At Epsom and Ewell’s Strategy and Resources committee meeting on 26th January, councillors discussed rates of pay in the forthcoming year – for staff, for the Chief Executive and for themselves. Most staff will receive a capped 3% cost of living pay increase. This is a result of the Council’s Employee Pay and Reward Procedure 2020-24, a four year pay deal agreed at the beginning of that period. This compares with a Consumer Price Index rise of 10.5% for the 12 months ending in December 2022.

This compares with a proposed increase for the Chief Executive of the borough of at least 15%, a figure which made Cllr Kate Chinn (Labour, Court Ward) feel “uncomfortable”. The top of the salary range for the Chief Executive will become £143,376 in the 2023/4 year.

A council officer explained that a review of pay for Chief Officers had been undertaken some years ago, but that the Chief Executive’s pay had been excluded from that review. Following an external benchmarking exercise, “this is a catch-up exercise,” she said. Nevertheless, “for the staff to get 3% because of the agreement that they’re in and the chief exec to get 15 to 16%, it does feel quite difficult,” Cllr Chinn complained.

Cllr. Eber Kington (RA, Ewell Court Ward) took comfort from the gender pay gap which continues to be negative, showing that women employed by the local authority earn on average more than men. This is primarily due to the majority of front-line operatives being male and senior management roles being held by a significant proportion of women. “This does suggest that this is an organisation to which woman feel comfortable applying and where they wish to stay and seek promotion within the organisation,” said Cllr Kington. “I think that is something we ought to be proud of as a local authority.”

However, the issue that provoked the most councillor participation was their own pay. The motion that councillors were asked to vote on suggested that their allowances should mirror the staff pay award and rise by 3% in 2023/24, with an independent Remuneration Panel determining the increase in 2024/25.

Cllr David Gulland (Lib Dem, College Ward) felt “personally unhappy in voting any increase for the councillors” in the current environment.

However, the meeting’s chairman, Cllr Neil Dallen (RA (Town Ward), pointed out that the last two independent remuneration panels had recommended a considerable increase in councillors’ allowances, but the council had voted at the time not to accept those recommendations, otherwise allowances would now be much higher than they are.

Councillor Alan Williamson (RA, West Ewell Ward) agreed. “There is a widening gap between this authority and other districts around Surrey,” he argued. “In future fiscal years, we should get back on track in line with the independent recommendations.”

“We have bills,” said Councillor Monica Coleman (RA, West Ewell Ward), “and some of us have to decide if we’re going to be councillors or get a job. There are some occasions when I have to decide whether to work or go to a meeting and sometimes work rules because that pays my bills.”

A sentiment that was echoed by Councillor Chinn. “A really good overhaul of the allowances would be very welcome,” she said, “ and looking at allowances for things like carers, transport, child-minding …. to enable as many people as possible to become councillors.”

The basic allowance for a councillor will rise to £4,031.70 in 2023/24. Some posts such as committee chairs and vice chairs receive additional allowances.

Related reports

Balancing the Borough’s Books

Royal Surrey hospital trust bosses are beginning to plan for three days of junior doctor strikes which could have a “significant impact” on services. A national ballot is currently taking place of members of the BMA Junior Doctors union, which closes on February 20.

If members vote for action, it could mean a possible 72-hour strike taking place in March, a board meeting heard on Thursday (January 26). As yet the trust, which runs Guildford’s Royal Surrey County Hospital as well as the Haslemere hospital, has not been directly impacted by its staff striking, though ambulance strikes in December saw the hospital put measures in place.

Meeting documents said the junior doctors’ strike was more likely than others to meet the 50 per cent threshold needed for members to strike because a national ballot was being held. According to the BMA website, junior doctors have seen their pay cut by more than 25% to their salaries since 2008/09.

Bill Jewsbury, the trust’s medical director, said the three-day strike, which he thought “probably would” go ahead, would have a “significant impact” on various parts of running the trust. The meeting heard that other, more senior doctors, would need to “step down” into the roles, along with non-union members.

Dr Jewsbury added: “That then has an impact beyond that 72 hours because we then have to rest those people.
“What you’re looking at is a much longer period of disruption than just your three days’ of strike.”

According to the documents, a review carried out of the day of ambulance workers’ striking in December had identified one incident that was being investigated of the strike having an impact on patient care. The meeting also heard that the possible junior doctors’ strike would impact on its target to clear the backlog of people waiting more than 78 weeks, a year and a half, for treatment by the end of March, in line with national guidance.

Getting rid of all the people on the waiting list was described in documents as “the biggest operational challenge affecting the trust”, with a peak of 207 patients in the category at the beginning of October, falling to 161 at the end of November and to 155 in the first week in December.

Matt Jarratt, chief operating officer, told the meeting: “That is going to be a major challenge was going forward.”

A woman said she felt like her mum was “a prisoner” when she couldn’t take her home from a Surrey hospital.
The daughter, who we are choosing not to name, said it felt like the family was caught in a “never-concluding circle” when trying to communicate between NHS trusts to get her mum discharged.

Her mum was in hospital for five months, having been admitted to Guildford’s Royal Surrey County Hospital with pain following breast cancer, but the family living in West Sussex meant a lot of communication about release was across different NHS trusts.

By Colin Smith, CC BY-SA 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=9266476

She told a meeting of the Royal Surrey trust board on Thursday (January 26) that conversations about getting her mum discharged were “awkward” and “difficult” as she tried to negotiate her mum’s release from hospital and whether or not she needed a care plan in place.

Board members apologised for the patient and her daughter’s experience, which included time at Haslemere Hospital, and said the trust would address issues such as communication between themselves and neighbouring trusts. Alexandra Ankrah, NExT director at the trust, sympathised with the woman’s experience, saying she had been through similar with her own mother, though not at Royal Surrey.

Addressing concerns that her mother had felt like a “bed-blocker”, where people who are medically well enough to leave hospital cannot be discharged because there may not be the appropriate social care measures in place at home, she and others in the meeting agreed they did not like the term. Ms Ankrah said: “No one should ever be made to feel that they don’t have a right to our care and services.”

The daughter, who chose not to make a complaint against the trust, said: “I felt like my mum was a prisoner.”
The meeting heard that many patients were in similar situations regarding communication across county borders, and a meeting would be organised using the patient story as a basis to make changes.

The chief executive, Louise Stead, said it came up “every single week” with people caught in “an impossible little maze”. The trust’s medical director, Bill Jewsbury, said getting people home when they were well enough was “really important” because most people wanted to be at home and improved once there. He added: “If we are really honest with ourselves, we are incredibly risk averse around discharge planning.”

Dr Jewsbury said the story was “a classic example” of saying somebody needed a care package in place before they could be discharged but said it would be “quite a powerful driver” for the family to be able to take their relatives home. He said the trust should ask itself: “Have we had that conversation with yourselves as the broader family? [Have we] phrased and pitched it in such a way as: ‘There are going to be some risks involved in perhaps getting your mother home. ‘It isn’t without risk but we can get your mother home.’”

He said it would be “worth trying” and that the hospital could do more to work with families as well as outside groups such as charities and churches in supporting patients.

The hospital’s own virtual wards, where patients can continue to be treated at home and which started late last year, were also raised as one way of helping to tackle the issue.

The daughter told the meeting: “If somebody had presented me with a disclaimer for signing mum out of the hospital, I would have done that.”

Surrey residents have just three weeks left to apply for a grant to help make their home warmer and more energy efficient, ahead of applications closing on Friday 17 February 2023.  

People living in hard to heat homes and on lower incomes, could receive grants between £10,000 and £25,000 to improve insulation and install renewable technology – helping to save energy, reduce emissions and combat rising energy prices. Improvement measures include loft insulation, cavity and external wall insulation, underfloor insulation, and renewables, such as solar electricity panels. 

Residents can check if they are eligible by visiting the Action Surrey website – www.actionsurrey.org, or by calling them on 0800 783 2503.

Marisa Heath, (Englefield Green, Conservative) Cabinet Member for Environment at Surrey County Council said: “We know this is a challenging time for many and we’re really pleased to be offering this funding to our residents who need our support the most.  

“Improving the energy efficiency of homes in Surrey will also help us achieve our goal to be a net zero county by 2050.  “I encourage residents to check if they are eligible as soon as possible.” 

So far, over £1.5m has been allocated across the county to fully fund over 250 energy efficiency improvements. Funding has been awarded through central Government to Surrey County Council, leading on behalf of the local authorities across the county. The project will be delivered and managed by Action Surrey – an energy efficiency advice service set up in partnership with all Surrey local authorities. 

Keep up to date on progress towards our target of making Surrey net zero by 2050 and find out what you can do to help. Sign up to our Greener Matters newsletter to get updates here: Our climate change newsletter – Surrey County Council (surreycc.gov.uk)

Surrey County Council news service

The allocation of levelling up funding from central government was announced last week, with more than 100 projects given a share of £2.1billion. But no funding was given to Surrey’s councils, with one of the county’s proposed projects being improvements to Caterham town centre and flooding measures.

Three bids were put in across the county in total, with the other two being for better cycling and walking routes to the east of Woking and a new health centre in Sheerwater. Overall, government figures show £672m was allocated to develop better transport links, £821m for community regeneration and £594m to restore local heritage sites across the country.

More than £200m was given to councils in south east England, including £45m to Kent County Council for more border control points and traffic improvement measures at Dover and £20m each for improvements to Folkestone and Sheerness town centres.

Over the border in Hampshire, Rushmoor Borough Council was also awarded £20m for a state-of-the-art leisure centre, library and cultural space in Farnborough to help tackle high levels of obesity, inactivity, and poor mental health in the area. But Surrey’s councils were not awarded any cash, with only three bids being put in between the county council and the 11 district and borough councils.

We break these down in detail below, including the cash that was asked for, and those councils which did not bid for funding.

Unsuccessful bids:
Surrey County Council’s £12m bid to improve walking, cycling and bus routes to the east of Woking would have created better connections to the town centre, and were part of wider plans to improve sustainable travel options in the county. The scheme would have seen improved footpaths, cycle paths and tracks, more secure bike parking and e-bike charging stations and proposals to fund a trial e-cargo bike hire scheme for businesses and residents. Bus improvements would have included better accessibility, real-time information and bus stops with living roofs.

A county council spokesperson said: “Whilst our bids in the latest round were not successful, we will continue to work closely with government to identify and access funding for the vital work we are doing to ensure no one in Surrey is left behind.”

Woking Borough Council also put in a bid for £3.8m for a ‘health and community campus’ in Sheerwater.
A £492m project is already underway to regenerate the area, which the council said is the second most deprived area in the county. The campus would have given residents access to maternity clinics, chiropody, disability support, GP services, dentistry, parenting support and nursery care.

The council said it should have a “significant and positive impact on some of the borough’s most vulnerable and harder to reach residents”. In response to the bid being unsuccessful, Cllr Will Forster (Liberal Democrat, Hoe Valley), the council’s deputy leader, said given the area being the second most deprived in Surrey, the council felt they had “a strong case”. He said the council was “disappointed” to have missed out on the latest round of Levelling Up funding. Cllr Forster added: “The next phase of the Sheerwater Regeneration Project has already commenced and we remain committed to working with partners to develop the new health and community campus and delivering the much needed facilities.”

Tandridge District Council’s application for £8.7m would have meant money being put towards regenerating Caterham, including new flood measures to help with the regular flooding there. The East Surrey MP, Claire Coutinho, thanked the district council for its work in putting together the bid, and said she was “disappointed” the money was not awarded. She added: “I will work with Tandridge District Council and central government to explore all future funding opportunities, to make sure that East Surrey gets the funding it needs to improve our towns and villages.”

The leader of the council, Councillor Catherine Sayer (Independents and OLRG Alliance, Oxted North & Tandridge), said: “We are extremely disappointed our bid for funding was unsuccessful. We planned to use this funding to regenerate Caterham, boost the local economy, attract more people to work, visit and live in the area and introduce much needed flood alleviation measures. This would build on the work we’ve already done to improve Caterham Valley town centre.” She said a lot of time and hard work had been put into the bid, and said the council would look for feedback on the application and appeal the decision if possible. Cllr Sayer added: “We will also consider another bid when government confirms details of the third round of funding.”

Councils which did not apply for the funding:

The other district and borough councils did not apply for levelling up funding, though some have bid for and received central government funding in the form of the UK Shared Prosperity Fund. These included a £1m award to Elmbridge Borough Council to be used for the Walton Playhouse and in playgrounds, and the same amount to Runnymede Borough Council which it will use for transforming Chertsey high street and grants for new businesses.

The full list of councils which did not make a bid for Levelling up funding were:

Reigate & Banstead Borough Council
Spelthorne Borough Council
Mole Valley District Council
Elmbridge Borough Council
Runnymede Borough Council
Surrey Heath Borough Council
Epsom & Ewell Borough Council
Guildford Borough Council
Waverley Borough Council

Related reports:

Surrey County Council on the level.

Epsom & Ewell Borough Council will carry out a number of activities to mark Holocaust Memorial Day on Friday 27 January. Holocaust Memorial Day is a time to remember the six million Jews murdered during the Holocaust, the millions of other victims of Nazi persecution and those killed in the more recent genocides in Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia and Darfur.

The Council will light up the clocktower in Epsom Market Place in purple in memory of the victims of the Holocaust and genocide worldwide.

The Mayor, Councillor Clive Woodbridge, will give a speech which will be available to view on the Council’s YouTube channel from Friday – https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0UGt6AEUCYhS3gjs4jEsyg.

An exhibition will take place at Bourne Hall, Ewell, looking at the history of the Holocaust and linking it to local stories from the Borough. Visitors will be able to place LED candles on the shrine as a mark of respect.

Virtual candles can also be lit by visiting www.illuminatethepast.org.

To learn more about the Holocaust and genocide, please visit www.hmd.org.uk.

Epsom and Ewell Borough Council

Related article:

Flight of refugees: history repeating?

An opinion piece from Cllr Eber Kington: This week SCC announced a seven-year contract worth £96.5 million, with private company Marston Holdings Ltd, for parking and traffic enforcement. In April, SCC will be centralising parking enforcement, a service which currently is managed by Surrey’s Borough and District on behalf of the County.

Image: Cllr Eber Kington on patrol

The accompanying comments to the announcement, made by the Kevin Deanus, Cabinet member for Highways
and Community Resilience, promise much. But residents need to be aware, SCC does not have a great track
record when it comes to taking back decision making and centralising services previously provided by the Borough Council on behalf of the County.

When SCC took back the maintenance of highway verge trees the policy became one of no maintenance unless a
tree is diseased, dying or dead. And no longer will SCC automatically replace a tree lost to our urban streets.
Instead, our residents have to pay £25 just to get a location looked at. £25 which is not refundable and, as often
is the case, ends with the site being declared as unsuitable for a tree.

In April, SCC is also taking back the cutting of verges. The 6 to 8 seasonal cuts by the Borough Council, recognising
seasonal weather conditions, will be reduced a standard county-wide cut of 4. Hardly an upgrade on what has
gone before. And will SCC be pro-actively managing overhanging branches in our urban alleyways? My concern is
that SCC does not even realise it’s a job to be done.

And the abolition of Local Committees and centralisation of highway decisions. Now residents have no public
meeting to ask questions of Highway Officers, petitions are determined at SCC’s HQ in Reigate by council officials
or a SCC Cabinet Member, and road safety schemes are decided by a Cabinet Member rather than local County
Councillors.

So, what will this £96.5 million contract mean? Kevin Deanus, Cabinet member for Highways and Community
Resilience, said: “The new contract will mean that Surrey County Council can more directly and consistently
manage on street parking enforcement across the county, helping to tackle inconsiderate parking and make
parking restrictions more effective.”

We all want safe and considerate parking, and there has to be a penalty for those who do neither. But that £96.5
million contract has to be paid for somehow. Will we see parking meters introduced where currently there are 1
hour or 2 hour waiting limits? Will additional yellow lines, designed to push drivers into paid for parking spaces,
be introduced. Will the new system be flexible enough to ensure that our local primary schools are visited
regularly to manage dangerous parking and idling cars? And will Residents Parking Zone Permit charges go up
once again.

Personally, I’m not sure that SCC’s desire for consistency and effectiveness in parking enforcement also equates
to fairness in delivery and a recognition of local needs, and it won’t be just another way to make our residents
pay.

County Councillor Eber Kington

Eber Kington is a former Mayor of Epsom and Ewell. He represents the Epsom and Ewell Borough Council Ward of Ewell Court Ward and on the County Council of Surrey he serves the ward of Ewell Court, Auriol & Cuddington.

Related stories from Epsom and Ewell Times:

Private Public Parking Penalisers

A Greener Future in Partial Sight As Verges To Be Left Unmown

A draft Local Plan, that will delineate Epsom and Ewell Borough‘s planning framework for decisions on planning applications and development for the years ahead, has been published on the Council’s website. Out of 5,400 new homes proposed in the Draft Local Plan (2023-20240), some 2,175 homes (almost 41%) are earmarked to be built on the borough’s Green Belt land. EEBC councillors are due to take a final Section 18 publication decision on 30 January,

Of nine “Preferred Option” development sites proposed, five are Green Belt – with Downs Farm, where 650 homes were proposed, only narrowly missing the cut after a campaign by residents. Over 55 hectares – or some 137 acres – of Green Belt land could be sacrificed. The plans include one gigantic estate of some 1,500 homes on land around Horton Farm, which will have its Green Belt status stripped away.
The “Preferred Options” for Green Belt development are:

• 150 homes around West Park Hospital
• 1,500 homes around Horton Farm
• 25 homes next to Chantilly Way
• 350 homes on the sports fields by Ewell East Station
• 150 homes on sports pitches at Hook Road Arena (land owned by the Council)

A spokesperson for a local campaign group seeking to protect green belt land has responded: “Given the Government’s “brownfield first” brief, it looks like the planners did not get the memo. They certainly did not get the new memo from Government saying that it is not necessary to review Green Belt for housing. And they appear not to have taken the hint from neighbouring Elmbridge, who creatively avoided any Green Belt destruction, and Mole Valley, whose councillors this month voted unanimously to remove all Green Belt sites from its Local Plan.”

“Only on its own land can the Council specify 100% affordable homes – the rest will be about 40% , as developers have many canny ways to get round this stipulation and build more profitable higher end housing. The Plan is offering just around 1,000 homes in Epsom Town Centre until year 2040, with a similar number only on other brownfield spaces, plus also around 1,000 for planning permissions in the Borough already in the pipeline “

Appendix 4 of the draft Local Plan reveal other Green Belt sites that have been offered up by developers in a “ Call for Sites.”

Yufan Si, campaign leader for Keep Epsom & Ewell’s Green Belt stated: “So where is the real challenge taken up, to redevelop Epsom Town surroundings, which most commentators agree could do with some rejuvenation? The Kiln Lane and Longmead industrial areas are said to be off limits, according to consultants for EEBC, because of the 1,800 jobs there. So not a single new brownfield affordable home is put forward here, with no imaginative plan to mix housing with job creation and revitalise an area close to the station, shops and entertainment facilities that many people prefer.”

“We are left with the conclusion that the planners – and by extension our ruling Councillors – are in a “Call for Sites” trap. This has inhibited visionary thinking and pro-active engagement with urban developers on how much-needed affordable housing might be built in tandem with an exciting redevelopment programme that Epsom’s brownfield areas so desperately need. All they seem able to do about it is to bulldozer yet another field of our Green Belt heritage” said Ms Si.

If Councillors vote at the special meeting of the Licensing, Planning and Policy Committee on January 30 for the Draft Local Plan (Section 18) to proceed, then it will be formally published by EEBC on February 1, followed by a six-week Public Consultation stage.

Related reports:

Green-belters seeing red on Local Plan?

Lessons for Epsom in Mole Valley’s “shouty” Local Plan struggle?

Crucial month for local Local Plans?

Gove gives pause for thought on Local Plans?

Local Plan Battle: early skirmishes on Downs Farm

MP’s housing solution for Epsom and Ewell

The suffragette movement is celebrated in the heart of Epsom with the statue of Emily Davison in Epsom’s Market Square. At our neighbouring Esher Theatre between 24th and 25th February Emily’s colleague Emmeline Pankhurst‘s life and struggle will be brought to life in a drama play by The Theatre Lab Company. “Emmeline – The Suffragette Movement, follows the journey of the inspirational leader of the Suffrage movement on her life’s mission to achieve the vote for women. Delving into the dynamics of the Pankhurst family, Emmeline explores the tensions that arose between her and her daughter Sylvia on militant tactics and social values, emblematic of the conflicts that divided the movement. Does the end justify the means?

Should the cause come first, no matter the personal cost? A story of the courage and sacrifice of the Suffragettes, their struggle and exaltation, and their undying determination that made history.

“A story to inspire the country to continue the fight for human emancipation.”

ABOUT THE COMPANY

Theatre Lab Company is a London-based international theatre company, with reputation for mesmerising theatrical imagery, physical theatre/performance and work that crosses the boundaries of culture, language and taboo.

Notable credits include commendation from Off West End (2019), an award by Global Entertainment Awards for Most Innovative International Theatre Company — UK (2018), critiques selection at Avignon Festival D’OFF, (2014)and Prague International Theatre festival (2007), nominations for a Fringe First and Total Theatre Awards,Edinburgh Festival (2007) They have produced their shows in highly acclaimed venues like RIVERSIDE STUDIOS (2010-2014), Sadler’s Wells Theatre (2016), Hoxton Hall Theatre (2017-2018) ,BT at Oxford Playhouse (2019) and National Theatre of Greece (2005).

Reviews

A thoughtful, well-researched and compelling production.” 4. STARS **** LONDON THEATRE 1

“Every element of this production was so well thought out and meticulously refined to create a cohesive masterpiece.” 4.5 STAR ****1/2 THEATRE AND OTHER THINGS LDN

“This is an important, informative and entertaining production that everyone should see.” – BRITISH THEATRE GUIDE

Tickets: https://eshertheatre-tickets.ticketsolve.com/ticketbooth/shows/1173627634

Epsom and Ewell FC 0-5 Leatherhead FC – Mid-Season Friendly – Saturday 21st January. An Epsom and Ewell team that hadn’t played a match for nearly three weeks came up against a Leatherhead side that had played fairly regularly during that period and in front of a crowd of 79, the score line of 5-0 to our opponents came as no real surprise.

With our League match against Arundel postponed, a friendly against our landlords on the artificial surface at River Lane, Fetcham was hastily arranged and kicking off at 2pm we gave a run out to our new signings Roan Strong, Musa Beegun and Rory Edwards while the majority of our regulars all played too, but for large parts of the game we found chances extremely limited. A change in formation just after the half hour made things a little more even for a while, but by then we were already two goals in arrears and three more followed in the second half.

The first goal came courtesy of a slight deflection, enabling the ball to creep past the wrong footed Strong in the 13th minute and a second followed after a great turn from the Leatherhead 10 which put him through to find the 9 with a good pass and he guided the ball past Strong into the bottom far corner.

The second half produced a slightly harsh score line for us as the Leatherhead keeper made three superb saves in the second half, two of which came from Nick Wilson, but to be fair, they also had other chances that weren’t taken and could have had a couple more themselves. The third goal came in the 49th minute and was harsh on Strong who made a good save, only to see an opponent reach the loose ball first for a simple finish. A spectacular fourth goal then followed in the 67th minute with a strike from the edge of the penalty area that grazed the bar on its way in. All we had in response was one near post shot from Athan Smith-Joseph after he had received a long kick from Strong, but the keeper kept it out.

We then had three chances in a minute; the 75th, as it turned out. Firstly, Wilson struck at goal with a slight deflection on the way, requiring a great full stretch save to claw the ball away. From the corner, Thomson Adeyemi’s header from point blank range was also kept out and the from the next corner Aaron Bogle struck over the bar from just inside the box.

A great deep cross from Athan Smith-Joseph was met by a superb volley from Wilson, but this was also acrobatically kept out by the Leatherhead keeper and an 86th minute penalty from Junior Kadi, after Bogle had brought a striker down just inside the area, completed the scoring. You couldn’t argue with the decision and seeing as the referee was our former Captain Alex McKay, it is only fair to say that he had an excellent game.

We now face another two weeks without a competitive match before hosting Oakwood, but this should give time for our new signings to become a little more familiar with the rest of the players as we finally commence the second half of our season against teams of not such a high standard.

Epsom & Ewell: Roan Strong, Johnny “Sonic” Akoto, Gideon Acheampong, Ryan Smith, Oliver Thompson, Aaron Bogle, Athan Smith-Joseph, Nick Wilson, Jamie Byatt, Josh Alder, Gavin Quintyne

Subs: Rory Edwards, Thomson Adeyemi, Musa Beegun, Josh Owen all on for Quintyne, Smith, Alder, Wilson (at HT) Lawrence O’Donoghue for Acheampong (62), Wilson back on for Byatt (69), Quintyne back on for Akoto (81)