News roundup, week ending 28 June

Waverley Local Committee meeting, next Friday

Just to remind you that the Waverley Local Committee (ie the Surrey councillors for Waverley and an equivalent number of Waverley Borough Councillors) have their quarterly meeting next Friday, July 5th, at 2pm in the Hale Institute Hall, Upper Hale in Farnham (to the north of the Castle).

Apparently any written questions, statements and petitions which you want to be considered for that meeting need to be submitted by midday on Monday, 1st July.  You can email them to David North - d.north@surreycc.gov.uk   

Haslemere’ s parking is not on the agenda for this meeting, and in fact is not due to be discussed again until the December meeting, which is slated to be held at Godalming Baptist Church on 13 December.  (Details of the forward programme for meetings are included in the agenda papers for the July meeting here http://mycouncil.surreycc.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=195&MId=2970&Ver=4 )  Those of you equipped with a calendar will have figured out that this is a mere five months after the schemes commence, in Mid July, which is not observing the minimum six months of operation which the committee undertook to wait before commencing a review.

 

To my untrained eye the agenda doesn’t look terribly exciting, although there is one item – resolving to form local task groups, focused on highways and parking matters within the context of the county’s Local Transport Plan and, in the case of the Haslemere & Villages taskgroup, the “Two Parks” (ie New Forest and South Downs national Parks) sustainable transport fund.  Nikki Barton will be on that taskgroup as one of the two Surrey councilors for the area, and is nominated as the Two Parks Champion, in succession to Steve Renshaw.

Back to written questions:  the ROP schemes will of course not have been implemented by the time of the meeting – that is due to happen around mid-July – but if you have any questions, concerns or views about the schemes so far, this might be a good opportunity to keep them in the forefront of the committee members’ (plural, not Mrs Barton) minds.  If you want to follow up your written question with an oral question I think you will need to be at the meeting in Farnham from 1:30pm.

It will be interesting to see whether any of the parking objectors take this opportunity to have a go - one of them has already had a tweet-moan about the new signs:

 

Quite a lot in the Haslemere Herald  for a change, with more or less the entire front page given over to stories of some relevance.

As previously reported, but not in time for the Herald’s copy deadline last week, the proposals for the Weyhill “Fairground” car park have been referred to a public inquiry, probably in 2014.  Here is just a snippet:

 

That’s right.  “Residents” have proposed that, instead of upgrading the carpark, we should build another – car park!  As it involves an “ambitious” (ie expensive) proposal, I think we can take it that it, too would be a paying car park.

By “residents”, the article is referring to the Haslemere Vision project.  To date this is a select band of individuals which includes our new county councillor Mrs Barton.  To be fair, HV plans to launch a consultation process over the summer which might well put this proposal to the test of popular opinion.  Who is to say that it won’t find popular favour.

Anyway, HV has announced it is pleased to see that a public inquiry is to be held.  Which sheds light on a rare example of dissent in the ranks, as the life-president of the Haslemere Commons Preservation Society apparently wishes the inquiry not to take place:

 

In case it is not obvious, Mr Serman thinks it would be a bad thing if the inquiry ruled on the return of the site to open common land!  Oh, and in another example of that Herald nostrum of "so good, they printed it twice", almost the entirety of Mr Serman's remarks are then repeated in his letter featured on the letters page inside.  They hang on his every word!

 

Another element of the sometimes united, sometimes divided town mafia also thinks the inquiry is a good thing.  Stephen Mulliner, for all his faults, does at least have a business head on his shoulders, as this quote attests:

One of the HV members who presented their sketched proposals to the Town Council a while ago, on being asked for an estimate of the cost, suggested a figure of between £10m and £20m for the proposed piazza, retail development, and underground car parking.  I think we can safely assume that anyone putting up that much moolah for a development would be looking for a return on capital employed, on top of amortisation of that capital plus a weighted average cost of capital, as we bean-counters are known to describe it.  I’m not sure the kind of tenants who could afford the rents (or motorists who would pay the parking charges) are quite what Julianne Evans,  former chairman of the Haslemere Chamber of Commerce and propertor of JL Nobbs, , had in mind.

Which makes a neat segue to the next front page article.

 

Much has been made of the increase in the number of empty premises lately, but there is apparently some good news:

Polo - oh my!  A fitting complement to the Aga shop (which some cynics think is the only shop people are really interested in coming specifically to Haslemere for).  Shame then that the town council and Haslemere Society were so opposed to an application to develop a polo facility on land near Barfold Wood/Lythe Hill. 

And no doubt we can look forward to a few more branches of Isawyoucoming.com, to add to the two or three we already have.

But then there is this:

That's more like it!  Another charity shop!

And, to conclude, it is evidently possible to succeed as an independent retailer in Haslemere, as Cockerills Shoes has proved.  Whatever they have, they should bottle it.
 

The third big story on the front page was, in a third week of reports, the response of Waverley Borough Council to the Inspector’s rather abrupt dismissal of their Core Strategy planning document.  (Don’t yawn – this is important).
 

WBC is in a bit of cleft stick really.  Damned if they do, damned if they don’t.  None of us will be very keen on having a pile of new homes on our doorstep – as last week’s letter from a LibDem worthy in Farnham, suggesting that houses be built in Dunsfold instead of on available land in his town, eloquently illustrates. 

David Beaman, Independent councillor on Farnham Town Council, has written a very thoughtful letter on this issue:

 

Indeed.  Or, one might ask why central government permits, nay encourages, unsustainable development.  One example is the presumption in favour of "brownfield" sites which has encouraged rapacious developers to launch bids to carpet-bomb former isolated quasi-industrial sites such as Dunsfold aerodrome or Syngenta at Fernhurst with high-density housing for which we, as council taxpayers, will have to stump up oodles of cash to fix the inadequate infrastructure (because as sure as hell the developers won't) or watch ever-growing numbers of commuter drivers scrapping over the dwindling supply of available free on-street parking spaces outside our houses.  Does it not make more sense to encourage development close to existing settlements, so that residents have facilities such as schools, shops, bus routes, rail stations, libraries, etc etc within walking distance?  Do all those single-person households (divorcés, for example) really have to have detached three-bedrom "executive" homes?

There seems here to be an assumption that just because someone wants something, they must have it.  I'd like my own executive jet, so I take it this government will facilitate that?

News from Barton Towers

In her latest fortnightly report on her activity, our county councillor reports:

Met with WBC Cllr Stephen Mulliner to discuss the possibility of a MSCP at the train station. It is a complicated situation involving a number of parties with South West Trains renting the land from Network Rail which holds the site as part of its regulated estate.  At present no party is interested in funding the project as it is not considered economically viable due to a number of factors including an unfavourable revenue support agreement between SWT and the DoT, and a lack of willingness to invest by SWT as its franchise is up for renewal in 2017. 

Well, No Shit, Sherlock!

Then this:

Haslemere business vitality

Invited representatives from Waverley Borough Council, Haslemere Town Council, Chamber of Trade and other businesses in Haslemere, including Waitrose to meet to discuss possible initiatives to boost trade.

 Footfall in many businesses in Haslemere has fallen significantly over the past year, there is a growing number of empty shop units. All high streets are under competition from internet sales, and general economic recession, but businesses in Haslemere suffered exceptional pressure during the 3 month gas works disruption when the High Street was effectively ‘closed’.  This was followed by two increases in parking charges in the Waitrose car park and one in the Chestnut Avenue car parks, as well as the extension of charging until 7pm.

 High parking charges were identified by the representative from Waitrose as a barrier to shoppers extending their stay to shop in Haslemere beyond the free hour (60p of the 80p charge) currently refunded by Waitrose. The inconvenience of searching for change to feed the meter was also identified as a reason for deterring shoppers.

Eh?  The gas mains works closed Lower Street.  I don’t remember noticing the High Street being “effectively closed” – unless you can’t be arsed to drive round the other way to access it.  Sure there were increases in parking charges, but they were hardly crippling.  As for not wanting to buy a second hour to add to the first paid for by Waitrose, then perhaps that is because people who park in the Waitrose car park are primarily there to shop in Waitrose, and not have to carry their groceries a hundred yards or so to another car park – after all, Tanner’s Lane charges only 50p for two hours and my (anecdotal) experience suggests that there are as many cars parked in Tanners lane as there are empty spaces in Waitrose on a typical weekday afternoon (ie a dozen or so tops).

The point about change is fair enough, but it seems that will be addressed when WBC re-lets the parking contract later this year, with cashless payment options being considered.



News roundup, week ending 21 June

Another fairly quiet week on the Three-Counties border, although a little more to report than last week.

The Waverley Borough Council proposals for resurfacing the Weyhill “Fairground” car park are to be considered by a Public Enquiry on a date to be determined, but probably not before 2014.

Waverley proposed to grade the site and lay a permeable base to minimise further degradation of the surface – a brand name which springs to mind is “Truckpave” but in any case it would be heavy duty plastic or concrete latticework slabs which would permit rainwater to soak through so as not to exacerbate the drainage problems with the site.  The proposal also included some fencing to separate a commuter parking area from an area for Weyhill shoppers to park short-term and – the thing which got the parking action types so aerated – infrastructure which would permit the installation of parking payment machines at a later date.  Waverley averred that there was no present intention to introduce charging.

The proposals provoked a fair measure of reaction, much of it positive but also quite a lot of objections, which seemed mainly to revolve around the possibility of charging in the future.  The Haslemere Society proposed an alternative scheme to pour tons of scalpings onto the site, grade and level to repair the current potholed state, pending longer term plans for the site.  Those longer term plans might involve redevelopment of the site, which is interesting given that the Society, through its life president Robert Serman, had previously objected to construction of a new library for the town there on the grounds that it was Common Land – the Haslemere Society having started life in the 19^th Century as the Haslemere Commons Preservation Society!

I know, having seen their presentation, that Haslemere Vision (essentially the same people in the flesh) had sketched out a proposal involving two levels of underground parking underneath a retail development which might attract, for example, M&S Foods.  I am not quite clear how that can be reconciled to the fact that the site is Common Land, or how the town’s independent retailers would feel about a development whose estimated construction cost (their guestimate was £10-20m) would surely demand a revenue stream which could only be satisfied by chainstore tenants.  Mind you, it is also not clear how the site can continue to be used a car park when it is an offence for a motor vehicle to drive more than 15 metres off a highway onto common land!

The Haslemere Herald has another report on the rejection of Waverley’s planning Core Strategy, but it doesn’t really add anything to what was published on their front page last week, reported here.  With acknowledgements to Waverley Matters Blog, you can hear a feature on the core Strategy on the James Cannon show on BBC Radio Surrey here. 

However as ever the local libdems can be relied on for political opportunism, as shown in this letter on the letters page.

So,  a guy who lives in Farnham doesn’t want more houses built in Farnham, instead he wants them built on the Dunsfold site.  Never mind that the things which people would want to have nearby – shops, schools, a railway station, fast roads – are in Farnham (and our other local towns), while Dunsfold is in the middle of nowhere.  Never mind that a thousand houses at Dunsfold would have a far more dramatic effect on the small village of Dunsfold (pop <3,000 Source: Wikipedia) and its rural hinterland than it would have on a town like Farnham (pop ~38,000).  Never mind that Farnham has easy access via dual carriageways to the A3 and M3, while Dunsfold has the crappy, potholed B2131 to Goldaming (6.5 miles) or the A281 to Guildford (8 miles).  Never mind that Farnham has a railway station in walking distance for most of the town while Dunsfold would involve a car journey to Guildford or Godalming where parking is already congested and difficult – and don’t believe the nonsense from the developers about a sustainable community with employment on the doorstep, most residents will only be able to afford the prices by having commuter jobs.  At least it wouldn't be in his back yard!

 

Note also the assertion that Dunsfold is "brownfield".  Well yes, to the extent that there has been development of that land already, but what Dunsfold aerodrome actually comprises is many hundreds of acres of undeveloped grassland with a few strips of concrete running across them for runways and taxiways. 

Dunsfold aerodrome - does that field look brown to you?

The presumption in favour of brownfield development was intended to re-use old factory sites or wastelands, quite often requiring clearance of old buildings and possibly also decontamination.  Claiming sites like Dunsfold, or for that matter Syngenta at Fernhurst or the King Edward Hospital at Easebourne as brownfield, is a lazy, greedy cop-out.

Meeting the housing needs of the borough are not going to be easy, and some disturbance or loss of amenity is bound to be experienced by residents living near more urban brownfield or greenfield sites, but that is equally the case for residents, possibly the same ones,  from increased road and parking congestion and pollution as new-town residents gravitate by car towards the old town centres.  Personally, I am disappointed to hear on the radio clip that the local Friends of the Earth apparently considers Dunsfold Aerodrome a suitable place for a major housing development.

Further on this note, according to the Surrey Advertiser on-line, plans have been unveiled for housing development close to the centre of Cranleigh, on greenfield land.  The site has the advantage, compared with Dunsfold, of being a stone's throw from Cranleigh HIgh Street, in fact adjacent to the main car park.  Naturally enough concerns have been raised about local infratsructure, especially transport links to Guildford, but at least residents will be able to walk to local amenities.

On the subject of the James Cannon Show, our county councillor has been busy again, this time talking about the "dangerous" potholes in Derby Road East, outside St Bartholomews School.  The package can be found here (until 9am Monday 24th, if you're interested) starting with an interview with John Furey, Surrey cabinet member for roads, at 1hr 9mins from the start, talking about Surrey's £100m road resurfacing programme.  Apart from the conundrum of Derby Road - curiously, an unadopted public highway so the responsibility for repair falls not on the county but on the "frontagers", ie the school which means, erm, the county (but out of the school's limited budget) - Mrs B apparently thinks the money is being spent on the wrong roads and want to get that changed.  I'm sure that will go down well with the residents in the roads whose repairs she wants to take away!

Of course, potholes have been a pre-occupation of local government and of setions of the press since (almost) time immemorial.  It was after all a Daily Mail report from January 1967 which inspired these words in that seminal work "A Day in the LIfe", the sign-off song on the Beatles' Sgt Peppers album:

I read the news today, Oh Boy!
Four thousand holes in Blackburn, Lancashire,
and though the holes were rather small,
they had to count them all.
Now I know how many holes it takes to fill the Albert Hall,
I'd love to tũũũũũũrn yoũũũũũũ õõõõõõn
 

Hold the Front Page!

Of course our local newspaper is always up to the minute with its reports of what is going on.  It has been known apparently to think a reader’s letter is so good that it had to be published twice, a few weeks apart (especially when it was penned by our not-successful SCC candidate Stephen Mulliner), but look at the report below by one of their newshounds, and compare and contrast these two items.  The report:

 

With this press release:

Poorly performing town centres can be revitalised, if traders and local authorities work together

17 May 2013 PR 2013 24
FSB News Release
PR 2013 24

Issue date: Thursday 16 May 2013

Poorly performing town centres can be revitalised, if traders and local authorities work together

The Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) says half of independent retailers think their town centre is performing ‘poorly' and is backing calls for closer ties between small firms and local authorities, to boost spending on the high street.

The FSB is calling for local decision-makers to have closer relationships with small firms, to boost the economy of local high streets. Research by the FSB shows half (53%) of small firms in England think their town centre is currently performing 'poorly'. Seventy per cent believe better links between themselves and their local authorities would have a positive impact on their high street.

These small firms believe that initiatives including; businesses relocating to town centres (60%), flexible opening hours (38%) and more ‘Pop-up' stores (37%), should also be part of key plans to revitalise high streets.

It comes as the FSB backs Local Business Week calling on UK shoppers to buy three things from their high street. The FSB has also recently re-launched its Keep Trade Local campaign to highlight the need to save local stores.

Mike Cherry, National Policy Chairman, Federation of Small Businesses, said:
"Reviving town centres from decline is possible with the right measures from councils and local authorities. We want improved dialogue and co-operation between independent retailers and their local decision-makers, so they can work jointly on improving their town centres. Attracting new businesses and shoppers is one way to ensure the survival of small businesses, which is why we are supporting Local Business Week and its pledge for shoppers to buy three things on their local high street."

ENDS

 

Take note of the dates, and the Harry-Potter transformation of Mike Cherry into Neil Eames.

At least they aren't blaming it all on parking charges!

 

Disgusted

More in the Herald, after some weeks without a Haslemere letter, we now have this:

 

So the featured letter of the week in this community a-buzz with exciting developments and murky goings-on is – dog dirt!  I will acknowledge that the biting incidents, even from a small dog as described, are more serious and merit some official action, but carelessly deposited turds and fly-tipped poo-bags?  Is there nothing of real concern for us to worry about?  And while the behaviour of the poopers and tippers may be “disgusting”, doesn’t the action of the unknown individual who, after several days, removed the offending article when the correspondent clearly did nothing, merit at least a word of appreciation?

Haslemere Vision is holding two volunteer briefing events, one on July 2^nd, 8pm at Haslemere Hall, the other on 6 July, 2pm at the Haslewey Centre (by the entrance to Tescos).  If you would consider volunteering for one of their working groups you can attend these events, hear a short presentation and have an opportunity to ask questions after.

News roundup, week ending 14 June

Another quiet week, really, here in Haslemere.  Nothing specific to the town going on, no letters from “Disgusted of Shepherd’s Hill” about the colour of railings.

The front page of the Herald is largely taken up with a report on the failure of Waverley Borough Council’s “Core Strategy”, the document which sets out the overall guidelines for the borough’s planning policy for the next ten years.  This has been rejected by the Inspector as not fit for purpose.  For anyone who is interested, you can read more about the Inspector’s proceedings on the Waverley Matters blog, operated by moles in the Borough Council’s Godalming offices.

If you have a mind to read the Core Strategy, first obtain a supply of intravenous caffeine.  These documents are notoriously dry.  They are however also very important – the borough, as planning authority for the area, can set guidelines on development in a number of areas, including importantly housing, within the context of the National Planning Policy Framework, and in the absence of a Core Strategy, planning policy has to fall back on the NPPF itself.  This is the position Waverly now faces, and some view this as a potential disaster as they consider it offers open season to development which local residents may be powerless to oppose.  See for example today's post on Waverley Matters, "Let the Goldrush Begin".  This one is on the opposite side of the Borough, at Alfold, but don't fret, no doubt it will be coming to a cinema near you before long!

 

Certainly elements of the NPPF on “sustainable development” have caused considerable alarm in national bodies such as the National Trust, Council for Protection of Rural England, wildlife charities etc.

The Inspector’s problem with the Waverley Core Strategy seems to be largely about the borough’s proposals for meeting housing demand.  In essence, the Inspector’s objections are (a) they propose a rate of supply (230 new homes per year) which is woefully inadequate to demand, (b) they are failing to engage with neighbouring authorities on housing planning, and are in effect hoping that East Hampshire, Rushmoor etc will plug the gap for them, and (c) their assessment of need in the core strategy has no sound basis, and is more or less “think of a number, then halve it”.

A lot of attention has been paid to the old Dunsfold aerodrome site, for which its current owners have been attempting to get permission to build a sizeable new housing estate of “eco-homes”.  Waverley rejected their application and there has been a long appeals process which I assume the owners have lost.  Now they are proposing to develop Dunsfold as an airport, which if anything has upset the neighbours even more than housing.

The borough’s objections to housing at Dunsfold don’t sound unreasonable to me – putting about 1,000 or more homes in the middle of nowhere, with at-best mediocre road and transport links to the neighbouring towns, would create pollution and congestion from all the cars coming and going, and no doubt create serious parking issues for Godalming in particular, as the nearest railway town.  No-one with a brain buys the notion that an “eco-town” which undertakes to provide sustainable transport options and opportunities for employment on site which remove the need for commuting will actually deliver what it promises – private developers have no enforceable responsibilities for this and once the genie is out of the bottle.....

However, the alternatives may well be worse.  As also reported in Waverley Matters, the borough may have been earmarking green-field sites around Cranleigh for development when Dunsfold, technically a “brownfield” site, could have been used instead.  And if the borough puts its head in the sand over housing development generally, the eventual outcome could in fact be far worse as unrestrained development takes hold.

It seems as though the current Tory administration is frightened of the backlash it would likely face from “Nimbies” if it agrees to a sensible level of new housing provision, especially with an election coming up in 2015.  If the electors cotton on to what has happened now, their wrath may in fact be more fearsome than the current administration had ever feared!

Residents schemes arrive in Haslemere

The letter below (shown in “mail-merge” format) should by now have been received by all residents in the roads for which a residents permit scheme has been approved.

You-know-who has given us plebs a further update on what she has been doing for the last fortnight – seems to be about as much as she had done in the preceding week (sic). http://www.haslemerefirst.com/councillor-barton-round-up-27-may-9-june-2013/
 

Items of note:

3. Support for Haslemere Businesses: Received a letter from owner of High Street business setting out the current crisis facing shops and businesses in Haslemere High Street.

Sent invitation to the 5 Haslemere Borough Councillors, Haslemere Town Council and Chamber of Trade and other businesses to meet to explore how, as elected representatives of the community, we can work together to support the economic vitality of the community. Meeting planned for next week to discuss possible initiatives.

Work together?  Given the intemperate accusations, bordering on libel, levelled at some of our borough councillors by individuals in Mrs B’s retinue, I should imagine that will be a tough one.   However I have always admired the forbearance they have shown in the face of such sewage, so I imagine they will show willing.

4. South West Area Briefing for Local Committee Members, Shalford Village Hall.

... It will be made clear to the public that LAC meetings are private decision making meetings held in public.

Stone me!  And there was I thinking that local committee meetings were open fora for any nutter to bang on about whatever happens to offend them today.

I am concerned that there has been an apparent failure to address some of the key issues we faced during the parking saga, for example ill informed discussions between Committee members about a very detailed local parking issues leading to poor decisions being made observed by frustrated local residents sitting in the audience unable to intervene to point out substantive and material errors in the evidence forming the basis of the decisions being taken. I intend to pursue my concerns on this point going forward.

My distinct impression from the January meeting was that the Beech Road scheme may well have fallen by the wayside as a result of the confusion created by one SCC councillor, Councillor Munro, who evidently had a weak grip on the facts about Beech Rd, thinking that the proposal was for a waiting restriction, which would be arduous to police, whereas it was a curfew restriction for a specified period, which would be easy to police. On that basis Mrs B might well reflect that perhaps ignorance is bliss?

"A day in the life" (of Derby Road East)

I read the news today, Oh Boy!
Ten thousand holes in Blackburn, Lancashire,
and though the holes were very small,
I had to count them all.
Now I know how many holes it takes to fill the Albert Hall,
I'd love to tũũũũũũrn yoũũũũũũ  õõõõõõn

 

News roundup, week ending 7 June

The Council Executive (cabinet) of Waverley Borough Council had its regular meeting this Tuesday, 4^th June.  It is too early to get the minutes, but the agenda papers were quite revealing on a couple of points.  Firstly, as shown in the snapshot below from the capital budget summaries (bottom right of image) a budget of £342,000 is to be carried forward beyond the end of the current financial year (ending March 2014) for the resurfacing and other works at the Weyhill “Fairground” car park, the explanation being “project on hold”.  In other words, the project has been postponed, not cancelled.  I’ll update when (if) more explanation becomes available.

 



Secondly, the meeting was due to take decisions on the appointment of the car park management contractor for the new contract which is impending, and on which option to choose for cashless payment of car parking charges.

Well, that last is good news.  Personally, I have absolutely no issue with paying less than £1 an hour to park my car in Haslemere or Godalming (50p for two hours in Tanners Lane) – I might easily spend more on the fuel to drive there and back, especially if, like so many of our town centre visitors, I were driving a wannabe Humvee.  It can however be irritating to find you don’t have the right change so either have to go and create some by making a small purchase with a note (say a newspaper in our excellent independent newsagent?) or have to use too large a denomination of coin and not get any change.

South West Trains has for some time been offering payment by mobile phone – you register your details of phone number (for caller ID) and car registrations with the payment agent, then when you park you make a quick call, enter the car park’s code number, and specify the amount of time you want.  If you need more time, for example if you'd rather not have to  bolt down your scalding latte in one of our excellent independent cafés, you simply make another call and purchase more time without returning to your car.  Simples!  As yet I don’t know whether WBC is choosing this option, but again, you will know as soon as I do.

 

Staying on the subject of council committee meetings, I see that Haslemere Town Council had various meetings in May – perhaps these are not “hot off the press” except that the minutes are only posted some time later so are quite newly available.

Full council did little other than elect the new mayor, Libby Piper.  The Finance & Audit Committee met on 8 May, and discussed grants procedures and the visitor information centre at the museum.  On grants, it seems that most councillors on the committee want to continue with the practice, abandoned by nearly all local authorities now, of holding their grants deliberations “In exempt” (In secret, to you or me), a practice which many criticise, including our new county councillor.  Perhaps it has something to do with the identified shortcomings in their procedures, for example not all councillors were getting a copy of the paperwork ahead of the meetings, and that decisions were not demonstrably being taken with due reference to the policies and criteria which are supposed to be applied?  This is our money we are talking about here, and I think we are entitled to some transparency about how it is spent, and proper assurance that it is adequately safeguarded.  Let us hope that the arrival of a new Mayor will see changes in that respect.

The planning committee met on 2 May.  Most of the agenda is a case-by-case consideration of planning applications in the town being submitted to the planning authority, Waverley Borough Council, and on this occasion there were no presentations from "co-opted members" instructing councillors to oppose zebra crossings or paint railings white.  There was however one application to which the committee objected, which caught my eye.  Shall we play a little game?  Shall we speculate that the objection might have had something to do with the fact that the adjoining property is occupied by one of the former Mayor’s mates?
 

Surely our former Mayor would not corruptly use her influence to her own advantage or the advantage of a friend?
 

Of course not.  Any more than our current Waverley Borough Council leader would when parking in Beech Road is under discussion.

 

Meanwhile, elsewhere in the forest, something stirs.

In central London, Westminster City Council is planning to instal remote parking sensors in the street surface on the outer edges of parking bays, to monitor arrivals and departures of vehicles.  To quote from the Evening Standard:

Every paid-for parking bay in London’s West End will be remote-controlled by the end of next year in a move which has raised concerns that motorists may be hit with new peak tariffs and electronic fines. Westminster council will spend £1.5m fitting sensors to up to 10,000 bays in the borough, beginning with the installation of 3,000 of the devices in three of the busiest parking zones in the West End.

The sensors are sunk into the street on the edge of each bay to detect vehicle movements and they send a signal to the “ParkRight” smartphone app to enable drivers to quickly find a vacant parking space.

Westminster insists the technology will initially be limited to boosting occupancy rates and ensuring motorists cannot avoid parking charges. It claims road congestion will be reduced, citing research that says a third of urban traffic consists of motorists searching for somewhere to park.

But they also admit that the technology could be used to set new peak hourly charges -  with the current maximum set at £4.40 per hour - and off-peak discounts using a system of  “variable tariffs”.

Of course Westminster is an easy target for accusations of profiteering – after all it raises more than £30m a year surplus from parking charges, permitting it to have one of the lowest council tax precepts in the country, which is politically helpful to the ruling Tory group.  However, London’s local newspaper can at least see how such a move, and indeed the acknowledged scope for increasing charges to respond to information on high use, would be beneficial, in making the parking spaces work harder for motorists, as their editorial on the subject shows:

 

Would that the Haslemere Herald were as practical.

Pictured below is a photograph, taken on Thursday afternoon about 3pm, of the Tanners Lane Car Park

You can see that there are free spaces, in fact I can tell you, as I counted them, on the way through, that there were 20, including the one just vacated by the car you can see just going through the exit.  That is about 40% of the total available.  Now, the High St car park behind Waitrose, seen a minute or two later, was no more heavily used, but evidently there was no shortage of visitors who are not so concerned about the outrageous demands of our rapacious, profiteering borough council putting up the High St charge from 70p to 80p for the first hour, or £1.80 for two, that they were moved to choose Tanners Lane at 50p for two hours!