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.