Epsom and Ewell councillors have backed a proposal to invest £250,000 over two years in Bourne Hall Museum, but only after another bruising debate over transparency, councillors’ access to information and the continuing fallout from the withheld museum service review.

At a special meeting of Epsom and Ewell Borough Council’s Community and Wellbeing Committee on 9 June, members voted by six votes to none, with one abstention, to support “Option 2” — investment in improvement of the museum. A funding request and business case will now go to the Strategy and Resources Committee in July.

The alternatives before councillors were to continue with business as usual, with no additional funding, or to close the museum.

In a media release supplied after the meeting, the council described the decision as “a significant step forward” and said the investment would help the museum remain “relevant and sustainable”. Committee chair Cllr Clive Woodbridge (RA Ewell Village) said Bourne Hall Museum was “a much-valued cultural asset” and that, with Local Government Reorganisation approaching, “ensuring a lasting legacy is more important than ever”.

Yet the meeting showed that the question of Bourne Hall Museum’s future has become inseparable from a wider dispute over how much information councillors and the public should be allowed to see before decisions are made.

The report before the committee referred to two 2025 reviews: the Bourne Hall Museum Service Review and the Local Government Association Cultural Peer Challenge. It stated that the reviews were relevant to all three options, including maintaining, developing or closing the service. However, the full Service Review was still not included in the public committee papers.

The report said the council’s Proper Officer had been invited to reconsider attaching the redacted service review, but had concluded that it would “not be appropriate” in order to “ensure the impartiality of information presented to members as the decision-making body”.

That explanation was fiercely challenged.

Cllr Chris Ames (Labour Court), who is not a member of the committee but addressed the meeting with the chair’s permission, argued that councillors had a right under section 100F of the Local Government Act 1972 to inspect documents containing material relating to business before a committee unless they disclosed exempt information.

He told the meeting that “impartiality” was not a lawful exemption. He said councillors were “elected adults capable of weighing evidence” and accused the council of operating in an “Alice in Wonderland world” in which selected councillors were given a report but, he said, were being required to act as though they had not seen it.

Cllr Ames also raised the question of public access, saying that section 100B of the same Act required relevant background papers to be published unless a legal exemption applied. He said no such exemption had been claimed and warned that the decision could be vulnerable to call-in or legal challenge.

Cllr Woodbridge said members had “all had a chance to read the report” and tried to steer the discussion back to the future of the museum. But the disclosure issue repeatedly resurfaced.

Cllr Bernie Muir (Conservative Horton) said that, having now seen the information, she could not understand why it had not been provided in the first place. She described the situation as “appalling” and said councillors should be trusted unless they had demonstrated otherwise.

She then turned to the substance of the review, saying that if the document seen by councillors was the full consultant’s report, “they’ve completely wasted their money”, because much of it amounted to basic organisational advice.

Cllr Kate Chinn (Labour Court) also expressed concern about what councillors were or were not allowed to say about the service review. She said she had left a pre-meeting briefing “more confused” about what she could quote or refer to. When she asked whether “bias” was a lawful reason for withholding material, she said she had been told it was “not about the law” but about the Proper Officer’s decision-making.

The chair said he was sure legal advice had been taken, but that the decision was one for the Proper Officer, made on her own judgment.

Epsom and Ewell Times has seen a confidential email sent by Chief Executive Jackie King to members of the committee before the meeting. In it she said it was “not about confidentiality, sensitivity or lack of transparency” but about “impartiality of information presented to members as the decision making body”.

The Chief Executive wrote that the Service Review was “not unbiased” and would not be suitable in its “raw” form for inclusion in a committee report comparing options, because it “repeatedly emphasises the need for continued investment in the existing museum” and could steer readers towards a preferred conclusion. She said she was willing to share the operational report with committee members, with sensitive data such as names redacted, but maintained that it was not suitable to append it to the public options appraisal.

The council’s public agenda for the special meeting stated that no matters were scheduled which would appear to disclose confidential or exempt information under Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

Financial questions also dominated the meeting.

The committee papers put the museum’s current annual budget at around £232,168. Of that, £65,785 related to employee costs for 1.5 full-time equivalent staff, while £123,840 was listed as “accommodation” — described in the papers as a central recharge for use of the space. Central services charges were £32,110, insurance recharges £2,292, other costs £12,180, and income from museum activities £4,039.

The “recharge” point was important because it raised doubts about what the museum really costs and what closure would actually save.

In simple terms, a recharge is an internal accounting allocation. The council incurs general costs for buildings, management, support services and overheads. It then spreads those costs across different services, so that each service appears in the accounts as bearing a share of the council’s wider running costs. That does not necessarily mean the museum is paying rent to an outside landlord, or that closing the museum would save the whole sum shown against it.

Cllr Woodbridge described these as “accountancy charges rather than real charges” and said that if the museum closed the council would not necessarily save that cost, because it was not a cost generated only by the museum.

That distinction matters. On the face of the papers, the museum appears to cost the council £232,168 a year. But more than half of that figure is the £123,840 accommodation recharge, and another £32,110 is central services charges. If those sums are mainly internal allocations of overheads which would remain elsewhere in the council’s budget, the direct cash saving from closing the museum could be far lower than the headline budget suggests.

Cllr Muir queried why such a large accommodation cost was charged to a free public museum located in a council-owned building. She asked why the museum had been put in that position when it was a public service occupying space within Bourne Hall. Ian Dyer, Head of Operational Services, accepted that the charge was historic and “would need to be challenged”.

Cllr Alex Coley (Independent Ruxley) said the recharge model could also make it “extremely unlikely” that the museum would succeed in major external funding applications, because funders would not want their money effectively being used to support internal council recharges. He said the LGA Cultural Peer Challenge had identified this issue.

Cllr Coley also questioned whether councillors were being asked to approve a meaningful investment or simply a process. He said some of the proposed actions — such as replacing long-form text in displays, creating strategies, branding work and social media planning — sounded like business as usual rather than a major transformation. He called for “concrete, tangible” outcomes rather than more paperwork.

Mr Dyer said some short and medium-term recommendations had already been completed by museum staff and that the next stage would be to bring back a business plan setting out what changes would be made with the proposed £125,000 per year.

Cllr Chinn, who proposed supporting Option 2, said any report to Strategy and Resources would need much more detail, including timescales, costs and the implications of Local Government Reorganisation. Cllr Woodbridge agreed that the committee was being asked to decide the principle, not the full business case.

There was little appetite in the room for closing the museum. Before the vote, Cllr Woodbridge said he sensed members appreciated the value of the museum and noted that Option 3 — closure — had not been pursued in the debate.

The committee’s decision does not itself release the £250,000. That decision now passes to Strategy and Resources, where councillors will have to decide whether the business case is strong enough, whether the museum’s accounting model is sustainable, and whether the long-running argument over the service review has been resolved or merely postponed.

For now, Bourne Hall Museum has survived another political test. But the controversy over who gets to see the evidence, and when, remains very much alive.

Sam Jones – Reporter

Related reports:

Epsom Councillor’s disclosure claims Bourne out on review

Bourne Hall row escalates as Chief Executive suspends councillors’ decision

Ewell’s Bourne Hall plans knocked back by scrutiny

Independent view of Ewell’s Bourne Hall

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

Epsom Derby Day drew its biggest crowd since 2022 as The King and Queen joined more than 28,000 racegoers at Epsom Downs on Saturday 6th June.

The Jockey Club confirmed that 28,557 people attended Betfred Derby Day, a marked improvement on last year’s modern low and part of a two-day Derby Festival attendance of 48,261.

That total was 10,662 higher than last year, an increase of 28%, and will be seen by Epsom Downs Racecourse as evidence that the first year of its five-year revival plan has made a positive start.

However, the Derby Day figure remained below the 40,000-plus crowd that had been hoped for in some pre-meeting reporting and well below the historic crowds once associated with Britain’s most famous Flat race.

The 2025 Derby Day crowd had fallen to just 22,312 in the paid enclosures, described by the Racing Post as the lowest number in modern history. This year’s figure therefore represents a recovery of more than 6,000 on Derby Day, but not yet a return to the scale of attendance seen in earlier decades.

The Jockey Club said there had been a sold-out Queen Elizabeth II Stand and Grandstand Enclosure, with thousands more across the racecourse, DerbyFest and The Hill.

The presence of Their Majesties gave the day added national profile. The King and Queen arrived after attending the wedding of Peter Phillips and Harriet Sperling in the Cotswolds, and their attendance was widely reported by national racing and news outlets.

The weather was less helpful. Rain fell overnight and for much of Saturday, with the ground officially changing from good-to-soft to soft before the Derby. The Guardian’s live coverage described the event as rain-soaked, and images from the day showed racegoers sheltering under umbrellas.

On the track, Christmas Day won the 247th running of the Derby, ridden by Ronan Whelan and trained by Aidan O’Brien. The victory gave O’Brien a record-extending 12th Derby win and his 50th British Classic success.

The race was not without controversy. Favourite Benvenuto Cellini, also trained by O’Brien, finished the race but was later declared a non-runner after a stewards’ inquiry found that he had been denied a fair start when his hind leg became caught in the stalls.

For Epsom, however, the wider question was whether the meeting itself could begin to recover its place as one of the great public sporting occasions of the year.

The Jockey Club has embarked on a £6 million, five-year plan to revive the Derby Festival. This year’s changes included increased prize money, free admission for under-18s, free parking, the new DerbyFest area on The Hill, entertainment partnerships and efforts to reconnect the event with the local community.

Ahead of the meeting, Epsom Downs general manager Jim Allen said more than 22,000 people had registered for DerbyFest over the two days, and that the racecourse was expecting more than 60,000 people across the Festival.

The final total of 48,261 fell below that aspiration, but still marked a substantial improvement on 2025. The Jockey Club’s own post-event assessment was upbeat.

Jim Allen said initial feedback on the changes to the customer experience had been “extremely positive”. He said selling out the standside enclosures in advance was testament to the continuing appeal of the race and to the work of the Epsom and wider teams.

He added: “Clearly the weather did not get the memo, but ultimately when you run an outdoor event in this country, you are always slightly in the lap of the gods.”

Mr Allen described 2026 as “year one of a five-year journey” and said the racecourse would be guided by customer feedback before making decisions for future years.

The Jockey Club’s use of open-top buses and community-facing measures formed part of the attempt to restore the Derby’s traditional local character. At present, however, no published figures appear to isolate the effect of those buses or say how many additional attendees came specifically through local community group involvement.

The fairest conclusion is therefore that the 2026 Derby was neither a full return to former glories nor another year of decline. It was a measurable recovery: helped by royal attendance, a stronger entertainment offer and sold-out principal stands, but held back by rain and still some distance from the crowds Epsom once took for granted.

For a racecourse seeking to rebuild the Derby as both a world-class sporting occasion and a people’s festival on the Downs, Saturday was a step forward. The test will be whether that recovery can be sustained — and expanded — in 2027 and whether a change of day in the week should be tested.

Sam Jones – Reporter

Photo: Grandstand and Racecourse at Epsom Derby Day at 14:15pm

Related reports:

Derby Prize Money to Rise to £2m as Epsom Seeks to Reassert Its Place at the Top of British Racing

Should Epsom’s Derby revert to Wednesday?

A historic community sports club on the edge of Epsom and Ewell is making an urgent appeal for support as it seeks to raise funds to save its last remaining tennis courts.

Worcester Park Tennis Club, part of the Worcester Park Athletic Club, says its two courts have reached the end of their operational life and require resurfacing if they are to remain open. Club representatives warn that failure to secure the necessary funding could result in the closure of the courts, which are used by more than 100 junior players each week.

The wider athletic club traces its origins back to 1921, when it was founded by former servicemen returning from the First World War. Club volunteers say the tennis section has served generations of local families and remains one of the few accessible grassroots tennis facilities in the area.

To support the fundraising effort, the club is hosting a Family & Community Open Day on Sunday 28 June, from 11am to 3pm, at Worcester Park Athletic Club, off Green Lane, KT4 8AJ.

The event is free to attend and will include coaching taster sessions, tennis games and activities, face painting, refreshments, and a grand raffle. Organisers say the day is intended both as a celebration of community sport and a final push to secure the future of the courts.

Weronika Kalka of Worcester Park Tennis Club told the Epsom & Ewell Times:

“Our courts have almost reached the end of their operational life. Without raising the vital funds required to resurface them, we face the heartbreaking reality of having to close them entirely. Over 100 local juniors rely on these courts every single week, and losing them would mean losing a crucial, accessible grassroots tennis space right on the borders of Epsom and Ewell.”

Alongside inviting local families to attend the open day, the club is appealing to local businesses to contribute prizes for the raffle or to support the fundraising campaign through direct donations.

The club’s fundraising campaign emphasises three objectives: preserving the history of the club, improving facilities for current players, and creating opportunities for future generations of young tennis players.

Residents wishing to support the appeal can attend the open day or donate via the club’s crowdfunding campaign.

Event at a Glance

What: Worcester Park Tennis Club Family & Community Open Day and Court Fundraiser
When: Sunday 28 June, 11am–3pm
Where: Worcester Park Athletic Club, off Green Lane, Worcester Park, KT4 8AJ
Admission: Free
Activities: Coaching sessions, tennis games, face painting, refreshments and grand raffle

For further information, contact worcesterparktennis@gmail.com or follow the club on Instagram at @worcester_park_tennis.

Sam Jones – Reporter

It’s Derby Day at Epsom Racecourse; one of the most important race meetings of the year. Today’s card consists of eight races, with the two Group One contests taking centre stage; the Coronation Cup and the Derby itself. These are supported by two Group Three races, the Dash Handicap and three further handicaps.

Read on for a preview of and tips for the Epsom card, brought to you by BOYLE Sports, who have all the horse racing odds. 

Racing kicks off with the Group Three Tattenham Corner Stakes (13.30). This is a race for older horses run over seven furlongs. There is plenty of good quality recent form on show here, with Never So Brave as the top rated runner for Andrew Balding. His first effort this season was underwhelming, but improvement is expected. Alcantor is a consistent sort who seems likely to run to at least a place, while Golden Mind could spring a surprise if the rain continues to fall.

Next is the extended mile Group Three Princess Elizabeth Stakes for fillies and mares (14.05). Shes Perfect and Sparks Fly jointly top the ratings, and bring a similar level of form to the table. Shes Perfect has very well to place in Group One company but lacks a Group level win, while Sparks Fly has won a Group Three contest before. She was two lengths behind last year’s Derby winner Lambourn in the Huxley Stakes last month, which is promising, and was third in this race last year. Shes Perfect has the most potential for improvement, though. 

The Coronation Cup follows, run over a mile and a half (14.40). Francis-Henri Graffard’s revered gelding Calandagan comes back to attempt to reverse last year’s form with Jan Brueghel here, having won five back-to-back Group One races since that day in France, England, Japan and the UAE. Now rated five pounds higher than the Coolmore representative, the Aga Khan horse will be hot favourite and for good reason. He faces some top class opponents, but he is the highest rated horse in the world over this distance currently and will take all the beating. 

Race four is the five-furlong Dash Handicap (15.15). Ian Williams’ Dyonisos is god on undulating tracks and could pick up a place at least, having been only narrowly beaten last time, but this is a big ask for him. Kinswoman is a consistent sort who ought to factor, and Cindy Lou Who looks somewhat overpriced and could be a good each-way play.

Onto the feature race of the day, the Derby, worth £1million to the winner (16.00). Benvenuto Cellini is Coolmore’s first string, under Ryan Moore, having won the Chester Vase last time. Item is a very strong candidate for Juddmonte, but is unproven on softer ground. James J Braddock and Pierre Bonnard finished within a short head of one another at Leopardstown last time and are contenders, but both would need a career best. Action is worth keeping an eye on too. 

A 10-furlong handicap follows (16.40). Pendella could go well for Karl Burke, given five pounds by rider Jack Nicholls. Savvy Disko makes his handicap debut and could be of interest, while Folk Pageant could be in the mix. Hell Yeah He Did has shown plenty of potential so far and could have a good chance for Ralph Beckett. 

Second to last is a mile and a half handicap (17.20). Hengest has recently completed a hat-trick but would need a real career best to win this, while Charlie Johnston’s Elsass seeks a similar achievement, having won both of his two most recent starts. Regal Ulixes looks competitive and could be at a winnable mark. He performs on any ground too.  

The Derby Festival concludes with a six-furlong handicap (17.55). Gold Star Hero has recently completed a hat-trick and comes here 16 pounds higher than his last start in 2025. Partisan Hero could get involved, as could Saint Lawrence. Sondad looks competitive on last year’s form, but must leave a disappointing return to action behind him. 

Epsom selections – Saturday:

13.30 – Alcantor

14.05 – Shes Perfect

14.40 – Calandagan

15.15 – Cindy Lou Who 

16.00 – Item 

16.40 – Hell Yeah He Did

17.20 – Regal Ulixes

17.55 – Sondad

Horses racing Image: Credit Paul. CC BY 2.0

April and May proved to be unusually busy months for Surrey Police and community safety partners in Epsom and Ewell, with a mixture of high-profile investigations, anti-social behaviour enforcement, retail crime initiatives and public engagement events.

The most significant policing story of the period centred on a reported serious sexual assault in Epsom during the early hours of 11 April. Surrey Police launched a major investigation following a report that a woman in her twenties had been assaulted after leaving a town centre nightclub. Extensive enquiries were carried out, including CCTV examination, witness interviews, forensic work and house-to-house enquiries. By mid-April, Assistant Chief Constable Sarah Grahame stated that investigators had not found evidence to support the offence as originally reported, although enquiries remained ongoing. The case attracted national media attention and prompted public demonstrations in Epsom town centre. Surrey Police repeatedly appealed for witnesses and urged the public not to speculate while investigations continued. (The Guardian)

The incident also led to a substantial police presence in the town as officers dealt with protests and concerns regarding public disorder. Local community leaders and elected representatives called for calm and urged residents to allow the investigation to proceed without interference. (The Guardian)

Away from the headlines, Surrey Police continued its borough-wide campaign against anti-social behaviour and organised criminality under the “Safer Epsom and Ewell” initiative launched earlier this year. The partnership between Surrey Police and Epsom & Ewell Borough Council has focused on tackling anti-social behaviour, serious organised crime and repeat offending in known hotspot locations. (Epsom and Ewell Borough Council)

Police teams also continued operations targeting nuisance and criminal use of motorcycles. According to local policing priorities published during the spring, officers have been using specialist teams, covert tactics, anti-social behaviour powers and multi-agency interventions to tackle riders involved in criminality and public nuisance. The strategy includes cooperation with housing providers and the use of borough-wide Public Space Protection Order powers. (Surrey Police)

Retail crime remained a major priority throughout April and May. Surrey Police’s Epsom Safer Neighbourhood Team reported that its zero-tolerance approach to shoplifting and offences against retailers was continuing to produce results. The initiative includes rapid investigation of known offenders, direct cooperation with retailers and remote CCTV operators, and proactive arrests aimed at reducing repeat offending in the town centre. (Surrey Police)

The wider “Safer Epsom and Ewell” operation reported notable results during the spring period. Police indicated that the partnership had led to more than 150 arrests, over 90 charges and the closure of ten county-lines drug networks, highlighting the continuing focus on organised criminal activity affecting local communities. (Facebook)

Community engagement remained a significant feature of local policing. Officers held a series of “Meet the Beat” events during April and May, including sessions in Epsom town centre, Ruxley Lane and at Epsom Hospital, giving residents opportunities to discuss local concerns directly with neighbourhood officers. Police also conducted public engagement work connected with violence against women and girls in the Ashley Centre area. (Surrey Police)

Latest published neighbourhood crime statistics continue to show violence and sexual offences, shoplifting and anti-social behaviour among the most frequently reported categories in parts of the borough. In Epsom & Ewell East, violence and sexual offences and shoplifting remained the most commonly recorded offences during March, the latest month for which detailed neighbourhood figures are available. (Police.uk)

Residents wishing to report crime can contact Surrey Police via 101 for non-emergencies or 999 in an emergency. Information can also be passed anonymously through Crimestoppers on 0800 555 111.

The Epsom and Ewell Times will continue to monitor local crime trends, policing initiatives and community safety developments throughout the summer.

Sam Jones – Reporter

A member of staff at the University of Surrey has been seriously injured following an incident on the University’s Manor Park campus in Guildford.

The University confirmed that the incident occurred at approximately 9.50am on Thursday morning. Surrey Police attended the scene and arrested a man shortly afterwards.

In a statement provided to the Epsom and Ewell Times, a University spokesperson said:

“At approximately 9.50 am this morning, an incident took place on our Manor Park campus. Police attended and a man was arrested. A member of our campus safety team was seriously injured and is receiving medical care. The police are not looking for anyone else in connection with this incident. Surrey Police are leading the investigation and we are giving them our full support.”

Subsequent statements issued by Surrey Police and national media reports indicate that the injured man, who is in his 50s, is a member of the University’s campus safety team. He was taken to hospital with serious injuries following what police describe as a crossbow shooting. A 21-year-old former University of Surrey student was arrested at the scene on suspicion of attempted murder and remains in police custody.

Chief Superintendent Jon Groenen of Surrey Police said officers were not seeking anyone else in connection with the incident and that a full investigation is under way. Police have appealed for witnesses or anyone with relevant information to come forward.

The incident took place at the University’s Manor Park campus, which includes student accommodation, teaching facilities and the Surrey Sports Park. Despite a significant emergency services presence, the University campus remained open during the police response.

The condition of the injured staff member has not been updated beyond police confirming that his injuries are serious. The University has said it is providing full support to the police investigation.

Anyone with information is asked to contact Surrey Police quoting reference PR/45260065706 or to contact Crimestoppers anonymously.

Sam Jones – Reporter

Updated release from Surrey University: We have been informed that our colleague is now in a stable condition and our entire community is relieved to hear this news. We wish him a full and speedy recovery. 

“We also want to take this opportunity to thank our Campus Safety team. They responded with professionalism and courage to this incident, and their commitment to keeping this community safe is something we are deeply proud of. Our thoughts are with all of them

A remarkable hand-coloured plan of Epsom Racecourse dating from 1848 has been rescued from severe deterioration following an extensive conservation project.

The historic document, which provides a detailed record of the racecourse in the mid-19th century, had reached a fragile state. Conservators warned that without intervention valuable information about the history and development of the course could have been lost forever.

A Race Against Time

The plan was prioritised for treatment because of its worsening condition and the fact that much of its detail had become obscured beneath a darkened varnish layer.

Conservators found the document had suffered from multiple forms of damage over the years.

The paper itself was made from machine-produced wood pulp, which is naturally acidic and becomes increasingly brittle as the fibres deteriorate. At some point the plan had been mounted on a linen backing using starch paste, but the paper had begun separating from the fabric. In places, fragments had broken away altogether.

Evidence also suggested the document had previously been stored in damp conditions, leaving mould staining across parts of the surface.

Further damage had been caused by the way the map had originally been displayed. Wooden poles had been attached using nails driven through the paper, leaving rust stains and tears, particularly along the upper edge.

Perhaps most significantly, the entire plan had been coated in a thick glossy varnish which had darkened dramatically over time, concealing much of the image beneath.

Delicate Conservation Work

The first stage of treatment involved removing the remaining wooden pole to prevent further damage during handling.

Conservators then carefully detached the mould-stained linen backing before carrying out extensive surface cleaning on both sides of the document. Throughout the process the plan was supported on woven polyester sheeting to ensure that loose fragments remained safely in place.

Attention then turned to the dark varnish coating.

Specialist tests were undertaken using a range of solvents to identify the safest and most effective method of removal. Once a suitable solvent had been selected, conservators worked section by section to lift the varnish without harming the original inks and pigments.

Using a Japanese paper barrier and a solvent gel, the varnish was gradually drawn away from the surface and transferred onto the paper layer.

The process was compared by conservators to waxing, with the Japanese paper peeled away carrying the dissolved varnish with it.

As the treatment progressed, details hidden for decades began to reappear.

Although some staining remained embedded deep within the paper fibres, the plan’s image and written information became visible once again, making the document accessible for the first time in many years.

Washing and Stabilisation

Following varnish removal, the plan underwent a careful washing process designed to remove any remaining residues.

Once the rinse water ran clear, the paper was treated with a mild alkaline solution to neutralise acidity and slow future deterioration.

The document was then lined with a specially selected Japanese paper backing. Favoured by conservators for its purity, flexibility and exceptional strength, Japanese paper provides long-term support while remaining lightweight and unobtrusive.

After several days of drying, missing sections of the original document were filled using handmade paper closely matched in tone and thickness.

Conservators emphasised that the work followed established conservation principles rather than restoration. Repairs remain visible and distinguishable from the original material, ensuring future researchers can identify what is original and what has been added.

All treatments are reversible, with wheat starch paste used as the adhesive. Bleaching treatments, which can brighten paper but may accelerate deterioration over time, were deliberately avoided.

Preserved for Future Generations

Once fully dried, trimmed and stabilised, the restored plan was placed within an archival polyester sleeve and transferred to environmentally controlled strongroom storage.

The conservation team believes that without intervention the plan would have continued to darken, weaken and eventually disintegrate.

Instead, this important piece of Epsom’s racing heritage has been secured for future generations, preserving a unique snapshot of the racecourse as it appeared nearly 180 years ago.

The conservation project not only saved the physical document but also revealed historical information that had been hidden beneath layers of damage and ageing for many decades.

Surrey County Council– History Centre

For more news from Surrey History Centre READ HERE

The first day of the eagerly anticipated Derby Festival is finally here. Today’s eight-race card has the Group One Oaks as the headline race, supported by the Listed Surrey Stakes, the Group Three Diomed Stakes, the Woodcote Stakes, Nifty 50 handicap and three further handicaps.

Read on for a preview of and tips for the Epsom card, brought to you by BOYLE Sports, who provide all horse racing odds. 

The action kicks off with the five-furlong Dash Handicap for two-year-olds (13.30). Alfa Duplicate, U S S Charleston and Wedonttelllies were all winners last time out, with U S S Charleston looking possibly the most likely to repeat the form, given five pounds by his rider. There is no guarantee that he will handle this track, though, therefore Coyy might be worth thinking about. Charmanfourtimes could go well having come down four pounds, while Naana’s Shadow has an eye-catching booking in Oisin Murphy. 

Next is the Woodcote Stakes; a six-furlong race for two-year-olds (14.05). Plenty of the runners have already won a race, and this should be an exciting watch. Charlie Hills’ El Lambo won his race by the biggest margin – over four lengths – but has a tricky draw in 11. Rlasthope is worthy of some each-way interest, while George Boughey’s Havana Flash is an interesting debutant. WIld Terrain impressed on winning debut at Hamilton, and again the booking of Oisin Murphy is a potential indicator. 

Race three is the extended mile Group Three Diomed Stakes (14.40). Karl Burke’s Boiling Point tops the ratings and won last time out in Listed company at Goodwood recently. He should handle this track well and is a serious contender. Seagulls Eleven equally should go well around Epsom and can handle some rain too. Chancellor has limited form on turf but won well on his debut on soft ground at Doncaster, so he could outrun his odds. 

The Nifty 50 Handicap follows, run over 10 furlongs (15.15). Roger Varian’s Sallaal returned to action nicely over course and distance in April, but he is drawn wide here. Respond’s new mark needs to be proven today, whereas Alpha Crucis’ looks appealing. Let’s Dream steps up in class here and could have an each-way chance after a win at Chester in May. 

In the afternoon’s feature race, the mile and a half Group One Oaks (16.00), Coolmore’s Amelia Earheart looks the likely favourite after winning the Cheshire Oaks at Chester in May. Charlie Johnston’s Venetian Lace tops the ratings and ran significantly better than expected in the 1,000 Guineas, finishing third, and she could run another solid race here. She is probably better on firmer ground, though. Cameo can go on softer ground, as can Thundering On, who could be worth thinking about. 

An extended mile handicap is next (16.40). Celeborn is a useful sort who could be of interest in first-time cheekpieces after a midfield finish last time, while Stem can act on any ground and stays on a competitive enough mark to get involved here. It’s worth looking out for Man Of La Mancha, while Walsingham could prove to be overpriced for David O’Meara. 

Second to last is the Listed Surrey Stakes, run over seven furlongs (17.15). This looks a reasonably open race, but Joseph O’Brien’s Irish raider Greek Mythology could be an interesting one to side with. He has won on the all-weather and is still relatively unexposed on turd, but has placed on both starts on that surface so far. 

Finally, racing concludes with a seven-furlong handicap (17.50). Zarathos seeks a hat-trick, but looks unlikely here. Course and distance winner Rhoscolyn is now down to an attractive mark and warrants serious thought, while Colombier is entitled to improve on his seasonal reappearance at Ascot. 

Epsom selections – Friday:

13.30 – Coyy

14.05 – Wild Terrain

14.40 – Boiling Point

15.15 – Alpha Crucis

16.00 – Thundering On

16.40 – Stem e/w

17.15 – Greek Mythology

17.50 – Rhoscolyn

Horses racing Image: Credit Paul. CC BY 2.0

Roy Deadman Reflects on Election and the Road Ahead

Dear Editor,

I am writing with a full heart and a great deal of gratitude following my election as councillor for the Epsom Town & Downs ward, and to give a short update on the progress and challenges ahead. To every resident who placed their trust in me, thank you. It means more than I can properly put into words.

Over the past six months of canvassing, I had the privilege of hundreds of conversations on doorsteps right across the ward. Those conversations were the most valuable part of the entire campaign. Residents shared their personal stories and experiences with me, from the frustration of persistent potholes and the importance of protecting our precious green spaces, to concerns around local planning decisions.

I heard about the need for safer, better-lit walkways that properly connect our town, and the challenges facing families trying to access local SEND support. Public transport came up repeatedly, with many residents, particularly those in Langley Vale, calling for more frequent and better-connected services. Road safety and speeding through residential streets was a consistent theme, as were concerns about anti-social behaviour, e-scooters, and inconsiderate moped parking.

The Chalk Pit and the importance of holding firm on the agreements in place was raised by a number of residents, and I want to assure you that this remains very much on my radar. People also spoke passionately about maintaining funding for the brilliant local groups and organisations that already make Epsom and Ewell such a great place to live, and that support must continue as we navigate the significant changes ahead.

Now that the election is over, I want to be very clear: staying connected to this community is not optional, it is essential. In due course my fellow councillors and I will be arranging local meetups, and we will be back out on the doorstep listening and asking for feedback. Representing this ward is a privilege, and we intend to earn that trust every single day.

I want to give a very special thank you to Helen Maguire and her entire team. Their support throughout this campaign was extraordinary. Helen ran a professional, values-driven campaign and set a standard that we will all carry with us into our roles as councillors.

What made it particularly special was that Helen did not just support from a distance. She was out canvassing alongside us in the evenings and at weekends, making sure that as a team we were genuinely listening to residents and placing their views at the centre of everything we do. The trust she placed in us as candidates, and now as councillors, was humbling and deeply motivating.

I also want to thank the incredible volunteers who delivered thousands of leaflets, supported our canvassing, showed up to events, and were there at the end of some very long evenings knocking on doors, sometimes with a well-earned pint to follow. Your dedication was the backbone of this campaign.

And to my fellow Liberal Democrat candidates, now councillors, I want to say how proud I am to have stood alongside each of you. Over these months, we have built something genuinely special, a team bound together by trust, hard work, shared values, mutual respect, and a real desire to do what is right for the communities we all call home. We have also, crucially, managed to make each other smile along the way.

Looking ahead, we face significant challenges. By 31 March 2027, we will see the formation of the East Surrey Unitary Council, as Surrey County Council is divided into two new authorities, East and West, with the borough and district councils merging into the new East Council. As Shadow Councillors, we must ensure that on vesting day, local services continue without disruption. The residents of Epsom and Ewell should feel nothing but continuity and, in time, genuine improvement.

I also want us to recognise the officers, the dedicated employees across the councils involved in this transition. Their combined skills and experience will be absolutely vital to the success of the new Unitary Council, and we must support and value them throughout this process.

I am pleased to share that I will be sitting on the East Surrey Authority Employment Committee, where I hope to play a constructive role in making this transition work well for everyone.

The work has already begun in earnest. There have been local discussions and planning meetings with the Liberal Democrat Epsom and Ewell team, as well as wider meetings involving all 40 Liberal Democrat councillors representing East Surrey, laying the groundwork and ensuring we fully understand the challenges ahead.

We recently held a full councillor induction day, where I had the pleasure of meeting colleagues across all parties who will help form this new team. I was proud to be present at the first inaugural full Shadow East Surrey Council meeting, where we elected senior roles, cabinet positions and committee members, building the structures we need to move forward at pace.

The mix of skills, different backgrounds and wealth of experience amongst the shadow councillors has put us in a strong starting position to deliver on our objectives.

This is also, I believe, a unique opportunity. A fresh start means we can shape how this new council works, how it manages its budget, and how it delivers services. I am determined that we bring real efficiencies, hold outsourced contractors firmly to account against their contractual obligations, and negotiate future contracts that deliver genuine value for our residents.

Until midnight on 31 March 2027 we will be Shadow Councillors focusing on what I have outlined above. Until then we will support, where possible, the current councillors of Epsom and Ewell Borough Council and continue to listen to residents in preparation for the handover of responsibility to East Surrey.

Finally, thank you to my family and friends. The extra childcare, school runs, family dinners missed, and the many hugs when I needed them most — without that steadfast support, the campaign would have been so much harder. I am deeply grateful.

I look forward to getting to work for Epsom Town & Downs. This is just the beginning.

Yours faithfully,

Cllr Roy Deadman
Epsom Town & Downs Ward

East Surrey Unitary Council

Fans of late-night burgers, kebabs, and wraps are in for a treat after the Epsom Grill was given permission to extend its opening hours. The hot food takeaway in Waterloo Road, between High Street and Epsom Railway Station, can currently keep cooking until 2am to close at 2:30am at weekends. On Monday to Thursday it can serve until 1am, and on Sundays this is brought back to midnight.

Now, following a January licensing application that granted the extension, and a ‘Pythonesque’ planning meeting where Epsom and Ewell Borough Councillors almost voted against its own decision – those hours are to be extended.

The grill originally applied to allow service and closure until 4am, with all remaining days unchanged, but this was revised to 3am on weekends, subject to a condition requiring security door staff until 3:30am.

It then went to planning to be confirmed.

Councillor Robert Leach (Residents Associations of Epsom and Ewell: Nonsuch Ward) told the May, Thursday 28 planning committee.  “This area is next to a railway station that has two lines going up to London. Every few minutes 300 tons of metal storms through Epsom station creating socking great sound and we’re worried about the disturbance from a few people sitting in a grill eating burgers? I mean this is something straight out of Monty Python. I don’t see why we have any restrictions on any hours at all.

“Frankly, if someone wants to eat a burger at 3 o’clock in the morning and Epsom Grill is prepared to stay open and cook them, I mean, why should anybody stop them?”

The meeting, and subsequent vote, went back and forth; between those who thought the matter had already been decided at licensing and that the planning decision was a formality, and those who wanted to reopen the debate.

Cllr Jan Mason (Residents Associations of Epsom and Ewell: Ruxley Ward) said: “It’s far too late, three. I think what the police are saying must be from past experience and my own experience of it all. I feel that that time is far too late, they’ll all be as drunk as lords. They will cook to three, it wont be four until they get out and people live here. They live in flats in Station Approach.

“Surely they want a decent night’s sleep and I think four o’clock is ridiculous. So as far as I’m concerned, I agree with the police.”

Opponents pushed to reject the plan, only for the motion to fail by one vote.

It left the officer recommendation to approve as the sole option remaining – which only passed after the chair’s deciding vote.

Cllr James Lawrence (Independents Group: College Ward) said: “We’re at risk of duplicating the debates that happened at licensing and came to a decision.”

He added: “We have case law in front of us that says…you need to have a really good reason why we are going go against a decision that we just made at our licensing (committee) and why you think it will hold up against a judge’s decision that’s just been made a few months ago.”

Chris Caulfield LDRS

.

.

.

.

.

.

One of the easier occupations in local journalism is to be a cheerleader. Another is to be a partisan attack dog. Epsom and Ewell Times intends to be neither.

Our role is simpler and harder: to report fearlessly, scrutinise those who exercise power, publish differing viewpoints, correct errors where necessary, and ask awkward questions whoever happens to occupy the seats of authority.

Readers familiar with our record know this is not a new posture adopted for convenience.

Over recent years, EET has carried extensive and often critical reporting concerning the record of the Residents’ Association administration at Epsom and Ewell Borough Council.

We reported searchingly on the Local Plan controversy — including questions surrounding process, oversight, governance and public confidence in decision-making.

We reported vigorously on the Bourne Hall redevelopment dispute, including clashes between councillors, scrutiny concerns, executive decisions and the wider debate about transparency and democratic accountability.

We covered controversy surrounding Rainbow Leisure Centre and wider issues of public assets, local services and decision-making priorities.

Those reports did not always please those holding office. That is not the point. The point is that power — especially long-established power — deserves examination.

Political circumstances in Epsom and Surrey are now changing rapidly.

The Residents’ Association’s once dominant electoral position has weakened dramatically. Liberal Democrats are increasingly influential in both Epsom and Ewell and the emerging East Surrey structures.

Some might therefore expect a local newspaper to change its tone, soften its scrutiny, or discover fresh loyalties.

They should not.

Our reporting has already shown this.

We reported concerns surrounding attempts to restrict candidate engagement with the press during the recent election period — what became known publicly as the “gagging order” controversy.

More recently, we examined the decisive leadership vote at Epsom & Ewell Borough Council in which two Liberal Democrat votes helped retain the incumbent leadership by a single vote. In doing so, we put questions directly to Liberal Democrat councillor Julian Freeman regarding his stated reasons for supporting the incumbent leader and the consistency of those reasons with aspects of his own political history.

That is not anti-Liberal Democrat reporting. Nor was previous scrutiny anti-Residents’ Association reporting.

It is journalism.

There is a distinction.

Political parties, independents, residents’ groups and elected personalities all understandably wish to advance narratives favourable to themselves. Newspapers have a different obligation.

We are not an extension of any political campaign, administration, opposition group, business interest or activist faction.

We are a local, community-based, not-for-profit news organisation. Our loyalty is to evidence, public interest and readers.

That means some reports will discomfort the Residents’ Association. Others will discomfort Liberal Democrats, Conservatives, independents, campaigners, officials, developers, pressure groups — and occasionally ourselves.

So be it.

A healthy local democracy requires neither compliant journalism nor selective scrutiny reserved for yesterday’s establishment while today’s rising powers enjoy indulgence.

Power changes hands.

The duty to hold it to account does not.

The two Liberal Democrat councillors at Epsom & Ewell Borough Council appear to have played the decisive role in keeping Residents’ Association leader Cllr Hannah Dalton in her Council leadership role despite the dramatic collapse of the RA’s electoral position in the new East Surrey Unitary Council elections.

At the Borough Council’s annual meeting, Dalton survived a leadership challenge from former Residents’ Association councillor, now Independent, Alex Coley, by the narrowest possible margin — 15 votes to 14.

The arithmetic of the vote suggests that at least two RA councillors backed Coley against their own group leader. Equally significant, had just one of the two Liberal Democrat councillors voted with the wider opposition bloc, Coley would have been elected leader.

The Liberal Democrat councillors, College Ward councillor Julian Freeman and Stamford Ward councillor Alison Kelly, backed Dalton.

Their decision has attracted attention because the Residents’ Association’s dominant local position has been severely weakened following the East Surrey Unitary Council elections, in which the RA was effectively wiped out, retaining only two successful candidates.

Asked by Epsom and Ewell Times why he supported Dalton, Cllr Freeman said he objected to politicians leaving the group under whose banner they were elected.

He stated: “I do not support people who are elected as a representative of one political group and then decide to turn their back on those that voted for them. This is something that is happening with increasing regularity on the council at present.”

However, that explanation prompted questions about Freeman’s own political history.

Material reviewed by Epsom and Ewell Times records that in 2006, while a councillor in the London Borough of Sutton, Freeman resigned from the Liberal Democrat group and sat as an Independent councillor. A published council decision notice recorded: “Resolved: To note that Councillor Julian Freeman has resigned as a member of the Liberal Democrat Group and will sit as an Independent Councillor.”

When asked to explain the apparent inconsistency, Freeman disputed the comparison.

He replied that there was an “important distinction”, stating: “I was not approved as a candidate at the time due to an internal dispute with a ward colleague and stood as an independent at the following election. At no point did I willingly decide to change parties as this was not my decision.” He added: “Your facts are wrong as I did not leave during my term of office.”

After EET provided him with evidence of the Sutton council record showing him resigning from the Liberal Democrat group and continuing as an Independent councillor, Freeman refined his position, replying: “You can see that this was towards the end of my term of office and for just one full council meeting following deselection as a future candidate.”

Freeman also told EET that the decision to support Dalton was taken jointly between himself and Cllr Kelly. Kelly separately confirmed that account, stating that the leadership vote position followed discussions between the two councillors.

In a further explanation of his thinking, Freeman said he felt “some sympathy for Hannah (Dalton) and Clive (Woodbridge) in losing their seats” and argued that removing Dalton with just ten months left as leader would amount to “rubbing salt in the wound and would achieve nothing of substance.”

The narrow vote leaves unresolved questions about the future direction of politics at EEBC. Since the last Borough Elections there have been seven councillors who have changed their party or group affiliation. The Residents Association losing five councillors and the Liberal Democrats two out of four and those two both having been leaders of the LibDem Group on the Council.

Dalton remains leader — but only just. The voting numbers suggest a council chamber in which party loyalties and traditional group boundaries are under strain, with dissension inside the Residents’ Association itself and two Liberal Democrat votes proving decisive to the survival of an administration whose wider electoral base has been sharply diminished.

Sam Jones – Reporter