s chronic shortage of affordable housing.

For Epsom and Ewell, traditionally resistant to large-scale development, particularly within the green belt, these changes could mark a significant shift. The new mandatory targets might require the local council to approve more housing projects than previously anticipated, including the controversial use of grey belt land. This could lead to tensions with residents keen to maintain the area’s character, but it also presents an opportunity to address the local housing shortage, especially in terms of affordable homes.

The exact impact on Epsom and Ewell will depend on the specific targets assigned to the area and the availability and suitability of grey belt land for development. Local planning authorities with existing Local Plans may now be required to revise these plans to align with the new government mandates.

Tim Murphy of the local Council for the Protection of Rural England expressed his concerns, stating, “I think the new target is 821 new homes per annum. The figure is unattainable—we don’t have the required skills available in this country to build all the homes the Government wants, and there will be widespread opposition across large swathes of the country to the loss of so much countryside. I calculate that the Borough, with a current population of just over eighty thousand, will need to accommodate a further 32,000 people if this target is to be met over the eighteen-year period of the Local Plan.”

The Epsom Green Belt Group also voiced their concerns, highlighting the discrepancy between the current housing build rate and the new targets. A spokesperson for the group stated, “The current annual build rate (based on the 2007 Core Strategy) is 181 dwellings per annum. The current NPPF standard method figure (based on 2014 data) used in the regulation 18 draft Local Plan was 576 dpa. The new government proposals for a revision to the standard method would result in a target of 817 dpa. This is over four times the real need in the borough and almost triple the council’s current proposals.”

Cllr Bernie Muir, (Conservative) representing Epsom West Division and Horton Ward, acknowledged the need for more housing but raised concerns about the strategic approach. “I believe that we do need homes as we have a huge homeless issue in Epsom, plus we are desperately short of homes for key workers and those that support our care, retail, and hospitality sectors. However, the Local Plan will almost certainly end up building the wrong homes in the wrong place, primarily on Greenbelt land, with serious negative consequences,” she warned. Cllr Muir advocated for the development of town centre brownfield sites instead, arguing that this would provide the right homes in significant numbers, support the local economy, and improve the socio-economic prospects for the borough.

Epsom and Ewell Borough Council has responded to the recent reinstatement of mandatory housing targets by the UK Labour government, highlighting the challenges posed by its outdated Core Strategy. The current Core Strategy, adopted in 2007 and covering the period up to 2022, is now considered out of date, particularly as it predates the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) introduced in 2012.

In its statement, the Council pointed out that its historic housing completions, detailed annually in the Authority Monitoring Report (AMR), show a consistent shortfall when compared to the significantly higher requirements generated by the standard method for calculating housing needs. For the 2022/23 monitoring year, the Council reported a notable deficit against these figures.

The draft Local Plan, which was subject to public consultation earlier this year, proposed a supply-based housing requirement of 5,400 homes over the plan period, equating to 300 dwellings per annum. However, the Council acknowledged that this figure does not meet the actual housing need calculated using the standard method, which suggests a much higher need—576 dwellings per annum based on 2022 data, with projections potentially rising to 817 dwellings per annum under the government’s proposed revisions.

Councillor Peter O’Donovan, (RA Ewell Court Ward) Chair of the Licensing and Planning Policy Committee said “The draft Local Plan (Regulation 18) that was subject to consultation in February and March 2023 proposed a housing requirement for the borough of at least 5,400 homes of the plan period (which equates to 300 dwellings per annum). This was a supply-based requirement and is not a reflection of need which is calculated using the standard method (see above).

The Draft Local Plan identified supply exceeding this minimum requirement to provide flexibility for non delivery of sites included in the supply.”

He added: “The government are currently consulting on Proposed reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework and other changes to the planning system to which the council will be responding. The consultation is open to all and we would encourage those with an interest in planning to respond to the consultation.

One of the proposals is to amend the standard method for calculating housing needs. As part of the consultation, the government have published the housing need that would be generated using the revised method for all English Local Planning authorities and calculates the housing need for the borough to be 817 dwellings per annum.”

The consultation ends 24th September 2024 and the Council intends to take a report to its scheduled Licensing and Planning Policy Committee on that date which sets out the implications for the Borough and the Council’s suggested response to the consultation.

As the debate continues, residents and local officials in Epsom and Ewell will be closely watching how these new housing targets and policies unfold, weighing the potential benefits of increased housing against the risks to the borough’s character and green spaces.

_{Image: License details Credit:David Wright}

Related reports:

Here we go again on the Local Plan?

Minister gets heavy on a Local Plan delay

Mystery Local Plan critic revealed

Local Plan costs eat into Council reserves

Local Plan to move forward after passionate debate

and many many more. Search “local plan”.

Leatherhead could become a “destination town” with an updated shopping arcade and cinema screens, according to regeneration plans. The future project could also see a ‘new neighbourhood’ created with up to 11-storey apartment block and townhouses in Bull Hill.

The Swan Centre has been earmarked to be the “catalyst to revitalise the town” of Leatherhead. A new leisure area is set to be the “heart” of the Surrey town with four new restaurants, bars and cafes. 

Plans include 14 retail units, four cinema screens for leisure and a new central market square for events. Retaining stores like Sainsbury’s, Boots, WHSmith and others is also being considered in the development proposals.

Demolishing Leret House, the former offices on Swan Street, is another key part of the proposal. Speaking at a webinar on July 30, project officers said they are looking to reuse as much of the fabric of the building as possible by retaining the concrete frame. 

Locals could see apartment buildings up to 11 storeys popping up in the town centre, with houses ranging between three to four stories. Prospective plans for Bull Hill, the second part of the regeneration scheme, include apartment flats and townhouses, as well as parking facilities, offices, and a park. Officers are also looking at plans for a hotel with retail spaces on the ground floor.

Between one, two and three bedroom flats could be available in the new apartments, with the family houses being three to four bedrooms each. MVDC and Keir Property detail a mixture of open market and affordable homes for purchase and rent could be on the offer.

Councillor Keira Vyvyan-Robinson said: “We appreciate that building heights are a sensitive matter, and this is why the sketches and layouts in the masterplan show illustrative heights only at this stage.” The Cabinet Member for Projects stressed that “nothing has been decided” as the plans were still in the pre-application phase and  “are likely to evolve based on [consultation] feedback”.

A Kier Property officer said the project is “looking to get the right balance” of housing heights, so it can “sit comfortably in its environment.” Upgrading the existing park in Bull Hill is also part of the initial proposals. Project officers said they wanted to make the park more accessible to people in Leatherhead by improving the play areas. 

Launched on July 8 with five consultation events, people can give feedback to the prospective plans until September 26. Leigh Thomas, Group managing director, Kier Property said the consultation events so far had given him “much food for thought”. He added the team were looking to adapt the plans “according to the needs of the local community”. 

MVDC and Keir Property has announced new consultation dates, including:

• Monday 19 August, 5:30pm to 7:30pm at St Mary’s Church Hall, 10A The Ridgeway, Fetcham, Leatherhead KT22 9AZ
• Thursday 5 September, 5:30pm to 7:30pm at Ashtead Peace Memorial Hall (Ralli Room), Woodfield Lane, Ashtead KT21 2BE
• Wednesday 11 September, 5:30pm to 7:30pm at The Old Barn Hall Bookham (Main Hall), 55 Church Road, Great Bookham, Leatherhead KT23 3PQ

Keir Property and MVDC is looking at submitting a planning application in 2025 and, if approved, to start building by spring/summer 2026.

Artistic Impression Of The Arrival Square from North Street, south east corner. (Credit: Mole Valley District Council and Keir Property)

A woman who believed her incurable cancer may have been caused by washing her husband’s work clothes is looking for information. Annette, who was married to a former welder in is appealing for information following her diagnosis with an incurable form of cancer linked to asbestos exposure. 

Asbestos is a naturally occurring mineral composed of thin, needle-like fibres which was widely used in construction. Asbestos was completely banned in 1999 after research showed swallowing and breathing in the fibres trap them in the body, inflaming and scarring the lungs which can cause cancer. 

Peter Vaughan, Annette’s husband, worked as a welder around Epsom and Ewell throughout the 1960s, 70s and 80s, where he is believed to have come into contact with asbestos used in insulators for buildings and machinery such as asbestos blankets or gloves.  

Annette claims she may have been exposed to asbestos while washing Peter’s work clothes, if he came into contact with asbestos while at work. Annette was diagnosed with the rare and aggressive cancer, mesothelioma, in summer 2023 – six years after Peter sadly died in 2017.

Now, with the help of legal firm Leigh Day, Annette is appealing to Peter’s former colleagues to help her with information about conditions at his work. She hopes the information will help her bring a legal claim as she faces the incurable disease. 

“Mesothelioma is an aggressive, terminal form of cancer which can develop in an individual later in life even through secondary exposure to asbestos,” said Claire Spearpoint, asbestos claims solicitor at law firm Leigh Day. “Annette believes that this may have been the case with her diagnosis, however following Peter’s death she has limited access to information regarding the possible presence of exposure at his former places of work.”

Leigh Day is looking to support Annette’s claim by speaking to anyone who worked at Surrey Sheet Metal Crafts, Grundy Teddington and Vestec throughout the 1960s to 1980s. They may be able to offer information if asbestos was used and how asbestos exposure occurred. Annette is also hopeful that any local tradesmen who worked in the Epsom and Ewell area at the time may be able to offer information that could be of help.  

Peter worked as a welder and director at Surrey Sheet Metal Crafts between 1965 and 1967, a company he set up with two other men. He was then employed at Grundy Teddington in the Twickenham and Teddington area throughout 1970 to 1971, before working at Vestec for 12 years between 1975 and 1987. During his time at Vestec, he was a supervisor and often referred to as ‘guvnor’. 

While former employees who overlapped with Peter at these companies would be particularly useful, Annette is also looking to speak to anyone who worked at Surrey Sheet Metal Crafts, Grundy Teddington or Vestec who could offer information on the kind of work undertaken. 

All three companies are no longer in existence and have been dissolved, one as recent as March 2024.  If you can provide any relevant information please contact Claire Spearpoint at: cspearpoint@leighday.co.uk

Picture of Peter Vaughan as a younger man (Credit: Leigh Day)

Two ex-Surrey Police officers have been banned from the profession for gross misconduct after engaging in sexual activity on various occasions at police stations whilst on duty.

One former officer was found to have given oral sex to her tutor police officer whilst on duty at Horley Police Station. PC B admitted to performing the sex act on her tutor, PC C, and allegedly told another officer she gave oral sex on a sergeant’s desk at Caterham Police Station. Mr C has continued to deny the allegations.

Epsom and Ewell Times has withheld the names of the former officers involved as we take the view that the news-worthiness in the report is the handling of these matters by our local police force.

The police misconduct hearing panel, held on July 25, found Ms B and Mr C “neglected their duties for their own gratification”. The pair breached professional standards by engaging in sexually inappropriate behaviour whilst on duty.

Evidence was heard from another police officer who said Ms B had admitted to her that she and former PC C had engaged in sexual activity on a number of occasions at Caterham and Horley Police Stations. One officer said she saw former PC’s B and C “getting up off the floor and laughing” after interrupting them “in a darkened room” at Caterham Police Station.

Report documents state the pair were alleged to be “kissing and cuddling” whilst on duty at Horley Police Station, a quieter station, on January 15, 2023. A police officer and former colleague said that he saw Mr C coming out of a dark room with his “outer layer tee-shirt untucked” and not wearing any police protective equipment such as body armour and belt kit. The officer walked past the room which former PC C had left and saw Ms B facing away from him, appearing to be tying up her hair.

Concerned with what he saw, the officer reported it to an inspector who checked in with Ms B’s welfare after her shift. Ms B stated that former PC C had not behaved inappropriately to her and denied anything of a sexual nature happened between them.

But Ms B allegedly admitted to an officer she was in a relationship with former PC C. Mr C’s wife also provided a statement to the panel, in which she said in April 2023, her husband confirmed that “he had an affair with a trainee officer at work”.

In lying to a senior officer about her relationship with Mr C, the panel found the former PC B clearly breached the “most serious” standard of honesty in police professional behaviour.

Making matters worse, the panel considered that both former officers “deliberately” went to the “quieter” Horley station to carry out their sexual activities. Their sexual conduct was “repeated and sustained” over a period of time and in secret because “the officers knew it was wrong”, according to the report.

Members considered that former PC C was especially deserving of blame as he was former PC B’s tutor constable, meaning he had leadership responsibilities for mentoring her. The panel claimed he “failed” to act as a role model to Ms B.

Ms B was also criticised as she “failed to raise concern” about the alleged relationship when reportedly given an opportunity to do so by an inspector and instead lied to her. “No real remorse” was shown by either party and it was noted that Ms B refused to hand over her personal phone in full cooperation with the investigation.

The panel agreed the former officer’s behaviour amounted to gross misconduct and it would undermine trust and confidence in policing if the public had been aware. They found the pair “neglected” their duties and responsibilities whilst on duty at a police station, and “discredited” the force.

Both officers resigned from the force in July 2023 while the investigation was still ongoing. The panel concluded the former officers’ behaviour amounted to gross misconduct worthy of dismissal.

Head of Professional Standards, Superintendent Andy Rundle, said; “Surrey Police expects a high level of professionalism from our officers and staff. The misconduct process for those who do not meet those standards is stringent and we will take all action within our power to ensure that those who do meet these standards are dealt with robustly.

“The hearing found that if former PCs B and C had not already resigned, they would have been dismissed without notice. Both former officers’ details will also now be placed on the College of Policing barred list indefinitely.”

_{Surrey Police ethics print on wall at Mount Browne HQ. (Credit: Emily Dalton/LDRS)}

Surrey Police purchased the featured premises in Cleeve Road, Leatherhead, in 2019 for over £20 million. The address is just over 5 miles from Epsom High Street and is in the recently expanded Epsom and Ewell Constituency. Will the intended move reported below improve policing in our area?

Surrey Police’s plan to move 400 officers from Reigate to Leatherhead has triggered calls for guarantees on response times and street presence from the area’s MP.

People must not be made to suffer longer police response times or fewer officers on the streets over the police’s decision to permanently move its eastern headquarters from Reigate to Leatherhead, the East Surrey MP has said.

Surrey Police vacated Reigate Police Station last year and shared offices with Surrey Fire and Rescue after dangerous aerated concrete, known as RAAC –  which can collapse without warning – was found throughout the base.

It has now taken the decision to permanently move out of the borough with up to 400 officers and staff moving across – although a long-term site within Reigate and Banstead for its Safer Neighbourhood Team is still being sought.

It says the move demonstrates the force’s commitment to retaining an operational base in the heart east Surrey and will allow it to maintain a visible presence in the communities it serves, fight crime and protect people.

East Surrey MP Claire Coutinho has written to the force demanding assurances it can deliver on those promises.

She said: “While the RAAC issue at Reigate Police Station must be resolved, residents in the east of the county will want assurances that a move to Leatherhead will not cause longer response times or less police presence on the streets.

“I have written to Surrey Police to get these assurances for residents and I will be discussing what this means for our area when I meet local officers in the coming weeks.”

Surrey Police had to leave Reigate Police Station permanently after RAAC was found throughout the building, and in October 2023 it moved staff into Wray Park, Reigate, on a temporary basis  with Surrey Fire and Rescue.

From there it began its search for a long-term solution including the demolition and rebuild of Reigate Police Station.

Surrey Police said the decision to refurbish its Leatherhead site, bought in 2018, was “based on operational requirements, partnerships with other public services, best value for the residents of Surrey, and long-term viability for the Force itself.”

The former Electrical Research Association and Cobham Industries site in Leatherhead was bought when Surrey Police had planned to sell off its Mount Browne headquarters in Guilford and relocate its main HQ across the county.

Instead the force decided to close its central Guildford police station, refurbish Mount Browne, and offload the Leatherhead industrial site but the enforced closure of Reigate Police Station has meant a rethink about its East Surrey division and the new plan hatched.

This recommendation was approved on August 6 at the Estates Strategy Board.

Tim De Meyer, Surrey Police’s chief constable, said, “The desired move to Leatherhead shows our commitment to retain an operational base in the heart of the East of Surrey where we can maintain a visible policing presence in the communities we serve, to fight crime and protect people.

“This is an opportunity to build a new divisional headquarters which will be operationally fit for purpose and serve the east of our county for many years to come.”

Surrey’s Police and Crime Commissioner, Lisa Townsend, said, “This is exciting news and if we get planning approval gives us a unique opportunity to build a bespoke divisional HQ that is fit for purpose for our hard-working police teams on the east of the county.

“The situation with RAAC at Reigate Police Station has presented us with some difficult and unexpected challenges and I would like to pay tribute to all those officers, staff and volunteers for their patience and understanding over the last year.

“I am well aware of the importance Surrey residents place on local policing, and I want to reassure people living in Reigate and Banstead that the neighbourhood presence in their communities will not be affected by these plans.

“There have been some tough choices to make but I believe that Leatherhead presents us with the best option in providing both value for money for Surrey residents and an eastern HQ that is fit for a modern police force.”

Councillor Paul Kennedy, Mole Valley District Council’s cabinet member for internal services and security, said: “While any proposals remain subject to planning permission, this potentially signals yet another boost to the town, alongside the progress of our Transform Leatherhead initiative.

With the addition of an HQ and around 400 members of staff comes the promise of a boost in footfall into the town centre and a positive impact on the local economy.”

Surrey Police said it is still committed to having a presence in every borough and district and that there will be a minimum of one front counter facility in each.

They added that, while locations will be reviewed, there will be no reductions than we currently provided, and no reduction in service.

Image: Premises bought by Surrey Police in 2019 for £20,485,000. Google street view.

The class of 2024 at Rosebery School Sixth Form did themselves proud with one in three A level results including an A* or A.

The excellent results also saw 86 per cent of students achieve grades A* to C and the average vocational qualification saw a distinction, so it was celebrations all round.

“These results are a testament to the unwavering hard work, dedication and determination of our exceptional cohort,” said David Lach, Head of School.

“We could not be prouder of the Class of 2024. We have always known they were a special and talented group, and we are delighted that their efforts have resulted in such fantastic outcomes. Well done, girls!”

There were many outstanding results, but to highlight a few of the school’s most notable performers: Ysabel C was awarded an incredible 4 A*, Ilana A and Edith P achieved 3 A*s and 1 A, Rachel A achieved 4 A grades. Jessica W received 3A*s. Connie H, Becca J, Elizabeth Q P and Maya S were awarded 2A*s and an A in their core A levels but with Maya and Connie also achieving an A* in their EPQ.  

“Following the school’s recent Outstanding Ofsted Judgement for Sixth Form Provision, and building on last year’s record-breaking results, Rosebery School Sixth Form continues to excel and grow stronger each year – with the school receiving a record number of both internal and external applications to join the Sixth Form in September,” said Mr Lach.

The action continues at Epsom Downs this week with a competitive six-race card on offer for punters heading to the track on Friday 16th August.

Racing gets underway at 1.40 with a class five nursery contest before rounding off at 4.35 as eight runners tackle a class five handicap. 

Read below to discover the latest tips for Epsom’s card on Friday, courtesy of OLBG:

The opening race of the afternoon (1.40) sees a field of nine head to the start for the class five nursery for two-year-old’s. Liberty Bird was a runner up last time out at Leicester for trainer Charlie Johnston and gets the nod here to bag a second win of the campaign, having been victorious at Beverley in June. Enchanted Eye rates the main danger from the Eve Johnson Houghton yard, a good second on nursery debut at Leicester 29 days ago. 

A small field of four will take on race two of the afternoon at Epsom in the maiden fillies’ stakes (2.15) over the seven furlong distance. The Amy Murphy-trained Creative Lady is the clear pick on form here, a decent second in a Lingfield maiden last time out and is the one to beat here. Graduated, for trainer Dr Richard Newland, can fill the second spot, second at Brighton on her last spin. 

A class four handicap marks race three on the Friday card at 2.50, with eight runners set to travel over the six furlong sprint distance. Winner of this race last year, Musicka is back for another crack for trainer David O’Meara and has hit form at the right time with a second in a big-field handicap at York last month so is the one to beat again. Of his rivals, Tourist can make his presence felt if bouncing back to form following a fifth at Doncaster last time out.

Race four (3.25) is an 11-runner handicap in class six for horses aged three and older, with preference heading the way of Imperial Cult, who landed a career best when scoring in a 12-runner handicap at Lingfield 17 days ago to follow up another win at that venue a month previously so is taken to complete the hat trick here ahead of Corporate Raider, a Brighton winner in June and second at that track 45 days ago. 

The penultimate race on Epsom’s card this week arrives at 4.00 as six runners head to the start for the extended mile handicap in class five. Unreal Connection for trainer Amanda Perratt looks the one to beat here, a previous winner at Epsom who was fourth in a Sandown handicap when last seen. Eretat is the main danger, a cosy winner at Wolverhampton three weeks ago who is bidding to follow up. 

Finally, the card comes to a close with the class five handicap over seven furlongs (4.35) and eight runners will take it on, with preference heading the way of Marlay Park, a four-time course and distance winner who has yet to fire this season but is sliding down the weights as well as dropping in grade here.  

Epsom selections – Friday

1.40 – Liberty Bird

2.15 – Creative Lady

2.50 – Musicka 

3.25 – Imperial Cult

4.00 – Unreal Connection

4.35 – Marlay Park

_{Image: Credit Paul. CC BY 2.0}

Epsom and Ewell 0-2 Jersey Bulls. Combined Counties League – Premier Division South – Tuesday 13th August 2024.

Jersey Bulls are not the sort of team you want to face, having just been hit for five goals in our previous outing. However, we acquitted ourselves fairly well on the day and a two goal defeat, the second of which came quite late, was a lot better than I had feared it might be. An attendance counted at just 84 was a disappointing one, considering the opposition.

In terms of personnel, Callum Wilson and Carl Oblitey returned to the starting line up, although Craig Dundas remained absent and Thompson Adeyemi was also missing, while Reece Tierney’s head injury ensured that he would not be available for selection either. Stefan Aiwone made his first start, while Kenny Antony was on the bench, but would join the fray later.

Our keeper Faebian Witter was in action early, diving low to his left to keep out a low free kick from James Sunlay and another shot went just over our crossbar as the visitors tried to assert themselves. They probably should have scored in the 18th minute but Fraser Barlow scuffed his shot wide from in front of goal. We had showed fairly little to this point, struggling to get the ball up to our front two, Oblitey and Will Kendall. However, Luke Miller took a long pass in his stride in the 25th minute and made tracks down the right, only for his ball across goal to be spooned over the bar by Oblitey from eighteen yards.

The visitors were doing more of the work, but we were keeping them mostly at arm’s length. A free kick was sent into the wall by Barlow, before Sunray got down the right wing after some clever interplay, but there was no one on the end of his cross. They had a penalty shout in the 31st minute after Witter collided with a visiting player, but it looked ambitious and nothing was given. However, four minutes later they took the lead after a right wing cross was met at the far post by a header from Miguel Carvalho that Toby Young tried to keep out, but was unable to, with both he and the ball ending up in the net.

We had a decent chance in the 38th minute with a free kick. Adam Green’s delivery was flapped at by the Jersey keeper Evan van der Vliet under pressure from Oblitey and the ball was nodded back to Kendall whose header entered the net, despite an attempt to block it with the hand of a defender. Just as we were wondering whether the defender would be penalised for the handball, it transpired that the Assistant’s flag had already been raised for an offside against Oblitey and the chance was gone. Wilson then blocked a good effort just before the break and the teams went in separated by just the one goal.

The second half followed a similar pattern, although we did register a shot on target just after the hour mark when Fabio Nunes struck at goal from twenty-five yards, providing Van der Vliet with a comfortable save. Carlos Polo-Infante came on for Alex Kodjo but we never had the chance to see whether this would make a difference as in the 69th minute Young was sent off for a challenge on Carvalho that was extremely solid, but just a little high for the referee’s liking.

The extra man enabled the visitors to attack with a little more freedom and in the 78th minute they had a second goal with a move that started on the right and was finished off from a narrow angle by Jonny Le Quesne. Although we had battled well to this point, Jersey did deserve that two goal lead and despite a late cameo from Antony, which included one mazy run, there was more chance that we would concede again and Aiwone did really well to block a shot from Lorne Bickley who had scored both goals against us when we last visited the island in September of last year.

Witter made a good block from a volley at goal from the subsequent half cleared corner and the final whistle blew soon after. Whilst always disappointing to lose, it was maybe no surprise that we would concede twice as this was our fourth meeting and Jersey have scored two goals in each of them. No one could argue that the better side had won, but from an Epsom point of view, this was a marked improvement on our Saturday shocker against Guildford City and although we face another difficult match on Saturday, a hard working shift is the minimum requirement expected by the supporters. I believe we got that in this match.

Epsom & Ewell: Faebian Witter, Toby Young, Callum Wilson, Adam Green ©, Stefan Aiwone, Fabio Nunes, Luke Miller, Axel Kodjo, Will Kendall, Carl Oblitey, Ethan Nelson-Roberts

Subs: Carlos Polo-Infante for Kodjo (67), Kenny Antony for Oblitey (86)