Epsom and Ewell 2-0 North Greenford United. Isuzu F.A. Vase – Second Round. Saturday 9th November 2024.

It’s official! This is now definitely a Vase run! We may have had a bye in the opening round, but since then, Seaford Town, Berks County and now North Greenford United have been defeated to give our boys a place in the last 64 for the first time since we hosted St Neots Town in 2010/11 as we defeated our opponents by two goals to nil at the KGF on Saturday.

North Greenford reached the Quarter-Finals of this competition last year; narrowly losing by the only goal against eventual winners Romford, and went into this match in second place in the North Division of the Combined Counties League, presumably hoping to go a step or two further this time. However, whilst on paper, we may not have been expected to win this tie, particularly after our recent form, we rode an early storm before taking the lead and extended it in the second half, by which time the visitors, for all their energy and effort, seemed to have run out of ideas against a well organised Salts team. In fact, for those who were present seven days previously for our 3-0 home defeat to Sheerwater, this match followed almost exactly the opposite pattern, with only a world class save at the end preventing us from recording a 3-0 scoreline of our own!

The first piece of good news came with the news that our Captain Adam Green had seen his red card at Carshalton Athletic overturned at an F.A. hearing, along with the four match suspension that went with it.

Having Green available was a massive bonus as he has grown in stature this season, while we also welcomed back Dan O’Donovan and Niall Stillwell after serving their suspensions incurred against Abbey Rangers, although we did have a few players cup tied. We also welcomed Surrey football royalty as S.C.F.A. President Ray Lewis was joined by League Chairman and newly elected F.A. Council member Chris Conlon. I am pleased to report that they had an enjoyable and entertaining contest to watch!

Against an away side playing with three at the back, we made a couple of early forays down the flanks with Ali Fofahan and Luke Miller but soon found ourselves on the defensive as a succession of corners were earned at the other end. This was then followed by an unnecessary seventh minute challenge from Green way out on the touchline that was at best exuberant; at worst, very clumsy! The referee made the easy decision to award the yellow card and our Captain would be on a tightrope for the remainder of the match.

O’Donovan was forced into a low save soon after this, and while the ball spun up off him, it was headed away from the danger area by a Salts defender. All of this in the opening nine minutes, yet in the tenth we took the lead. Ethan Nelson-Roberts cropped up on the right wing and pulled the ball back from the touchline where Miller dummied the ball cleverly, giving Fofahan space to pick his spot and sending the ball flying into the far corner of the net, about half way up, from just inside the penalty area.

The goal was a little against the run of play at that time, but the F.A. Vase is no respecter of possession stats or form, and if I’d had a pound for every time we lost out in the Vase when we didn’t deserve to, I’d have a fair sum of money, so we took the lead and ran with it! Not that we were home and dry at this stage by any means as our opponents spent much of the remainder of the first half pushing for an equaliser. O’Donovan nearly got caught out when he left his area and lost the ball out on the touchline. As he retreated, a cross was sent over him, although fortunately it didn’t fall for a visiting striker and we were able to escape.

In truth, very little really fell for the opposition throughout the match as they repeatedly tried and failed to link up with their front men; the ball often running out of play. They had a free kick that was flicked on at the near post, but the chance was headed over at the far post and Toby Young also had to make a headed clearance. However, we could and probably should have extended our lead just after the half hour when Nelson-Roberts closed down a clearance from Greenford keeper Ryan Lehane with the ball squirting out to the right hand side where Carl Oblitey was able to feed Miller, but our tricky winger, usually so clinical, poked the ball wide from twelve yards out.

Green then spurned a great opportunity as he was first to reach a Fofahan free kick, but instead of the thumping header that was required, he made only the merest of touches as he dived and the ball went well wide of the goal. Green then turned provider in first half injury time with a quick delivery in from the right that Fofahan reached first and diverted on goal, although it was almost instantly cut out by Anotida Mano. Although the half went on for another seven minutes, largely due to another injury to Young who made a solid challenge, but came off worse and required Callum Wilson to replace him, we went in at the break, aware that we’d had less possession, but also aware that we had carried at least as much threat from our attacks. But could we hold on to our narrow lead in the second half?

As it turned out, the answer would be yes, and in truth, fairly comfortably as well. After an even few minutes to open the second period, we extended our lead in the 54th minute and it came with one of the best passes I’ve seen in ages, curling with the outside of the foot and straight into the path of Miller. I’m ashamed to say that I didn’t see who made it, as I was by then following the attack, but was informed afterwards that it was Anthony Nazareth who deserved the credit. Miller took the ball in stride and drew his defender before rolling the ball perfectly through to Fofahan who was through on goal, and whilst a defender hurried him into the shot, and even got a touch to the ball some eighteen yards out, the ball still crept into the far corner of the goal to give us a 2-0 Salts.

Green then sent a teasing ball across the six yard box as we threatened a third goal, before we all then had a slight interval while Lehane was treated for cramp, which seemed odd as he hadn’t really been that involved in the match! Craig Dundas tested him soon after with a low drive before we created another good chance when substitute Michele Maccari was put through and as he reached the ball ahead of the exposed Lehane, he just had the task of knocking the ball into the empty net. Only one problem though; he was over thirty yards out and his shot dribbled agonisingly beyond the far post.

The visitors continued to raise the tempo, although their football was becoming more frantic and desperate, trying to force things instead of remaining patient and their attacks broke down more frequently. Occasionally we needed to step in with fouls to break up the play and Dundas, Stillwell and Kionte Gillfillian-Waul all picked up cards, while O’Donovan had one waved in his direction for time wasting too, although he did well with a reflex save to deny a close range shot in the closing moments. Luckily we didn’t exceed the five booking mark and it was only an amazing point blank save from Lehane that kept out substitute Kendall from a couple of yards after Miller had set him up with a low right wing cross. A third goal might have been harsh on the visitors, but by the end, there was no denying that we had deserved the win.

So far we have had a full house of home draws in the F.A. competitions this season (two in the Cup, three in the Vase) although the next round traditionally includes clubs all the way down to the South West, so we might well get a long journey. In fact, the last time our club had an away tie in the Third Round was in 2009/10 when we visited Wellington AFC; right on the border between Somerset and Devon! That said, who would bet against a sixth straight home F.A. competition encounter being revealed in the draw on Monday and taking place at the KGF on 7th December!

Epsom & Ewell: Dan O’Donovan, Niall Stillwell, Kionte Gillfillian-Waul, Adam Green (c), Anthony Nazareth, Toby Young, Luke Miller, Craig Dundas, Carl Oblitey, Ali Fofahan, Ethan Nelson-Roberts

Subs: Callum Wilson for Young (45+6), Michele Maccari for Nelson-Roberts (74), Will Kendall for Fofahan (85)

Report Source: www.eefconline.co.uk

Permission has been granted for The University of Surrey to build a solar farm on green belt land. The scheme will provide the university with 34 per cent of its electricity, helping reach its net zero carbon emissions targets by 2030. 

Working in partnership with SSE Energy Solutions, the university has proposed to place 22,410 solar panels across three fields on the Hogs Back in Guildford. The 12.21 megawatt farm will provide electricity directly to the university by a 50m underground cable link, zig-zagging to a substation on the Stag Hill campus.

After rigorously debating for over an hour, members of Guildford Borough Council’s (GBC) planning committee approved the scheme on November 6. A majority of nine councillors voted in favour, with four against and two abstentions. 

Cllr Joss Bigmore said it was an “incredibly difficult decision”, boiling it down to the “substantial benefits” of renewable energy versus “some of the highest landscape protection areas”. 

Despite the students’ union supporting the scheme, the application attracted over a hundred objections from residents, and 15 other groups. Speakers at the meeting vocalised their anxiety that the harm to the green belt and Area of Great Landscape Value had been “downplayed” by planning officers and feared approval would open the floodgates. 

Cllr Pat Oven raised issues with the solar panels being used on agricultural land, arguing: “You can’t grow crops on any old land but you can graze sheep anywhere; we need to grow food in this country.”

Planning agent Paul Rogers told the committee it is “financially essential” the university decarbonises its energy supply. He added: “A stable university is critical to a thriving Guildford”. Councillors heard that the university’s energy costs have increased significantly, soaring from £4m to £17m per year. 

Will Davies, Chief Operating Officer for the University of Surrey, said: “This solar facility is critically important for our University and the wider Guildford community – helping us to deliver on our commitment to achieve net zero by 2030, while also enhancing our financial stability and energy security after the price shocks caused by the energy crisis.

 “Our modest scheme will boost the county of Surrey’s renewable energy generation capacity by 13%. It will be delivered alongside wider plans to add solar to University rooftops and car parks, and a package of measures to increase our energy efficiency in general.”

Set to go live in 2025, the solar farm will be in operation for 35 years before being decommissioned back to a field.

Image: Solar Power farm unrelated to University

Plans to redevelop Surrey Police headquarters, at Mount Browne, have been given the go-ahead. The changes also include a new access road which the Force say will speed up response times from Mount Browne by two minutes. 

The significant modifications to the police’s home include demolition and rebuilding of the dog school, accommodation for Police students, and a new Contact and Deployment centre, a multi-storey car park with electrical charging points. 

Members of Guildford Borough Council (GBC) planning committee unanimously approved both applications on November 6. Councillors praised the application for the compactness of the development, with no overall height increase and limited harm to the Green Belt. 

One of the applications included a new western arm to Artington Roundabout, which the Force says will reduce traffic on neighbouring roads like Sandy Lane and The Ridges. 

Straight through the middle of an open field, officers highlighted the new access road would be visible and harm the Green Belt as well as agricultural land. However, they also noted even small improvements in Police response times can have a large positive impact on how emergencies can be handled.

The second application relates to the redevelopment and modernisation of the site, including demolition and construction of operational buildings, as well as internal refurbishment of the old building, corridor wing and sports building.

Mount Browne, on the outskirts of Guildford, has been the headquarters for Surrey Police for over 70 years. The current campus contains a large number of buildings which have been constructed mainly on a piecemeal basis and are judged no longer fit for purpose by the Force. 

The benefits of the scheme include high quality facilities to meet the ongoing operational needs of the Police, as well as staff retention and well-being, according to the report.  Replacing the dog kennels was also said to provide significant improvements to operations. Officers told the committee that currently all the training dogs can see each other in the kennels, so if one dog barks “they all go off”.

Surrey’s Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) Lisa Townsend has welcomed the decision, calling it a “significant milestone for the Force”. A six-week judicial review period now awaits before Surrey Police can take decisions on the next steps. 

Mrs Townsend added: “Mount Browne has been Surrey Police’s home for over 70 years, but the buildings here are run down, expensive to maintain and simply no longer meet the requirements of a modern police force.”

The PCC and Surrey Police’s Chief Officer decided in 2021 that the Force should remain at Mount Browne, on the edge of Guildford, rather than seek a new location.

Image – unrelated dog in a kennel

Nescot college in Reigate Road, Ewell, won “Employer of the Year’ at the Surrey Business Awards last night, against some stiff competition. (NESCOT stands for North-East Surrey College of Technology.)

The Surrey Business Awards, which took place at G Live in Guildford, is the largest event of its kind and the most prestigious in the county. Winners were chosen by a distinguished panel of judges, consisting of industry experts and influential business leaders.

Nescot has an annual turnover of £25m and is one of the largest employers in East Surrey, supporting over 7,000 learners and 500 businesses each year. The award highlights that Nescot’s greatest asset is its staff, who work 365 days a year (the farm never closes!) to ensure that the 60-acre site is fully functioning and providing high quality training and facilities.

Nescot is rightly proud of its work culture and its leadership, with 650 staff who support thousands of learners each year, but also have the opportunity to learn, develop and progress in their careers.

Julie Kapsalis, CEO and Principal at Nescot said “We’re over the moon to win the ‘Employer of the Year’ award.  Nescot is a unique and special place to work and our investment in staff wellbeing and professional development is a key priority. We have an incredible community of dedicated staff who share our vision and work tirelessly, for both our students and our staff. This award is for them.”

Julie was also recognised personally last night with a nomination for ‘Businessperson of the Year’ as a result of her work both within the college and externally.

As well as her role at Nescot, she has been Chair of the Coast to Capital Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) for the last four years and on the Board for over a decade. The role helped to oversee £275 million of investment in the region which supports infrastructure, skills, heritage and businesses. For the past three years she also served as Chair of Catalyst South – a group of six LEPs covering the South East as a direct voice to Government. Julie is also a director, trustee, advisor and mentor and already has awards under her belt for inspirational leadership, corporate social responsibility and being a community hero.

In addition to the award win and nomination, Nescot was also a proud sponsor of the ‘Future Talent of the Year’ award at the event, attended by business leaders and guests from across Surrey. 

Anyone interested in joining the team at ‘Employer of the Year’ – Nescot, can visit www.nescotcareers.co.ukor email jobs@nescot.ac.uk

Photo: Nescot team: Donna Patterson – Chief People Officer, Andy Cowan – Deputy Principal Curriculum and Quality, Julie Kapsalis – Principal and CEO and Sarah Watson – Chief Operating Officer.

The decision by Epsom & Ewell Borough Council 7th November to approve three modular homes for temporary accommodation on Fairview Road has ignited a fierce debate. The council framed this decision as a compassionate and financially prudent response to an acute housing crisis, while residents, local leaders, and some council members aired strong concerns about road safety, infrastructure, and the integrity of the planning process.

A Much-Needed Solution, According to the Council

The council has justified the development as a crucial step in addressing homelessness in the borough, where families are often displaced to temporary accommodations outside Epsom, causing significant disruptions to their lives. With over 160 households in temporary housing and 90 more in costly nightly-paid accommodation outside the borough, the need for local temporary housing solutions is undeniable.

Councillor Clive Woodbridge, (RA Ewell Village) Chair of the Community and Wellbeing Committee, remarked in the council’s press release, “Epsom & Ewell has proportionately one of the highest numbers of homeless households living in temporary accommodation in England. Increasing temporary accommodation provision for local families will not only be life-changing for those being housed now and in the future but will also have a positive impact on the borough as a whole.”

The council also highlighted the economic benefits of the modular homes. According to their press release, the development could reduce the need for expensive nightly-paid accommodation, generating long-term savings. Funding for the project includes £75,000 from the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities’ Brownfield Land Relief Fund. “This project is a decent thing to do,” Councillor Humphrey Reynolds (RA West Ewell) noted during the meeting. “We need to find somewhere for families to live.”

Road Safety and Infrastructure Concerns Dominate the Meeting

The Planning Committee meeting, was chaired by Councillor Steven McCormick, (RA Woodcote and Langley) and the meeting revealed divisions on the issue. Many residents and councillors raised significant concerns about the state of Fairview Road, a narrow, privately maintained road with limited pedestrian pathways, which is already busy with schoolchildren and local traffic.

The Principal Planning Officer, introduced the application, clarifying that the site has existing access from Fairview Road and is currently overgrown, having previously served as a builder’s storage yard. She explained that the modular buildings would “meet a significantly higher standard of temporary accommodation” than current options in the borough.

However, Fairview Road residents, represented by Debbie Ransom, voiced fears about the impact of the development on local traffic and safety. “The road is already hazardous, narrow, and below minimum width standards,” Ransom asserted. “With this development, traffic on Fairview Road could increase by 50%, and the road simply cannot sustain that increase. It is already dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists due to insufficient lighting and narrow paths.”

This sentiment was echoed by Jo Garrod, Headteacher of nearby Glyn School. “Fairview Road is extremely narrow, with no dedicated pavement and poor lighting, which makes it difficult for our students to walk safely,” Garrod said in a formal objection. “Any increase in traffic will heighten the risk of accidents.”

Legal Challenges and Community Impact

The legal right of the council to use Fairview Road as an access point was also questioned. Residents claim that the council lost its legal right to access the site via Fairview Road when it sold an easement to Sainsbury’s for access through an adjacent car park. “The council no longer has the right of access through Fairview Road, and we as residents have refused to grant such an easement,” Ransom stated on behalf of residents. She argued that any additional wear and tear on the road, already funded by resident contributions, would be unacceptable.

Councillor Alison Kelly (Liberal Democrat Stamford) queried whether alternative access routes had been considered, such as Kiln Lane, but the officer responded that the council could only assess the application as submitted. “It’s up to the applicant to propose alternative access, not the council,” she said, adding that Surrey County Council had raised no objections based on road safety.

The discussion revealed frustrations among councillors who felt limited by what they saw as procedural obstacles. “If this was an adopted road, we’d be looking at solutions like yellow lines or even street lighting to improve safety,” Councillor Jan Mason (RA Ruxley) said. “But with this private road, we’re stymied. Surrey County Council has done nothing to mitigate these issues, and I find it difficult to believe that they wouldn’t see a problem here.”

Balancing Homelessness Needs and Community Safety

While the safety issues were widely acknowledged, some councillors, including Kate Chinn (Labour Court), stressed the need to consider the positive impact of the development on the borough’s homeless families. “For many families facing eviction through no fault of their own, the option to stay within the borough is critical,” said Chinn. “These modular homes could offer stability and security, allowing children to stay in their schools and families to keep local support systems.”

Councillor Lucy McIntyre (RA West Ewell) also voiced support, stating, “I understand the residents’ objections, but I believe these units represent a positive step for the borough overall, especially with the council’s focus on homelessness.”

However, other councillors, such as Jan Mason, remained sceptical. “It’s all very well to support homelessness initiatives, but this road simply isn’t suitable for further development,” Mason argued. “Adding three units to this unsuitable road will only make matters worse, and we’ve got no way to improve the infrastructure to make it safer.”

Conditions and Approval Amid Ongoing Concerns

The committee approved the development on a temporary five-year basis, subject to several conditions, including amendments to conditions to reflect a review of the scheme’s necessity and to ensure parking spaces were allocated to individual units. The council stipulated that after five years, a review would assess if there remained a need for such temporary accommodation.

During the discussion, Councillor Phil Neale (RA Cuddington) queried the proposed red colour of the modular units in the CAD drawings, expressing concerns that it might clash with the neighbourhood’s character. Planning officer clarified that the colour was a default setting in the drawings, not the intended final appearance, and that materials and finishes would be selected to harmonise as much as possible with the area.

In the end, the vote carried with seven members supporting the application, zero opposing, and one abstention. Councillor Phil Neale, reflecting on the vote, stated, “We know this is a tough decision, but as councillors, we live in the borough, we know the people, and we understand the difficulties of homelessness. We have to be both compassionate and professional in our decisions, and I believe this project warrants support.”

A Divisive Outcome

The approval of these modular homes highlights a difficult balancing act in Epsom & Ewell, where urgent social needs clash with established community concerns and limited local infrastructure. While the council aims to address a pressing homelessness crisis, residents worry that Fairview Road lacks the capacity and infrastructure to absorb additional traffic and maintain safety.

As this project proceeds, the council will need to navigate ongoing concerns about road access, safety improvements, and potential legal challenges from residents. For now, the decision stands as a testament to the challenges councils face in balancing local development with the needs of vulnerable populations.

Related reports:

Epsom’s homelessness crisis

What are the solutions to Epsom’s homeless crisis?

Today, Sir Ed Davey MP, leader of the resurgent Liberal Democrat Party, accompanied by Epsom and Ewell MP Helen Maguire, visited the “Ukraine Hub”. Offices generously provided by the owners of the Ashley Centre and where Epsom and Ewell Borough Council has waived all business rates.

The premises are home to the Epsom and Ewell Refugee Network and Surrey Stands With Ukraine.

Sir Ed was introduced to the leaders of the refugee network, Nina Kaye and Jo Sherring, who told him of the hardships faced by refugees fleeing persecution and conflict. He saw English classes in session and shook hands with many refugee students.

The Party leader and new MP were given a tour of the Hub and took part in packing winter survival packs for Ukraine. Costing £50 the smart packs contain a gas cooker, a power bank and a flexible re-chargeable torch. Essential items fo civilians effected by the inevitable power outages that will occur this winter throughout Ukraine.

If you wish to donate please visit Surrey Stands With Ukraine and businesses that sponsor full packs will benefit from the charity’s extensive social media coverage.

Sir Ed then helped pack some survival kits and proceeded to help clean walking aids the charity is sending to Ukraine.

The Hub was full of volunteers for both charities who work closely together and a press posse was all around.

Sir Ed undertook a series of interviews with media representatives and fielded questions ranging from the election of Donald Trump to the future for Ukraine.

Image: Sir Ed Davey MP and Helen Maguire MP and Roy Deadman of SSWU in Epsom’s Ukraine HUB

An ex-police officer has been banned from the profession after she “maliciously” made a “false” complaint about child sexual abuse to the NSPCC, a misconduct hearing has ruled. The former Surrey officer, PC Tina Anscombe was found culpable of providing false and very misleading information to the NSPCC about a family.

Ms Anscombe has maintained she genuinely believed her concerns were valid and has denied any wrongdoing. The police misconduct hearing panel, held on November 5 and 6, found Ms Anscombe breached professional standards of behaviour as she acted dishonestly and with the purpose of causing harm to a mother and her family.

Recognising the potentially “devastating impact” the false claim could have had on the individual and the family, the panel found Ms Anscombe to have undermined public confidence and trust in the police.

Ms Anscombe was found to have made a referral to the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) about child sexual abuse “in bad faith” on April 30, 2020. Representing Surrey Police, Robert Talalay claimed that former PC Anscombe had “abused her powers” as a police officer to potentially act as “revenge”.

The panel heard Ms Anscombe had stated in the referral form that Mrs XY was aware of the potential abuse and was not addressing her responsibilities as a mother. Mr Talalay told the panel the former PC had given the impression she was close to the family, suggesting she had seen them ‘one month ago’, when she had never laid eyes on the family. She also indicated she witnessed behaviour she had referred to on the form.

Children’s Services visited the family in direct response to the NSPCC report and found the allegations were “baseless and unsound”, according to Surrey Police’s legal representative.

Speaking on behalf of Ms Anscombe, Tom Arthur said at the misconduct meeting, that the former PC felt “duty bound” to share the information about alleged child abuse. He said her only concern was to safeguard the children.

The former officer, who did not attend the hearing, appealed to the panel to consider her state of mind and the “shame” she felt at work as her colleagues knew her then-husband, a Detective Constable with the force, was going through misconduct proceedings. He was sacked in December 2020, following allegations of a sexual relationship with someone he met during the course of his duties. Ms Anscombe resigned from Surrey Police after 21 years of service in October 2021.

At the hearing this week, Ms Anscombe was found to have breached her responsibilities in failing to identify herself as a police officer to the NSPCC or raising her safeguarding concerns with a sergeant within Surrey Police. Mr Talalay argued Ms Anscombe had submitted “false and misleading information” to the NSPCC as she did not identify herself as a ‘professional’ but as ‘other relative’ without explaining further detail in the form.

The misconduct panel heard the ex-officer did not go through the usual channels to report potential child abuse, which she could have done through her sergeant at work. Ms Anscombe said she feared if she reported her concerns to the sergeant, her actions would be labelled as malicious. Instead, she chose to anonymously refer the family via the NSPCC.

The misconduct panel found that Ms Anscombe’s behaviour had amounted to gross misconduct and, if she was still a serving officer, she would have been dismissed without notice. Ms Anscombe will be placed on the barred list from other police forces and the Fire and Rescue Service.

Chief Superintendent Andy Rundle, Head of Professional Standards Department, said: “The public rightly expects officers to behave in a professional manner, with the highest standards of honesty, integrity, and respect. Former officer Anscombe showed a clear disregard for these expected behaviours when she made a false allegation to the NSPCC, identifying herself as the relative of a family with whom she had no previous contact.

“Within this allegation, she made an inaccurate claim, which further subjected a family to unnecessary investigation and intrusion. Anscombe’s behaviours demonstrated a lack of respect for the family and was a clear breach of the standards of behaviour expected of a police officer.”

Chief SI Rundle said he was supportive of the panel’s findings, adding the department’s investigation into the case demonstrate the force’s commitment to robustly dealing with misconduct. “Thankfully, the majority of our officers and act with integrity and work tirelessly to serve the public,” he said.

Fostering can mean everything to those involved; that is the message of a powerful new fostering film from over 100 councils. 

‘Everything’, a new fostering recruitment film, will have its Surrey premier at a private screening and fostering information session at Nova Cinema, Woking, on Thursday 14 November. 

As well as celebrating our existing community of Surrey foster carers, the event will offer residents who may be considering fostering the opportunity to learn all about the fostering journey. A panel discussion with foster carers, care experienced young people and fostering staff will provide the opportunity for questions, as well as to hear directly from those with first-hand experience of the power becoming a foster carer has to transform lives. Not just those of children being fostered, but of the foster carers and their families too. 

Highlighting the need for more foster carers in Surrey, Councillor Clare Curran, Cabinet Member for Children, Families and Lifelong Learning, said; 

“At Surrey County Council we have over 1,000 children in our care and we currently have just under 400 foster families. We want children to live and thrive in homes within the county, where this is in the right thing for them. While 42% of fostered children in Surrey live with our foster carers within the geographical borders of the county, our aim is that by 2030 that number will be up to 65%. 

“The ‘Everything’ project has given our fostering service an amazing film that shows the long-term impact that fostering can have, with relationships between carers and children lasting well into adulthood. Every council wants to recruit more foster carers, and by collaborating to produce this emotionally powerful film, we can show people how rewarding and life-changing being a foster carer can be. 

“The message is the same for all of us – we need more people to step forward and become foster carers. ‘Everything’ will help us to reach more people in our communities and encourage them to find out more about this really rewarding role. 

“We are committed to giving the vulnerable children and young people we care for the best chance to thrive, and for the vast majority of them that would be to live with a local fostering family. Our ambition is for at least 30 new foster families across Surrey to join us by the end of March 2025.” 

Children who enter the care system have often experienced trauma and instability in their lives, and a caring, stable foster family can make a significant difference in their wellbeing and development.  

Nationally, there are currently over 70,000 children living with around 56,000 foster families in the UK. However, there is still a significant shortage of foster carers, with around 9,265 new foster families needed in the next year alone.  

To learn more about fostering for Surrey, register online for your free place at our fostering information session on 14 November, or visit Fostering – Surrey County Council. 

The ‘Everything’ film 

‘Everything’ is the seventh film produced by a growing partnership of councils and children’s trusts to promote local authority fostering. The ‘Everything’ project is the largest collaboration yet, with participants from Cumbria to Devon and Lancashire to Essex. 

‘Everything’ follows foster carer Mike and his family on a journey through time with two of the children they have looked after, who are now adults. A surprise 60^th birthday party for Mike gives Will and Zara a chance to reflect on how being fostered made a difference to their lives, thanking him for everything. 

Thanks to footage shot on a genuine old camcorder, we are taken to the 1990s, to see how Will settles into the family. We also jump back to the 2010s, when a young Zara is being taught to play the guitar by Mike, something that comes full circle when she performs a song at the party. Mike’s son Chris is involved throughout, showing the important role the children of foster carers play.  

The concluding message of the film is that what you do with your life could forever change someone else’s – encouraging people to foster in order to make that change. 

The film was developed with the input and insight of foster carers and people with care experience, was produced by Reel TwentyFive and project managed by public sector media partner CAN/Rachel Brown. Project Director, Rachel Brown describes the main message of the film: “Many people don’t realise how common it is for relationships made through fostering to last well beyond the ‘official’ caring role. This has a huge impact on the lives of those who have been fostered, giving them stability and security well into adulthood. 

“We also wanted to reflect how the children of foster carers make a difference to children when they come into care, helping them to feel part of the family. 

“Having over 100 councils taking part in the project, the film will reach a very wide audience, encouraging people to find out more and take the steps towards becoming a foster carer.  

“Fostering with your local council or children’s trust means you can better support local children and young people who need a safe and nurturing home where they can grow and thrive.” 

Sarah Thomas, chief executive of the Fostering Network says: “The Fostering Network has been proud to support the collaborative film projects since ‘Giants’ in 2017. It’s great to see local authority fostering services pooling resources to produce another amazing film. ‘Everything’ will help to amplify their message about the chronic shortage of fostering households, encouraging more people to come forward and foster.” 

Epsom & Ewell Borough Council is proud to announce that Remembrance Day memorial services, parades and activities will take place to honour those who have died in the service of their country and give thanks to those past and present from the armed forces. Formal Acts of Remembrance commenced with the annual opening of the Garden of Remembrance at Bourne Hall Park on Wednesday 6 November.

The Garden is now open to the public until the end of November, giving people the opportunity to take time and reflect.

The Mayor of Epsom & Ewell, the Chief Executive of Epsom & Ewell Borough Council and local schoolchildren officially opened the Garden of Remembrance. Children performed songs and poems and placed poppy tokens to honour and remember all those who have died in the service of their country.

Other Remembrance Day activities

Large poppies, kindly donated by the Royal British Legion, have been placed in Epsom High Street, Ewell High Street and Stoneleigh Broadway alongside other poppies placed around the borough.

Events and activities also taking place around the borough will include the following.

Saturday 9 November 2024
The Mayor of Epsom & Ewell, and Chair of the Royal British Legion will carry out many acts of Remembrance around the borough. These will include thanking poppy sellers at different sites, wreath laying including at the War Memorial in Ashley Road, Epsom, and joining a Remembrance Day procession that starts at the Army Reserve Centre and ends at St Mary’s Church in Ewell.

Remembrance Sunday: 10 November 2024
At 10:33 am, the Clergy, Mayor, Councillors and the Royal British Legion will lead a formal procession from the Army Reserve Centre to St Mary’s Church in Ewell, this will be followed by wreath laying and a Remembrance Day service at the monument in the churchyard.
Armistice Day Service (11/11/11): Monday 11 November 2024
Members of the public are invited to join a ceremony at the Clock Tower at 10:40am in Epsom Market Place. The Mayor, Chief Executive and elected Councillors will join the Royal British Legion, armed forces, veterans and local schools at the service whicht ends with observation of the nationwide Two Minute Silence at 11am.

For more information on Epsom & Ewell Borough Council’s Remembrance Day activities – Remembrance in the borough of Epsom & Ewell | Epsom and Ewell Borough Council

Jackie King, Chief Executive said “This poignant occasion provides us all with the time to reflect and think about those who have served their country, those who have paid the ultimate price with their lives, and those who continue to bravely serve in the armed forces. At the going down of the sun and in the morning. We will remember them.”

Dear Editor,

My 12 year old son spoke at the last local council planning meeting, about the importance of not building on the green belt, and I am writing to you, as an Epsom and Ewell Stamford ward resident, to echo my agreement. I’ve gone through the Land Assessment and the Draft Local Plan regulation 18, and am very concerned about the future of our green spaces in Epsom and Ewell. 

While I realise there are many ways to work out how many houses to build in Epsom and Ewell, I believe it should be based on how much brownfield space we have, rather than what is possible if we build on the green belt. We obviously need to build social houses (my understanding is that there are about 1,300 families on the waiting list in Epsom and Ewell), and we must do our part with helping to build a proportion of the houses likely to be needed nationally (which the office of national statistics estimates at about a 10% increase over 15 years). The local plan suggests an increase of about 14.5% (on top of 1,300 needed for social houses), so arguably more than we need to build.

I believe an alternative local plan has been sent to the council showing that it is possible to build all the houses we need on brownfield sites identified in the Land Assessment, plus there will be more spaces that become available over the next 15 years. This means that there are no exceptional circumstances in order to justify changing green belt boundaries.

A Reigate and Banstead Green Party councillor, who is also a town planner, gave a talk earlier in the year explaining that if you build on many small brownfield sites (instead of thousands of houses on one green site), you get small, local firms tendering for the work, instead of big developers, so increasing local employment.

I am also concerned that the council is not listening to residents, with their own consultation showing that 87% of respondents are opposed to building on the green belt. And a 12,000 signature petition has been ignored. While I realise there was a concern that not all the people who signed it definitely live in Epsom and Ewell, I think it is very likely that a huge proportion of them do.

Additionally, I feel I cannot leave out how disappointed I am that the Local Plan does not specify energy standards to be met for residential house building. I believe the excuse /explanation for this is the 2022 Local Plan Viability Assessment, which includes some analysis of estimated additional costs to building if various environmental standards are adhered to. I believe that this data is incomplete as it isn’t clear whether it considers the lower cost of running an energy efficient house and the resulting potential impact in the sale price of the property. It also doesn’t compare these figures to the cost of retro-fitting houses, and doesn’t mention the financial cost to the country if we fail to protect ourselves against the worse effects of climate change.

With not acting to remove green belt following the consultation, and dragging the process out, we are now at a point where if we delay any longer, new government rules will mean drastically higher number of houses required to be built in Epsom and Ewell, and could almost wipe out all the green spaces (except The Common) over the next 15 years. Please act quickly to avoid this!

And I cannot stress enough to please remember the importance of increasing green and re-wilded spaces across the UK in order to help mitigate the worst effects of the climate crisis. Green spaces are needed for free and natural carbon sequestration, reducing air pollution, natural flood management, and for our declining wildlife. They are also used as important community spaces, and children’s’ sports, as my son and his friend pointed out in the last planning meeting.

Yours faithfully,

Yvonne Grunwald – Stamford Ward Epsom.