In this section
- Section Home
- Privacy Policy
- Get a postal vote

Archive
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- July 2005
- June 2005
- May 2005
- April 2005
- March 2005
- February 2005
- January 2005
- December 2004
- November 2004
- October 2004
- September 2004
- August 2004

Blog RSS feed

RSS Feeds

- News RSS
- Blog RSS
- Gallery RSS

Ensuring the safety of taxi drivers and passengers

(Letter to the Surrey Advertiser)

I write in response to your unnamed correspondent in the letters column of the Surrey Advertiser of 6 June 2008, with the heading ‘Driven to distraction by the regulations’.

Guildford Borough Council, like all local authorities, has a legal responsibility to correctly licence vehicles being used as taxis and private hire cars. We take extremely seriously our duty to ensure the safety of both drivers and passengers and I suspect the public expect nothing less.

As part of that responsibility, the inspection process requires that the vehicles be checked twice a year, with an MOT type examination, which certainly can be described as MOT ‘Plus’, with the vehicle examiner trying to determine that the vehicle will remain roadworthy for the following six months. In addition, we have a responsibility to ensure that all vehicles, drivers and operators are compliant with the legislation and the conditions attached to their licences. This requires physical inspections of vehicles and paperwork, both during normal working hours and during evenings and late into the night.

Your correspondent then writes about the requirement of this authority, that all drivers take and pass the Driving Standards Agency taxi and private hire drivers’ test. This requirement was introduced as a safety improvement in 2004. All new drivers had to pass the test, prior to being issued with a badge and all existing drivers were told at that time, that they had to pass the test by the time they renewed their drivers’ badge during or after 2007.

We have raised the question of bus lanes, with the highway authority some considerable time ago. In common with other licensing authorities we are discussing how the rules set by the highway authority may be amended to permit private hire vehicle drivers to use the bus lanes in the same way as taxi drivers.

Cllr Sarah Creedy
Chairman of the Licensing Committee
 

These new quangos will be bad for local democracy

Residents are rightly concerned about the Government’s proposals to remove Green Belt protection around Guildford through the South East Regional Plan. But the public should also be aware of new laws before Parliament that will create a series of new quangos that look set to impose unsustainable development and override local opinion.

These include an unelected Homes & Communities Agency, with powers to seize land, enter private property and act as its own planning authority. An unelected Infrastructure Planning Commission will take control of planning permissions for large developments like airports, power stations, motorways, sewage plants and even incinerators.

And in a game of musical chairs, the housing and planning powers of the unloved South East England Regional Assembly are to be transferred to the equally unwanted and unaccountable South East England Development Agency. This raises the prospect of further environmental damage imposed through the regional planning regime.

Needless to say, none of these expensive and autocratic Labour quangocrats will be directly accountable to local residents or to Parliament.

Cllr Sheridan Westlake

Borough Councillor for Merrow

More accessible taxis for Guildford

(Letter to the Surrey Advertiser)

I am responding to your article entitled 'Concerns as some taxis still have to catch up'  (Surrey Advertiser, January 2008). When Guildford Borough Council took the decision to increase the number of taxis in Guildford, a period of consultation involving the travelling public (both able and disabled - not just wheelchair bound people), the licensed taxi trade and the operators was undertaken.

As a direct result of that consultation, and in particular at the request of the trade, it was suggested that all new 'Hackney Cabs' (taxis) should be wheelchair accessible. At the same time, the two government reports around the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) and the availability of wheelchair accessible taxis put further pressure on local authorities to move all taxis to this type, as is already the case in London.

There has been a recent move in the House of Lords to ensure that this section of the DDA is implemented by the end of 2008, however, we have given the trade until 2009 to change their vehicles.
 
Cllr Sarah Creedy
Chair of the Licensing Committee

The Yvonne Arnaud theatre and Arts Council cuts

I am sure that Guildford’s residents share my concern about the future of the Yvonne Arnaud Theatre, now that the Arts Council has decided to completely withdraw its funding in 2009.  However, I was also sad to read the Editorial in last week’s newspaper that appeared to agree with the Arts Council’s criticism of the theatre.

Contrary to what the Editorial implied, the theatre does much more than merely stage productions en route to or departing from the West End.  A glance at the programme up to May 2008 will see productions as diverse as English Touring Theatre’s production of Uncle Vanya, Testing the Echo, directed by an Associate Director of the Young Vic, and an Alan Ayckbourn revival co-produced with Scarborough Theatre, just to name a few.  Add the diversity of the work produced at the Mill Studio, the theatre’s youth work in the community, productions from challenging companies such Shared Experience and its role as one of the few producing theatres in the South East and it is hard to see what more the Yvonne Arnaud could do to meet the Arts Council’s requirements.

Sadly the Arts Council’s decision has far more to do with its very substantial cut in Government funding for 2008 and, it seems, an unwillingness to support high quality theatre in leafy Surrey.  Is it that surprising, given the demise of the Thorndike and Redgrave Theatres over recent years?

Jamie Barber and his team at the Yvonne Arnaud do a great job for Guildford and the theatre has a loyal and enthusiastic audience.  While the theatre will need to look at its expense base and its operating model, it is up to us as Guildford residents to decide whether we continue to want great theatre on our doorstep.  If so, we need to make sure that we keep walking through its doors and supporting the productions it puts on.  I don’t want to lose such an asset to Guildford and I am sure that many others share that view.

Cllr Andrew French
Deputy Leader, Guildford Borough Council

Standing up for Guildford against Government plans

(Letter to the Surrey Advertiser)

I was surprised to see Mrs Madgwick’s assertion (Letters November 30) that local politicians had not warned Guildford residents about the effects on the Borough of the South East Plan.

In fact-

•    Guildford Borough Council issues a press notice (quoting me) the day that the Inspectors’ Panel report was published (August 29) setting out the proposals relating to Guildford.  Surrey County Council also issued a press release
•    There was a prominent story in the Surrey Advertiser on August 31 under the headline ’10,000 new homes puts pressure on the green belt’
•    I gave an interview to Eagle Radio on 30 August which was used by them in news bulletins
•    I gave a long interview to County Sound on September 11 which dealt with the subject in some detail
•    The November edition of ‘About Guildford’, which goes to every home in the Borough, carried a significant article (approaching one third of page 3) on the subject.

I have also written to the Secretary Of State, Hazel Blears, expressing GBC concern.

The situation is that this Government will announce, probably in January, their final proposals for the South East Plan.  It seems certain that they will require, until 2026, the building in Guildford of at least the 422 new houses a year that the Inspectors recommended.  Building on this scale will alter the character of Guildford irretrievably: I totally agree with the points made in your Letters page by Prof and Mrs Cohen, John Cummings and John Baylis about the unsuitability of Guildford for this scale of development. But the Government’s decision, after a period of consultation, will be binding on us.  

The Government says that the consultation period on their proposals starts after they are published.  At that stage the Borough Council, and hopefully Parish Councils, residents’ associations and individuals, will protest most vigorously.

Cllr Jenny Wicks
Lead Councillor for Environment

The hotel development is welcome

(Letter to the Surrey Advertiser)

I should like to correct the very misleading impression left by letters from Mrs Vivienne Johnson (5 October) and Gordon Bridger (12 October). They are obviously confused about what has actually been agreed with regard to developing a four star hotel above part of the London Road car park.

The terms of the ‘deal’ were, as reported in your newspaper, agreed some eleven months ago, so one has to ask why are they questioning this now.   The development of such a hotel in Guildford has been widely welcomed.

On 30 November last year the Executive of Guildford Council decided, following consideration of a very detailed report, that in order to enable the hotel developer to increase the size of his consented development along Alexandra Terrace to meet the criteria necessary to secure a four star hotel operator, the Council would lease part of the Civic Hall car park in return for a very significant  (£2.2m) capital receipt, whilst retaining freehold ownership (and therefore ultimate control) of the land. The contract negotiated by the Council was tight and restrictive and Mrs Johnson was party to those terms as then she had not the lost her seat on the Council. She was rejected by electors in the May elections.  

The suggestion that the Council has disposed of a valuable asset at a rent of less than £200 per month is, to say the least, a distortion of the facts, not least because the developer will also be providing other environmental benefits secured by a planning agreement, such as the public square, environment improvements in Alexandra Terrace, and contributions to CTTV and new public loos.  £2.2m yields some £130,000 at today’s rates, ie at least £11,000 per month

Consultants to the Council have emphasized the benefits in operational and revenue terms for the Civic of having a four star hotel in immediate proximity.

Part of the hotel extension is to be built on a podium supported on stilts extending over the western half of the car park, the bulk of which will be leased back to the Council, enabling it to be retained and operated as before - as a public car park. The reduction in the number of car parking spaces is fewer than originally thought and related income is a small price to pay when weighed against the undoubted advantages for Guildford of the scheme as a whole.

Only by linking properties under the control of hotel developer, could the extension take place and it was for this reason that the developer was considered to be a ‘Special Purchaser’, thus enabling the Council to enter into a direct contract.

In reaching this decision, the Council was advised not only by Colliers CRE but also by Savills whose independent opinion was obtained prior to the Executive’s consideration of the matter.

Colliers CRE were not acting for the developer and the Council on the land transaction at the same time, as has also been alleged by Mrs Johnson, not least because it would have been quite improper for them to do so.  Colliers CRE has never acted for the developer in such capacity. The fact that they were subsequently instructed by the developer in relation to the submission of the hotel planning application is no basis upon which to impugn their professional integrity.  It was eminently sensible for the developer to subsequently use the same planning consultants (and architects) on the hotel as the Civic to ensure the overall success of the redevelopment at London Road.

In preparing the hotel application, a great deal of public consultation took place  and the application was supported by all members of the Planning Committee.

Cllr Nigel Manning
Lead Councillor for procurement, projects and performance

LibDems won't build a civic hall

(Letter to the Surrey Advertiser)

Cllr Fiona White has now confirmed what many Guildford residents may have suspected - the LibDems will not actually build a new Civic Hall. Her letter (Surrey Advertiser, 5th October) correctly states that Guildford's LibDem councillors (whom she leads) did not support the funding for the new Civic.
 
Cllr White seeks to justify her party's refusal to put money into the Civic project on the basis of a report to the community and health committee on 20th September which can be viewed in detail on the council's website.
 
However, that report on the borough's capital finances does not support Cllr White's claim that there are inadequate capital funds available for funding the rebuilding of the Civic. The current estimated shortfall of just over £10 million for funding all the borough council's major capital schemes (not just the Civic) "does not take account of any of the potential receipts" from Bedford Road, Friary and the new hotel which are already estimated to well exceed that figure in total .
 
So there are plenty of anticipated capital receipts in the pipeline for the council to fund its capital programme at its current levels.

Vivienne Johnson questions whether I understand the difference between gross and net (letters, 5th October). Certainly, I would invest the £2.2m hotel capital receipt to earn interest until the council was ready to spend it rather than just divide it by 999 years to produce a non-productive figure of less than £200 per month.

Also I would not compare gross figures with net (like comparing apples with pears) as Mrs Johnson and the LibDems did earlier this year when contrasting Civic costs of £2 million net in 2003 with £20 million gross in 2007 in a misleading party political leaflet.
 
In raising the housing capital receipts fund (only a potential option if capital receipts don't materialise and the council decides not to borrow short term). Cllr White is trying to do to the Civic what Vivienne Johnson did to the Spectrum.

Scaremongering to try and deprive Guildford of a facility which will provide benefit and pleasure to many residents even though it will obviously cost money to build . I understand Spectrum did not have all the funding in place before Conservatives gave the go ahead then. Mrs Johnson called it a "white elephant" and campaigned hard against building what is now the UK's No 1 leisure centre.
 
Spectrum would not have been built if the LibDems had been in control of Guildford Council in the late 1980s. It is now clear they won't build a new Civic either.
 
Cllr Tony Rooth
Lead Councillor for Finance and Resources

Bin taxes aren't the answer

The ongoing debate over cuts to the frequency of rubbish collections and over incineration highlights how rubbish is increasingly high on the political agenda.

Councils are facing soaring costs of waste disposal, putting pressures to cut costs or else hike up council taxes. Yet the underlying drivers are Gordon Brown’s hikes in landfill taxes and the implementation of EU landfill directives. Whitehall is effectively passing the buck – leaving local taxpayers to foot the bill for new burdens imposed from above.

Labour Ministers’ latest brainwave is bin taxes – getting councils to levy charges for the rubbish collections, on top of council tax. Guildford should rebuff these Government plans.

Claims that it would be ‘revenue neutral’ should be taken with a pinch of salt – especially given the costs of providing micro-chipped, lockable wheelie bins and bankrolling an army of new town hall bin inspectors. In the Republic of Ireland, bin taxes have led to one in ten households burning rubbish in their backyard and a surge in fly-tipping – polluting the local air and harming the environment.

Carrots, not sticks, are the way forward – as demonstrated by Guildford Borough’s strategy of improving doorstep recycling services, combined with keeping weekly collections.

Cllr Sheridan Westlake
Borough councillor for Merrow

Stop the Hospital Cuts

(Letter to the Surrey Advertiser)

Conservatives in Guildford are proud to use our national slogan “Conservatives: Stop The Hospital Cuts” as our ballot paper description on May 3rd.  It is being used by many Conservative teams up and down the country, including candidates in Surrey such as in Epsom and Ewell and in Reigate and Banstead.  

I was in the hall to hear David Cameron declare the N.H.S. his number one priority for Britain at our Party Conference last year, and the Conservatives have made “Stop The Hospital Cuts” our main national theme and priority ever since.

It is, quite frankly, a disgrace that Ministers are funnelling 85p out of every £1 of new hospital spending into Labour constituencies, whilst simultaneously targeting Conservative areas such as Surrey with the majority of their hospital cutbacks.  It is right that the Conservatives should fight back nationally on this issue.

Whether it is a General Election or a local election, it is an accepted fact of political life that people vote on a mixture of national as well as local concerns.  I therefore hope that the Conservatives do get some credit at the polls on May 3rd for all their hard national campaigning against this Government’s hospital cuts.  A strong Conservative performance across the country is certainly the outcome that Blair and Brown fear most.

Equally, at a local level, I applaud the local Labour and Liberal Democrat parties for continuing to stand as a united team alongside us in support of the independent Save The Royal Surrey campaign.  This cross-party working has been an example to the rest of the country in how to oppose threats to a vital local service, and I have no doubt whatsoever that this outstanding local co-operation will continue until the Royal Surrey is safe.  

Jonathan Lord
Chairman, Guildford Conservatives

The Trinity Party should stand and be counted

(Letter to the Surrey Advertiser)

The Trinity Party may view the new policy of the Borough Council to refuse any casino application as an infringement of civil liberties (Surrey Advertiser, letters, 6 April 2007). I would counter that this is the democratic expression of local people, using powers granted by Parliament. Guildford simply doesn’t want a casino.

Perhaps I’m wrong. This is why it is a shame that Trinity did not have the courage of their convictions to stand anywhere in May’s Borough elections, despite promising last year they would contest “as many of the 48 seats available as possible”.  I am sure Guildford residents would have welcomed the chance to cast their vote on Trinity’s policies of building an eight storey casino in the town centre and concreting over Stoke Park.

But this electoral coyness comes as no surprise. Rather than being a broad-based political movement, according to its own accounts, Michel Harper and Raschid Abdullah’s party has a grand total of five members.  They have now abandoned any pretence of wanting to engage in local democracy. In my view, the Trinity Party has become little more than the provisional wing of Trinity Investments – the political glove puppet of frustrated casino developers.

Cllr Sheridan Westlake,
Borough Councillor for Merrow

Going the distance for recycling

(Letter to the Surrey Advertiser)

I write in response to your recent reporting on the environmental impact of sending recyclable waste abroad.  I feel it is important to point out that the environmental cost of processing our recyclates in say China is potentially significantly lower than the cost of processing our recyclates in Britain.

In determining the most environmentally-friendly solution to recycling our household waste, it is important to consider the marginal social (ecological) cost of transporting the recyclates to a particular processing point. It is not simply a question of total distance travelled.

For example, if a Chinese cargo ship is returning home, the marginal social cost of taking back a load of plastic bottles is nil - the fuel is being burnt regardless. Hence the social (ecological) cost attributable to the transport of the recyclates should only include the direct costs of moving the load to/from the port at each end.

In China, recyclate materials are transported mostly by rail, therefore the marginal ecological costs are extremely low. However in Britain, our recyclates are often transported by road, and this is where the bulk of the attributable energy is consumed (and greenhouse gases emmitted).

As most UK processing facilities are located in the north of England (significantly further away from Guildford than the south coast sea ports), it is fair to say that the environmental cost of sending Guildford’s recyclates to a British plant may be as much as four times higher than sending our recycling abroad.

Michael Chambers
Onslow

These ‘experts’ are less than convincing

A Live Music panel was held at Guildford College on 25th October 2006. I sat in the audience and recall some off the cuff remarks from the ‘entertainers’ on the panel who included Michel Harper. Mr Harper has, of course a track record of increasing the cost of building a new Civic Hall (plus legal expenses incurred by our council tax payers) through his various threatened and actual legal challenges to Guildford council over the years.

Mr Harper may be able to run nightclubs but I doubt if he (or any of the other ‘entertainers’ on that panel ) have the professional experience to justify being described as ‘experts’ in assessing the building costs of a new Civic Hall, or whatever Guildford residents prefer to name it.

However, the LibDems themselves clearly know how to ‘fabricate’.  I leave readers to choose which definition of that word in the dictionary is appropriate to describe them  

Cllr Tony Rooth
Lead Councillor for Finance and Resources

Let's get together and back new hall

(Letter to the Surrey Advertiser)

Once again, the Liberal Democrats wish to face in all directions at once when it comes to their ‘support’ for a new Civic Hall.

Cllr Vivienne Johnson professes her support for the provision of a replacement Civic Hall but admits (Letters, 9 March) that she and her Lib Dem colleagues refuse to support the funding at a gross cost of £20m.  In contrast, Guildford Conservatives continue to believe that the residents of Guildford need and deserve a new facility that is fit for the 21st century.  The previous building lasted forty years before outliving its useful life and I would fully expect the same from its replacement.

With the development of a new Civic Hall at London Road, together with a new hotel and restaurant complex at the rear of the site, we will have a really vibrant facility that will bring that part of the town to life again.  Isn’t it time that all the political parties put their weight behind getting the construction under way?

Instead, the Lib Dems continue to argue over how much it would have cost to build the facility four years ago.  They maintain that it would have cost just £2mn.  The truth is that their £2m figure was the net cost in 2003 after taking into account anticipated capital receipts. Gross construction costs may have risen but it is ridiculous to suggest they have gone up tenfold in 4 years!  The current construction figure of £20mn is the gross cost that will be offset from capital receipts from other development on the London Road site and an additional site in Bedford Road.

So let’s get behind this development.  I recognise and share people’s frustration that it has taken so long to get to the start line.  However, a decision has been made, plans are being drawn up and we are ready to go.  It is time for the sniping to end.

Cllr Andrew French
Deputy Leader, Guildford Borough Council

Why prompt action was needed to deal with alien invaders

(Letter to the Surrey Advertiser)

The headline “Shalford Invaded by Aliens” is something you might expect to find in some of the less factual tabloids and not a quality local newspaper like the Surrey Ad, but this time the headline would be true.

Juniper Pond in Shalford has been found to contain Topmouth Gudgeon, a fast breeding Asian fish that carries a parasite fatal to other species. The Environment Agency and Guildford Borough Council reacted rapidly to this, indeed only telling Councillors  as work was about to start. With such a rapid turnaround some questions did need to be asked, such as whether the apparently drastic action of total poisoning was necessary and whether the poison could harm other wildlife and pets. I have been assured the poison is fish specific and that the pond will be closed off and guarded until it is completely safe. Afterward, Guildford Borough’s Parks and Countryside Department assure me that the ecosystem will improve and that there will be restocking.

I was surprised at the haste and drastic nature of the action, which seemed to have parallels with the recent bird flu outbreak in Norfolk. But I understand that were the species, never before found in Surrey, to get into the local rivers it could cause an ecological catastrophe.

Cllr Vas Kapsalis
Borough Councillor for Shalford

Protecting Shalford's shops

(Letter to the Surrey Advertiser)

I would like to add some information to the discussion over the closure of the Total service station and shop in Shalford. As the Surrey Ad reported, there are plans by the owner to sell it for redevelopment as flats. This risks depriving Shalford of a vital local service.

The challenge in such situations is that Total, a private company, are not answerable to residents or the Council. Suggestions in last week’s letters that they should be held to account and made to provide a free bus service to Peasmarsh are therefore completely unrealistic.

However, residents may be interested to learn of work being carried out by Shalford Cllr Neil Ward and myself to look at how this situation might be progressed to a sensible conclusion. Clearly, the aim must be to see if retail use can be retained on the site. The one fly in the planning ointment is that petrol stations are not technically classed as retail, but as general purpose units. However, the point will be made clearly that there is an ancillary retail use which should be retained.

A further approach is to see whether another retailer can be found who would show interest in the site. Cllr Neil Ward has done an excellent piece of work investigating through his retail contacts whether there might be another company who would be interested in taking space in any redevelopment. Initial comments received indicate that there might be some interest – but it remains early days.

Cllr Vas Kapsalis
Borough councillor for Shalford

Next Page