Standing up for Guildford on the issues that matter
Within this section, we re-publish recent letters to newspapers and articles written by your local Conservative campaigners and councillors, highlighting how Guildford Conservatives are standing up for you on the issues that matter.
Tuesday, 03 November, 2009
Proper consultation was needed over Pegasus
Many parents, teachers and children will undoubtedly be disappointed that the Pegasus bus service used by their schools in the Guildford area will not continue beyond next summer following the County Council Cabinet's decision this week not to reprieve the service from closure.
I spoke at the Cabinet meeting this week as a local county councillor whose residents send their children on Pegasus to schools like Tillingbourne and Holy Trinity.
Many Guildford schools and parents have changed their routines, circumstances and lifestyles based on Pegasus. It also brings environmental and traffic benefits to a congested town and outlying communities by replacing 100s of cars by 20 buses.
As I had said both at the call-in meeting (initiated by my colleagues Graham Ellwood and Mark Brett-Warburton) and before the Cabinet, various of my Shalford parents seem ready and willing to see major changes to the service (including the axing of the escorts - if necessary replaced by volunteers). They also seem willing to contemplate paying substantially increased fares up to £5 and possibly more per child per day. These measures may not entirely slash the subsidy (which varies between £820,000 to almost £1 million).
Also, not all parents or not sufficient may accept the required changes in services and increases in fares to make the service viable. But we will not know because there has been no consultation.
I have said all along what this situation needs is a consultation between the council and the schools and parents - not a dialogue of the deaf but one based on reality, flexibility and lateral thinking on all sides
The schools could have surveyed their parents as to what service changes /extra fare charges they would or won't accept. David Evans, the head at Tillingbourne School indicated that he had already done some survey quickly and doubtless other schools could do the same. They could then report back to the council as to what are their findings and whether there was sufficient parental support for the scheme continuing on radically revised terms
The council may also have given a lead by demanding that the schools consult parents for guarantees that they would act as escorts (if they still want them on board ) and "put their money where their mouths are" by for example buying advance season tickets now as a condition of the service continuing for another year;
In this way, the schools and parents could have been consulted as how far they were prepared to "drive those extra miles" into their pockets to keep the Pegasus buses running.
The closure decision may well have been inevitable in view of the sums involved but there will now have been no open dialogue or consultation before that decision has been reached. Parents may well feel disappointed and angry that such process did not take place. Proper consultation and dialogue might just have produced positive change. Even if did not, residents would have felt more satisfaction that that they may some influence over decisions which our County Council takes.
Cllr Tony Rooth
County Councillor for Shalford Division
As Conservative County Councillors representing Guildford parents ,we are leading the campaign to challenge Surrey County Council's decision to axe the Pegasus school bus service.
We have applied to call in the Council Cabinet's decision for review by the Transportation Select Committee, of which both of us are members. We have also requested cross party support from the LibDems.
Parents with children using Pegasus have emphasised to us the impact of the bus service on their lives. This service has reduced car journeys, traffic congestion and emissions, improved road safety and given both parents and children time and convenience. In December 2008 a report recommending a two year extension of the service and a review of its operations was submitted to the then Transport Committee. This approach is exactly what both of us proposed as newly elected councillors.
Many parents who have contacted us and Conservative colleagues recognise that the service will have to change and fares increase substantially for it to continue. That is why we both have already pressed for a review of costs and operational expenses before the council decided its future.
We owe it to parents, children and taxpayers to investigate if the Pegasus service can be adapted and made more financially viable than at present. Local parents and teachers deserve a reasonable chance to discuss the consequences and present their ideas to the Council before a final decision is taken.
However, the Cabinet has just gone ahead and axed the service without consulting schools and parents on various options.
It is not just what you do but the way that you do it which is important to local people.
Mark Brett- Warburton, County Councillor (Guildford South East)
Graham Ellwood, County Councillor (Guildford East)
Neither Tillingbourne nor Holy Trinity schools, currently served by Pegasus buses are in my Shalford division but many parents are. Several have contacted me and they realise there may be other Shalford (and indeed Surrey) residents who think twice about subsidising their children's bus journey to a tune said to be almost £8 per day.
However, parents have suggested to me:
• the Pegasus service be changed or cut but not axed. For example, they think the morning school run is more important and seem prepared to see that maintained on its own if necessary Further, keeping the service (in whatever format) as a driver only service has also been proposed if that really reduces the subsidy.
• flexible and realistic approaches to charging rates. They value the time and convenience the service provides to them and their children. They seem prepared to pay more, much more than the current daily rates(£1.80 for over 8 year olds and £1.30 for youngsters) to keep it. One parent offered to pay current rates for the morning service only and a willingness to pay double for a service there and back to school.
• various ideas for using Pegasus buses outside the school run times . Schools, parents and indeed local communities may have many ideas how to use buses (and gain valuable revenue income) in the 4-5 hours between the school runs.
I have a dialogue with some of my Shalford parents. I ask the Cabinet to do likewise with all schools and parents before making any negative decision about the future of the Pegasus buses - not a dialogue of the deaf but one based on reality, flexibility and lateral thinking on all sides.
No dialogue or consultation merely produces anger and dissent. Proper consultation can produce change for the better - the proposal now to delete the Eashing Farm quarry site (in my division) from the Minerals Plan shows what can be achieved when the powers that be are willing to listen to local people.
Cllr Tony Rooth County Councillor, Shalford division
Fourth option would extend the Pegasus Bus Service
(Letter to the Surrey Advertiser)
As a member of the County Council’s Transport Committee I feel it important to clarify:
1- In my capacity as County Councillor for Guildford East together with several Conservative colleagues I have pressed for, and indeed achieved, insertion of the fourth option referred to in your article.( Surrey Advertiser 25th September)
2- The fourth option would extend the Pegasus service for two years pending a review of costs and operational expenses This option will additionally now be presented to Cabinet this week.
3- However, given the current cost of £820000 to Surrey taxpayers of transporting 840 pupils, either the operator will have to reduce their costs and/or parents affected will have to pay more. Certainly many parents who have contacted my colleagues and myself seem to recognise that fares will have to increase substantially for the service to survive.
4- Any cut in services is an emotive issue and I will continue to press for an extension of the service with the object of running it more viably.
Cllr Graham Ellwood Conservative County Councillor for Merrow & Burpham
I have good news for Howard Romp who wrote to complain (Surrey Advertiser, 18 September) about the state of Guildford Bus Station. At its meeting on 10 September Guildford Borough Council’s Executive agreed to spend £25,000 on improvements to the Bus Station and Surrey County Council will add £50,000 to this.
The money will be used to make the area cleaner and more pleasant. There will be a thorough deep clean of the whole facility, all walls, fixtures and fittings as well as pigeon proofing. Defective expansion joints will be repaired and measures taken to alleviate flooding problems. There will be replacement signs and lighting, and painting done, as well as other improvements.
GBC’s Executive also agreed to carry out a public consultation with residents, businesses, market stall holders and bus companies on a scheme for environmental improvements for North Street. The Council has accumulated contributions from developers for enhancements in this area and we think it is timely to draw up a scheme, which will not, of course, encroach on the Friary Extension area where the proposed development is currently on hold.
These two schemes should help make Guildford a more attractive destination for visitors and residents alike.
Maintaining Spectrum's high standards for the future
(Letter to the Surrey Advertiser)
Guildford’s Labour candidate appears no more realistic and straightforward about finance than Gordon Brown (Surrey Advertiser, letters, 18 September).
Guildford Borough Council is not planning to “give away” (or sell off) Spectrum or “cut its services” as he states. We are just looking at options as to how to operate and manage Spectrum to maintain its high standards for the future (Incidentally, Conservatives built UK’s No.1 leisure centre despite opposition from the LibDems who labelled it a “white elephant”).
Spectrum is now 16 years old and requires significant capital investment to maintain and enhance its services. Residents will doubtless realise that Guildford, like many councils, faces a challenging financial future. Our revenue income and government grant is declining whilst central government loads us with new responsibilities often without sufficient funding. This challenge requires the Council to consider various management and operational options which may well provide significant VAT and rate savings.
These options include management by trusts and partnership with private leisure contractors - options adopted by other councils for leisure facilities across the country. We are market testing trust and private contractor interest in managing and operating Spectrum on the Council’s behalf.
Residents can read the full and true story for themselves in the report to the Executive on 16 July plus the annexed 40 page report of consultants Max Associates online.
Cllr Tony Rooth Lead Councillor for Finance and Resources
The Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Candidate for Guildford can raise whatever issues she wants in her campaign literature (Surrey Advertiser, letters, 21 August). If she wishes to run for high public office, she should expect to be held to account for what she says. And her recent ‘Residents fear casino u-turn’ newsletter plays fast and loose with the facts.
She has maintained that the Borough Council was coming “under pressure from local businesses” to drop the ‘no casino’ policy. In reality, no such representations had been received. She alleged that residents’ views would be “ignored”. Yet the Council is actually consulting on renewing the casino ban – as required by law every three years.
Residents have nothing to fear. What they can expect is a proper debate on the merits and demerits of the no casino policy, and then an open and transparent decision made by accountable, elected representatives.
Following the passage of the Gambling Act 2005, I was the first to call for Guildford Borough Council to use its new powers to veto any and all casino applications (Surrey Advertiser, 22 April 2005). After a full and proper consultation, Guildford became one of the first councils in the country to adopt such a policy. It has provided certainty for residents, businesses and investors.
This policy is coming up for renewal, and I believe we should seek to re-affirm our ‘no casino’ stance. Again, we must consult, show due process and give everyone a fair hearing. Listening is a legal duty and it will help ensure there is no scope for any spurious and expensive legal challenges (of which, Guildford has seen many).
Our policy was passed with unanimous cross-party support (sock puppet Trinity Party aside). Yet it is disappointing that the Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Candidate for Guildford is now undermining that political consensus. Her latest Focus ‘newspaper’ asserts the Council is “coming under pressure… to change this policy and allow casinos”, “local people are worried” and “residents fear that their views… will be ignored.” This is utterly misleading.
No-one will be ignored. Such is the “pressure” supposedly building up that not a single recent letter has been received by the Council calling for a change of policy (not even one from Mr Harper). Her desire to stoke unnecessary ‘fear’ and ‘worry’ says more about her style of politics than it does about the Conservative Borough’s stance on casinos.
Cllr Sheridan Westlake Borough councillor for Merrow
Your correspondent, Jim Boucher, wrote last week to express his concern that the Guildford Borough Council might be considering the closure of the Guildford Lido. I can assure Mr. Boucher and all your other readers that the Guildford Borough Council does not have any plans to close the Lido or any of our other leisure facilities.
The review to which Mr. Boucher refers, is set out in a report prepared by the Council’s advisors, MAX Associates, and was published in full as part of Community and Health Scrutiny Committee’s Agenda for their meeting that held on Thursday, June 11th 2009.
We have engaged the services of MAX Associates to investigate whether the Borough Council should or should not continue to directly manage its leisure facilities or like most of the other Councils in Surrey, deliver these leisure services by utilising private or voluntary sector expertise.
We are in the process of examining these other options and feel that they might provide even better value for money for the Guildford Council Tax payer. The full report by Max Associates, along with all the Borough Council’s other meeting agendas and minutes, can be viewed on the Council’s website at www.guildford.gov.uk as part of in the agenda for the Executive meeting to be held on Thursday, July 16th 2009.
Regarding some of Mr. Boucher’s other concerns about recent operational changes at the Lido : the cordoning-off of sections of the pool are in response to national Health and Safety Executive (HSE) guidance for swimming pool safety, in line with the Lido’s National Pool Safety Award in 2008 and for no other reason whatsoever.
Cllr Terence Patrick
Executive Member, Guildford Borough Council
I would like to thank all those who stood for election to County Hall last week, and all those who participated by voting. Turnout in the Guildford area was much higher than elsewhere in the South East, and this was a credit to the hard-working candidates and supporters of all the parties that contested the elections.
As the local Conservative Chairman, I was obviously delighted with the election of two excellent new Conservative Councillors in Guildford - Graham Ellwood and Mark Brett-Warburton - but it is also only appropriate to thank retiring Councillors for their years of service to the community. Eddie Owen and Sarah di Caprio are both very popular locally - that they were almost able to resist the current national political tide is evidence of this - and we take this opportunity to thank them for their public service and to wish them well in their future endeavours.
I would also like to thank all those who participated in last week's County Council elections in Cranleigh, Ewhurst and Ellen's Green. My political opponents, Rhoda Kirk and Richard Cole, both ran good, decent, campaigns. I thoroughly enjoyed meeting people on the doorsteps throughout the campaign - I don't think there was one slammed door, even during the height of the 'expenses' row.
I must thank, in particular, all those who gave me their support on polling day, but I also make the time-honoured pledge to serve all of the community during my time as a Councillor.
Indeed, for all the new Conservative County Councillors, the hard work starts here. There is much that can be done to improve the performance of County Hall, and we look forward to supporting the new County Council Leader, Andrew Povey, as he starts to make the changes that are necessary.
Jonathan Lord
Chairman, Guildford Conservatives, and new County Councillor for Cranleigh and Ewhurst
Like 3,850 Guildford residents, last week I received a postcard from the Government Office for the South East thanking me for my response to the draft South East Plan. Unsurprisingly, this consultation has been a sham – with only cursory references in the final report made to the massive objections raised by Guildford residents.
For those who have not read the small print of the 290 pages (before annexes), the message for north and east Guildford is bleak. Green Belt protection will effectively be wiped off the map in Merrow, Burpham and Worplesdon. A so-called ‘urban extension’ of 2,000 dwellings will be dumped on the countryside – most likely at Gosden Hill Farm. This is equivalent to doubling the current area of Burpham, or a new town twice the size of the Bushy Hill estate.
Labour Ministers and would-be developers will no doubt peddle some eco-spin to justify their plans (Dunsfold Park being their case study), spinning a solar panel here, a low-flush toilet there. We should not be fooled by such little green figleaves, designed to cover their embarrassment over the environmental harm that such incursions into the countryside will inevitably cause.
There will be nothing sustainable about more traffic and congestion along the Epsom Road and London Road. The concreting over of the ‘green lung’ around Guildford will increase carbon emissions, harm biodiversity and reduce quality of life. The South East Plan represents the biggest threat in a generation to the look, character and amenity of Guildford Borough.
Cllr Sheridan Westlake Borough councillor for Merrow
The prospect of a sprawling housing estate being dumped on Dunsfold has significant implications not just for that part of Guildford and Waverley. In particular, the sidelining of local objections raises the spectre of more massive housing development to come. Specifically, dumping another estate on Gosden Hill Farm near Merrow and Burpham, accompanied by a spurious ‘greenwash’ to cover up its inevitable environmental harm.
Locally and nationally, Conservatives strongly oppose both the content and the principle of the so-called South East Plan – especially its plans to rip up our Green Belt. Control of planning and housing decisions by Whitehall and regional government should be scrapped and powers given back to local people and the councillors who serve them.
However, Liberal Democrats seem to be changing their tune with every month. In February, Sue Doughty called on her website for the Government to “suspend” the South East Plan (note the lack of any pledge to abolish it), and used the politician’s speak of “local sustainable needs assessments and consultation with local communities”.
In March, after saying that “many residents were already angry with the government decision to impose more houses than can be absorbed in Surrey”, Liberal Democrats u-turned and backed the massive Dunsfold development in our countryside. This is despite it being opposed by each of the local county, district and parish councils, and the residents within the local community.
Gosden Hill Farm suffers the same problems as Dunsfold Park – urban sprawl and a traffic system that is simply unable to cope. Residents should now take any pledge from Liberal Democrats to protect our countryside with a pinch of salt given their record on Dunsfold in listening to local people only when its suits their agenda.
Graham Ellwood, Conservative County Council candidate for Merrow & Burpham
Just in case anyone got the wrong impression from your front page article (April 17) which suggested that a clampdown was planned on cars entering Guildford, I should like to make the following points-
- There are no plans for a ‘clampdown’ or for restrictions on motorists entering Guildford. There are no numerical targets to cut the number of people using cars.
- Guildford Borough Council and Surrey County Council encourage people to use methods of transport other than their own car where possible. Making choices other than the private car helps reduce congestion and improve the environment.
- Park and Ride, improved cycle facilities and Streetcar’s car club all offer options for those who want to reduce their car use, save costs and save energy, but transport choices are left to the individual.
- Both Councils gave financial support to Streetcar in the early stages of its car club operation in Guildford and are delighted with its success. The Councils have also significantly increased the number of Park and Ride spaces available in the last year.
I think it is important to give this reassurance since Guildford businesses, who may be finding things difficult in the current recession, must be able to have confidence that their customers will be encouraged to visit Guildford, however they wish to make their journey, not discouraged from coming here.
Councillor Jenny Wicks Lead Councillor for Environment, Guildford Borough Council
The Government has short-changed Guildford taxpayers
(Letter to the Surrey Advertiser)
Labour Party activist Michael Hassell (Surrey Advertiser, 10th April) extols the virtues of bus passes for the elderly but ignores their vices - their cost of £100 million falls on taxpayers and his Government fails to properly fund local councils (as usual). The cross party Local Government Association said: “It would be a tragedy if this scheme, which was introduced with the very best of intentions, resulted in councils having to slash other vital services or cut jobs because central government funding has been inadequate.”
This Government short-changed Guildford Borough Council by an estimated over £330,000 in the first year of the scheme. We had to make savings otherwise we would have been forced to increase our residents' council tax by 4% just to cover the cost of introducing bus passes. The Government didn't send us the money then and they are still not sending us enough money now to properly fund bus passes for our elderly residents.
Mr Hassell now promises that Labour will repeat this “process” for under 18s. This promise might sound attractive but Labour has got to "put its (or our taxpayers’) money where its mouth is.” On the basis of Guildford and indeed Surrey's experience of this Government’s funding record (Surrey receives £205 per head when other similar councils receive up to £856). Surrey residents should be very cautious indeed about jumping on this Labour bandwagon unless and until we see some tangible commitments from this Government providing:
a written guarantee to all local councils of full and continued funding for the introduction and implementation of free bus passes for all, whether elderly or young.
a commitment to an urgent review of funding levels for local government in Surrey, the subject of a petition on Gordon Brown's doorstep which Mr Hassell and all Surrey residents should support by signing on http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Surrey-Funding/
£10 million to help Guildford Borough Council fund the building of a new entertainment and leisure venue to replace the Civic Hall which your newspaper reported as “past its sell by date” 15 years ago.
Only then might Surrey residents think this Government actually provides the money for what it promises.
Cllr Tony Rooth Lead Councillor for Finance and Resources
Guildford Borough Council
The Government’s South East Plan threatens to wreck Guildford. Unsustainable building targets will be imposed from above for the next twenty years. The Green Belt will be ripped up in Merrow, Burpham and Clandon and on the Worplesdon-Woking border. The result will be intense over-development and more traffic and congestion, ruining the character of Guildford and letting urban sprawl spill out into the countryside.
It doesn’t have to be this way. Guildford residents sent 4,800 replies to the South East Plan consultation, over half of all respondents. If Labour Ministers simply ignore such overwhelming public opinion, there is a real scope for judicial review. Legal challenges to the Government’s flawed eco-town programme have shown how even Ministers can be made to think again.
Moreover, David Cameron has pledged that the next Conservative Government will scrap the whole tier of regional planning, including the South East Plan. Local councils will decide the right level of development for their locality. Instead of top-down targets, councils will be able to keep the council tax and business rate receipts from new building, rather than the money effectively being snatched away by Whitehall. This will ensure that where new homes are built – such as on the genuine brownfield site of the DEFRA building in Merrow – there is funding to provide the necessary infrastructure to support it.
The South East Plan is not inevitable, and we must fight it every step of the way.
Cllr Sheridan Westlake Borough councillor for Merrow
Graham Ellwood Conservative county councillor candidate for Merrow & Burpham
Blog RSS feed
