Cllr Steven McCormick (RA Woodcote Ward) Chair of Epsom and Ewell Borough Council’s Licensing, Planning and Policy Committee writes for the Epsom and Ewell Times to answer many of the questions being asked about the Draft Local Plan. The views are his own and do not necessarily reflect the position of the Council.

---

Below are FAQs and items from the Epsom Green Belt group page and other sources.  

The responses below are my own view and do not reflect that of EEBC or officers.

What is the Greenbelt and why should it be protected?

The Green Belt of land encircling London has protected by law since 1938 to keep urban sprawl in check, preventing towns from merging together and promoting the recycling of derelict land.

These purposes remain as important as they ever were, but now we know that retaining these areas is also critical in slowing and reducing the impacts of climate change, reducing flooding, reducing air pollution and providing essential habitats for wildlife.

Reply 

Green belt exists throughout the country and is a barrier to prevent urban sprawl in planning terms.

• Isn’t it prohibited to build on Greenbelt Land?

Other than for very limited uses, Greenbelt Land is protected by law from development. It isn’t permitted to build housing on Greenbelt Land except in ‘Exceptional Circumstances’.

Reply

It has heavy protections but very special circumstances must be shown before development can be approved.  In our draft local plan we do not have enough housing supply with brownfield or urban developments and have had to consider including green belt sites.  

An alternative is to build higher and denser in our brownfield/urband sites.  This has a downside of likely very tall buildings and a reduction in affordable housing delivery.  

Is there any Greenbelt Land that it is OK to build on?

Some land in the Greenbelt has buildings on already, or has sites where buildings used to be. This is called ‘Previously Developed Land within the Green Belt’. Without considerable remedial work, this land doesn’t support much wildlife and is suitable for development.

• Are there exceptional circumstances that require building on the Greenbelt now?

No. The Borough can continue to meet the historical trend of growth in housing need (225 homes / year) through development of Brownfield sites only.

Every year Epsom & Ewell Borough Council, as with all other Councils nationwide, have a housebuilding target. As with many other Councils, the target has not been met each year. Whilst it would be difficult (but not impossible) to meet a 576 house target each year, this is a normal situation both in Epsom & Ewell and across the country. It is not exceptional.

The Draft Local Plan states that this is exceptional to justify their plans to build on the Greenbelt.

Reply

The historical trend is not what local plans are driven to achieve by central government.  The start point is based on the standard method, which our draft local plan achieves 52% of that need.  

Yes there is a consultation on various aspects of the NPPF but at this point in time our target remains based on the 2014 ONS data.  As is shown by the recent response from the planning inspector to MVDC it is not current policy, it is consultation and we have to progress on what we have in front of us and that which is currently law.  

Furthermore each year a council doesn’t meet its housing delivery target they have to justify to central government the reasons for this and the plans to address this.  The council runs a risk of being designated which means we loose our local planning control and a central government inspector takes over.  

Exceptional circumstances are shown via an evidence based approach to a draft local plan.  This is what we have done.  The end goal is to get a new local plan adopted and to do that it has to stand up to scrutiny and challenge.  

• Were Clarendon Park, Livingstone Park, and Manor Park built in the Greenbelt, and if so, what’s different about these proposals?

All these estates were built on the sites of the old cluster of hospitals. These were Previously Developed sites within the Greenbelt, therefore developing these sites did not have a detrimental impact on environment and wildlife.

Reply

These were sites in the green belt.  They had to prove the previously developed land situation to show very special circumstances existed to develop in the green belt.  

Further evidence was provided to support the development in the green belt of these sites.

• There’s an area of Greenbelt on the Local Plan map that isn’t on the Priority Development list of 9 sites, does this mean it is safe from development?

No. All sites bordered in green on the map have been put forward for potential development. If the Council includes any Greenbelt sites on the Priority list, all other Greenbelt sites are at risk of future development.

Any site may be included in a future iteration of the current Local Plan, could be included by the Planning Inspector in the course of their review of the current Local Plan, or could be included in future Local Plans.

Reply

As part of the process a call for sites was made which is a requirement of the local plan process.  All sites put forward by landowners and developers have to be evaluated for viability and whether they can deliver housing.

Some sites are more deliverable than others.  

Some sites are not viable I.e the development costs would be too much.

Some sites proposals may be amended to make them viable or deliverable.

The next stage of consultation, regulation 19, March 2024 will see a more detailed draft local plan put forward for a further six week public consultation.  

Additional sites may come forward between now and then.  

• Does the Draft Local Plan meet the need to supply affordable housing for lower paid workers and the homeless?

No. Although the plan discusses building 40% ‘affordable housing’ on Greenbelt land and 30% on Brownfield land, this housing may not actually be affordable to those in need.

The definition of ‘Affordable Housing’ in the National Planning Policy Framework is houses sold at a 20% discount to their market value. In Epsom, the average property sold over the last 12 months was £630k, to an average property sold as ‘Affordable Housing’ would cost about £510k. This is well out of reach of most people in need of housing in the Borough.

Reply

The Housing and Economic Delivery Needs Assessment (HEDNA) describes the requirement for affordable units across the plan period.  The number is circa 670 per year.  To start describing cost of housing in the way above is misleading.    There are other options, First Home scheme, social rent scheme, shared ownership schemes to help residents get a home.

Over the last 2 years the borough provided 12 affordable units.  

The borough spent approximately £1.5m on overnight homeless accommodation for our residents.  This is not sustainable.

This needs to change.

The draft local plan is seeking to deliver 30% affordable from brownfield and 40% from green field developments.  

• Is it permissible to submit a Local Plan which doesn’t meet the full housing need calculated under the government’s ‘Standard Method’, and can it be approved?

Yes. Many other boroughs have done so or are planning to do so such as Mole Valley, Elmbridge, with Worthing Council recently got its Local Plan approved by Inspector with only meeting 25% of its target.

Reply

MVDC have had a response from the planning inspector to make progress.  

Submitting a plan with numbers significantly below the target will likely yield the plan being found unsound, thrown out, forced to re-do or the planning inspector does it for us.  

Epsom has a number of 5400 of 10,368, 52% of the target.  

• I’ve been told that Mole Valley had their request to remove Greenbelt from their Local Plan rejected by the Planning Inspector, is this true, and if so how does it affect the Epsom & Ewell Local Plan?
  
  Mole Valley is in the difficult position of having originally submitted a Local Plan to the planning Inspector which included developing Greenbelt. A number of Councillors were voted out of office as a result and the new Councillors are trying retrospectively to amend the submission. There appear to be significant hurdles to doing this.

  Despite that, the Inspector has offered to pause the examination to give time for new Government legislation to be issued (see FAQ 10, below) which may support their case for a change to the submitted plan. It looks like Mole Valley has been offered a lifeline for their challenge.

  The implications for Epsom & Ewell are:
  a. It is better to exclude Greenbelt from the initial Local Plan submission to the Planning Inspector that to try to change the submission later.
  b.The Planning Inspector recognises the likelihood that changes to the National PlanningPolicy Framework will strengthen the case for excluding Greenbelt from development.

  There is no reason to push ahead with a flawed plan that destroys precious Greenbelt.

Reply –

The planning inspector responded to the request stating –

She wishes to make it clear that there has not been a change in Government policy. Rather, the Government is currently consulting on a draft NPPF. Until Government policy is changed (expected in Spring 2023), the Inspector will continue to examine the submitted Plan against current Government policy, contained in the NPPF 2021. She therefore cannot recommend MMs predicated on draft Government policy that may or may not come into effect in its draft form.

The full document can be found here – https://futuremolevalley.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/ED57-Inspectors-Note-23-Reply-to-Councils-Note-31-on-Removing-Green-Belt-Sites-from-the-Local-Plan.pdf

• I heard that the Government is going to abolish the mandatory housing target and no longer require Local Authorities to review Green Belt for housing. Is this true?

Yes, The National Planning Policy Framework specifically states that, with suitable justifications (such as protecting Greenbelt), the full housing target need not be met.

The government intends to implement many of its proposed policy changes by May 2023.

Policy changes include a change to emphasise that the standard method for calculating housing need is “advisory”, removal of the requirement for councils to continually demonstrate a five-year housing land supply, and new lines that stress councils are not required to revise Green Belt boundaries or build at densities out of character even if they are set to miss their house building targets.

Emerging policies do carry substantial weight in planning decisions, therefore at least 20 Councils have already withdrew or paused their Local Plan process, citing the upcoming policy changes. Therefore it is entirely up to EEBC if they would want to be against Central Government policy and continue pushing for large housing development on Green Belt.

Reply

The government has said they are going to consult on possibly changing the housing number calculations.   Until they do and change the law and related policies we have to proceed under the current requirements.  

MVDC has had a response from their planning inspector saying exactly that.  

Until the regulations, policy and law changes we have to use what is currently in place.  

• The roads into Epsom are already overcrowded, particularly at peak times. What are the plans to address the additional traffic from all the new housing?

According to the 2011 census, there is an average of over 1.5 cars per household in Surrey. That equates to 2,300 new cars from proposed building on the Greenbelt Horton Farm alone.

There are no obvious ways to build new roads or expand existing ones.

No infrastructure plans have been put forward to show how this increased traffic will be managed. Expect long queues!

Reply

Infrastructure is a consideration once the high level draft local plan has been published.  The council works with infrastructure delivery partners after regulation 18 to determine what new additional infrastructure may be required and needed to support the proposals.  

Infrastructure Delivery Partners rarely come to the table before a draft local plan is published.  

• It is difficult to get my child into primary school / secondary school as there aren’t enough places. If the proposed houses are built, will I still get a school place for my children?

Local primary and secondary schools are either full or near to capacity.

No plans have been put forward for building new schools or expanding existing ones. No land has been allocated for this either. There is no guarantee of a school place and no priority for existing residents.

Reply

Similar to the roads section above.  

• I see there are plans to build new sites for Gypsies / Travellers. How many will there be and where will these be located?

Regulations require Borough Councils to provide for the Traveller community. The Council has proposed putting 10 traveller sites on the Greenbelt Horton Farm site.

No explanation has been provided for why they are proposed to be located in a single area or on a Greenbelt site.

Reply

Further detail will be provided in the next stage of the draft local plan.  Comments from the consultation will be considered, the next stage of how these sites maybe implemented will be further detailed.  

• Why is the housing target so high?

The short answer is that it doesn’t need to be.

Here’s some maths to show why…

The actual population growth of the Borough over the last 10 years has been 5,798, an average of 580 people/year (Source: Draft Local Plan para 1.39).

There are 2.58 people in an average household in the Borough (Source: Draft Local Plan para 1.39).

If growth continues at this rate, there would be a need for 225 new homes to be built each year.

The target included in the Draft Local Plan is for 576 new houses per year. This is based on a ‘Standard Method’ (Source: Housing and economic needs assessment – GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)) which uses a household growth projection from 2014 as a starting point.

The more up-to-date 2018 household growth projection is considerably lower than the 2014 projections, reflecting more recent real growth figures.

This is then increased by 40%, based on the current high cost of housing in the Borough, to give an even higher housebuilding target than the inflated 2014 based figure.

As a result, the quoted housing target is more than 2.5x the need based on the historic population growth in the Borough.

Reply

The housing target is set by central government via the standard method using 2014 ONS data.  

Even with with the standard method number our draft local plan is currently showing a 52% delivery of housing supply.  5400 vs target of 10,368.

• There seem to be lots of sites within Epsom’s urban area that are vacant, run down or underutilised, could these be developed for housing instead of the Greenbelt?
  Yes.
  Some of these sites have already been earmarked by the Council for development, but many haven’t.

  The National Planning Policy Framework (which contains mandatory guidance for preparing the Local Plan) para 141 states that before concluding ‘exceptional circumstances’ exist for developing on Greenbelt, the strategy must:

  a) make as much use as possible of suitable brownfield sites and underutilised land; and
  b) optimise the density of development… including… a significant uplift in minimum density standards in town and city centres and other locations well served by public transport.’

  There are lots of sites across Epsom town / urban areas which are not being put forward for use in the Local Plan or appear to be underutilised (for instance the Council’s proposals for the town hall site don’t meet the minimum density requirements they set in policy S3).

Reply

The Epsom Town Masterplan is due to complete at the end of March and will input into the next stage of the draft local plan.  The site area will be reviewed, optimised with options coming forward to members for a steer/view.  

• Does the Borough have to build houses on Greenbelt Land to meet the housing target?

No. In fact it is only permitted to build on Greenbelt in ‘Exceptional Circumstances’.

The National Planning Policy Framework specifically states that housing targets need not be met if it would require building on the Greenbelt (para 11 note 7).

Reply

Similar to an item above.  If we are unable to deliver all our housing from brownfield or urban sites we have to consider green belt.  Some green belt sites have been put forward during the call for sites which have been evaluated.  A small number of these are considered viable at this point and could deliver housing.  

• The Ashley Centre Local Plan display states that development will be ‘Located away from areas of flood risk’. How has Horton Farm been selected for development as it regularly gets flooded?

‘Horton’ roughly translates from Old English to ‘muddy farm’. Both the Environment Agency flood maps and Epsom & Ewell Borough Council’s own 2018 Flood Risk Assessment show that Horton Farm is at high risk of flooding from surface water (because there is clay just below the surface) and in practice it is often flooded. A ‘Critical Drainage Area’ runs through the site.

The Draft Local Plan appears to ignore the flood risk assessment and only considers flooding from rivers.

If the Greenbelt Horton Farm is built on, there is a significant risk that it will result in increased flooding into West Ewell and Ewell Court.

Source: Epsom & Ewell Borough Council Strategic Flood Risk Assessment 2018, Figure 108. Brown areas are in the highest category of flood risk.

Reply

The Ashley Centre Local Plan, read the display boards showing key items of the draft local plan in the Ashley Centre.

Any site being put forward would still need to submit a full and thorough planning application which may include flood risk evaluation and mitigation.  

The draft local plan does not get into that level of detail so the statement that it ignores the flood risk assessment is misleading at best.  

• I’m told the Council has spent £1m on preparing this plan. Would it be expensive to change direction now?

The money that has been spent is largely on reports that were required to be prepared whatever direction the plan went in.

The earlier changes are made to protect the Greenbelt, the cheaper it is to make those changes.

Reply

All funds spent on the local plan have been shown in LPPC and S&R committees.  

Yes there are consultants involved to prepare reports and evidence as we don’t have that skillset;  this is not unusual and many other boroughs adopt the same approach.  

It has to be understood that there is a large body of evidence behind the local plan.  Adding or removing sites from the spatial strategy itself has a knock on of recreating that evidence.  

The decision point on changes to the spatial strategy and which sites are in or out has no relevance on cost.  The work still needs to done, the evidence still needs to be created.  

If the plan is paused then the evidence base may need to be re-worked depending on the length of pause.  

• How will developing the Greenbelt land affect wildlife?

The Greenbelt land is a vital habitat, providing food and shelter for hundreds of species of mammals, birds, amphibians and insects as well as native trees and flowers.

As an example, Horton Farm supports roe deer, bats, greater spotted and green woodpeckers, sparrowhawks, house sparrows, stag beetles, song thrushes, hedgehogs, common toads, and other priority species.

Reply

Any planning application coming forward would have to consider the environmental impact.  The updated policies coming forward in our draft local plan are up to date and current on once adopted would help structure applications coming forward.

What follow are questions I was asked at the Bourne Hall and Ashley Centre drop in sessions.  

Q:  Why aren’t residents at and around the proposed sites being communicated with?  In the same way as when a planning application is lodged, impacted households get informed.  

A: The planning application approach typically has limited effectiveness and a broad communications approach to all borough residents was selected.

Q:  Residents only just heard about this because of the Ashley Centre display boards.

A:  This was the goal of the boards in the Ashley Centre factored with social media, Borough Insight, Libraries and other outlets.  

Q:  Is this the only chance we have to input?

A:  It is stage 2 of a 7-stage process.  This is the first consultation piece.  

Q:  Infrastructure.  Where is it in the plan(s)?

A:  At this stage infrastructure delivery partners rarely come to the discussion table at such an early stage.  This is part of the motivation to get our draft local plan published to kick start those discussions.  There are sections in the draft local plan document on infrastructure but they are high-level at this stage.  

Q:  Why are we putting the green belt forward?  

A:  Based on the brownfield and urban sites that have come forward via the call for sites we are very short of our housing number target/start point of 10,000+  We either intensity our brownfield and urban sites by building higher or we consider green belt sites that have come forward.  

Q:  Why are only 90 homes in the Town Hall allocation?  

A:  The Epsom Town Masterplan is due to complete in March and will inform the draft local plan into Regulation 19.  It is expected this number would increase significantly especially given the steer from council to move to 70 East Street.  

Q:  Where does it stop?  After this local plan do we get asked for more housing by the government?  

A:  A very good question, at this point based on what we know, come 2040 we may be challenged again to deliver more housing.  

Q:  Mole Valley has paused and removed all its green belt.  Why can’t we do the same?

A:  In theory we can however Mole Valley are at a very different stage.  Pausing at this point would be to wait and see what the outcome of the consultation, mainly on housing numbers.  Our draft local plan currently proposes to deliver 52% of the housing number.  Any update on housing numbers would only beneficial to us if that number came down significantly   In the meantime we need to progress.  

The planning inspector has just replied and told MVDC that they can’t remove green belt via the major modiciations method and that a pause is possible but they should consider not protracting the examination.  

Q:  As these sites are in the draft local plan is that it?  

A:  No, the process flows through to Stage 7 and even then a planning application is still required.  

Monday 13th March 243 members of the public attended a packed meeting to debate the draft Local Plan issued by Epsom and Ewell Borough Council. 85 more logged in online. Cllr. Alex Coley (RA Ruxley Ward) Chair of the Community and Wellbeing Committee opened proceedings with an explanation of the housing needs in the Borough. He was followed by Cllr Steven McCormick (RA Woodcote Ward), Chair of the Licensing Planning and Policy Committee (LPP) of the Council that passed the draft Local Plan to go to public consultation. (The consultation at this stage closes on 19th March.) He stated why the Council is bound by housing targets set by The Government. He urged residents to have their say by responding to the consultation. See HOW TO RESPOND on our pages.

Photo: Cllr McCormick addresses public meeting convened by Epsom and Ewell Times. Credit Ellie Ames.

Tim Murphy, a retired chartered town planner and chair of the South-East Council for the Protection of Rural England was on the speaker panel. He lambasted the central Government’s creation of the housing targets but did not demur from their binding effect on local authorities. Chair of Epsom Civic Society and environmental and planning law expert Margaret Hollins reminded the audience that the Local Plan is not just about housing. Employment, business and transport are also its concerns. She disagreed with Mr Murphy on the wisdom of a pause to the Local Plan process to see what changes may be made on housing targets and their binding effect. She referred to the Planning Inspectors grant of a housing developer’s appeal to build on Langley Vale Farm in part due to the absence of a Local Plan for Epsom and Ewell. Delay in adoption of one will give developers further opportunities.

The debate was open to the floor for comments and questions. The majority of which were clearly resistant to any use of green belt land for housing development. Cllr Kate Chinn (Labour Court Ward) appealed for a commitment for more social housing. Cllr Bernie Muir (Conservative – Stamford Ward) extolled the virtues of local MP Chris Grayling’s ideas for housing and other development of the “brown field” sites at Kiln Lane and Longmead.

One upset member of the public asked why there were no proposals for green belt development in Cllr McCormick’s own Woodcote Ward. Another pointed out that there was no Councillor present on the occasion of the LPP’s vote on the draft Local Plan from the wards of green belt effected areas.

Paul Bartlett from Elmbridge and the London Green Belt Council stated that his Borough Council had removed all green belt housing development from its draft Local Plan after resistance was shown. He also suggested that Epsom’s draft’s statement that the requirement to build 5400 houses was an exceptional reason to use green belt ran a serious risk of opening the flood-gates of green belt development where the central government’s target for the Borough is over 10,000.

Cllr McCormick fielded the majority of the questions and you can read in the next article on Epsom and Ewell Times his personal and considered responses to many of the frequently asked questions.

The meeting was chaired by local solicitor Lionel Blackman.

An Extraordinary full Council meeting has now been fixed for March 22 to debate a motion to pause the Plan until new government planning guidelines are confirmed in May, following an intervention by Cllr Eber Kington and other councillors.

Meanwhile, green belt protectors have mustered over 10,000 signatures to an online petition at change.org. Epsom and Ewell Times cannot verify the residency of the signatories. Below is a screenshot confirming the numbers at the time of going to press. If all petitioners are different Epsom and Ewell electors the numbers reached by the Epsom Green Belt Group compares well to an estimated turnout of about 20,000 electors at the 2019 Epsom and Ewell Borough Council election.

Related reports:

Mole Valley Local Plan paused: official

Can Epsom and Ewell get more dense?

Possible pause to Plan pondered ……

Epsom and Ewell last in Local Planning

MP’s housing solution for Epsom and Ewell

Epsom & Ewell Borough Council have renamed their Dementia Daycare Service the Dementia
Hub – and are using the opportunity to remind those living locally about the fantastic service
the Hub offers for the community.

The Dementia Hub, situated in Sefton Road in Epsom, offers specialist respite daycare for
people living with memory loss and dementia. It offers a safe, friendly environment where
clients can enjoy activities, social interaction and develop skills to improve their quality of life.
The Dementia Hub is part of the Community & Wellbeing Centre, a support hub which offers
social and recreational activities for over 55s. The Community & Wellbeing Centre also
provides services including assisted bathing, a community alarm service, foot clinic, meals at
home, a shopping service and transport from home.

The Dementia Hub’s new name and logo will make it easier for people to find information
about the facility online, as well as helping create a stronger identity for the service.
Councillor Alex Coley, Chair of the Community and Wellbeing Committee, said: “We’re
incredibly proud of the work that the Dementia Hub does to help enrich the lives of people
living with memory loss and dementia, and the lives of their carers too.

“The specialist team at the Dementia Hub provide a home-from-home environment where
people can take part in memory therapies, gentle exercise, art therapy and more – whilst also
making friends. “Caring for a loved one with dementia or memory loss can be challenging at times. The
Dementia Hub also enables carers to take precious time to rest and recharge – or simply catch
up with essential tasks.”

People who are interested in finding out more about the Dementia Hub or who’d like to book a
free assessment can call 01372 727583 or visit: www.epsom-ewell.gov.uk/dementia-hub

---

^{The Dementia Hub is a service offered by Epsom & Ewell Borough Council at the Community & Wellbeing Centre, on Sefton Road in Epsom.
Full and half day sessions are available for people aged 50+ living with memory loss, dementia, confusion due to medical conditions such as a stroke, conditions such as Parkinson’s Disease, and more.
For more information on services offered by Epsom & Ewell Borough Council, visit: https://epsom-ewell.gov.uk/residents/communities-health-and-wellbeing}

Think of friends or relatives or neighbours who would appreciate a printed version. Not everyone has computers or smartphones. Places of work, dentists waiting rooms, libraries and coffee shops etc., all welcome to print and make available. All the files are pdf and A4 size.

Got a printer at home or work? You are free to print and distribute for free or sell up to the cover price to cover your printing costs. As many copies as you like. If you wish to donate from time to time the proceeds of your sales to Epsom and Ewell Times that would really be appreciated. We do have running costs to cover. Go to our donate link above.

CLICK HERE for our downloadable PRINT editions.

Epsom Police Station has been closed since 2012 along with its several cells for detainees. The Surrey Police are situated in offices in The Town Hall, The Parade, Epsom, where there are no custody facilities for arrested suspects. LDRS reports on the latest plans for the old building.

---

A former Surrey police station and the neighbouring ambulance station could be turned into a 96-bed care home.
Plans for the Church Street site, in Epsom, include a basement car park, croquet lawns and specialist care for people with dementia.

But the The Epsom Civic Society has raised concerns about “the proliferation of specialist elderly accommodation within the borough” while there is an “outstanding need” for housing, especially affordable homes. A letter to the council regarding the application also highlighted the “importance of supporting the vitality and viability of Epsom town centre”.

Image. Left: Old station – Google street view. Right: Plans for former Epsom Police Station in Church Street. Credit: Hunters

The society also raised concerns about protecting trees on the site, necessary measures being put in place for demolition works which may involve asbestos removal, and a possible flooding risk associated with the basement car park.

The police station part of the site was granted planning permission in 2020 for a residential development with 29 apartments located in two blocks, but this excluded the ambulance station. While a since withdrawn application was also made in 2019 for a 60 apartment extra care scheme, which saw some local opposition but no objections from the statutory or council consultees, according to documents submitted by the applicant.

The 1960s police station building has been empty since 2012, and could now be replaced with the three to five-storey blocks of a CQC registered residential care home which would offer 24-hour care.

According to planning documents, the 96 bedrooms would provide nursing, residential and dedicated dementia care, and would have an ensuite wet room.

The applicant said: “The care home will be capable of caring for residents of all dependency levels, including those who require dementia care within a specialist unit.”

The Church Street Conservation Area, which contains contains 20 listed buildings including the grade II St Martin’s Church, The Cedars and Ebbisham House, wraps around the south and west ends of the site.

Plans show the home would include gardens with trees planted and “activity lawns” for residents to include bowling, croquet, gardening.

Transport for the South East have received approval from their Partnership Board to progress delivery of their Strategic Investment Plan which includes nearly 300 multi-modal transport interventions to be delivered across the south east over the next 27 years.

The plan sets out a vision for the region, with priorities to decarbonise the transport system, level up left behind communities and facilitate sustainable economic growth in the south east between now and 2050. Included within the ambitious list of interventions is several global policy interventions, designed to address the challenges and opportunities faced not just in the south east but across the whole of the UK. These cover issues such as decarbonisation, public transport fares, new mobility, road user charging, virtual access, and integration between all modes of transport.

This ambitious plan forecasts a total capital cost of over £45 billion over 27 years and interventions that once implemented could generate; 21,000 new jobs, an additional £4 billion growth in GVA each year by 2050, 1.4 mega tonnes less CO2 equivalent emitted, 500,000 more rail trips a day, 1.5 million more trips taken by bus, mass transit and ferry, and take roughly 4 million car trips a day off the south east’s roads.

While £45 billion is a significant sum of money, it isn’t dissimilar to the levels of historical investment in the south east over a similar time period. Not only does the plan identify the investment needed to transform the economy in the south east, it also recognises the financial constraints faced by the bodies that would traditionally fund these sorts of interventions. Delivering this plan requires significant investment and Transport for the South East welcomes ongoing discussions with government, both local and central and with the private sector as they continue to explore potential funding options.

Councillor Keith Glazier, Chair of Transport for the South East said; “This evidence based investment is a once in a generation opportunity to set out a sustainable transport network that recognises the importance of major transport corridors across the south east. Corridors that are fundamental to our economy and our communities.

“This plan is the result of five years of partnership working, it truly is a plan developed by the south east, for the south east.

“Following approval by our Partnership Board we have submitted the plan to the Secretary of State for the Department for Transport with a request for it to be considered as future investment decisions are made.

“We could not be more grateful for the insight, support and challenge shown by our partners, and the Department for Transport in the development of this plan.”

Transport for the South East’s Partnership Board brings together elected members from local transport authorities and district and borough authorities, representatives of local enterprise partnerships (LEPs), protected landscapes, National Highways, Network Rail, and more.

Throughout the development of the investment plan, Transport for the South East held regular stakeholder meetings to gather evidence and seek input. They also held a 12-week public consultation on the plan in the summer of 2022 asking for comments from anyone who lives, works or travels within the region, receiving over 600 responses.

Prior to approval at the Partnership Board, local transport authorities within the region also had the opportunity to present the investment plan to their own council members to secure sign off.

Transport for the South East’s investment plan promises to not only deliver economic benefits to the region but to also make a material contribution towards net zero carbon. It supports a reduction in the need to travel by encouraging integrated planning and a shift to more sustainable modes of travel for both passengers and freight.

It recognises the importance of accessible, affordable, integrated, reliable and attractive public transport, that is fit for purpose and have ensured it is at the core of the Strategic Investment Plan. The transport body promises to work with local authorities and operators to provide better-connected and accessible multi-modal journeys with users easily able to walk, wheel or cycle for the first and last miles of their journeys.

Following approval Transport for the South East’s attention now turns to delivery. They will continue to work with partners from across the region to develop a delivery action plan, setting out the current position of each of the nearly 300 proposed multi-modal schemes within the investment plan. The action plan will focus on the next three years, 2023-2026, and detail what the next steps are and confirm the roles and responsibilities of Transport for the South East and its delivery partners required to make this plan a reality.

You can read the plan in full at www.transportforthesoutheast.org.uk

Transport for the South East (TfSE) is a new body created to improve the transport network and grow the economy of the whole South East area.

It brings together representatives of 16 transport authorities and five local enterprise partnerships covering an area stretching from the English Channel to the border of London, and from the Kent coast to Berkshire, Hampshire and the Isle of Wight. Not only does this area include major airports, ports, roads and rail routes, it is also a powerful economic motor for the whole of the UK – adding £200 billion a year to the national economy.

The aim of TfSE is to support and grow this economy, improve quality of life and protect the environment by choosing the right strategic transport priorities for investment. A thirty-year transport strategy was published in July 2020 with a strategic investment plan to follow by 2022. 

Press release from Transport from the South-East

Families fleeing war-torn countries such as Ukraine should not be placed in “derelict” and “mouldy” homes run by a Surrey council’s housing association partner, a councillor has claimed.

Mole Valley District Council’s scrutiny committee met to discuss the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities £500million funding for local authorities to provide homes to Ukrainian and Afghan families via the resettlement and relocation schemes. 

Councillor Paul Potter. Image credit: Surrey Live – Grahame Larter

If fully progressed, the council would receive about £1.5m to help deliver up to nine properties for families seeking refuge. These would then become part of the area’s long-term affordable housing stock  – available on a rental basis of 80 per cent market value.

The move was widely supported by members at the March 7 meeting but the council’s main social housing provider, Clarion was criticised by councillors.

The housing association said it was investing £5m and  “hiring 100 new staff” to tackle the problem.

Councillor Paul Potter (LD, Brockham, Betchworth and Buckland) said: “Great that we are helping people less fortunate than ourselves but I did have a couple of concerns, the first was that affordable rent was not actually affordable. My bigger concern is Clarion, if you are going to pick someone to do houses we should be doing it ourselves because my dealings with Clarion over the last God knows how many years has been a nightmare. It has got better, the chap they got now he’s done more in seven days than they have in 10 years – so something is happening there. But to put someone in the houses I’ve seen, in the state they’re in.

“I had a family actually move into Tanners Meadow from a house that was quite frankly derelict, mouldy, the kids area all on inhalers. These people have come from a war zone. They really don’t want to be going into a damp house, like that young kid last year. So I do have a big concern that Clarion is taking over.”

Cllr Potter was referencing the decision reached at Rochdale Coroner’s Court which said two-year-old boy Awaab Ishak died following prolonged exposure to mould –  three years after his parents first complained about damp in their one-bed Rochdale Boroughwide Housing association flat.

It also follows a statement issued in December 2022 when district leader, Cllr Stephen Cooksey, said he would write to Clarion Housing to address “widespread issues of mould and damp problems” and urged the association to give the problem “higher priority”.

He said he was “fully supportive” of the Housing Ombudsman’s report – where Clarion Housing was one of the six housing associations highlighted for multiple failings of damp and mould, complaint handling and record-keeping.

Cllr Caroline Salmon who presented the local authority housing fund report to the committee agreed that there has been an issue with damp and that efforts were underway to remedy the situation in Mole Valley.

The Lib Dem member for Beare Green said: “Clarion have been trying to improve damp, and we’ve been working with them too. There have been some really good changes.”

The meeting was wound up with the select committee chairperson, Cllr Joanna Slater, recommending that cabinet moves forward with the proposals with a preference for freehold housing and a discussion over the choice of partners.

A Clarion Housing spokesperson said: “Members of our senior management team recently met with cabinet members of Mole Valley District Council to outline Clarion’s strategy to address the conditions of a small number of our properties in the region, including issues with leaks, damp, condensation, and mould.  Housing for refugees was part of the discussion and we look forward to working closely with the council to provide essential housing for those in need.  We at Clarion are determined to resolve condensation, damp and mould in our homes promptly and effectively. 

“As part of this effort, we have increased the ways residents can get in touch with us to report it and are investing an additional £5 million annually to tackle the issue, including hiring 100 new staff – which will include specialist surveyors and new Resident Liaison Officers to deal specifically with leaks, condensation, damp and mould cases.”

Each year the Council formally recognises a member of the Epsom and Ewell community who goes above and beyond in a voluntary and/or campaigning capacity. The Active Citizen award is within the incumbent Mayor’s gift. The individuals are permanently recorded on a special citation within the Town Hall and receives a medal at the evening reception honouring volunteers from across the borough.

Photo: Anne and Clive Richardson (left) with the Mayor and Mayoress of Epsom and Ewell

So it is with great pleasure we congratulate Epsom Rotarians Anne and Clive Richardson being awarded the Epsom & Ewell Borough Council Active Citizens Award by the Mayor of Epsom & Ewell Cllr Clive Woodbridge. The award was made during the evening of 10 March 2023 at the Mayor’s Civic reception. Anne and Clive  have given much of their time to help with many local charities through Epsom Rotary Club and are active within the Epsom & Ewell Twinning Association.

Photograph Competition Open to Scouting and Guiding Groups

Each year Epsom Rotary hold a club photography Competition open to Scouting and Guiding Groups. This year the theme is the built environment and entries are welcome by the end of March 2023.  For details of how to enter, visit the website :

https://www.rotary-ribi.org/clubs/page.php?PgID=892508&ClubID=874

Epsom & Ewell FC 2-1 Montpelier Villa. Southern Combination League – Division One. Saturday 11th March 2023

Some days they go in and some days they don’t! Saturday’s meeting with Montpelier Villa definitely fits into the latter category as we dominated proceedings throughout almost all of the match, creating a number of chances. However, only two of those were converted and it led to a bit of a nervy ending before we were able to properly celebrate clinching all three points.

With no information released by the club since Anthony Jupp resigned as Manager, but was then appointed Director of Football, it is still unclear whether Matt Chapman has the job now, or whether the club still intend to advertise for a replacement, or maybe have someone in mind. Either way, Chapman was in charge again for this match and despite the occasional flat period, we were good value for this win. Tom Theobald returned in goal, while Steve Springett came in at left back making his 50th appearance in place of the absent Kevin Moreno-Gomez. In fact we had three new defenders this week as Chris Boulter and Ollie Thompson were not available either, so Alex Penfold and Nick Wilson came in at the back and both looked solid there, even if Wilson would be somewhat harshly penalised later when being adjudged guilty of a foul in the penalty area.

Up front we were almost the same as for the Godalming match with one notable exception; Jamie Byatt coming into the starting eleven for the absent Mario Quiassaca and although Quiassaca had played fairly well on Tuesday, we just do not possess another goal scorer like the ageless Byatt. It is no surprise that he was part of the reason why we were able to cause so many threats in this match as everyone knows where he will be!

The match started off in a rather odd fashion when Penfold picked up the ball, explaining to the referee that he thought it was damaged! Luckily the referee saw common sense and the game restarted once the ball had been checked!

We pushed the visitors back in the early stages and the concern on the visitors bench was clear with many instructions being given out. Athan Smith-Joseph worked a clever one-two with Byatt, but his final delivery was beyond his incoming teammates. This was followed up by a good run from the right by Jaevon Dyer who set up Jaan Stanley for a low strike that was fairly comfortably saved.

However, we took the lead in the 18th minute in rather “Sunday League” circumstances as a long ball from (I think) Theobald straight up the middle was chased by Smith-Joseph who just got a toe to the ball ahead of the advancing Toby Gardner in the Villa goal, diverting it into the path of Byatt who finished off into the open net from inside the six yard box. The Villa Management tried to gee their young team up, but seven minutes later we doubled our lead and this came from the wing play of Dyer who beat his man and cut in before laying the ball back to Stanley, who flicked the ball on for Smith-Joseph to tap in from a yard.

A tactical substitution followed for the visitors in an attempt to stop the damage and in the 29th minute they were back in the game, admittedly against the run of play when Wilson was adjudged to have brought down a striker. Mayckoi Sabino tucked away the penalty, giving Theobald no chance and it was 2-1. If someone had told me at that point that we’d already seen all the goals for the day I’d have been extremely surprised, but that is how it turned out.

It wasn’t for the want of trying though. Stanley saw his shot from Byatt’s pull back well saved by Gardner and then in injury time Dyer’s ball in was inches away from a full stretch Byatt.

The second half also started with a strange incident as Sabino was grappling with Gideon Acheampong for the ball. It was a physical battle and our man ended up on the deck with a free kick awarded in our favour, but for some reason the yellow card was waved at Sabino, when I really couldn’t see any reason for it.

In the 56th minute after some more pressure Dyer just got his toe to the ball ahead of a challenge which then took him out in the penalty area, but he then blotted his copybook by sending the penalty Harry Kane style, just over the bar to the keeper’s right! Byatt then headed over from eight yards before a much better downward header forced Gardner into a smart near post save with his legs.

After 68 minutes he gave way to new signing Lewis Pearch and the new man had a good opportunity in the 74th minute when a clever pass put him through, only for his shot to hit Gardner’s right hand post with Ryan Smith striking the loose ball into the side netting from a wider angle.

Despite the chances being missed, we were still well in control and just needed to see the game out sensibly, which made it all the more frustrating when Gavin Quintyne spoilt his good performance with a comment to the referee that earned him his second visit to the sin bin in five matches. This was worrying because we absolutely couldn’t afford to drop any points in this fixture, particularly after being so much in the ascendancy. Luckily we were still well in control through this period and Stanley was really unlucky to see his piledriver from over thirty yards just dip over the bar, clipping the top of the netting.

We added George Owusu and Owen Higgins also came on after some time out, although Higgins was guilty of a clumsy foul just outside the penalty area in the 92nd minute, which was a concern until Sabino sent it flying over our crossbar. Stanley, by now playing at left back after an injury to Springett had forced him off, and our final sub Theo Lukyamuzi both picked up yellow cards for time wasting and you wondered whether these would have happened had we scored a third goal earlier in the match. Lukyamuzi forced a final decent save out of Gardner in the 98th minute and finally after eight extra minutes we were all able to breathe a collective sigh of relief. Everyone in the ground knew we had been the better team and we were more than worthy of the win, but it was one of those matches where you just couldn’t quite relax until it was all over!

Six matches, or more likely eight matches remain as we continue to aim for promotion and with Shoreham remaining four points ahead and holding a game in hand with a far superior goal difference, we have to be sensible here and accept that second place is a more realistic target. Still, we kept on course for that spot and on another day we might have substantially boosted our goal difference. Maybe next time!

Epsom & Ewell: Tom Theobald, Gideon Acheampong, Steve Springett, Ryan Smith (c), Alex Penfold, Nick Wilson, Jaevon Dyer, Gavin Quintyne, Jamie Byatt, Jaan Stanley, Athan Smith-Joseph

Subs: Lewis Pearch for Byatt (68), George Owusu for Dyer (86), Owen Higgins for Springett (91) Theo Lukyamuzi for Smith-Joseph (93)

Sutton & Epsom RFC 34 v Bracknell 24. Saturday 11th March.

The modern league fixture list has a marvellous symmetry as it ends against the opponent one
played on the opening day of the season. Way back in September that meant a journey to Lily Hill
Park to play Bracknell for the first time since the 2009-10 season. A lot of players have crossed the
whitewash since then, and too many of them have been S&E’s opponents, and 22 games later the
season has ended. Perhaps the omens were not so favourable on Day 1 as once again as with
those former times the Black & Whites were facing the denouement of the campaign having
already been relegated from Level 5. On 10 th April 2010 the team bid a fond farewell by thrashing
North Walsham 55-15 and on this occasion Sutton & Epsom put in a rousing performance to sign
off with a 34-24 triumph over Bracknell.
The game certainly had the feeling of the end of an era as James Caddy led out the side for his
allegedly last appearance. Joining the stalwart back row in the departure lounge were George
Drye, Sam Hurley and Jamie See, all of whom have been superb servants of the club and were
instrumental in the recent rise to National 2. In addition, it was certainly a red-letter day for Chris
Pointing as he celebrated his 100 th 1 st XV league appearance.
Despite the aforesaid reasons for one last Herculean effort S&E started the match in the worst
possible manner. The unfathomable slow start that has become the byword of this season reared
its ugly head again. In front of a crowd in excess of 250 Bracknell ruthlessly exposed the early
Sutton frailties. The opening ten minutes hinted at an unpalatable drubbing for the Black & Whites.
The outstanding Bracknell Number 8 Ken Hodgson was rampaging round Rugby Lane and soon
scythed through the defence to set up Simon Bayliss for a try in the corner. Moments later the
backtracking Robbie Martey cut out an assist but was shown a yellow card. With the man
advantage the Berkshire men went blind exploiting another defensive oversight and Simon Bayliss
strolled in for his second. On this occasion Ollie Radford added the conversion for 12-0.
As the Fab Four might have considered that the fairy tale ending to their careers was being
penned by the Brothers Grimm Sutton scored. Freddy Bunting intercepted a pass in his own half
and ran it back. He added the conversion for S&E to trail 7-12. The Rugby Lane men had woken
from their slumber and began to defend with urgency. The Bracknell backs who had enjoyed time
and space in the first quarter were being pressed on the gain line and all over the pitch Sutton
tackled with a ferocity and zeal that lifted the crowd. Robbie Martey returned and was soon on the
action making a vital mark on a dangerous cross-field kick. A couple of infringements and the
Bunting boot put the hosts in the corner for a 5-metre lineout. The ball was secured and the pack
did the necessary and George London scored. Freddy Bunting made light of the challenging
conversion and the Black & Whites led 14-12.
What had looked like a relaxing end of season jaunt for the visitors had been transformed and the
hosts had not finished. On the half hour the S&E pack once more lined up for another 5-metre
lineout. Lightning was to strike twice and with meritorious efficiency Will Lloyd forced his way over.
Freddy Bunting thumped over the conversion as the jubilant crowd roared their appreciation for
the 21-12 lead. Aged followers tried to recall if they had seen their team lead at the break. The Lily
Hill Park team rather taken aback by the effrontery of three scores conceded without reply
threatened to end the half as it had begun. Scrum half Franklin Lewis took a quick penalty 40
metres out. Desperate defence saw Sutton fling themselves on a loose ball but a knock on gave
Bracknell a scrum 15 metres out under the posts. From this prime platform to attack Ben Tame
and Jamie See made crucial tackles before Ken Hodgson was held up over the line. Five minutes
later the referee drew the first half to a close when Ollie Radford’s promising run ended when he

was bundled into touch. Sutton turned around 21-12 to the good after a Jekyll and Hyde
performance in the first period.
The second half got under way with the visitors having the advantage of the wind and keen to be
the first to add to their tally on the scoreboard. An early Bracknell break was followed by a probing
kick that was gathered by a wonderful sliding take by Robbie Martey 5 metres from his line.
Having cleared the ball Sutton continued their fine form of the first period. The hosts spread the
ball wide after powerful carries by the forwards and forced the visitors onto the defensive. Both
sides were showing great defensive resolve as thunderous tackling all over the pitch thwarted the
best attacking efforts of all concerned. The match ebbed and flowed until a long clearance from
Freddy Bunting was taken near the touchline on halfway. The initial chaser was too easily stepped
and the defensive support was inadequate. A surging run down the touchline and a simple pass
inside saw lock George Jupp score. Ollie Radford impressively bisected the uprights as Bracknell
trailed 19-21.
There was hardly any time for the crowd to contemplate the two-point deficit before the next
score. And what a score it was by Robbie Martey. Any self-doubt in the Black & White ranks was
instantly extinguished as the winger jinked and weaved his way through would be tacklers and
outpaced the cover to score Sutton’s try of the season. The conversion drifted wide as the hosts
led 26-19. Next it was Jamie See’s turn to sidestep his way down the pitch and the Rugby Lane
team were awarded a penalty. Wisely they opted for the kick at goal and Freddy Bunting extended
the lead to 29-19. Sutton had a ten-point lead with ten minutes left on the clock.
Perhaps the largest roar of the day greeted Chris Pointing coming off the bench for his 100 th 1 st XV
league appearance. There have been too many near misses and eleventh hour tragedies this
season for the Black & Whites and the crowd urged on the team to dig deep. The XV responded in
great style. Ross Parsons made a break and the pack powered in behind him to advance the ball
to the Bracknell line. It was the Berkshire men’s turn to show superb defence and frustrate the
Surrey men by holding them up over the line. However, Sutton gathered the drop out and
countered. The ball went wide to replacement Ciaran Mohr who finished with aplomb squeezing in
at the corner he stretched for the line to score despite a superb covering tackle. S&E led 34-19 as
the game entered time added on.
There was no let up in the action as Sutton again attacked. Even in the opposition 22 the hosts
tackled as if they were on their own line as they denied them any space to counter. In the end it
was a kick and chase by Noah Cannon that almost secured a fourth try and a bonus point for the
Lily Hill Park team. Once again Robbie Martey was on hand to touch down. In was a temporary
respite as moments later Noah Cannon decided on a more direct approach. He sped down the
blindside delivered a jolting palm off and scored in the corner. The conversion drifted wide and Mr
Foster blew the final whistle and Sutton had won 34-24.
It was a rousing end to a disappointing season and a fitting farewell to Messrs Caddy, Drye, Hurley
& See. It was the best Sutton performance of the season in a match where Bracknell started in
irresistible style and threatened to run away with the game. For the visitors Ken Hodgson was at
the heart of everything and a constant threat. For S&E it was a wonderful team performance. The
commitment to the cause was mightily impressive whether it was the tackling in defensive duties
or the ball-carrying by the pack or the Bunting boot. When it was needed Robbie Martey added
that sprinkling of magic on an afternoon when the Black & Whites were not to be denied. The
league season may have ended but a new Cup competition follows in the weeks to come. The
draw will occur next week and the date and opposition for this match will be posted in due course
on the club website.
Sutton & Epsom

Alex Mawdsley, Robbie Martey, Lawrence Elliott, Freddy Bunting, Sam Hurley, Jamie See, Ross
Parsons, Tom Boaden, Chris Farrell, Will Lloyd, George Drye, Josh Glanville, Ben Tame, George
London, James Caddy ©.
Replacements: (all used) Alex Mount, Chris Pointing & Ciaran Mohr
Bracknell
Alex Frame, Simon Bayliss, Daniel Mays, Oliver Radford, Alexander Fieldhouse, Matthew Outson,
Franklin Lewis, Ruairi Henderson, Bradley Walters, Nicholas Ovens, Thomas Scott, George Jupp,
James Johnson, Liam Wood, Ken Hodgson.
Replacements: (all used) Jasper Miranda, Joseph Maybey & Noah Cannon.