A meeting of the Licensing and Planning Policy Committee of Epsom and Ewell Borough Council on 22nd January saw councillors approve a new schedule of planning fees and charges for 2026/27, despite repeated concerns being raised during the meeting about the absence of planning officers, gaps in supporting information, and the committee’s ability to scrutinise what it was being asked to approve.

The committee was considering fees for discretionary planning services, including Planning Performance Agreements and tree-related services, rather than nationally set statutory planning application fees.

Early in the discussion, councillors were told that questions on planning matters would need to be answered after the meeting. Chair Peter O’Donovan (RA Ewell Court) explained this was because no planning officers were present.

One of the first issues raised concerned retrospective planning applications. Cllr Phil Neale (RA Cuddington) recalled that councillors had previously discussed introducing higher charges to discourage developers from building first and seeking permission later.

“We get a lot of developers playing the game… trying to do developments without planning and then getting caught and putting in retrospective applications,” he said, adding that he was disappointed not to see such a charge included.

The officer response was that the matter would need to be taken away and clarified with planning colleagues.

During the same exchange, Cllr Humphrey Reynolds (RA West Ewell) interjected that “the worst culprit is Hobbledown… application after application retrospectively,” referring to the local visitor attraction.

Concerns then turned to the scale and transparency of proposed discretionary fees. Cllr Julian Freeman (LibDem College) questioned why discretionary fees were rising by 4.8 per cent, above the headline inflation rate, and whether councillors had sufficient information to justify approving them.

A officer explained that the increase followed the council’s Medium Term Financial Strategy, which sets fees at CPI plus one per cent, using September inflation figures.

A more sustained exchange followed over officer hourly rates, particularly for tree-related services. Cllr Alex Coley (Independent Ruxley) calculated that the proposed hourly rate for a tree officer – £133 per hour – implied an equivalent daily rate of over £1,000. “That’s an extraordinary amount of money to charge,” he said, adding that residents as well as developers were affected by these fees.

An Officer responded that the hourly rates were not based on salary alone and reflected overheads, travel time and the need to maintain regulatory services alongside discretionary work. “These are the prices that we charge for the services we provide,” she said, adding that councils were effectively competing with the private sector for this type of work.”

However, when pressed on the specific breakdown of what residents receive for certain charges – including a £550 fee to plant a tree – officers acknowledged they could not provide detailed explanations during the meeting and would need to come back with written responses.

At one point, Chair Peter O’Donovan cut short the line of questioning, telling councillors: “That’s our charge. People can take it or not use it.”

Cllr Coley responded that this was not always the case, noting that some services, such as tree-related consents, could only be authorised by the council.

Questions were also raised about whether councillors had been given comparative data showing how Epsom and Ewell’s charges stack up against neighbouring boroughs. Officers said some benchmarking had been carried out but accepted that “it’s difficult to compare like for like” because councils offer services in different ways.

Later in the meeting, Cllr Freeman drew attention to newly introduced charges for primate licences, jokingly asking whether the borough was “expecting an invasion from Planet of the Apes”. Officers were unable to explain the origin of the charge at the meeting and undertook to respond later.

Despite the unresolved questions, the committee voted to approve the fees and charges as presented.

After the meeting Cllr Freeman told the Epsom & Ewell Times his view the debate left councillors and viewers “feeling that relevant evidence was not provided to committee members when making their decision”, particularly given that Epsom and Ewell Borough Council is due to be abolished in 2027 as part of local government reorganisation.

“The implication that issues could be looked at ‘next time’ rather misses the point,” he wrote. “There may not be a next time.”

.

.

Sam Jones – Reporter

.

.

.

PS If you wish to keep a monkey or other primate the fee is £450

.

.

.

.

BBC LDRS reports: Up to £359,000 could be spent on rejuvenating Ewell’s Bourne Hall Museum under new plans but opposition councillors have stressed that key information on the decision has been made available too late.

An independent report into the museum has now been published, laying out both the problems and the potential at the popular local attraction. The document says the museum could have a strong future, but only if the council invests money, improves how it is run and does a much better job of attracting visitors and funding.

Councillors voted earlier in January to back plans to improve the museum instead of closing it or leaving it as it is. However, no money has actually been approved yet: the decision on whether to release up to £359,000 is expected in March.

Cllr Alex Coley (Independent Ruxley) says councillors should have seen the full report before they agreed to support the plans in principle. “Problems with Epsom & Ewell Borough Council’s secrecy and reluctant transparency are well documented,” he said. “Even the council’s auditors call it out in reports. Refusing to share an LGA report with committee members when they make a decision is another demonstration of the instinct to cover up bad news.”

Cllr Kate Chinn (Labour Court), Leader of the Labour Group, agreed, adding: “It doesn’t make sense for councillors to be asked to make decisions without access to all the available information.”

At the January meeting, committee chair Cllr Clive Woodbridge (RA Ewell Village) admitted that, “in hindsight”, the full report should have been included in the papers after opposition councillors challenged its absence.

What the report says about the museum

The independent review made clear the museum is not in crisis but it is struggling to move forward. One of the biggest issues is money. The report said it is hard for the museum to win grants or sponsorship because it does not have solid information about its visitors.

Funders want to know who comes through the door, how often, and how numbers might grow in future. But at the moment the data is limited.

The report also says that the way the council currently counts costs makes it hard to see the true price of running the museum. It recommends sorting this out so future funding bids are more realistic and transparent.

Visitors may also recognise some of the other issues raised. Displays are described as dated, marketing as uninspiring, and the museum’s overall “identity” as unclear. Reviewers said the space could be made more interactive and appealing, especially for families and younger people.

The report praised the museum for already attracting a strong mix of ages, especially families. Its location inside Bourne Hall which also houses the library and community spaces was also seen as a major advantage. With better use of the building and stronger promotion, it could become more of a destination.

Volunteers are another key part of the picture. The report says there are some highly committed people helping out, but not enough of them. It suggests recruiting more volunteers from a wider range of backgrounds to better reflect the local community.

A council spokesperson said: “The Community and Wellbeing Committee has initiated the first step in a process to invest in the future of Bourne Hall Museum by submitting their preferred option, which was to spend up to £250,000 over two years, to the Strategy and Resources Committee for their consideration in March.

“Before committee, Community & Wellbeing Committee members saw a summary of the Culture Peer Challenge in the committee report and were invited to attend a briefing session which also summarised the findings of the report. The LGA Culture Peer Challenge for Bourne Hall Museum has been made available to all EEBC councillors and is also available on our website: Culture Peer Challenge | Epsom and Ewell Borough Council.”

What happens next?

In short, the museum’s future now depends on whether councillors agree to invest. If funding is approved in March, work could begin on modernising the space and building a stronger long-term future. If not, things are likely to stay much as they are.

Emily Dalton LDRS

Related reports:

Another Epsom and Ewell Borough Council cover-up of criticism?

A Decision Not Fully Bourne Out?

Ewell’s “UFO” shaped Bourne Hall to take off anew

Epsom Councillor claims he is being silenced for his transparency concerns

Cllr Dallen accused of £1/2 m Epsom & Ewell Council cover-up

View of Bourne Hall and Museum, Spring Street, Ewell. (Credit: Google Street View)

Dear Surrey,

The countryside is your greatest achievement. A beautiful masterpiece built by centuries of collaboration between people and nature. From meadows and woodlands to rivers, coasts, and the green spaces that bind us together, the countryside connects and sustains us all.

For a century, the Campaign to Protect Rural England has been its guardian. Despite the relentless, growing pressure on our landscapes, we’ve stood up for the countryside and helped give the people who love it a voice. That will never change.

Many of the pressures facing our countryside today were familiar to our founders – not least the challenge of providing homes, infrastructure and prosperity on a small island. But new pressures have emerged with more catastrophic impacts on the land we love. Nature is in freefall and climate change threatens to alter our landscapes for good.

Now more than ever, decisions about how we use our land are leading to the needless loss of landscapes and everything they support. Without drastic action, much of what makes our countryside unique and beautiful will be lost.

Wherever we live, we rely on the countryside for clean air, home grown food, thriving wildlife and resilience in the face of climate change. Yet these foundations are being chipped away. Too often decisions are shaped by profit, not what’s needed most – and the countryside pays the price.

Here in Surrey, we have even been faced with a series of major housing developments, access roads, ‘solar farms’ and ‘battery energy storage systems’, in Green Belt countryside. Many of these sites are on the edge of the Surrey Hills National Landscape itself.

Now, as 2026 dawns we are now battling a growing number of planning applications which rely on councils downgrading Green Belt land to so-called ‘grey belt’, as well as excessive and unsustainable housebuilding targets imposed on local communities.

Our centenary vision is for a countryside that’s greener, more resilient and protected for future generations.  There is a better way – one we’re calling for, and one everyone can be part of:

• Stop the loss of countryside. Let’s protect what we love and do everything we can to make sure green fields and woodlands aren’t needlessly lost.

• Improve the quality of the countryside for future generations. That means thriving communities, clean rivers, healthy food and resilient landscapes rich in nature.

• Inspire more people to care for the countryside. A countryside for all where more people take action to enjoy and protect it.

Across the country, people are already showing what’s possible – restoring hedgerows, rethinking development and sustainable farming, and making space for nature.

As we begin our centenary year, we’re sending this message to everyone: love your countryside and be part of its future. This is just the beginning – and we all have a part to play in shaping what comes next.If you share this vision, join the movement today, add your name to this letter and stand with us.

Yours faithfully,

Andy Smith

Campaign for the Protection of Rural England (Surrey)

Photo: Surrey Hills Credit Aleksey Maksimov CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 DEED

Out of the blue, Christ Church Epsom Common was recently approached by a Worcestershire-based bookseller and gratefully accepted her kind gift of a bound volume (about the size of a modern paperback) of parish magazines from 1883. The volume, too battered and niche for resale, nonetheless provides a fascinating glimpse into the life of the parish just seven years after the church’s consecration in 1876.

There were Christ Church parish magazines before this: the January 1883 edition refers to an item in the now-lost December 1882 magazine. As with many such publications, they were seen as ephemeral at the time. Although issued monthly, the next surviving edition in the Christ Church archive dates from 1900, with records then remaining patchy until the late 1940s, when systematic retention began.

Both the gold-stamped spine and the frontispiece give the contents simply as Parish Magazine 1883, with no mention of the parish name. The editor is listed as J Erskine Clarke MA, an Anglican clergyman who, in January 1859, launched what is regarded as the world’s first commercial parish magazine inset, prosaically titled Parish Magazine. Each monthly edition ran to around 24 pages and combined religious material with a surprisingly wide range of secular content.

Alongside sermons and Bible studies were items of fiction (often moralising), practical advice, articles on British wildlife, and descriptions of churches and places at home and abroad. The 1883 editions included pieces such as First Aid to the Sick, Making a Will, an account of a visit to Malta, an unexpectedly open-minded article on Islam and the Prophet Mohammed, and the intriguingly titled Worms and their Habits. Each issue carried at least two engraved illustrations, particularly to accompany the travel articles.

The inset was published by Wells Gardner, Darton & Company of Paternoster Buildings, London, specialists in ecclesiastical publishing, and printed by Strangeways & Sons. It was always intended to be surrounded by locally produced parish material. At Christ Church this usually amounted to a further eight pages, printed and bound with the inset by local firm L W Andrews & Son. In some months, when local material ran to only four pages, the usual plain cover was altered to make better use of the available space.

Parishioners paid 2d per issue – roughly £1 in today’s money.

Much of the local content was routine but revealing. Each issue set out the full schedule of services for the coming month, listing not only Sunday services but weekday Mattins and Evensong, along with the hymns to be sung. Lists of baptisms, marriages and funerals followed, together with a standard notice inviting women to offer Thanksgiving after Childbirth, “there being no fee, but it being usual for a Thank-offering to be made at the Altar”. Details of the previous month’s collections were also carefully recorded.

Christ Church did not acquire its own church hall until 1899, so meetings and events were held in a variety of venues. The January 1883 magazine lists the Vicarage, the Working Men’s Club, the Infant School and the Guild Room. The then-new Working Men’s Club, opened in 1881 and later renamed the Epsom Common Club, stood just across Stamford Green.

The Infant School, now lost, stood on West Hill (then known as Clay Hill). Founded through an 1844 endowment by Miss Elizabeth Trotter of Horton Manor, O’Kelly’s former racing stables were converted for the education of children from families on Epsom Common. The school closed in 1925 and was later demolished.

Another regular feature was the “Penny Bank”, encouraging thrift among parishioners. Deposits could be made weekly at the Vicarage, with interest paid at 2½ per cent – or 5 per cent for children attending Christ Church Sunday School.

The January issue opened with a letter from the Vicar, the Revd Archer Hunter, then barely a year into what would become a 30-year incumbency. After setting out his vision for the developing parish, he appealed for more Sunday School teachers and closed by wishing all a Happy New Year – though only, he cautioned, for those “determined to spend it in the constant Presence of their God and Saviour”.

Later editions offer vivid glimpses of parish life. February records a recitation of Dickens’ Christmas Carol in the Infant School room, delivered by Mr Mechelen Rogers before a large audience. While not all were amused, those “qualified to give an opinion” spoke in the highest terms of his performance, promising him an “enthusiastic and noiseless” reception should he return.

March saw the founding of a parish branch of the Church of England Temperance Society, with 37 parishioners unanimously adopting a strongly worded resolution identifying intemperance as a source of poverty, crime and irreligion. Members signed pledges ranging from total abstinence to more qualified commitments, and the movement quickly attracted both adult and juvenile members.

The same edition listed the parish’s current “Wants”, including Sunday School teachers, a parish bier, a bookcase and books for a parochial library, and a new organ stop. It is a pleasing historical coincidence that this very volume survives bearing a library label inside its front cover, suggesting it was once item number 436 in that collection and heavily used.

For parishes that bound their magazines into annual volumes, the national publishers supplied a frontispiece and index, with the binding undertaken locally. A small label inside the rear cover of this book shows it was bound by John Snashall of Epsom High Street. Though now in poor condition, the quality of the leather spine and gold-blocked title speak of careful craftsmanship.

More than a century on, this battered volume offers a remarkably intimate picture of parish life in Victorian Epsom Common – practical, moral, communal and often surprisingly vivid.

This article is reproduced with permission from the Epsom and Ewell History Explorer (www.eehe.org.uk). The original article, written by Roger Morgan, forms part of EEHE’s extensive and richly illustrated archive of local history. EET readers are warmly encouraged to explore the many other fascinating histories available on the site.

Image: Christ Church from postcard 1900 and the front pages of the January and April 1883 editions by Roger Morgan © 2022

Surrey residents can expect to pay 4.99 per cent more council tax next year under plans in the new budget. Surrey County Council has revealed it is losing a huge chunk of government funding and has ‘no choice’ but to fill the gap locally. 

Councillors are being asked to approve a 2.99 per cent council tax rise plus a 2 per cent adult social care levy from April 2026, the maximum allowed. For a typical Band D household, that means paying £7.67 more per month.

The increase comes after the Government announced a new three-year funding deal covering 2026-2029. While ministers say councils will get more money overall, most of the so-called “increase” relies on councils raising tax locally, not extra cash from Westminster.

Tim Oliver, Leader of Surrey County Council, said: “This is one of the most challenging financial periods we’ve faced. 

“The removal of funding from the government means that within three years, 92 per cent of the local government budget in Surrey will have to come from Council Tax. Even putting Council Tax up by the maximum amount each year – as expected by government – will see no real increase in spending power for Surrey Councils. As costs rise with inflation and demand for services increases, there will be a local government funding black hole in Surrey without driving out further efficiencies. 

“Our focus is to protect the services residents rely on: adult social care, children’s services, support for communities, and the roads that keep Surrey moving, while continuing the strong financial discipline Surrey has shown in recent years and building a stable financial foundation for the new councils in April 2027.”

For Surrey, the picture is stark. The council argues that even after maxing out council tax, the council’s core spending power will rise by just 0.6 per cent next year and 1 per cent by 2028/29, effectively a cut once inflation is factored in.

The council’s finance boss warned Surrey will lose more than £180m in government funding over the next three years. “There is nothing fair about this funding review for Surrey residents,” they said. “Even with maximum council tax rises, we’re still facing a funding gap of over £100m by 2028/29.”

“The broken funding system we inherited has left local authorities across the country in crisis,” the ministerial forward from the Funding Review 2.0 reads. “To turn this around, we need to reset local government so that it is fit, legal and decent and can, once again, reliably deliver for our communities. We are going to work with local authorities to rebuild throughout this parliament.”

Why is funding being cut?

The changes stem from Fair Funding Reform, which reshuffles how government money is shared out. Areas with higher deprivation get more support, while wealthier areas lose out.

Since Surrey can raise more through council tax, the Government assumes it needs less help. This is despite soaring demand for services, especially children’s services and adult social care.

What’s in the budget?

The council’s final-ever budget before it is abolished in 2027 totals £1.27bn – up just 1 per cent on last year. Officers warn finances are now more stretched than ever and tough decisions will continue.

To balance the books, the council plans:

• £50m in service cuts and efficiencies
• £42m in corporate savings
• Continued investment in:
• SEND support (nearly £15m extra)
• Adult social care (over 5 per cent increase)
• Road repairs
• New school places
• Children’s homes

What happens next?

The Cabinet will decide what to recommend to the full council, including tax levels and spending plans. Despite the pressure, leaders insist the council remains financially stable, with £114m in reserves. But they admit the next few years will be tough and the new councils taking over in 2027 will inherit some hard choices.

Emily Dalton LDRS

Surrey County Council headquarters. Credit: Emily Coady-Stemp

Surrey consults on next year’s budget

Surrey to sell off property in Epsom and elsewhere to fill budget gaps

Spelthorne Borough Council’s finances are still so muddled that they will not be fully fixed before it disappears into a new mega-council in West Surrey, says a new report. External auditors have once again refused to sign off the accounts, warning “time is not necessarily on the [council’s] side”.

Audit firm Grant Thornton told Spelthorne councillors at an Audit Committee meeting on January 22, that they cannot get enough evidence to say the numbers of the council’s 2024/25 accounts are right. The auditors said they will issue another “disclaimer of opinion” on the council’s 2024/25 accounts.

It is now the sixth year in a row Spelthorne has failed to get a clean audit. Meaning, the council cannot show all its balance sheets add up. This means the local authority does not know how much usable reserves it has or the true value of its assets.

The core problem is historic. For years the council’s accounts were not properly audited, leaving big question marks over old balances, reserves and property values. As auditors cannot trust the starting figures, they cannot fully trust the current ones either.

Auditors said the lack of assurance will carry forward into next year and even into the new West Surrey unitary council when local government reorganisation happens.

Cllr Chris Bateson said: “And there’s nothing we can do about that.?” To which, one auditor responded: “Time is not necessarily on your side.” But she added, most of the councils in Surrey face the same challenging position of being sure of their accounts. 

What does this mean for residents?

This is not a bankruptcy notice, the council has not run out of money. Residents’ bins will still be collected and parks will be maintained. But this signals a long-running uncertainty about how solid the council’s position really is.

For instance, this means big financial decisions are being made with an incomplete map and so increases the risk of mistakes. However, if finances are unclear, the council is monitored more closely by the financial watchdog and less likely to make major investment decisions

As Spelthorne is heading into a new unitary authority in 2027, these historic accounting issues will be transferred to the new council. The new West Surrey Council will have to deal with not just Spelthorne’s accounts, but potentially five other ones.

Some progress but still serious problems

It was not all bad news. Auditors said Spelthorne’s finance team has improved over the past year. Records are better organised, responses to questions are quicker, and the draft accounts were in better shape than before. So Grant Thornton could check more figures than last year.

One long-running mystery is a £17.6m gap between two key financial measures. The difference has been sitting in the accounts for years and still has not been fully explained, according to the report.

Auditors also found the council has been using the wrong method to set aside money to repay borrowing, something that affects long-term financial stability. A £9.9m property value increase was also put in the wrong set of accounts and now has to be reversed.

On top of that, there were dozens of technical mistakes and missing disclosures that auditors said should have been spotted internally before the accounts were sent over.

Bigger worries about value for money

In a separate verdict, auditors said they are not satisfied the council currently has strong enough arrangements to ensure it is spending money efficiently and sustainably.

Council officers said they have strengthened the finance team and are building more time into the process of preparing next year’s accounts. But with reorganisation looming, the clean-up job now looks set to become the new council’s problem too.

Emily Dalton LDRS

Spelthorne Borough Council offices in Knowle Green, Staines. Credit: Emily Coady-Stemp

Related reports:

Need to sell Council property spelt out for Spelthorne

Spelthorne Borough Council commissioners

Who will be saddled with Spelthorne’s and Woking’s £3 billion debts?

Two major landmark towers that would have dominated a Surrey town have been dismissed with campaigners claiming a major victory in their long-running battle. Developers Solum Regeneration had been hoping to build high-rises of 14 and 15 stories next to Redhill station, but were refused planning permission by Reigate and Banstead Borough Council in 2024. Undeterred, they dug in and challenged the decision through the courts forcing a long drawn-out process. Residents, however, galvanised to challenge the process.

Now, they are celebrating after the planning inspectorate threw out the bid to create Redhill’s tallest buildings saying it would forever harm the town’s character, blot out existing views of wooded hills outside Redhill, and create pedestrian safety risks. Redhill Residents Action Group (RRAG), formed to represent hundreds of residents and rail users.

The appeal, brought by Solum Development, a partnership between Network Rail and Keir, was opposed on planning grounds relating to design quality, impact on heritage and town character and the effect on access to a vital transport hub.

Jan Sharman, Campaign lead for RRAG said: “We have always believed this was the wrong development for such an important site. Redhill station should be embracing the future, with integrated rail, bus and active travel.
“Developers need to think with vision and create places that genuinely work for communities.”

Solum had insisted the development was needed for the town and would deliver 255 much needed housing to the area – particularly as the council is missing its targets. The scheme would have also revamped the railway station, and increased footfall to town centre.

The taxi rank would have been relocated to the back of the station, with most drivers and cyclists directed to the steep Redstone Hill entrance. Disability campaigners said this would shut those mobility issues out. The inspector however decided the sheer size of the scheme was just too much.

Jan added: “We fully recognise the need for more homes, particularly for younger people. But homes must be genuinely affordable, well designed and properly integrated into their surroundings. Building housing that people cannot afford, in the wrong place, helps no one.”

The inquiry was held over September 2 to 5 and continued between November 24 to 28 last year. Planning inspector Joanna Gilbert issued her decision on January 19, 2026. She said: “The proposal would provide the benefit of 255 housing units that carries substantial weight. There would be other benefits to which I have afforded significant, moderate and limited weight. However, I have afforded very substantial weight to the adverse effects on the character and appearance of the area.”

“There are moderate, limited and very limited levels of less than substantial harms to designated heritage assets and a moderate indirect adverse effect on a non-designated heritage asset. There would also be significant weight to the harm in respect of highway and pedestrian safety, including parking. Additionally, there would be moderate weight to the harm to living conditions for some occupiers of Quadrant House.”

She added: “For the reasons set out above, the appeal is dismissed.”

Chris Caulfield LDRS

Redhill Train Station development 15-storey tower block distance CGI (Credit Solum planning documents)

Heathrow Airport has begun working on its third runway planning application with the aim of getting the green light by 2029.

Last November, the Government indicated that the West London hub’s plan, which  involves re-routing and tunnelling the M25,  would be the preferred basis for expansion.

A second, less disruptive, option that featured a smaller runway put forward by Arora was rejected.

Now, Heathrow has announced it will begin getting its blueprints in order –  in what it has called a significant step forward for the UK’s most important growth project.

The Government will still need to push through regulatory and policy decisions this year  that will determine whether the £33billion  3,500m long runway project can proceed.

If built, it would increase the number of flights at Heathrow to 756,000 a year, with  150million people expected to use the airport.  In 2024, the airport handled 83.9 million passengers while operating at 99 per cent of its annual flight capacity of 480,000.

Heathrow CEO Thomas Woldbye said: “Expansion is taking another significant step forward today as our board greenlights starting work on the planning application.

“This decision means we are on track to secure planning permission by 2029 and reflects Ministers’ renewed commitment to expansion and progress made to speed up delivery of the project to boost UK economic growth.

“Heathrow expansion is a critical national project and a central part of our journey to make Heathrow an extraordinary airport, fit for the future. Maintaining momentum will mean the CAA and Ministers remain focussed on securing the benefits of the project by meeting vital milestones in 2026 that are essential to enabling the next phase of delivery.”

Heathrow argues expansion  would drive  long-term economic growth and see billions invested into the UK while strengthening  airline networks and enhancing the UK’s global trading links.

Critics slam the plans for the devastating impact it would have on the environment and challenge the financial benefits saying they are both overstated – and with many of extra passengers being transit, the benefits would be felt elsewhere.

Others believe the airport is already too close to London and Surrey and the added noise would blight millions of lives.

The Government believes the project can be delivered while meeting national environmental targets.

The timetable for the complex project has the runway coming into operation by 2039.

Key dates to look out for before then include Spring 2026 when the Civil Aviation Authority is expected to provide clarity on early stage project costs.

In the summer the Department for Transport is scheduled to publish its draft Airports National Policy Statement.

In the autumn, Parliament will decide on the project’s planning framework.

Chris Caulfield LDRS

3rd Runway Plans (image Heathrow)

Related reports:

Tunnel vision for Heathrow’s 3rd runway?

Conditional nod to southern rail link to Heathrow

Heathrow expansion – what it may mean for Epsom

Heathrow expansion reaction

Surrey Police will continue to use AI-powered surveillance vans to scan thousands of people’s faces in public locations despite fears over ethnic bias, said councillors calling for their use to be put on hold.

The Home Office is funding the use of new artificial intelligence powered cameras in Surrey to scan the faces of anybody who crosses their path.

On November 26 last year, the police brought the technology to Woking and recorded 7,686 people over a five-hour recording period – to cross reference them against known suspects.

The force has said the system was safe following a 2023 study that found previous bias in the system had been coded out – but more recent testing by the National Physical Laboratory suggests false positives are still happening too frequently among ethnic minorities.

The report read: “At the operational setting used by police, the testing identified that in a limited set of circumstances the algorithm is more likely to incorrectly include some demographic groups in its search results.”

The Home Office has said will act on the findings and that a “new algorithm has been procured and independently tested, which can be used at settings with no significant demographic variation in performance.

The new algorithm is due to be operationally tested early next year and will be subject to evaluation.”

It has led to calls from Woking Borough Councillors for the system to be mothballed until it has been thoroughly tested – something which Surrey Police has so far refused to do.

Speaking at a Tuesday, December 20, meeting of the borough’s communities and housing scrutiny committee, Surrey Police Chief Inspector Andy Hill described the system as having the support of the Home Office and said it was a valuable tool “to keep Surrey safe.”

He said: “It’s a safe place but if we’ve got the opportunity to use the latest technology then we want to make sure that we are doing that.” Early versions of the software created false alerts at a disproportionate rate among ethnic groups.

In London the Met Police is facing a High Court challenge after an anti-knife crime activist said he was misidentified and threatened with arrest. Surrey Police said it was confident in the system and that people are only arrested under suspicion, it does not mean guilt.

The technology is used in high footfall areas and is said to have a chilling effect on crime with notable falls in the following weeks after its deployment.

Any images that do not match those on its wanted list are instantly deleted. Matched faces are deleted at the end of the day. If the system thinks it has found a face on the police’s wanted database officers at the scene are notified and it is up to them how to proceed.

Committee chair Cllr Tom Bonsundy-O’Bryan said: “I have very serious concerns about the proportionality of this. Are the pros, which feels pretty limited in one of the safest town centres in the UK, worth the cost of 7,000 free citizens having their faces scanned by this technology?

“This doesn’t feel like targeted policing, it doesn’t feel like proportionate policing. It starts to feel like something more Orwellian in a kind of mass surveillance. With everything that you’ve said, all the facts about data not being stored, data not being used to train models

“It still feels like an overreach into people’s privacy, people’s rights fundamentally. Is there a point when it’s not proportionate, how many faces should we scan? To me it already feels vastly disproportionate.”

Chief Insp Hill said: “We are in the view that it is proportionate and it is appropriate and it is technology available to us. We don’t feel like we are reaching into a technology space. The van is funded by the Home Office, it’s why we want to continue using it but also keep it under review.”

Chris Caulfield LDRS

Related reports:

Woking up to Surrey face recognition cameras

Live facial recognition policing comes to Surrey

Epsom & Ewell Borough Council’s Environment Committee has noted a series of climate and air quality updates, including the formal revocation of the Ewell High Street Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) and revised figures showing a reduction in the council’s own operational carbon emissions since 2019/20.

The update was presented to councillors on 20 January as part of the council’s second Climate Change Action Plan, which runs from 2025 to 2029 and sets out measures intended to support the council’s stated aim of reaching carbon neutrality by 2035.

According to the report, the AQMA covering Ewell High Street has now been revoked following sustained improvements in nitrogen dioxide levels. The zone was originally designated in 2007 after pollution levels linked largely to road traffic exceeded national limits. The council acknowledged that while local measures played a role, wider national and regional factors, including vehicle fleet modernisation, also contributed to the improvement.

Alongside the air quality decision, the council reported a revision to its historical carbon emissions baseline after receiving more accurate electricity consumption data for Epsom Town Hall, Bourne Hall and Epsom Playhouse. Full-year data for 2019/20 and 2020/21 had previously been unavailable and earlier figures were based on estimates.

The revised baseline places council operational emissions in 2019/20 at 1,487 tonnes of CO₂ equivalent. For 2024/25, emissions are reported as 1,201 tonnes, representing a reduction of around 19 per cent over the period. Most subsequent years were unchanged by the revision, with the adjustments largely confined to the two earliest years.

The report also listed a number of property and energy efficiency measures undertaken in recent years, including replacement of windows at Bourne Hall, LED lighting upgrades at Epsom Playhouse, and the installation of a 177kWp solar photovoltaic system at the council’s leisure centre. The council estimates that the leisure centre installation alone could save more than 30 tonnes of carbon emissions annually, based on partial-year data.

In addition, councillors were reminded of partnership schemes intended to support residents in reducing household emissions, including advice programmes and grant schemes for heating and energy upgrades.

Chair of the Environment Committee Councillor Liz Frost (RA Woodcote and Langley) said the Climate Change Action Plan was intended to guide long-term changes in how the council operates and delivers services, and highlighted the AQMA revocation as an example of sustained action producing measurable results.

The updated emissions data and air quality decisions form part of the council’s annual monitoring of climate-related activity, which is reported back to councillors each year.

Sam Jones – Reporter

Related reports:

The Mayor of Epsom and Ewell meets local climate volunteers

Surrey County Council’s Climate Change Progress: Successes, Setbacks, and the Road Ahead

Epsom and Ewell adopts new Climate Action Plan

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

A new safety awareness programme for children has been launched in Epsom by former French armed police officer Xavier Vollin, who now works in the UK as a close protection officer for foreign diplomats and a behavioural detection instructor. Mr Vollin, who was awarded a Medal for Bravery during his police service, has more than 25 years’ frontline experience in law enforcement, personal protection and behavioural analysis. He also trains colleagues in recognising early warning signs and behavioural anomalies in everyday environments. The initiative, developed under his training company XavSafety, is currently being piloted with children aged 9 to 13, with plans to expand to older teenagers and adults.

Seeing what others miss

Mr Vollin said that much traditional safety advice focuses on what to do once a situation has already gone wrong, whereas his approach concentrates on what happens before that point, helping participants notice changes in behaviour, inconsistencies in surroundings and subtle cues that may signal emerging risk. The programme emphasises calm awareness, observation and environmental understanding rather than confrontation or fear-based thinking. It is described as helping children “see what others miss”, while remaining age-appropriate, engaging and accessible. Mr Vollin said the aim is not to turn children into “mini security officers”, but to help them become more present, confident and aware of how people and environments can change around them.

Pilot programme underway in Epsom

The initial six-week programme began in early January 2026 and has deliberately been kept small to allow the format to be refined and adapted before wider rollout. Sessions combine practical exercises with elements of behavioural observation and pattern recognition, presented in a way intended to remain playful rather than intimidating. Early feedback from parents and children has been positive, although images and evaluation material are currently limited while the pilot phase continues. Future developments are expected to include programmes for older teenagers and adults, exploring the same core skills in greater depth, and Mr Vollin intends to formalise the framework and pursue CPD accreditation.

Focus on awareness in a digital age

Mr Vollin said the wider purpose of the project is to help young people reconnect with their surroundings at a time when attention is increasingly absorbed by screens. He described the underlying idea as being less about strength or reaction, and more about presence, understanding people and recognising risk early, before reaction becomes the only option. The programme is currently launching locally in Epsom, with potential for expansion depending on demand and community interest. Further details about the initiative can be found on the XavSafety website.

Sam Jones – Reporter

Councillors from across Surrey met this week for the very first time as part of two new committees set up to manage the county’s biggest council shake-up in decades.

The East Surrey Voluntary Joint Committee met yesterday (Thursday, January 15) at Woodhatch Place in Reigate, while the West Surrey Voluntary Joint Committee met today (Friday, January 16) at Woking Borough Council.

It marks a major milestone in plans to scrap Surrey’s current council system and replace it with two brand-new authorities: West Surrey Council and East Surrey Council.

What is changing?

Last year, the Government announced that Surrey County Council and the county’s 11 district and borough councils will be merged into just two big councils.

In May, residents will vote for councillors who will sit on these new authorities. At first, they’ll act as ‘shadow councils’ which means they will be basically planning everything behind the scenes. From April 2027, the new councils will officially take over all local services. Until then, the current councils will keep running things as normal.

Why these meetings matter

Since there is a lot of work to do and not much time to merge all the responsibilities of the local authorities and split them in half, councillors have volunteered to get started early.

The two new joint committees are made up of existing councillors from county, district and borough councils. Their job is to start laying the groundwork for the big transition.

At their first meetings, both committees agreed to:

• Create a single implementation plan to manage the change safely and legally
• Set up an implementation team made up of senior council officers
• Decide how key interim leadership roles will be filled

This includes recommending temporary appointments for three crucial posts:

• Head of Paid Service (the council’s top boss)
• Chief Finance Officer (in charge of the council’s financial health)
• Monitoring Officer (who keeps everything legal)

These roles are required by law and will support the new shadow councils until permanent staff are recruited.

‘An important milestone’

Terence Herbert, Chief Executive of Surrey County Council and senior officer in charge of the reorganisation, said: “This is an important milestone and I’m grateful that councillors have agreed to come together on a voluntary basis to get this vital work underway.

“At the heart of this is making sure residents continue to get the services they expect – both now and under the new councils.”

He added that councils are “well prepared for change” and committed to making the transition as smooth as possible for residents and staff.

What happens next?

Both committees will now meet monthly, rotating locations around their areas. They will keep meeting this way until the shadow councils are formally created after the May elections.

Each committee will have 10 members: five from Surrey County Council and five from district and borough councils. Their work programmes will be published online so residents can see what is being discussed.

Bigger plans for Surrey

The Government has also said simplifying councils will help pave the way for more devolution, meaning more powers could be handed down to Surrey in future.

Talks are already under way about setting up a new strategic authority, like a metro mayor, for the county. For now, councillors say the focus is on getting the basics right which means making sure the new councils are ready to hit the ground running in 2027.

Emily Dalton LDRS

Councillors for the East Surrey Voluntary Joint Committee. (Credit: Surrey County Council). Epsom and Ewell Borough Coucil leader Cllr Hannah Dalton (RA Stoneleigh far left)

A councillor representing Nonsuch ward has become the latest member of Epsom and Ewell Borough Council to change political alignment mid-term, with Shanice Goldman joining the Conservative group.

Cllr Goldman, first elected in May 2023, said her decision was based on where she believed she could be “most effective” in achieving practical outcomes for residents, rather than on ideology or internal party politics. She cited concerns about governance, the Local Plan and the council’s approach to parish councils as key factors influencing her move.

Her defection comes amid a period of visible political flux at Epsom and Ewell Borough Council, which is currently controlled by the Residents’ Associations (RAs). In recent months, College ward councillor Julie Morris left the Liberal Democrats to sit as an Independent, while Alex Coley departed the RA group, also choosing to continue as an Independent councillor.

In a statement explaining her decision, Cllr Goldman said she had found it increasingly difficult to support an administration she felt was not sufficiently focused on delivery or long-term outcomes. She said her priorities were better aligned with the Conservatives’ approach to accountability, governance and service delivery, adding that any local government reform should be “resident-focused, evidence-led, and driven by improved service delivery rather than structural change for its own sake”.

She also pointed to Conservative positions on safety, the Green Belt and scrutiny of council decision-making as factors in her decision, while stressing that her core priorities for residents had not changed.

The move was welcomed by local Conservative officers, who used the announcement to criticise the Residents’ Association-led administration’s record on council management, the Local Plan and parish council proposals. They said Cllr Goldman’s arrival strengthened their group’s capacity to challenge the council on behalf of residents.

Cllr Goldman said she would continue to focus on improving safety, quality of life and transparency in decision-making for residents of Nonsuch ward.

Her change of affiliation does not alter the overall control of the council, but it adds to a growing pattern of councillors stepping away from their original party groupings during the current term, raising wider questions about cohesion, governance and political direction at the borough council.

Though Conservative controlled Reigate and Banstead Borough Council has the lowest per capita debt of the 11 Surrey districts councils the three super-league mass indebted Councils were or are run by Conservatives at the relevant period of debt accumulation. See today’s Epsom and Ewell Times editorial: Process matters — but so does the balance sheet.

Sam Jones – Reporter

Epsom & Ewell Times has recently published a run of stories raising concerns about process, openness and transparency at Epsom & Ewell Borough Council (EEBC). Those issues matter. A council can deliver services and still fall short on how it explains itself, records decisions, shares information, and responds to scrutiny.

But if we are going to judge the borough fairly, we should also place EEBC in a wider Surrey context — particularly on the question that has become existential for parts of local government: financial resilience. In this respect we are all lucky not to be living in one of a number of other Surrey boroughs which carry massive debt.

A Surrey league table no council wants to top

Using each district and borough council’s reported borrowing position and dividing by population, the county picture is stark. A small number of councils sit in an entirely different universe of debt-per-resident — Woking and Spelthorne above all, with Runnymede also far ahead of the pack.

At the other end, councils such as Reigate & Banstead report minimal borrowing compared to the Surrey outliers.

EEBC, on the same simple “borrowing per head” measure, is firmly in the low-debt group — nowhere near the high-risk profile that has dominated headlines elsewhere.

What this means for EEBC’s story

It would be a mistake to pretend that “good finances” cancels out “poor process”. It doesn’t. Residents are entitled to proper explanations, accessible records, timely disclosure, and a culture that treats scrutiny as a civic asset rather than a nuisance.

But it would also be a mistake to ignore that, in Surrey terms, EEBC’s financial position looks comparatively restrained — particularly when set against the scale of borrowing reported by the county’s worst-affected councils.

That relative prudence matters because Surrey is heading toward local government reorganisation. When structures change, it is the underlying financial inheritance — and the habits that created it — that shape what services survive, what investments stall, and what risks get handed on.

The Residents’ Association question

EEBC is unusual in one respect: it is dominated by Residents’ Associations rather than the national parties. Some voters might reasonably assume that an administration not driven by national political goals would be best-in-class on the basics of local stewardship — especially finance.

Yet “not being party political” is not, by itself, a guarantee of excellence. A locally rooted administration can still fall into bad habits: weak challenge, insularity, a defensive attitude to information, or an over-reliance on officer-led process that leaves elected members appearing remote from key decisions.

If EEBC wants to claim the mantle of the “competent local alternative”, then the test is simple: keep the financial discipline — and raise the bar on transparency to match it.

Cllr Shanice Goldman’s defection to the Conservative Party and her reasons contain some irony in this context. The super-debt league leaders of Surrey Districts’ table of financial infamy are or were Conservative led during their plunges into debt despair.

A constructive conclusion

EEBC’s comparatively modest borrowing position gives it something precious: room to manoeuvre. The council should use that room not to relax, but to improve how it governs: publish clearer narratives, make decision trails easier to follow, treat FOI and public questions as part of democratic health, and build trust through routine openness rather than reactive disclosure.

In other words: Surrey shows us what happens when the balance sheet breaks. EEBC should ensure that, locally, the democratic culture doesn’t.

Related reports:

Another Epsom and Ewell Borough Council cover-up of criticism?

A Decision Not Fully Bourne Out?

Epsom Councillor claims he is being silenced for his transparency concerns

Cllr Dallen accused of £1/2 m Epsom & Ewell Council cover-up

Goldman sacks the Epsom and Ewell Residents Association

Surrey districts “debt per head” league table

(£ per resident; higher = more debt per head)

1. Woking – ~£21,145 per head (total borrowing ~£2.180bn at 31 Mar 2025).
2. Spelthorne – ~£10,299 per head (long-term borrowing ~£1.042bn at 31 Mar 2025).
3. Runnymede – ~£6,553 per head (long-term borrowing ~£587.1m at 31 Mar 2025).
4. Surrey Heath – ~£2,029 per head (borrowing ~£183.4m at year end).
5. Guildford – ~£1,842 per head (borrowing shown as £74.040m short-term + £201.508m long-term at 31 Mar 2025).
6. Mole Valley – ~£1,192 per head (see caveat) (snippet-reported “external borrowing” ~£103m, referenced to its audited 2022/23 position).
7. Tandridge – ~£1,088 per head (see caveat) (figure inferred from the draft accounts extract available in search results; I was not able to open the full PDF again to verify the precise borrowing line-item).
8. Epsom & Ewell – ~£796 per head (borrowing ~£64.427m at 31 Mar 2025).
9. Elmbridge – ~£353 per head (see caveat) (accounts page was blocked to me; borrowing figure comes from the published accounts snippet indicating borrowing outstanding at 31 Mar 2025).
10. Reigate & Banstead – ~£33 per head (balance sheet shows £5.0m short-term borrowing and no long-term borrowing at 31 Mar 2025).

Caveat

Councils report “deficit” in several non-equivalent ways (e.g., accounting deficit on provision of services, general fund outturn variance, in-year overspend funded by reserves). EET had difficulty sourcing the figures for Waverley.