Last news roundup of the summer

(I know that in some quarters “Summer” is defined as the months of July, August and September, but to me, the school “rentrée” signifies its end.)

Andrew Tyrie is a NIMBY

 As member of Parliament for the constituency of Chichester, which covers much of West Sussex including Fernhurst, Andrew Tyrie was “unavailable for comment” when asked this week by the Haslemere Herald for his reaction to the protests being launched by the residents of Fernhurst against the fracking licence application being submitted by Celtique Energie.

Unavailable for comment?  Isn’t this a matter of great concern to his constituents?  Should he not have something to say to the local newspaper which no doubt many of those constituents in the Fernhurst area will read?

Well, the Herald article does report that Mr Tyrie supports fracking – but not in his back yard.

 

 

(FFF, by the way, stands for Frack-Free Fernhurst).  I do hope that the Mr Marcus Adams quoted above doesn’t share Mr Tyrie’s view – that fracking is fine for northerners or poor people, just don’t spoil my countryside with it.

However I would agree that the government has no mandate to support fracking – just like it has no mandate for dropping bombs on Damascus, and look where that policy got them!

The Fernhurst Frackers are also the subject of this week’s featured letter in the Herald.  Mr Hingston, a Haslemere resident, evidently deplores the “orchestrated mob” which descended on Balcombe and hopes that no such thing happens at Fernhurst. 

I don’t share his view – the protestors at Balcombe certainly did not observe all aspects of the law, but nor were they violent, intimidating or abusive, and the police response was heavy-handed, to say the least, with at least one member of parliament arrested for simply sitting on the ground.  The correspondent whose letter features immediately next to Mr Hingston evidently agrees with me there.

 

Fernhurst will need all the help it can get.  Best would of course be that they get it from their nearer neighbours, who will no doubt also be adversely affected, as FFF’s demo run with a 32 tonne lorry through Camelsdale and Liphook,  reported on the Herald’s front page, was aimed at showing, but “any port in a storm” so they say.

 

The proposals to seek planning permission to build about 150 houses on land at Sturt Farm, as reported last week, have provoked the predictable reaction, from a resident of a nearby street.

 

 

Everyone?  Speak for yourself, Mr Toms! I can certainly see that residents of Sun Brow, accustomed to looking out over fields from their back windows, would be adversely affected, and they are entitled to object on that basis. And they have my sympathy, but nobody owns a view in this country – unless you also own the land which makes up your view or which stands between you and your view.  Many people who have bought seaside properties have learned this to their cost over the years.  Any loss of agricultural land, whether AONB or however designated, or not, is a pity but, does Mr Toms have children?  I do, and I fear for them – where will they live when they grow up, and how on earth will they ever afford to buy a home somewhere near (not too near, you understand, but not too far either) their parents?  Shortage of supply, exacerbated by pitifully low levels of new building, have driven prices up beyond affordability for anyone other than investment bankers or their children.  Is not Sturt Farm a better option than the old Syngenta site at Fernhurst, which is truly in the middle of nowhere and will certainly impose huge burdens on local schools, roads, parking around the station in Haslemere, etc?  At least Sturt Farm permits residents easy access on foot to teh station or town centre, via the footpath linking them to Longdene Road.

I would also take issue with his hyperbole.  The houses are not being “crammed”.  True, many east-siders are used to having upwards of an acre of garden all to themselves, but the density proposed here, of 150 houses in 33 acres or slightly below 5 per acre, is relatively low density by modern standards, and not significantly denser than the housing in Camelsdale or Critchmere.  There are not going to be “hundreds” of them, and they certainly will not have “thousands” of residents – unless perhaps Mr Toms envisages each house accommodating a football team.

Godalming College appears to have had its planning application, to build housing on its old playing fields and replace those playing fields with new ones on land provided by Ladywell Convent, rejected by Waverley Borough Council.  This matters to us, because that is where the great majority of Haslemere’s sixteen year olds will go to school for their A levels or vocational qualifications – even many of those who attended independent schools up to GCSE.  In addition to the new playing fields, the development would have released money to fund a new teaching block at the school.

I am not qualified to judge the validity of the reasons given by Waverley planners (who certainly have a fearsome reputation for being “The man who likes to say NO”) but surely it is barking mad to suggest, as the Herald reports Godalming Town Council as saying in their objection

Excuse me?  I know this is not quite as extreme as Dunsfold Park, or Syngenta at Fernhurst, but the Milford Hospital site is far more remote from amenities such as schools and shops, is only served by a stopping service on SW from Milford Station and unquestionably requires constant private car use to make it viable.  Those cars will likely also hammer up and down Tuesley Lane, a single-track road which goes into the back of Godalming – not a million miles from the College!

Why oh why did Waverley give consent for the Milford Hospital development if it will not for Godalming College?

And finally, no reports of moaning by our retailers this week about hard done by they are over customers being asked to be something south of a quid – probably less than their petrol bill for their trip – to park in the town, but as further “uplifting” evidence that not all commerce in the town is in the doldrums, this article from page 93 of this week’s Herald.

 

Bank Holiday news roundup

A slow news week this week, perhaps not surprisingly as it is in the thick of the holiday season.  Certainly Nikki Barton’s website haslemerefirst.com has nothing new to report since she last updated on 14 August.

The wasp-yellow website haslemereparkingdotcom has twice covered the “story” of penalty charge notices going up in the short-stay car park at Weyhill Fairground.  Apparently this penalty, for parking more than four hours in the western area on the other side of the barriers from the all-day commuter section, has been in force for several years so it doesn’t seem unreasonable that it should be properly advertised - as indeed my moles tell it has, as the signs have in fact been there for several years as well.

HAG also reports that a petition is being got up against the penalties, and can be signed in various local shops, including Woodie & Morris – a couple of paces only from Weyhill (eh??).  I will not be signing – I can’t imagine why anyone would need to be there for four hours to go shopping, and permitting such long stays denies spaces to customers who actually want to buy stuff in the Weyhill shops.  Shorter limits increase turnover of spaces and so total numbers of drive-in visitors, which is good for business.

The main feature on the front page of the Haslemere Herald is the proposal to develop “up to a maximum” of 150 homes on the site of Sturt Farm, a 33 acre undeveloped site immediately to the south of the Herons’ leisure centre.  Details can be seen on their website here.

 

Outline of development site, with Herons in top left corner

 

Apparently a previous developer was refused permission to build twice that number of homes, and the average of about 5 per acre is low density by modern standards.  No doubt it will upset some of the immediate neighbours, such as the lady in Sun Brow who bought her house five years ago because (?) it had a view over fields.  However, Waverley has a critical shortage of housing, and the borough council has not exactly done much to resolve that so far.  WBC are however right that thousand-plus housing developments on beige-field sites in the sticks like Dunsfold Park are not the way to go – a guaranteed anti-sustainable development which would inevitably greatly increase car-dependency, and young first-time buyers these days face the choice – if they can afford a home at all – of either a car, or a home, not both.  At least residents here could easily walk down to the station and town centre via the footpath to Longdene Road.

 

Also on the front page, news that the Poachers Pocket restaurant in Petworth Road is to close down.  Apparently its owners no longer consider it viable to maintain the premises on the level of business they have been able to attract in recent times. 

It is sad news, as we come to rely more and more on chain restaurants – Pizza Express, ASK and occasional rumours of Nando’s or Wagamama – but surely the Herald has got itself in a muddle if they think, as indeed they say, that  it is the only independent restaurant in the town?  What about Shahanaz, Curry Nights, Kritsana Thai, Good Earth?  Are they not restaurants?  Or is the Herald simply displaying its east-sider prejudice against Weyhill?

According to the Herald, the owners had this to say about their location:

 

So, we are back to the old pre-occupation, nay obsession, of the Herald – car parking.  Taking such a relentlessly negative view on the relationship of parking to commercial health of town centre businesses must surely be a self-fulfilling prophecy.  And in any case, who says that parking is not easily accessible?   The Waitrose (High Street) car park, which is free of charge after 7pm, is a mere 300 yards walk away, as the map below shows.

 

 



 

 

Finally, trust the Herald to be truly up to the minute with the news as always, with this report headlined:

This story has been reported at least once before – twice, I think – in the Herald.  Have they forgotten they have already covered it?  Or is it just a laudable effort at recycling?

Note how, just caught on the image, Julianne Evans manages to get her ha’porth in.  Prefaced by “Haslemere Chamber of Trade called on the borough...” etc, they quote from the former president of the Chamber.

Yes, former president, although it is not clear that she knows it yet.

 

 



News roundup, week ending 16 August

Well, here I am, back in town rested after my break on the Côte d’Emeraude.  (Do not fret Nick - it was only a holiday)  The weather was fabulous – sunny most of the time and not much rain or wind.  One should not have too high expectations of north Breton weather if one is not to be disappointed, but the scenery is always breathtaking and I can look at it for hours, even through the rain.

Being August, there has not really been all that much going on, but a little.  The Haslemere Herald reported in its 2^nd August edition on road safety in Kings Road following the introduction recently of the residents’ parking restrictions there:

 

 

Well, the Herald can always be relied on to misrepresent a story in its headline, although even they do not usually dare to falsify the body copy of the story itself – as can be clearly seen here, Mrs Berry is pointing the finger not at the resident’s permit restrictions, but at the lack of restrictions, eg double yellow lines, further along the road where commuters might be expected to move if they are willing to walk the extra distance to the station.  And Mrs Barton can’t resist the temptation to say “I told you so”, although I would bet my pension that had the SCC proposals been to double-yellow along towards the Robertet/Herons stretch of Kings Road, the HAGs would have howled in protest – see below on the subject of Tanners’ lane.

Moving, for a moment, away from the Herald, Mrs B has again emerged briefly from her estivation* with her “Councillor Update from Recent Weeks” (whatever happened to those fortnightly reports eh, Nikki?) reporting among other things on Parking in Kings Road:

Concerned residents in Kings Road have been in contact about the hazard presented by the growing number of cars parked on the bend of Kings Road by the industrial estate.  SCC Highways are planning double yellow lines via a temporary traffic enforcement notice that should be in place by the end of August.

The Kings Road parking situation is the result of inevitable car displacement following recent additional yellow lining and the introduction of resident only parking schemes in Haslemere. SCC Highways are planning to assess the impact of the schemes in the autumn before the December parking review.

To be fair, her reportage is fairly neutral, although she gets in a dig at the end of her piece about empty ROP bays.  (Again, more on this re Tanners’ lane below)

*    Archaic English word.  Kind of the opposite of hibernation, ie tuning out for the summer.

So, to Tanners’ Lane.  Someone (or two) called Anonymous has commented on my last post, to observe that the ROP bays opposite railway Cottages have lain empty, apparently not taken up by the Cottage residents.  Instead it seems they avoid the need to buy a ROP permit by parking further up the lane towards the green, where in the view(s) of Anonymous, the lie of the road makes this unsafe.

I guess this is only a natural reaction – why pay if you can park for free a few yards away?  I am inclined to agree with Anonymous about the dangers of parking closer to the green – certainly when I cycle through here en route to the shops of a weekend I feel a little nervous about this bit – but it should be noted that the original SCC proposal for Tanners’ Lane envisaged that apart from the Railway Cottages ROP bay, the whole of this stretch would be double-yellowed, and it was one of the HAG’s small victories that this did not happen.

Finally on this subject, Mrs B refers to the impending review ahead of the December local committee meeting (will Mrs B manage to make that one?).  As one of those to raise questions about this at the last meeting, I was disappointed by the response I got but it has to be said that the review is not intended to be a revisiting of the entire scheme, simply a technical appraisal of how it is operating in its early days.  Evidently one resident has already made her point about the Kings Road situation and it looks like SCC is responding promptly to that.  This is not an opportunity to object to, or support, the schemes as though the November 2012 consultation was being re-run, but if you have any detailed comments of this nature, do make sure to bring them to the attention of the parking officers at SCC - david.curl@surreycc.gov.uk.

Before I move on chronologically (and before I get on to fracking, a theme throughout the period) here is another thoughtful contribution from independent Farnham councillor David Beaman:

 

One thing Mr Beaman doesn’t comment on is this:  it is not just a question of how many homes need to be built in our area over the ensuing years, but what type.  A shortage of supply not only denies people, especially younger people, a place of their own to live, it also forces up prices through the well-established effect of supply and demand.  However, housebuilders only want to build what they want to build, which normally means tightly packed but nevertheless detached “executive-style” houses, because that is what is most profitable to build.  They only want to build on Greenfield sites, or even better on what I will call “beige-field” sites (brownfield, but without the real issues about site clean-up and ground pollution etc of a real factory site) as planning consents are perceived to be easier for those.  Dunsfold is a beige-field site.

What young people however want, and what entry-level buyers want, is a home of their own, never mind whether it is detached, or terraced, or indeed not even a house at all.  Indeed, there are distinct advantages to apartments in terms of security and maintenance.  They also, by and large, want to live near town centres, with easy access to clubs and bars, shops and jobs, and the transport links to London.  They want to be able to have a night out without worrying about how they're going to get home.  (Unlike, perhaps, their parents' generation, which is not nearly queasy enough, even now, about driving home having consumed a few) 

 

Will they get them?  Not unless the housebuilders are forced in that direction.  In that context, I was recently pointed towards this excellent entry in Wikipedia about the Israeli Social Justice Protests of 2011.  One of the areas of protest was about availability and affordability of homes.  Interestingly, the government response to this complaint was to promote the building of more smaller homes and apartments, incentivising builders by supplying them with government land with a 50% reduction in the land price if they agreed to build small apartments there.  (Cynics might say they solved their housing shortage by stealing more Palestinian land.  I couldn’t possibly comment)

 

Now, to fracking.  The last three issues of the Herald have featured stories, or letters, or both on this subject.  Opinion is clearly divided.  It is also quite evident that you don’t have to be a bearded leftie to be uneasy about the process – our own Waverley Council leader and Haslemere WBC councillor Robert Knowles is uncomfortable about it.  Michael Edwards, a local resident safely tucked away in Tennyson’s Ridge, where the big trucks will not be going past with their loads of sand and chemicals or tanks of liquefied natural gas extracted, and where it does not appear that any wells are proposed, has had the indulgence of the Herald in being permitted to write three times on this subject, in support of fracking.  Graeme Spratley contributed an excellent letter with some interesting technical information about the process,

and the Herald indulged me this week by publishing my thoughts on the diversion this causes from addressing our long-term energy security problems.  (Having spent three weeks just a few miles from the world’s first industrial-scale tidal generation facility, the “Usine Maremotrice de la Rance”, I am keen to advocate serious research into the potential of tidal power, as it is the one truly predictable renewable energy source).

 

Meanwhile, I read  today that water companies have concerns about contamination of their resources by the chemical used in the process.

“Nick” left a comment on my past post urging us to stand shoulder to shoulder with the people of Fernhurst, and to set aside our differences about car parking to be united on this.  I agree, although sadly it is not a matter on which local government has much power to promote, or prevent it happening.

 

And finally, back to parking (the end-note for this week, I promise).  The Herald has picked up on a report by the RAC foundation to get back on its hobby-horse about parking charges.  As ever, their reporting is fair and balanced:  

Do they?  I doubt it:  they are reporting on an entire nation’s local authority parking accounts and while I dare say they highlight the larger cases like Westminster, I can’t imagine Waverley merits special mention.  Indeed, their press release for their report, dated 1 August, cites the top ten local authority parking surpluses but the lowest of these, Hounslow, makes more than three times what Waverley made.

As ever, the body of the report contains a little more of the truth.  Professor Stephen Glaister, the chairman of the RAC Foundation, remarks that many councils make deficits on the parking current accounts, and even those which make surpluses may not be in the black after including their capital accounts.  I don’t know whether they mention the authorities’ fiduciary duty  to manage public assets properly, but Waverley’s car parks represent extremely valuable real estate, on which any private landlord would expect to make an appropriate rental yield – how would our parking objectors react if they were to start letting council housing tenants live rent-free?

Mind you, in places the article is economical with the actualité, as Alan Clark once put it:

Oh yes?  Forum?  It’s a long while since they have accepted contributions to their website, and comments are no longer welcome.  Comments were only ever welcome if they agreed with them, as a number of dissidents found out when they tried to post, and did not see their comments get through the “moderator”.  I managed to get a few through – I think they must have had their guard down when I registered – but even then I had to challenge them more than once about suppression of contributions.  As the contributions in question were pointing out potential defamatory statements they were making about other individuals, their response was not to post the correction, but simply to remove the offending original article.

And, to wrap up:

The “cash cow” argument is the hoariest chestnut in the cabinet.  Motorists are being charged for a service.  The charges are almost invariably lower than would be sought by a private car park operator.  They represent a return on capital invested for the landlord, and are a fiduciary obligation (balanced against legitimate governance matters like promotion of local trade) of the local authority as custodian of our assets.  Surpluses from parking fund other council expenditures and so help to limit the general council tax precept – it is swings and roundabouts for most Waverley residents as most have cars, but it also maintains the principle that one resident should not be called upon to unduly subsidise another through his council tax.  Especially when that resident is elderly, or prevented from driving by disability, or unable to afford to run a car of their own, while the motorists are (on balance) likely to be healthier, wealthier, and younger than the non-motorists. 

 

Amen