Epsom and Ewell Times

12th February 2026 weekly

ISSN, LDRS and IMPRESS logos

Plodcast problem leads to PC sacking

A Surrey Police officer was dismissed without notice after he made a podcast in which his wording suggested he “condoned committing criminal acts of domestic abuse”. The officer, who cannot be named due to reporting restrictions and is referred to as Officer A, uploaded an episode of his podcast in January 2022 in which he discussed a non-crime domestic incident with his ex-partner that took place on Christmas Day 2021, following an argument over child contact that day.

A Surrey Police misconduct hearing on 8 February 2023 found his behaviour was a breach of discreditable conduct and dismissed him without notice. During the podcast uploaded to Spotify on 10 January 2022, but since deleted, Officer A discussed the Christmas Day 2021 incident, and “made a number of inappropriate comments referring to his ex-partner”, according to the hearing outcome.

The report into the hearing said: “During the podcast he also used discussion and wording which suggested that he condones committing criminal acts of domestic abuse.” Surrey Police said the officer accepted the allegations made against him, but that he had experienced a “difficult break-up with his former partner”. He said this as well as “frustrations regarding his access to their child” were the context in which he recorded the podcast.

Surrey Police said: “The panel accepted the officer’s explanation that by the words he used he was not condoning domestic abuse but the impact on the public view may well be different given the ongoing national concern regarding violence against women and girls and the level of mistrust some have with the police in such matters.”

The officer, who cannot legally be named because of restrictions put in place at the hearing, identified himself as a police officer in the podcast on April 23, 2020 and as a Surrey officer in the introduction of a previous podcast.
The panel found him to have breached the professional standard of duties and responsibilities (being diligent in the exercise of their duties and responsibilities) in this regard.

A member of the public alerted Surrey Police to “inappropriate content on social media” on April 23, 2020, which was dealt with by the officer’s senior management team and the content was removed.


Surrey Police add: “The officer is not being named to protect the welfare of his former partner and child, who played no part in the officer’s alleged misconduct. This will ensure the correct balance is maintained between the open process as envisaged by the Regulations and Home Office Guidance and the welfare of either the officer or others”.


Hook Road Arena plans

Hook Road arena

This is the last of nine reports on the BIG PLANS for Epsom and Ewell proposed in the DRAFT LOCAL PLAN that is out for public consultation till 17th March. We do not intend to state any support or opposition but may ask some questions.

Hook Road Arena is owned by the Council and has for many years been the home of car boot sales, funfairs and annual firework nights. The plan is for residential and sports and recreation development, comprising:

  • A new sports hub for the borough to include playing pitches (grass and artificial) a new pavilion and changing facilities on 9.5ha of the site that will be retained within the Green Belt.
  • At least 150 net zero carbon homes on the eastern part of the site that will be inset from the Green Belt

The reasons given include the site has the potential to deliver recreational sports facilities and playing pitches. The allocation of this site will mitigate any losses of playing pitches (rugby) resulting from the allocation of the adjoining Ewell East Station (see our report HERE) . It may also help to meet additional playing pitch needs for ‘secure provision’ (i.e. community use protected through a legal agreement) both now and in the future.

The site will contribute towards meeting the need for housing in the borough.

When will the site be developed? 

It expected that a planning application will be submitted early in the plan period, with development likely to start in 2027. 

Planning officers note that any development proposal will need to incorporate mitigation relating to surface water flooding for those parts of the site that are susceptible. Also, the site could deliver playing pitches and potentially other supporting infrastructure such as changing facilities and a club house.

Related reports:

The BIG plans for Epsom and Ewell – reports on Hook Road Car Park and SGN site plan.

Depot Road plans

West Park

Ashley Avenue

The Epsom and Ewell Town Hall plan

A new Town Hall for Epsom and Ewell?

Epsom & Ewell Borough Council Draft Local Plan. Details how to submit your views.

Local Plan battle heating up? and other related reports.


Epsom and Ewell pressed on.

East Preston v Epsom football logos

Epsom & Ewell 1-2 East Preston. Southern Combination League – Division One. Saturday 25th February.

Whatever happened to Fortress Fetcham Grove? Last season we won eleven in a row and this term we opened up with five straight wins. Yet nowadays, we are lucky if we can win any at all. Our win against ten man Arundel was the only one we have won since late October and our latest loss on Saturday against East Preston regrettably was almost identical to our last Saturday home match against Oakwood where our play was slow, lacking urgency and was completely toothless up front, allowing the opposition to believe they might have a chance, which they then took.

In terms of personnel there were further changes from the midweek win over Arundel and most notable was the absence of our prolific striker Jamie Byatt, who had of course scored the winner on Wednesday. Dylan Merchant-Simmonds came in for his first start and paired up with Chris Boulter at the back with Ollie Thompson moving to the bench, while Nick Wilson returned to the starting eleven after missing the Arundel match in place of the absent Thompson Adeyemi. George Owusu came in for his first start in place of the battered and bruised Jaevon Dyer who was placed on the bench in the hope that he would be able to have ninety minutes off before Tuesday’s match against Dorking Wanderers, but he would also be forced into action as we chased the game in the later stages.

Finally, Tyreke Leslie came in, although due to the absence of Byatt he was placed in a more central position to that where we would previously seen him play and it didn’t appear to suit him. It is strange that we have tried a number of players in that role from Josh Owen, Jubril Adamson, Josh Alder, Byatt, Dyer and most recently Jaan Stanley who was absent for this match, yet the guy who played there successfully in pre-season still hasn’t been given a run at centre-forward in competitive action and so Athan Smith-Joseph instead lined up once again on the wing instead, although he was on the right for this match to accommodate Owusu on the left and this rendered him less effective than usual too.

The encounter settled into a fairly clear pattern as we held the ball most of the time, while the opposition relied on occasional counter attacks. Our first chance fell to Owusu in the tenth minute, but he hooked the ball over the bar from fairly close range and also struggled to stay onside in the first half. Leslie was on the end of a flick on, but his shot was deflected wide, according to the referee at least, as clearly the entire East Preston defence didn’t agree, and regrettably the erratic officiating in this match would be another factor in this frustrating encounter.

We had forced a couple of corners and looked generally in control in these early stages, although a miscommunication between Alex Penfold and Merchant-Simmonds allowed Jack Collins to get through on goal. Fortunately, some good recovery defending ensured that their player was unable to get a shot away, however, this appeared to give the visitors some belief and they fizzed another ball across our six yard box before taking the lead in embarrassing circumstances in the 25th minute. I hope Gary Jarman got this one on his video as the players should watch it back again and again. Quite simply, a long throw was flicked on to the far post where Matthew Wilson was standing completely alone and seemed to have ages to guide his header past the helpless Tom Theobald from about six yards. It was the sort of goal you see conceded in the park on a Sunday morning and was horrible to witness from a club at our level.

We responded well and were back on level terms within three minutes as a Ryan Smith corner was blocked almost on the line and Owusu was there to tuck away the loose ball from a few yards out. In first half injury time both teams had an opportunity, first when Collins fed the ball through to Morgan Day, but his hooked volley went straight at Theobald, then at the other end Smith-Joseph produced one of his trademark mazy runs before unleashing a shot that was well tipped over by Maciek Kason, although Smith’s corner then went straight out of play, which sort of summed up the first half.

Unfortunately the second half was an equally disjointed and dispiriting affair if you were an Epsom supporter. We had hardly been playing six minutes when we had a shout for a foul that wasn’t given, but Gavin Quintyne felt the need to say something to the referee and ended up in the sin-bin as a result. His absence didn’t materially affect the pattern of play and the scores were still level when he re-joined the contest, but it was ten minutes wasted as we created little in that period. Just after the hour Leslie was withdrawn and replaced by the returning Kofi Quartey and the visitors had another opportunity when a half cleared free kick was blazed over from the edge of the penalty area. A couple of bookings followed, firstly for Ryan Harvey and then extremely harshly for Wilson, who didn’t even commit a foul as far as I was concerned.

We sent in another corner where a Boulter header was blocked not far short of the goal line before Quartey had the chance of the afternoon after being put through one on one, but he overran the ball a bit and by the time he got the shot away, Kason was out to block. We would regret this ten minutes later when in the 86th minute a hopeful right wing cross appeared to be flicked on by one of our own defenders and fell kindly for the unmarked Harvey to fire a smart volley past Theobald from around ten yards. It was a good finish but the absence of any marking made the job somewhat easier.

Two minutes later and despite having previously seen Quintyne sin-binned, Boulter decided to also say something to the referee and predictably then found himself on the bench meaning that we would play the last two minutes and eight further minutes of injury time with ten men. I have referred to indiscipline in this team frequently this season, but to lose two “experienced” players for ten minutes each, was inexcusable. Yes, the refereeing was poor and yes, he looked out of his depth in this match, particularly in the second half, but our players have to be a bit more accountable for their own actions.

So East Preston won their fourth match in a row and deserve some credit for sticking around in the match that we should have finished off earlier, but let’s make no bones about this, both teams were poor in this match and it was a fairly disappointing advert for Step Six football. No wonder there were only 75 there to see it.

With just ten matches remaining, time is running out now and we have three far more difficult looking fixtures coming up against teams that are notably better than a limited East Preston. We face a difficult trip to Selsey at the weekend, and either side of that we host two in-form teams in Godalming Town and of course, our nemesis, Dorking Wanderers B coming up next. In my view (and hey, it’s my report!) we are very much at a crossroads here in our season. Which direction will we take? The path to second place in the table that we will surely claim if we are able to secure at least seven points from these next matches, or will we stumble erratically through the rest of the season before losing an away playoff match like we did last season. As a supporter, well aware that the club is spending a lot of money that is running out, I at the very least want to see better than what we witnessed here. Promotion to Step Five is still comfortably achievable, but not with performances like this. It has to stop now.

Epsom & Ewell: Tom Theobald, Gideon Acheampong, Alex Penfold, Ryan Smith (c), Chris Boulter, Dylan Merchant-Simmonds, George Owusu, Nick Wilson, Tyreke Leslie, Gavin Quintyne, Athan Smith-Joseph

Subs: Kofi Quartey for Leslie (62), Jaevon Dyer for Owusu (68), Steve Springett for Penfold (77), Ollie Thompson for Smith (89)


Sutton and Epsom RFC Sink Despite All Hands On Deck

Sutton & Epsom v Brighton 24.09.22 action

Brighton 39 Sutton & Epsom 22. Saturday 25th February. The last of Epsom and Sutton’s rearranged fixtures sadly fell on a weekend that not only featured the Six Nations but also a couple of stag weekends. Creativity was the byword for selection as 2 nd XV players, veterans of yesteryear, coaches and university students gathered at Waterhall for the formal introductions before taking on the Blues. In September at Rugby Lane the Black &
Whites enjoyed one of only two successes this campaign when they overcame Brighton 42-24. The south coast men gained a measure of revenge winning 39-22 which eased their fears of the drop but the result relegated S&E because remarkably at Bodicote Park Banbury had defeated second-placed Camberley.

The Sutton and Epsom XV included the veteran trio of Frankie Murray and the brothers Pointing, Chris and
Mickey, debutants Jordan Farrar and Alex Gerhard from the Swallows, students Jack Benton
and Taylor Gaye and coaches Steve Munford and Mark Lambert. Tom Brooker took the
armband and was the only remaining member of the pack from last Saturday’s Havant loss.
The clouds dispersed and the game started in sunshine but with a strong wind that was
illustrated as the Brighton kick off sailed out on the full. The majority of the crowd wisely took
advantage of the well-appointed clubhouse rather than braving the elements pitch-side for a
match of great significance for both clubs in terms of survival in this league. The hosts looked
to spread the ball from the outset and their back division with Onke Nesi to the fore was lively
and threatening. S&E tackled ferociously and the pack willingly took on the ball-carrying
duties.

After ten minutes winger Aled Edwards thought he had wriggled free but was brought back for
a foot in touch. The Waterhall woes were immediately abated when centre Arthur Robinson
scythed through the defence after sustained Brighton pressure to score. In the absence of the
redoubtable Sean O’Hagan scrum half Harry Alexander took over the kicking duties and made
light of the tricky wind to make it 7-0. Five minutes later the Sutton resources were further
stretched when Kyren Ghumra was forced off after a knock on the head when falling on the ball.
With no spare back on the bench Jordan Farrar went on the flank and Jack Butt stood in on the
wing. Despite the adversity the Black & Whites were tenacious in defence and the forwards
relished the set scrums with the experienced duo of Reid and Lambert winning penalties.

The Sussex men had to wait until the half hour to extend their lead. A well-worked lineout ploy
from 5 metres was thwarted but prop Billy Rolfe twisted and stretched for the line to score. The
conversion drifted wide as the hosts led 12-0. Sutton & Epsom brought on Hartpury University
prop Taylor Gaye for his debut and he made an immediate impact. The diminutive Dan Jones won
a penalty for a high tackle which was kicked into the corner. Though the lineout was lost excellent
scavenging by the pack regained possession and Taylor Gaye scored from short-range. The
conversion was blown wide but Sutton were on the board trailing 5-12. Confidence now surged
through the Black & White ranks and they were soon attacking in the Blues 22. With the interval
rapidly approaching the referee issued a yellow card to Billy Rolfe. At once Sutton looked to benefit
from their numerical advantage. The forwards got to within a yard under the posts before it was
spun wide. It appeared that Angus Findlay had scored in the corner but an excellent defensive
covering tackle dislodged the ball as the winger tried to touch down. Brighton cleared their lines
from the scrum and the referee concluded the first period with the Blues 12-5 up at the break.
If S&E were despondent at their failure to score before the interval you would not have noticed by
the way they started the second half. Robbie Martey caught a clearance on halfway and advanced
towards the 22. Captain Brooker kept up the attack and ball came to Dan Jones who jinked his
way to the line and passed to Frankie Murray who scored a try that rolled back the years. The conversion narrowly missed but Sutton were only 10-12 down with the extra man.

Before the travelling Rugby Lane faithful had time to dream of a remarkable victory they were awoken from
their reverie by an instant reply from the Waterhall men. Having secured a scrum on the 22 from
the restart the ball went out to Arthur Robinson who ran the perfect line to score his second and
Brighton’s third try. Harry Alexander added the extras for the 19-10 lead. Conditions deteriorated
rapidly as the clouds gathered, the rain fell and the temperature plummeted with half an hour
remaining on the clock.

The hosts began to turn the screw with two tries in as many minutes. First to benefit was
returning prop Billy Rolfe who collected his second of the afternoon after relentless pressure from
the Sussex men. Moments later Aled Edwards was touching down in the corner and the Black &
Whites were 29-10 adrift. Entering the final quarter the impartial observer might have thought that
the visitors may have run out of steam and the veterans made to suffer. The floodgates did not
open and contrary to all expectations S&E began their rearguard action. The next score was an
unlikely one when Brighton decided to kick a penalty with ten minutes remaining. Harry Alexander
effortlessly bisected the uprights for 32-10 leaving the visitors needing four scores. The task went
from uphill to climbing Everest in flip-flops when replacement Conor Scott sped in under the posts
finishing with aplomb. Harry Alexander converted for 39-10.

Then Tom Brooker gave a splendid example of leading from the front. Gathering the ball near
halfway he took the ball in to contact and drove back three defenders and broke through their
clutches and bolted towards the posts. He finished in style brushing aside the last tackler as if he
was Alex Dombrandt. Alex Mawdsley drop-kicked the conversion in a blink of an eye for 39-17.
Sutton now went in search of a bonus point and took the game to Brighton. Unfortunately scrum
half Austin Bell was forced off with an ankle injury and S&E shuffled the deck again. Undaunted by
this setback they invaded the opposition 22 again. Quick ball was spun wide and Alex Mawdsley
forced his way over. Whether he applied the coup de grace or the significant pressure was
supplied by Robbie Martey was immaterial as the referee signalled a try. Alex Mawdsley failed to
convert from the flank and the referee blew his whistle to end the game with Brighton victorious
by 39-22.
The Blues were worthy winners. Their forwards carried aggressively and effectively and their backs
looked to run at every opportunity and had plenty of pace to exploit their somewhat makeshift
opponents. The bonus point win was most welcome as the hosts are still not clear of relegation. In
contrast this defeat condemned the visitors to the drop. However, the manner of defeat will be
cherished by the Rugby Lane supporters. The level of commitment, the tenacity and the bonus
point were highlights in a display overflowing with team spirit. Steve Munford gave an outstanding
performance in defence tackling all-comers. The many front row permutations were a constant
menace in the scrum. The side benefited greatly from the leadership on the pitch from not only
Tom Brooker but also the cadre of experienced players that filled their ranks. On the other end of
the scale, the youthful debutants Alex Gerhard, Jordan Farrar and Taylor Gayle put in huge shifts
and looked very comfortable at 1 st XV level which bodes well for the future.

Though the season has come to a premature end for Sutton & Epsom, followers of Brighton will
hope Wimbledon and Havant will reflect their lofty status and put Banbury to the sword unlike the
faltering Camberley so that the Blues stay put in Regional One South Central. Next Saturday S&E
entertain Maidenhead at Rugby Lane in the penultimate game of the season.

Sutton & Epsom
Robbie Martey, Kyren Ghumra, Steve Munford, Alex Mawdsley, Angus Findlay, Frankie Murray,
Austin Bell, Mark Lambert, Dan Jones, Joe Reid, Alex Gerhard, Jack Benton, Chris Pointing,
Jack Butt & Tom Brooker ©
Replacements: (all used) Mickey Pointing, Jordan Farrar & Taylor Gaye.

Brighton
Max Morris ©, George Payne, Arthur Robinson, Onke Nesi, Aled Edwards, David Mcilwaine,
Harry Alexander, Billy Rolfe, Will Fitzpatrick, Andrew Rowlandson, Richard Neil, Milo Cawkwell,
George Orchard, Alex Havers & Angus North.
Replacements: James Trevis, Will Harvey and Conor Scott.


Land at Chantilly Way

Chantilly Way development area

This is the eighth of nine reports on the nine BIG PLANS for Epsom and Ewell proposed in the DRAFT LOCAL PLAN that is out for public consultation till 17th March. We do not intend to state any support or opposition but may ask some questions.

This 0.7 hectare grazing land is earmarked for residential development. The reasons given include:The site will contribute towards meeting the need for housing in the borough and lies adjacent to the Strategic Allocation at Horton Farm (Policy SA6).

The site has well defined boundaries and lies on a transport corridor adjacent to existing residential area, creating a suitable context for residential development. The site is also in relatively close proximity to local services and facilities and to public transport connections.

Planning officers note that the development should not adversely affect any protected trees near the boundary of the site. Any development proposal will need to incorporate mitigation relating to surface water flooding for those parts of the site that are susceptible.

The council is working with key infrastructure providers, including Surrey County Council as the Highway Authority and Education Authority, Clinical Commissioning Groups and Utility providers to determine exactly what infrastructure is required to support the proposed development.

When will the site be developed?

It expected that a planning application will be submitted in the early part of the plan period with development likely to start by 2028.

Related Reports:

Epsom & Ewell Borough Council Draft Local Plan. Details how to submit your views.

The BIG plans for Epsom and Ewell – reports on Hook Road Car Park and SGN site plan.

The Epsom and Ewell Town Hall plan

Ashley Avenue

West Park

A new Town Hall for Epsom and Ewell?

Local Plan battle heating up? and other related reports.


Residents aroused by “sleeping” residents?

Protest in Epsom against green belt plans

Amid claims of the Residents Association Councillors being “asleep at the wheel” one of the biggest residents’ protests ever held in Epsom took place yesterday. Over 200 demonstrators waved banners, wore green or green belts, and chanted “Green not Greed” in the town centre on Saturday (February 25).

Fury was directed at not only the EEBC planners’ Draft Local Plan containing proposals to build 2,175 homes on Green Belt sites, but also the controlling Residents Association councillors group, which, it is claimed, “were asleep at the wheel” in voting Green Belt inclusion through. Over 40% of the total 5,400 Local Plan homes are destined for the Green Belt, the majority of which will be market-priced and unaffordable to those starting out on the property ladder, protestors argue.

Of nine “preferred options” for housing sites earmarked by the Council in the Local Plan, five are on Green Belt sites, which include Horton Farm (1,500 homes proposed) and Ewell East playing fields (350 homes, up to six storeys high).

Despite a “brownfield first” brief, planning officers have not proactively engaged with developers on central urban rejuvenation possibilities, near facilities, preferring instead to accept opportunistic bids from selected Green Belt landowners and developers, protestors claim.

In a display of some cross party support, the protestors were joined by representatives from political parties standing in forthcoming local elections in Epsom & Ewell, including two RA councillors who had voted against their colleagues on Green Belt inclusion. Cllr Eber Kington (RA Ewell Court Ward) and Cllr Christine Howells (RA Nonsuch Ward). They were joined by Cllr Bernie Muir (Conservative – Stamford) and Mark Todd Chair of the Epsom and Ewell Labour Party.

Demonstration organiser, Kathy Mingo, from the Epsom & Ewell Green Belt Group, said “It was heartening to see everyone uniting beyond party political lines against these unjustified Green Belt destruction plans, given new emerging Government guidelines that puts the focus squarely on brownfield development to meet only advisory, not mandatory, housing targets”

Alex Duval, vice-chairman of Clarendon Park Residents Association, which adjoins the Horton Farm Green Belt site said “ The data does not add up. The Council’s own reports show that the site contains a critical drainage area with high flood risk; their transport analysis recommends not taking the site forward; and reliance on outdated ONS 2014 population figures – rather than the lower  2018 and official 2021 Census figures – means Epsom’s housing needs are significantly overstated. The real housing need can be accommodated on brownfield alone, without any Green Belt destruction.Their own evidence is clear – the Council should save our Green Belt”

Tim Murphy, a vice president of CPRE Surrey and chair of Epsom’s CPRE group, said “CPRE’s experience is that, once sites are listed in a Council’s Local Plan as a “preferred option” for development, then, in 99% of cases, they eventually get developed. So EEBC has already put a number of Green Belt sites at real, permanent risk by identifying them for housing in its Draft Local Plan, which may not be justified as current Government policy on Green Belt evolves”

“Many RA councillors’ seats may now be at risk in May if they do not join the minority of their colleagues in clearly stating their policy objection to unjustified Green Belt destruction” said Jenny Coleman, chair, Ewell Downs Residents Association. “It is clear, not least from a residents petition signed by over 7,000, but also from this impactful, united residents protest, that many think the RA councillors have been rather asleep at the wheel. They must listen to the voice of the people”.

Epsom & Ewell Borough Council Draft Local Plan. Details how to submit your views.

A petition is available at epsomgreenbelt.org

Related reports:

The BIG plans for Epsom and Ewell – reports on Hook Road Car Park and SGN site plan.

MP’s housing solution for Epsom and Ewell

The Epsom and Ewell Town Hall plan

A new Town Hall for Epsom and Ewell?

Land adjoining Ewell East Station

Land at West Park Hospital 

The really BIG one: Horton Farm

Ashley Avenue

West Park

Local Plan battle heating up? and other related reports.

Local Planning Matters – Tim Murphy’s opinion piece for Epsom and Ewell Times


Land adjoining Ewell East Station

Ewell east plans

This is the seventh of nine reports on the BIG PLANS for Epsom and Ewell proposed in the DRAFT LOCAL PLAN that is out for public consultation till 17th March. We do not intend to state any support or opposition but may ask some questions.

This 8.3 hectare sports pitches and open space is earmarked for residential development with the following justifications:

  • At least 350 net zero carbon dwellings
  • Building heights up to 6 storeys
  • New local retail provision at ground floor
  • The re-provision of the playing pitches at Hook Road Arena

The site will contribute towards meeting the need for housing in the borough and ancillary community infrastructure.

The site has well defined boundaries and lies adjacent to existing residential areas and adjoining Ewell East railway station, creating a suitable context for residential development and lowering the risk of adverse landscape impacts. The site is also in relatively close proximity to local services and facilities and to bus and rail transport connections. Vehicular access can be achieved without detriment to the character of the local area.

When will the site be developed?

It expected that a planning application will be submitted in the middle of the plan period with development likely to start by 2031 once new sports pitches have been provided.  

Planning officers note:

Development proposals must identify ways of improving pedestrian access to Ewell East Station and maximise the linkages between the site and surrounding area, and provide opportunities for walking and cycling.

The design of development would need to minimise impacts on Priest Hill Nature Reserve (Site of Nature Conservation Importance (SNCI) located on the Southern Boundary of the site.

Part of the site to the east along Cheam Road is within Flood Zone 3. Any development proposal will need to take this into account.

The development proposal will need to work with the topography of the site to ensure that visual impacts of development are minimised

Infrastructure requirements include:

Provision of new retail unit(s) to provide convenience retail to meet local needs.

The loss of playing pitches will require reprovision at the Hook Road Arena site (Policy SA9). The developer will be expected to re-provide the playing pitches off site prior to development commencing to ensure that the scheme is acceptable in planning terms.

Related reports:

Epsom & Ewell Borough Council Draft Local Plan. Details how to submit your views.

The BIG plans for Epsom and Ewell – reports on Hook Road Car Park and SGN site plan.

The Epsom and Ewell Town Hall plan

A new Town Hall for Epsom and Ewell?

Ashley Avenue

West Park

Local Plan battle heating up? and other related reports.


Mulletts salted in table top match

Epsom football table

Epsom & Ewell 3-2 Arundel. Southern Combination League – Division One. Wednesday 22nd February.

In an important battle at the top end of the table, our boys came through a tense and tight encounter to take all three points from visiting Arundel, courtesy of a late winner from the evergreen Jamie Byatt in front of a disappointing crowd of 70, despite this Wednesday night match being one of very few played in the area.

Byatt, who surely will become the final Salts player to have been born before I started watching Epsom back in October 1981 rolled back the years and in his twenty minute cameo might have resulted in two goals, but an earlier effort was denied by a smart low save.

However, the real story here is that we have now recorded consecutive wins for the first time since October and this result against a team in good form and who drew with leaders Shoreham just four days previously is an indication that maybe our poor form over December and January can now be placed in the rear view mirror. Maybe though we should wait until our next two home matches against East Preston and our recent nemesis the Dorking Wanderers B team before we can be sure.

Sometimes though you just have to get the result, regardless of the performance and going into this match I felt it was important that we take at least a point against Arundel (nickname the Mulletts) to keep them at arm’s length in the play off race. The visitors probably also felt that a draw would have been a good result, but they will be kicking themselves for the way this match turned out, as they led and missed a few other chances before the match swung in our favour just before half time.

We took the field with two new debutants Tom Theobald in goal and Chris Boulter, the vastly experienced player slotting in at the back. Gideon Acheampong returned to the starting eleven after injury while Alex Penfold made his first start since returning to the club. The players missing out were the suspended Toby McKimm and the absent Steve Springett, Kevin Moreno-Gomez and Nick Wilson.

The opening encounters were fairly even. The visitors had the ball in the net in the fifth minute with a looping header, although the offside flag had already been raised. Then Ollie Thompson made an important clearance for a corner but from the resultant delivery in the fifteenth minute, Harry Russell marked his comeback for Arundel after suspension with a close range header that gave Theobald no chance.

In response Athan Smith-Joseph put in a dangerous low cross but we had no one gambling enough to attack the ball and it fizzed past everyone and out the other side of the six yard box. However, the visitors then had a great chance when the dangerous Carl Brown broke through on the right, but with just our keeper to beat, Theobald stood up well and eventually blocked the shot before the danger was cleared.

Jaevon Dyer was asking a few questions of the Arundel defence, but found himself on the receiving end of some fairly brutal treatment, firstly from Steve Herbert and then from Jordan Dudas who scythed him down with a two footed tackle that angered many of our players, although only resulted in a yellow card.

Penfold picked up a slightly harsh yellow as Brown seemed to throw himself at our man and then to the ground, but the real twist came in the 43rd minute. We started to put a little pressure on and from the edge of the penalty area Gavin Quintyne struck low into the corner; the ball grazing a defender’s boot on the way in. This came as a bit of a surprise as the visitors had fashioned most of the chances to this point, but luck then turned our way too in the final minute of the half when a loose ball was picked up by Jaan Stanley and his shot was parried by Andy McCarthy, only to see the ball then strike an incoming defender and dribble over the line! This was the second time this season we have scored in such circumstances after Smith-Joseph’s strike at Oakwood and like that goal, this will have to go down as an own goal, regardless of the club’s rather hasty announcement that Stanley had scored. He will have to wait a little longer for his first goal in Epsom colours.

Most importantly and despite a fairly average forty-five minutes, we had turned this match around. A big second half was coming up although we’d need to do it without Penfold who was replaced at the break by Dylan Merchant-Simmonds with Gideon Acheampong moving over to left back. However, we seemed to look more solid with Brown providing much less of a threat in this half, and the ball spent much of the time in the middle of the park as the game became a little bit tighter. Harrison Mott then picked up a yellow card for Arundel following a high foot, although the referee appeared to indicate that it was for an accumulation of fouls.

We had a chance on the hour after good work from Smith-Joseph who pulled the ball back for Stanley, but his shot was blocked and cleared. Stanley had another chance when put through in the 66th minute and rode a high tackle which resulted in him being forced out wide and our bench demanding a free kick which may well have been followed by a red card as the player concerned was the last man back. Maybe our player was too honest and should have gone to ground, but the chance had gone.

Byatt joined the fray in the 68th minute for Smith-Joseph with Stanley moving out to the left to accommodate our fit again striker. However, we then had a major scare as an Arundel right wing cross was headed straight at Theobald who couldn’t hold on to the ball and Tom Jefkins blazed the loose ball over from close range in the 69th minute. This was a real let off.

Dyer found himself on the deck once again after a blatant body check from Rob Madden which earned him a yellow card, and just three minutes later he was on the ground again after a collision with Mott off the ball. The Assistant clearly had a good view of the incident and flagged vigorously, advising the referee of what had happened, whereupon Mott then received a second yellow card. This incensed the visiting Management team and one of them was then the recipient of a straight red card as a result of his reaction. Dyer was the victim of some fairly unpleasant challenges in this match and it is hoped he is fit enough to go again on Saturday.

However, as we proved at Hailsham Town, you don’t necessarily pack up just because you go down to ten men and from a free kick awarded some twenty-five yards out, Herbert curled a peach of a strike into the top corner of our net to level things up at 2-2 in the 80th minute.

With ten minutes to play the visitors appeared to be wanting to settle for a draw, as they slowed the game down a bit, but in the 83rd minute Stanley produced a good delivery for Byatt, whose shot was half blocked and then gathered by McCarthy almost on his goal line. You felt that a fully match fit Byatt might have given the keeper no chance, but he was there again two minutes later on the end of a great crossfield pass from Quintyne and his downward shot beat McCarthy at the near post and crept into the net to put us ahead for good. Theobald had one more shot to deal with, but he kept it out and after nearly seven minutes of injury time the whistle blew for full time.

A lot of people were very happy after our Hailsham win, particularly in view of the harshness of the early red card, but Hailsham were in a low position in the table and I felt that this match would provide a much better indicator of where we were. If you’d asked me at half time whether we had really turned the corner, I’d have said no, even though we had just taken the lead, as the first half wasn’t great from an Epsom point of view. However, by the end of the match I felt we had done just enough to claim the three points, although you can’t help but wonder what might have happened if the visitors scored a second goal when they were in the ascendancy. I’m sure they will have been wondering that too as they make the long journey home.

Epsom & Ewell: Tom Theobald, Gideon Acheampong, Alex Penfold, Ryan Smith (c), Chris Boulter, Oliver Thompson, Jaevon Dyer, Gavin Quintyne, Jaan Stanley, Thompson Adeyemi, Athan Smith-Joseph

Subs: Dylan Merchant-Simmonds for Penfold (HT), Jamie Byatt for Smith-Joseph (68), George Owusu for Dyer (80), Musa Beegun for Adeyemi (86), Tyreke Leslie for Stanley (86)


Land at West Park Hospital 

West Park aerial view

This is the sixth of nine reports on the BIG PLANS for Epsom and Ewell proposed in the DRAFT LOCAL PLAN that is out for public consultation till 19th March. We do not intend to state any support or opposition but may ask some questions.

The plan is for residential development, comprising:

  • approximately 150 dwellings
  • A target of 5% of homes to be provided through the provision of serviced plots of land for self-build and/or custom-build homes
  • Floorspace to support NHS services (if required)

The reasons given include:

The site will contribute towards meeting the need for housing in the borough.

The site comprises of two parcels north and south of existing West Park Hospital residential area. The areas are currently previously developed land within the Green Belt, consisting of buildings that are currently in use as part of the original West Park Hospital operation which are no longer fit for purpose.

The site lies adjacent to existing residential creating a suitable context for residential development and lowering the risk of adverse landscape impacts.

When will the site be developed?

It expected that a planning application will be submitted in the early part of the plan period with development likely to start by 2027.

Site Constraints and mitigation

  • Northern parcel is adjacent West Park Conservation Area and Southern parcel is within the Conservation Area therefore any proposal should ensure it is sensitively designed to reflect the parkland setting
  • Maximise the linkages between the site and surrounding area; and provide opportunities for walking and cycling.
  • Development should not adversely affect the Protected Trees within and on the boundaries of the of the site.
  • Work with the topography of the site to ensure that visual impacts of development are minimised.
  • Development proposal to focus the built form to the north of the site to preserve the undeveloped (open) land to the south.
  • Any development proposal will need to incorporate mitigation relating to surface water flooding for those parts of the site that are susceptible.

The NHS may require the provision of some floorspace for healthcare needs, however there is currently no certainty as to whether there will be a need for such floorspace.

Epsom & Ewell Borough Council Draft Local Plan. Details how to submit your views.

The BIG plans for Epsom and Ewell – reports on Hook Road Car Park and SGN site plan.

The Epsom and Ewell Town Hall plan

Ashley Avenue

A new Town Hall for Epsom and Ewell?

Depot Road plans

Local Plan battle heating up? and other related reports.


The really BIG one: Horton Farm

Horton Farm

This is the fifth of nine reports on the BIG PLANS for Epsom and Ewell proposed in the DRAFT LOCAL PLAN that is out for public consultation till 19th March. We do not intend to state any support or opposition but may ask some questions.

This near 100 acre site is a farm, a riding school and “open space” and the plan is to build 1500 + “zero carbon” dwellings on the site.

  • A target of 5% of homes to be provided through the provision of serviced plots of land for self-build and/or custom-build homes
  • A minimum of 10 serviced gypsy and traveller pitches
  • Public open space
  • Green corridor / habitat enhancements

And the reasons given for the plan include:

The site will contribute towards meeting the need for housing in the borough, including making a significant contribution towards the delivery of affordable housing and in meeting the needs of the boroughs Gypsy and Traveller population to create a new community.

The site has well defined boundaries and lies adjacent to existing residential areas, creating a suitable context for residential development and lowering the risk of adverse landscape impacts. The site is also located close to local services and facilities and to bus and rail transport connections. Vehicular access can be achieved without detriment to the character of the local area.

[Epsom and Ewell Times notes that it is also adjacent to the 5 acre Horton Cemetery where 9000 bodies are buried. See www.hortoncemetery.org for details.]

When will the site be developed?

The site is expected to be developed from 2028/29.

The planners note a number of issues:

  • The majority of the site is bordered by existing residential areas. New access points should maximise the opportunities for improved connectivity and linkages in and around the area, in particular for walking and cycling.
  • Development should not adversely affect any protected trees within and on the boundaries of the site.
  • The design of development would need to minimise impacts on the Site of Nature Conservation Importance (SNCI) located to the north-west of the site.
  • Any development proposal will need to incorporate mitigation relating to surface water flooding for those parts of the site that are susceptible.
  • Development should work with the topography of the site to ensure that visual impacts of development are minimised.
  • Horton Farm House is a listed building in the south-east of the site. Therefore, sympathetic design is required.

 The development of the site will require: New highways access to the West and East and Improved pedestrian and cycle infrastructure.

Epsom and Ewell Times can report Horton Farm is owned by The Church Commissioners and is leased to a farmer who has farmed the area for many years. The Council state that a developer has an option on the land.

Related reports:

The BIG plans for Epsom and Ewell – reports on Hook Road Car Park and SGN site plan.

A new Town Hall for Epsom and Ewell?

Ashley Avenue

West Park

Epsom & Ewell Borough Council Draft Local Plan. Details how to submit your views.

Local Plan battle heating up? and other related reports.


New Citizens Advice Bureau Board Members

CAB epsom Board

Citizens Advice Epsom & Ewell has appointed three new members to its Board, all voluntary
positions, who each bring valuable industry experience and strategic guidance to the charity.
Clare Brooks has joined the Board as the Company Secretary. Clare is a qualified chartered secretary
and has worked in governance roles for a variety of organisations, including a large pension scheme,
city fund manager and, most recently at St George’s, University of London.

Simon Culhane has joined as a Trustee and is the Vice-Chair of CAEE Board. His previous roles
include Chief Executive of the Chartered Institute for Securities & Investment and during his tenure
the Institute grew to be a global body with over 40,000 members and delivered over 40,000
qualifications. He has worked with several blue-chip financial companies including Lloyds Bank,
Deutsche Bank, in Central Government where he was deputy director of the Prime Minister’s
Efficiency Unit, and the NHS.

James Thornton has joined as a Trustee and is a Communications, Media and Marketing expert,
specialising in healthcare. Currently Assistant Director of Communications for Epsom and St Helier
University Hospitals, he has more than 20 years’ experience, 13 in senior NHS and third-sector roles.
Prior to joining Epsom and St Helier, James was with Healthy London Partnership, specialising in
areas such as Violence Reduction, before being seconded to NHS London at the onset of covid,
leading communications for the globally-renowned ‘Everyone In’ homeless health programme.

Lisa Davis, CEO of CAEE, said: “These new board members have already made an impact. We
recently held a strategy meeting where together we identified and prioritised actions going forward.
Top of the list is the need to increase capacity so that we can better serve our clients in these
difficult times. This in turn requires more funding, more staff and more volunteers. We are not
alone as this is the issue for many charities. However we are all optimistic about the future, we have
a dedicated team of committed staff, volunteers and trustees determined to serve our community.”

Image: Thornton, Culhane and Brooks

Visit here for a full list of the CAEE Board members www.caee.org.uk/about-us/trustees/


Ashley Centre and Global House plan

Global house Epsom

This is the fourth of eight reports on the BIG PLANS for Epsom and Ewell proposed in the DRAFT LOCAL PLAN that is out for public consultation till 17th March. We do not intend to state any support or opposition but may ask some questions.

The plan for this 3.19 hectare site (nearly 8 acres) that presently consists of a shopping mall, a multi-storey car park and offices to the rear is for a mixed use development, comprising:

  • The retention and refurbishment of the Ashley Centre
  • The redevelopment of Global House to provide at least 70 homes
  • Building heights between 5-8 storeys
  • Retention of the Playhouse
  • Maintaining existing planting and green verge along Ashley Avenue
  • Retention of the Multi Storey Public Car Park

Reasons given for the plans include:

There is the opportunity for the comprehensive refurbishment of the Ashley Centre, the shopping centre in Epsom Town Centre. The redevelopment of Global House to the south of the site alongside the refurbishment of the Ashley Centre offers the potential for an upgraded retail environment, improved facilities, and a better utilised site, with the provision of housing. 

The site provides an opportunity to make more efficient use of land in a highly sustainable location. The Ashely Centre makes a valuable contribution towards the town centres retail offer and the council wishes to encourage the refurbishment of the centre to attract new tenants and maintain its vitality and viability. The redevelopment of Global House to provide additional housing will make a valuable contribution towards meeting housing needs. The successful regeneration of this site will attract new residents and businesses to the town centre.

When will the site be developed?

The council expects that a planning application will be submitted in the early part of the plan period. The development of new housing is expected to start in 2027.

The Draft Local Plan document notes:

  • The site adjoins the Town Centre Conservation Area and several Listed buildings. Therefore, sympathetic design is required.
  • The site is within Area of High Archaeological potential, therefore this need to be investigated.
  • The site includes a well used multistorey car park that serves the town centre and may be required to be re-provided. This will need to be investigated.
  • The site will likely need to continue operating throughout any construction stage(s), development will need to be carefully phased, and retail use, parking, servicing issues carefully coordinated.
  • Potential ground contamination to be investigated and adequately mitigated for residential development
  • Potential to improve pedestrian and cycle connectivity including from the site to the town centre

Related reports:

The BIG plans for Epsom and Ewell – reports on Hook Road Car Park and SGN site plan.

A new Town Hall for Epsom and Ewell?

Epsom & Ewell Borough Council Draft Local Plan. Details how to submit your views.

Local Plan battle heating up? and other related reports.

Depot Road plans

The Epsom and Ewell Town Hall plan


Surrey emotional and mental health crisis children’s home receives ‘Good’ Ofsted grading

A boy

Extended Hope, a respite home for children in Surrey who are having an emotional and mental health crisis has been graded as ‘Good’ in all areas by Ofsted following an inspection in November 2022.

Ofsted noted that “children have positive experiences in this home”, “staff support children to make progress in all areas of their lives” and “are skilled and knowledgeable in the care they provide children”. Inspectors found that, “despite the short-term nature of the home, staff help children to prepare for their future” and “safeguarding arrangements are in place to protect children”.

The home is operated by Surrey County Council in partnership with a wider Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust service providing care for young people facing emotional and mental health crisis. It offers children a respite or crisis bed for up to seven days and is staffed by residential workers and community psychiatric nurses who can provide mental health assessments and support for young people out of hours as well as supporting families, carers and professionals.

Sinead Mooney, Cabinet Member for Children and Families at Surrey County Council said: “I am delighted that Ofsted recognises the positive experiences children have in this home. Extended Hope provides a safe and supportive environment for children to give them some respite, and also supports families with creating a plan of care. It is a crucial service because it offers children and young people support close to home and reduces the likelihood of them becoming an inpatient in hospital. Being close to home makes it easier for children to stay connected to their families, friends and their local communities, which is so important for their wellbeing, and ultimately their outcomes. This is why we are absolutely determined to ensure we have sufficient provision, in Surrey, and we will continue to provide the best possible support for the vulnerable children and young people we care for. I would like to congratulate and thank our staff and health partners for their determination and passion in ensuring these positive outcomes for our children and young people.”

Read the full report on Ofsted’s website here.

This home is one of ten county council-run children’s homes across Surrey. In 2020 and 2021, the Council agreed to invest £34m on improving sufficiency for Looked After Children and £2.4m in increasing management capacity and upskilling our workforce, so young people in care get the best environment to thrive, within Surrey. We are building up to three new purpose-built children’s homes in Surrey, the first of which is due to be completed in Spring 2023 and will provide a more accessible and homely setting to support children with the highest and most complex mental health needs. The design is at the forefront of green technology with modern building efficiency and its location will mean children and young people can stay better connected to the local community.

About Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust

Providers of mental health, learning disability and drug and alcohol services for people of all ages. They provide a broad range of community and hospital services, mostly in Surrey and North East Hampshire but also extending across Hampshire, Croydon and Sussex. Their high-quality care focuses on enabling people and their carers to live well.

You can read about their New Hospitals Program on the website.

www.sabp.nhs.uk

From Surrey County Council news service.


Related reports:

1000 Surrey children wait for special needs plans

Epsom to help meet children’s homes bed shortage?

County children home challenges

Surrey County failed SEND boy



Interview with Epsom and Ewell BC’s new CEO

Jackie King Interim CEO Epsom Council

The post of Chief Executive Officer of Epsom and Ewell Borough Council, previously known as “Town Clerk”, has been occupied by Douglas Grimes for 11 years (1973 – 1984), David Smith for 23 years (1986 – 2009), Frances Rutter for 8 years (2009 – 2017) and Kathryn Beldon for 5 years (2017 – 6th June 2022). Then Jackie King took the reins as interim CEO until her appointment as permanent CEO was confirmed by the Full Council on 14th February. In an exclusive interview with the Epsom and Ewell Times we introduce Jackie King to the wider public.


E&ET: Where were you born?

JK:  I was born in Battersea and moved to Croydon at the age of five, when it was still part of Surrey, and have lived in the County since then.

E&ET: What secondary school and if applicable university did you go to?

JK:  Archbishop Lanfranc in Croydon, then I obtained my professional qualification at the London South Bank university.

E&ET: Do you have ties to Epsom and Ewell?

JK:  I have lived in Epsom for nearly 30 years and my mother is a resident in a care home here.

E&ET: Which other councils have you worked for?

JK:  Tandridge District Council and before that Surrey Police – so a long career in the public sector.

E&ET: What has been your specialism in local government?

JK:  Value for Money, Governance and Workforce transformation.

E&ET: What are the biggest challenges facing EEBC in the next 2 years?

JK:  In common with other councils the financial challenges are significant, the cost of living crisis continues to impact on our residents and businesses, reduction and prevention in our homeless, plus we have our local plan out to consultation currently which, for one thing, is critical to us addressing the need for affordable housing across the borough.

E&ET: How many hours do you find your self working on average per week since you became acting CEO and now permanent CEO of EEBC?

JK:  I have a 36 hour per week contract but my working pattern and number of hours worked tends to be dictated by the needs of the business.

E&ET: How do you relax? What are your hobbies? 

JK: I am very fortunate to live in a borough with so many beautiful open spaces and I have always loved to walk my dogs around them when I have had them. In the Summer I love my garden and I also have a craft room at home which allows me to be creative and switch off completely.

E&ET: Thank you very much. We hope you enjoy your role and work in the years to come.

JK: My pleasure.


Related reports:

Epsom and Ewell Council raises tax 2.99%

Continuity in a time of change


Would you want to live in Woking?

Woking Council

A Surrey Borough Council steeped in debt: In 2022 the Liberal Democrats seized control of Woking, inheriting a debt mountain after 14 years of Conservative Party control. At the annual budget meeting of the Full Council of Epsom and Ewell Borough Council on 14th February the debts of Croydon Council were cited when Cllr Jan Mason (RA Ruxley Ward) asked “Who wants to live in Croydon?” In Croydon in 2022 the Conservatives won the Mayoral election and the Council is now evenly split between Labour and Conservative representation, after years of Labour majority rule when Croydon’s £1.3 billion debt grew. In contrast the Residents Association Epsom and Ewell Borough Council has been consistently “balancing the books”.

The woes of Woking are reported by our BBC LDRS reporter.


Annual servicing of Woking Borough Council’s massive £2billion debt is set to hit an unsustainable £62million a year, according to its own budget forecasts. The figures were published ahead of its full meeting on Thursday, February 24, where members are expected to sign off a council tax increase of 2.99 per cent.

The financial crisis at the local authority is such that the borough’s leader said the council needed government support following years of failed borrowing plans under the previous administration.

According to budget papers the council borrowed about £1.8bn for investment purposes but is only bringing in £38.5m – rising to £43.3m next year, far below the £62m in annual interest payments – leaving the council in a financial black hole and under investigation by the Department for Levelling up Housing and Communities (DLUHC).

DLUHC has confirmed that no immediate decision is pending, while borough leader Councillor Will Forster thinks the government is unlikely to put the council in special measures, given the recent changes both in its senior officers and political make up.

DLUHC’s report into the council’s finances, investments and related governance will be made available on the government’s website. Councils can not go bankrupt. Instead, they enter what is known as being under section 114 notice and means they cannot make new spending commitments. They can also lose control of their day to day running,

That does not mean Cllr Forster thinks the council can get out of its mess without help. He said: “We are still waiting for a report from the government inspection team which we will check for accuracy and information and it’s too early to predict what it will find. However, Woking needs government support, there’s not a problem with decision making and we have full faith in the officers. But the council can’t afford to pay off its debt, not even even service the debt. The papers are quite stark. £60 million a year just to service the debt -repaying the debt is even more. We need help.”

Cllr Forster said the council would be in section 114 by the 2024/25 financial year, “at this point I can not see how it can make a sustainable budget, which is terrifying,” he said.

As a comparison, Surrey County Council’s capital borrowing requirement is about £2.4billion. By 2026/27 Woking Borough Council is expected to reach the same level. The difference is that Surrey has an annual budget of about £2 billion, while Woking Council’s is closer to £55 million.

To put it another way, Woking has the equivalent of a £2m mortgage, on an annual salary of £10,000.

Related report

Epsom and Ewell Council raises tax 2.99%


Depot Road plans

Depot Road area Epsom

This is the third of nine reports on the BIG PLANS for Epsom and Ewell proposed in the DRAFT LOCAL PLAN that is out for public consultation till 17th March. We do not intend to state any support or opposition but may ask some questions.

Depot Road and Upper High Street

In a somewhat short description provided the plan is for residential development, comprising:

  • At least 100 new homes
  • The reprovision of public parking by the provision of a decked car park including 1x basement level and 4x above ground levels on Depot Road.
  • New access road
  • Building heights ranging between 2 and 4 storeys

And the reasons given are there is an opportunity to make more efficient use of well-located town centre land by re-providing car parking in a decked structure, releasing land for new homes.

Its successful regeneration will attract new residents and businesses to the town centre.

When will the site be developed?

It is expected that a planning application will be submitted for the comprehensive redevelopment of the main site in the early part of the plan period with development likely to start by 2027.

Possible obstacles include:

  • The site lies adjacent to Church Street and Epsom Town Centre Conservation Areas. It is also in the vicinity of several listed buildings. Therefore, sympathetic design is required.
  • Some of the trees within and very near site are protected by Tree Preservation Orders.
  • The site is within an Area of High Archaeological potential.
  • Potential to improve pedestrian and cycle connectivity including from the site to the town centre.
  • Any development proposal will need to incorporate mitigation relating to surface water flooding for those parts of the site that are susceptible.

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

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

Related reports:

The BIG plans for Epsom and Ewell – reports on Hook Road Car Park and SGN site plan.

The Epsom and Ewell Town Hall plan

A new Town Hall for Epsom and Ewell?

Epsom & Ewell Borough Council Draft Local Plan. Details how to submit your views.

Local Plan battle heating up? and other related reports.