1. John Northcott

    Visitors to this site will almost certainly have seen the many fulsome eulogies, in the local press and on the Ashtead Residents Association website, to John who sadly died on 16 March having resigned from the Council only a few days previously due to his deteriorating health.  The Ashtead Independent Councillors would like to add the following brief tribute.

    John had had an exceptionally good grounding in the ways of local government, having been on the Ashtead Residents’ Standing Committee for many, many years before he stood as an Ashtead Independent for the Common Ward in 2000.  He had a prestigious appetite for “reading the paperwork” and you knew that we would always be fully briefed on the topic in hand.  What he didn’t know about Planning wasn’t worth knowing and the fellow Councillors and Council Officers listened carefully when John spoke about Planning matters.  He was extremely well respected at Pippbrook by his fellow Councillors & Officers;  so much so know that, on learning of his death, the flag at the Council Offices was lowered to half-mast and as his funeral began, there was a minutes silence at Pippbrook – a mark of respect from those there and a mark of the man.

    John also “took on” Thames Water when there was a spate of flooding in his Ward;  unsurprisingly, John prevailed and the matter was dealt with.  He also took a very keen interest in the Level Crossing, a feature of his Ward, and was frequently seen visiting the overnight works in the early hours of the morning, making sure he knew what was happening, in case he wanted to revert to Network Rail.

    It may seem from the above that John was “all work and no play” but that would be very far from the truth:  he had many other interests and enjoyed a good laugh, often at his own expense.

    He was a lovely man, who will be sorely missed by his fellow Ashtead Independents, and Councillors of other hues, along with many in Ashtead.

    Our thoughts and prayers go out to Gill, his wife, and his children, Richard and Clare, and the wider family.

  2. Resurfacing of the A24 through Ashtead

    Surrey Highways had intended to carry out resurfacing between Bowyers Close and Parkers Hill and between Uplands and the Knoll roundabout imminently but the latest we hear is that this may not happen until April or May 2016.  Whenever it does happen, considerable disruption is likely, especially if it coincides with the expected second closure of Pebble Hill.

  3. Statement of Community Involvement

    This public document which forms part of MVDC’s local plan is currently being revised and will shortly be available for public comment. Amongst other things it sets out how and to what extent neighbours will be consulted about individual planning applications. At present only very close neighbours are notified for reasons of economy but an internet based system is being suggested which will allow residents to opt to be notified of any applications within specified distances of their properties.  If this interests you, keep an eye out for the consultation on the MVDC website.

  4. Esso Filling Station site in The Street

    Tesco have recently taken steps to meet all the pre-commencement conditions attached to their planning permission, and so they are likely now to carry out enough preliminary groundworks to preserve the permission which otherwise would lapse in November.  The site is still on the market and we have been informed that at least one buyer is negotiating with Tesco but no announcement has been made so far.  We assume that as the planning permission is for a retail shop, it would not be worth Tesco’s while to preserve it unless the potential buyer was itself a retail shop.

  5. School Places and provision of Youth Services

    It has recently been announced by Surrey County Council that Barnett Wood Lane School will NOT now be expanded.  Apparently, the birth rate locally in 2013 and 2014 has dropped and the expected numbers will not now materialise.  Taken together with the cutbacks expected at the Youth Centre and the uncertainty over the future of the Surestart programme, this is yet another blow to the children and young people in Ashtead.  Councillor Chris Townsend drew attention to this in a recent Surrey County Council meeting, and his thoughts were reported in the Leatherhead Advertiser.

  6. Woodfield Lane Widening

    The latest item is now first – so that you see the newest article first.  Or, if you are coming to this fresh, please go to the bottom and read your way up.


    This is  Cllr Townsend’s reply to Cllr Hunt’s explanation, which is below:

    Number of points to answer concerning Cllr. Hunt’s riposte to many residents on the Woodfield Lane widening project (please read all 8 points as they provide clear and honest responses to each of Cllr. Hunt’s.

    1. Planning monies as he says can be objected to by the developer that has provided them, although I have been reliably informed by an officer, that has never happened at all in his experience. There appears to be a ‘threat’ that the developer might be told they ‘should’ object ! Having said that it is SCC who have responsibility for this Infrastructure money and the relevant minutes of the Local Committee, who unanimously agreed this project, state clearly ‘Funding has been identified from developments in the Ashtead area which should be sufficient to cover the cost of scheme development and construction of whichever option is taken forward.’ There is every reason to see the money used for the widening project can be related to the 93 homes constructed on the Parsons Mead site, as a considerable number of residents who now live in those homes will be using the route down Woodfield Lane to the station. The widening project will obviously ease the congestion for them as well as all other Ashtead residents. It is not ‘stretching any test of reasonableness’.

    2. Schemes mentioned by Cllr. Hunt have been pavements on the Lanes, one-way system on the Lanes and a recent one that I have been talking to residents about, namely a crossing point on Ottways Lane. Other Councillors who represent Village ward have previously listened to residents’ concerns who felt the first 2 proposed schemes mentioned would increase traffic speeds and reduce safety. What has been suggested recently to our Councillors is a 20mph speed limit or traffic calming.

    3. The issue of the trees has been addressed with both SCC and MVDC officers, and their safety and protection is paramount and has been confirmed by those officers.

    4. Cllr Hunt’s claim on the A24 crossing nearby Stag Leys is dubious to say the least as this was an integral part of the Cycle Path project completed last year. A SCC project with no involvement from Cllr. Hunt.

    5. To say he has a clear mandate from the election is stretching things. The two election leaflets that mention the widening project state ‘The Parsons Mead development money should be spent in the Lanes area – not widening Woodfield Lane which would threaten the avenue of trees near the station’ and under Issues on the Doorsteps – ‘The lack of a safe crossing point in Ottways Lane in the Maple Road to Ottways Avenue area. Surely the Parsons Mead planning money could fund that’ .I’ve touched on that above in 2. Another stating ‘The threat to the avenue of trees near the railway station from the ARA/Independent dogma to widen the road and it would be better to try yellow lines’ (again the trees are covered clearly in 3. above). Neither of these are Pledges from Cllr. Hunt – he states clearly on his last leaflet that he has five 2015 pledges and none mention in any way the widening project. Just for information Cllr. Hunt has one of those 5 pledges to ‘Resolve the Tesco site’ – How ? might be the question.
    Furthermore Cllr. Hunt is but one Councillor in the Village ward, there are 2 other Independents representing that ward, as well as two Independents representing the Common ward (in which this project is situated) and two more Independents in the Park ward (where the Parsons Mead site is situated). That makes 6 out of 7 Councillors in Ashtead that all support the scheme, one of which is also the County Councillor that is enabling it to go forward. How Cllr. Hunt says he has a mandate is beyond me.

    6. The time taken for the project was due to Common Land issues known at the time of the consultation and in the agreed Local Committee report, which stated ‘Officers enter in discussion with the appropriate authorities to resolve the common land issues associated with Option 3 (Parking Lay-by)’. It has taken around a year to get Minister of State approval and may have taken longer if not for the intervention from our local MP Chris Grayling. It is also to be remembered that the weather damage over Christmas 2013 and early 2014 resulted in many SCC Highways staff having to be taken off their other jobs, and as a result the timing slipped. Had this not been the case the project might well have been completed by now. Local Government does move slowly, unfortunately, but we had been ready to start until Cllr. Hunt’s intervention. The comprehensive consultation, as residents know, had a clear majority for the road-widening solution over the other two options (yellow lines and a one-way system).

    7. A land swop is mentioned by Cllr. Hunt as ‘shrouded in secrecy’ and ‘this secret land swop’. The Conservative Executive member responsible for Assets (eg. land) knows about this swop and has done so for some time – the Leader of MVDC confirmed that very recently to me. This swop only involves the land at Woodfield Lane and land at Deepdene in Dorking. No other land is involved, so the ‘piece of land formerly used for car parking …..’ mentioned by Cllr. Hunt is not involved in any way, a complete ‘red herring’. Again as the land is not in his ward he would not necessarily have known but the Councillors in the Common ward, where the land lies, do know.

    8. Cllr. Hunt’s very last sentence again refers to possible action by the developer on the use of their money which is covered in item 1 above. I wonder what Cllr. Hunt is suggesting ?


    In response to the emails that Cllr Friend received, Cllr Hunt issued the following email:

    Cllr Friend has kindly forwarded the email you have written about this scheme and me.  It is a pity that the ARA/AiA email issued by Mr Unthank requesting an email campaign had not suggested that emails be sent to me as well since I am being portrayed as the one person stopping the scheme.

    As part of the Infrastructure Needs Review which the District Council has launched, the infrastructure needs of areas are now being reviewed.  This approach is in contrast to that of the previous coalition Independent-led administration which was a housing numbers led approach (you may remember the “Housing and Gypsy Travellers Sites” review which called for possible sites to be suggested to meet the housing need).  I whole heartedly agree with the new approach as it means that the infrastructure needs of areas – schools, doctors, drainage and yes, highways – will be a key consideration in then considering the housing numbers that an area can realistically cope with.  Such as review will help Ashtead in my opinion, and when I have explained this to residents they agree.  Do you?

    It follows that the use of Planning Gain monies from developers will be considered in the light of that review. This is because if say a school is full, then new housing could presumably only be considered after that school were expanded or a new one built, rather than have to accept catch-up.   Likewise if a road can cope with more traffic it will then be able to accept more housing, whereas a road with an existing and unsolved traffic issue will presumably be less likely to have more housing. 

    Further, and as far as I am aware this has not been stated in the SCC consultation or the ARA/AiA emails so far, there is a legal requirement that planning infrastructure monies can only be spent on items which relate to the development which led to the monies being generated.  This means that if the road scheme is not directly related to the development scheme then the developer can demand the money back.  While a couple of housing schemes on the northern side of the railway line have generated highways infrastructure monies and so improving the capacity of Woodfield Lane to accept more housing development on the northern side of the railway line is fully in accordance with such monies (and indeed further housing might be an unintended and unfortunate consequence of road widening since the capacity of Woodfield Lane has always been used to help protect the area from additional housing numbers), the possible road widening would cost far more than those existing schemes have generated.  As a result the proposal would require a significant portion of the highways funds generated by the Parsons Mead development in Park Ward, approximately one mile away from the railway station.  While some have argued that the 94 houses in that scheme use the dozen or so spaces in Woodfield Lane for parking, I think it is stretching any test of reasonableness since the width and parking issues in Woodfield Lane pre-date the Parsons Mead development.  Indeed the previous Independent County Councillor, David Gollin, looked at possibly widening the road and concluded against it due to the risk of affecting the trees.  Further, at the time that the Parsons Mead development was approved (and I voted against it so it is not that I love that development!) the highways issues that arose concerns were related to traffic in the roads near the scheme; no one at the committee said that it would cause issues at Woodfield Lane.  As a consequence the developer could – and should – object to the use of their money so far away from their housing development.

    Further, at the time of the original SCC consultation some three years ago there were no costings given on the consultation forms to allow people to judge whether items were cost-effective. We are all fully aware that the cost would not be a council tax issue directly, but clearly if the money were not spent here it could be spent on other improvements.  Indeed I have many residents in my Village Ward who want the Parsons Mead highways money to be spent near that housing scheme.

    As you do not live in Village Ward you will probably have not seen the leaflets issued in the recent election (although I am aware that Mr Unthank did copy parts of one leaflet in another mass email issued by him just before polling day so you may have read the part that was copied together with his comments).  In that election I made clear statements that I agreed with residents in Village Ward who want the Parsons Mead highways money to be spent on highways safety schemes near that development.  I led the calls to have a pedestrain crossing installed on Leatherhead Road near Stag Leys, and I met with Ashtead’s County Councillor to raise with him the possible location where it was indeed subsequently installed – this encourages children who live on that side of Leatherhead Road to be walked to school rather than be driven.  This reduces car traffic in Ottways Lane, and so helps to reduce the all year increase that the housing development has generated.  That is the type of scheme that residents in my ward who have seen the effects of the Parsons Mead development on local roads want.  Hence my clear committment in the recent election to seek the highways monies spent near the scheme.  It is not – as some have tried to portray it and some seem to have accepted – simply ‘Chris Hunt trying to stop the widening’.  I stood on a clear election platform on the issue and not only was I re-elected but the Independent candidate polled the lowest share of the vote that I have ever known.  I can understand that the ARA/AiA must be upset that their candidate did so poorly, but I believe that I have a clear election mandate in this matter.  When combined with the council’s committment for an Infrastructure Needs Review when assessing housing numbers it is not, as Mr Unthank has said just me stopping the scheme.

    Further, I have always been a councillor who has promoted public consulation over issues.  While the ARA/AiA email bemoans this ‘delay’, I would say that this widening project has taken years – is it over three? – to get to the stage when the Common land issued were only recently stated to have been resolved.  At the time of the initial consultation it was not stated that it would take so long and I wonder if people would have voted for the schemes they did knowing the timeframe or costs.  Indeed no one option secured a clear mandate.  One or two people have tried to portray the road widening and the one way schemes as both ‘against the yellow line option’ but they were not presented as a joint scheme and in a similar manner, by combining the support for the yellow line and the one way options, one could say that there was a clear mandate against the road widening!  I have note tried to merge such schemes to create a false result in the same way others have; the simple fact is that no one scheme was favoured by a majority.

    Further it was only recently that I was told that the widening was part of a land swop involving another plot of land in Ashtead as well as some land in  Dorking.  This has never been the issue of any council consultation or debate.  We do not know the actual value of the lands involved nor the terms of any secret agreement that has been apparently reached.  This is very worrying.  Further it appears that part of this three way land swop (two plots in Ashtead for one piece of land apparently near a mausoleum in Dorking) includes a piece of land in Ashtead formerly used for car parking in the recreation ground car park which now has a shipping container like structure on it.  It is apparently used for storage purposes although again there appears to have been no consultation over this.  As somebody who is keen to ensure there is local parking in Ashtead, I am sure you will agree that the loss of that off-road parking area is to be regretted – yet again, there has not been any debate as to its worth as part of a land swop for something next to an historic burial plot in Dorking.  Putting aside the parking and planning implications of the loss of parking at the Recreation Ground car park and displacement of parking onto local roads, I have to say I am concerned that details of this land swop of public owned land have been so shrowded in secrecy.  I hope you can understand that as a councillor I am duty bound to ensure that council’s assets – land owned on behalf of all residents – are properly used.  Again however, the ARA/AiA email did not mention that did it?  You may have known the full details of it, but I suspect that most residents – like me – would have been unaware of it. Yet this secret land swop is at the heart of the widening.

    The proposed consulation will enable the Infrastructure needs to be considered and inform the public of the possible land swop and what all the implications are. The consultation is to inform residents of these issues and seek views.  If in the light of that residents want to widen Woodfield Lane so that car parking no longer reduces the capacity of the road for traffic then as the councillor in Ashtead who has championed consulation I will support it.  I am know the council as a whole will then act accordingly in its various decisions (although presumably only once any possible future action by the developer over using the money has also been firmly resolved). 


    After this was put on the ARA website, Cllr Chris Townsend received many replies, not all from those living “over the line” and extracts of some are below:

    ‘Would you please tell Cllr. Hunt that he risks incurring the heart-felt wrath of those of who have prayed for years for a solution to the Woodfield Road problem by his last-minute and unwarranted interference in a project that will bring relief to every household on the north side of the railway. It is really important to us and we will not forget it if he continues to stand in its way.


    We are thus seriously disappointed to find you (Cllr Friend) and Cllr. Hunt behaving in ways that seem more in accord with the behaviour of Labour Councils of the 1970s – where, if the public vote results in the “wrong”outcome you keep them voting until they come up with the “right” outcome.


    Given the publicity surrounding this issue and the ill-feeling it has stirred up you (Cllr Hunt) do appear to have dug yourself into a hole by overruling this democratic decision   My view is that the best way out of the hole would be to announce that you (Cllr Hunt) have now had time to thoroughly re-appraise the evidence that supported the Option 3 widening scheme and that this scheme shall now be implemented without delay.  To do otherwise would irreparably damage both your own reputation, that of a Conservative led Council, and destroy any lingering faith in the worth of public participation in local democracy.


    Please add me to the list of Ashtead residents who wish for the prevarications of Cllr. Hunt to come to an end, and for the widening of Woodfield Lane to proceed as previously agreed, and as soon as can be scheduled.


    I was both surprised and disgusted to read that Cllr Chris Hunt had stopped the Woodfield lane Widening scheme.  As I understand this was democratically agreed to some time ago by sending out letters to every home in the vicinity and also providing a Public Exhibition at the Ashtead Peace Memorial Hall both of which I contributed to and I was one of the 45% who was in favour of this scheme. I do hope that local people can rise above this apparently appalling overriding of the wishes of the people of Ashtead and that the proposed and agreed scheme goes ahead ASAP.


    I am utterly dismayed to hear that there may be a further delay in this scheme.  The scheme has already been subject to a full consultation and as a resident who would be directly affected I am satisfied that there has been widespread public involvement across Ashtead in developing the way forward. I urge you to take forward the current preferred option of widening the road immediately.


    This is utter nonsense and a further waste if councillors time and public money. It was properly and professionally studied last time and we must just get on with it. No doubt somewhere there is an ulterior motive.’




    It may well have come to your attention that an article in the latest Leatherhead Advertiser reports that Cllr. Chris Hunt has stopped the Woodfield Lane widening scheme and suggests a further consultation.

    He states that ‘ We’re going to ask locals what they feel about it. When it was discussed before it was a very low response rate with very little information’.

    The facts are that the previous SCC Highways consultation to which he refers sent 5,500 letters to every home and business in Ashtead, giving details of the 3 options proposed. There was a very well attended Public Exhibition held at the Ashtead Peace Memorial Hall for all residents, giving clear and detailed plans for each of the options, which allowed residents to question officers on those plans. The whole process was a professional and comprehensive piece of work. The consultation resulted in just under a 20% response rate, which is very good. It showed a 45% preference for the road-widening project, against 32% for yellow lines and 15% for a one-way system. The Local Committee then, less than 2 years ago, unanimously approved the road-widening scheme as clearly the most popular.

    Cllr. Hunt also states that ‘If people want the widening it’s going to cost hundreds of thousands’.

    The cost included in the report to the Local Committee was £105,000 and this will not be from Council Tax. It will be found from Developer contributions towards Infrastructure for Ashtead that arise from planning developments, both in the Park and Common wards. There will be funds remaining available for any future projects.

    The issues concerning the trees in Woodfield Lane have also been addressed with both SCC and MVDC officers confirming their preservation and protection.

    As you can see, we find it most unfortunate that this has come up at the 11th hour, as the road-widening project is due for completion over the next few months, including the re-surfacing of that part of Woodfield Lane as part of the project.

    If you want the project to be completed ASAP, please write/email the Leader of MVDC, Cllr. James Friend (cllr.friend@molevalley.gov.uk ) copying it to both your Surrey County Councillor Chris Townsend (chris.townsend53@ntlworld.com) and the Chief Executive of MVDC Yvonne Rees (yvonne.rees@molevalley.gov.uk).


  7. Ashtead Village Ward election result

    The result of the District Council election in Village Ward was:

    Chris Hunt (Conservative)                                    1857

    David Hawksworth (Ashtead Independent)          1142

    Clive Scott (Labour)                                               248

    Matthew Berry (Liberal Democrat)                         171

    Tony Cooper (Green Party)                                   148

    So Chris Hunt is elected for a further four years.  This is sad for David who worked very hard for the seat at his first attempt, but Chris Hunt probably benefited from the larger turnout at the General Election and the National trend which has brought a majority Conservative Government.  This trend was repeated in Mole Valley as a whole where the Liberal Democrats lost four seats to the Conservatives, including that of their Leader, David Preedy.  The Council has lost a number of hard working and respected Councillors and it remains to be seen how their replacements will perform. The Conservatives now have an overall majority with 23 members out of a total of 41 of which two remain vacant.  Chris Townsend is expected to resign as Leader at the Annual Council meeting on 17th May, and Simon Ling and John Northcott to step down as members of the Executive.



  8. Mole Valley DC Election – Ashtead Village – Resident views

    Following a recent Leaflet from the Conservative candidate, there has been concerns expressed by local residents on the content. We have been contacted by a number of residents supporting Ashtead Independents following this particular leaflet. We publish just one resident’s comments on the questionable Tory leaflet :-

    >>> I am offended by yet another leaflet recently sent out by Chris Hunt. In last week’s Leatherhead Advertiser he said that”Ashtead doesn’t need any more ARA backed Independents.” Well, actually, each Independent candidate has no financial backing and has to finance the whole exercise themselves, unlike the Conservatives who get money from their party. Having to pay for one’s own election expenses indicates commitment. Surely Mr Hunt also realises that the ARA represents all those in Ashtead who choose to join the Association, irrespective of politics. As a group, it is the public good that is at the heart of their ethos. In my opinion, he has insulted a lot of people.
    >>> In his leaflet sent out recently, he says that an Independent might be a bombastic Socialist or a closet Far Right fan. He is intimating that any of us with socialistic leanings are, by default bombastic. That certainly shows unreasonable and biassed thinking. Much of the UK is socialist, by the way.
    >>> By likening the Independents of Ashtead to the SNP party in being “isolationist and insular”, he is suggesting that the Independents care only about Ashtead. Their performance suggests otherwise and he misses the point that people in Ashtead want their councillors to be concerned about Ashtead affairs. Does he honestly think that councillors in Leatherhead would put Ashtead’s interests before those of Leatherhead? If he does, then he is being naive or disingenuous. In any event, all elected councillors must follow a code of accepted ethics otherwise they are not fit for the job. The Conservatives certainly cannot claim the moral high ground here.
    >>> He claims that he agrees with the Ashtead electors on many things, such as the Parson’s Mead funding money should be spent on the area around Ottways Lane/Maple Road/Ottways Avenue. Why does he assume that the Independent candidate doesn’t also agree with this, or other points he raises? The present candidate will have his own views and cannot be branded by those of other Independents, especially over events that have already happened.
    >>> He claims that he will resolve the Tesco site. I would ask him… how? He would have little power to do anything at all. He says he will ENSURE that Council Tax is spent wisely? Again… how? He is only one voice in many, and does he honestly think that the Independent Councillor would favour wasting money and increasing council tax?
    >>> He claims that he will defend the Green Belt around Ashtead. Oh come on Mr Hunt. I understand that you voted for destruction of Cherkely Court Chalk Grassland and for the destruction of Poors Allotments. It was clear from your brief interlude with Ashtead Community Vision that you don’t have a clue about the Green Belt or the nature of what is in it. And, if you are so keen to defend the Green Belt, this doesn’t sit well with your claim that you will work to secure affordable housing.
    >>> Your comment in small print hints at someone grasping at straws. Of course, the Independent candidate would work hard to ensure the good of Ashtead. At least, as someone who has worked in environmental science all his working life, he has a deep understanding of the Green Belt and the implications of bad planning decisions. He also understands that there is a demand for adequate and appropriate housing in the village, but is also able to give sound advice to the Planning Department.
    >>> And then you claim that you will fight to retain our local hospitals. I think you will find that no-one locally would want them to be diminished or disappear. The Conservative MP and local councillors will only be able to express their opinions.The final word will be the result of discussions between Central Government, the plethora of Clinical Commissioning Boards that were set up by the Conservatives, and the Trusts themselves.
    >>> Please don’t insult us any more. Your Independent rival has many positive attributes and, when it comes to voting for local councillors, it is the Individual that matters, not party politics. It is such a shame that people do, actually, confuse central government and local government when the election comes around. It is true that Chris Grayling has been a good constituency MP and people may well vote for him to remain in Parliament. Your literature always seems to include his name. His popularity will not necessarily rub off on you.
    This has also been posted on STREETLIFE.

  9. Mole Valley District Council Elections – Ashtead Village Ward

    This year the General (Parliamentary) Election and the Local District Elections coincide. However, only one of the seven Ashtead seats on Mole Valley Council is up for election. This is in Village Ward and the seat is currently held by a Conservative.

    We are delighted to welcome David Hawksworth as our candidate. David has lived in the ward for eight years. He is an active member of the Residents’ Association Committee and of Ashtead Neighbourhood Forum, and brings with him a wealth of experience on ecological issues which will be particularly valuable as the District’s Green Belt and open spaces come under increasing pressures from developers. He is also committed to health issues and chairs the St Stephen’s House Surgery Patient Participation Group.

    _ANT3393 copy 2


    Please note: There will be no Mole Valley Election in the Common Ward or Park Ward this year.




    A scheme to revitalise and transform the centre of Leatherhead is starting to gather momentum under the direction of MVDC Leader, Chris Townsend.  Residents will know that Leatherhead town centre has for many years failed to fulfil its potential and the reasons given are many and various. It is a fairly well-accepted fact that the one-way system has not served the town well, as it tends to guide traffic away from the town centre rather than helping people reach it.  Attempts from time to time to brighten things up cosmetically with water features, band stands and street art have all failed to make an impact.

    This time, with the help of EU funding through our Local Coast to Capital Enterprise Partnership, a radical master plan is to be drawn up.  After a rigorous tendering and selection process town planners Broadway Malyan have been appointed.  They have a good track record and reputation, and their submission was impressive and professional. Over the next year or so they will be listening to all sections of society and recording opinions, not just in Leatherhead but also throughout the Northern part of Mole Valley, including Ashtead. Your local District Councillors all sit on a Member Reference Group, and representatives of your Residents’ Association on a parallel Community Reference Group. Look out also for public meetings, surveys and “vox pop” booths in Leatherhead High Street in which you can record your opinion in private.

    The final plan, when it emerges, will take account of all these opinions. It probably won’t please everybody but it will need to be attractive to investors and be seen to solve the major problems that the town has.  Make sure your view is included.  If it doesn’t encourage you to use Leatherhead shops and other facilities, then it may not have succeeded.

    Simon J. Ling

    February 2015