25/1/2008

Woking

Letters Extra from January 24 2008

Picture of deprivation is not the community I recognise

EDITOR — I am writing this in response to your article about the ‘deprived areas’ of Byfleet, Rectory Lane and Stream Close (Byfleet News and Mail, January 17).

I am in fact a resident of Rectory Lane and have found your article not only describing somewhere that is nothing like the place we live, but quite offensive. To say both of these places are ranked as among the ‘most deprived’ in the area is unbelievable.

Has anyone from either your paper or the council driven down either of these roads recently? Deprived isn’t a word I would use.

Where have the figures come from for them to get these findings? You state that the roads are the sixth worst for education, skills, training and living environment. The road is busy with through traffic but I would say the properties in Rectory Lane, which are both local authority and private, are kept in a reasonable state of repair.

No-one has asked us if we are working, what our income is, or what qualifications we have recently, so again how has the data been compiled?

The road has households of a mix of all ages, elderly residents and young families included. I would think apart from the retired occupants of the road, the unemployment is quite low judging by how quiet the area is during the day.

As for crime I would say the area is no worse than any other part of Byfleet. You may get to hear the youngsters going back and forth to the park but very little else.

As the council is now supposedly aware of these problems and now it has published these figures, it means that our properties   will  be worth a lot less than they were as we are now officially living in such a deprived area.

Who will want to buy a property in such a road? Will they be giving us a reduction in our council tax for the foreseeable future? As it is the council that has reached these findings will it be doing something to improve whatever is wrong? Let’s see, shall we?

I think the council should say exactly where it has obtained this information and how this data was compiled. Failure to come forward with this exact information should result in an apology to all Rectory Lane and Stream Close residents for misleading, potentially damaging information.
E Brann
Rectory Lane
Byfleet

Editor’s note: The statistics used by the borough council came from a report published in 2007 by the government’s Department for Community and Local Government.

Tenants lose out in council homes sale

EDITOR — I write regarding my concerns over the council’s intention to sell off its housing stock.

I would remind everyone that after government legislation a survey took place in Woking asking council tenants whether they wished to remain with the council or switch to an outside body. Tenants voted overwhelmingly to stay with the council, one reason being that council rent is controlled by central government to protect the less well-off.
It appears that the stock will now be sold to the council’s own recently-formed private housing company which will be outside rent control.

To achieve the housing company the council made a decision to go into debt borrowing a large sum of money from government, one of many reasons it cannot afford the repairs.

If the council sells 40 homes a year it would ultimately mean the end of any council stock. This would go against the tenants’ wishes and, as suggested, would increase the rents on these properties to around £50 a week, with substantial increases each year.

This will make it difficult for people on low incomes. It would mean that border-line cases who cannot claim benefit will be hit the hardest.
John Martin.
St Peter’s Close
Old Woking

Do your bit for free range chickens

EDITOR — You heard the rumours, you watched the programmes and now you’ve made up your mind (I certainly did); there is definitely something wrong with intensive chicken production.

Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall and Jamie Oliver highlighted the severe welfare issues involved in intensive chicken farming, which makes up 95% of chicken meat sales and more than 60% of eggs. So what are we going to do about it? Start by changing billions of lives, including your own and go free-range. Make the change and don’t look back. You could also write to your local supermarket.

Switching to free-range chicken and eggs is of little cost to the individual (less than 50p per person per roast dinner for chicken) and makes a huge difference to the life of a farm animal capable of feeling stress and pain.

For more information on what to buy and what not to buy or to order a free compassionate shoppers’ guide, visit www. ciwf.org.uk or call 01483 521953.
I urge the people of Woking to make the change to free-range.
David Rainford
Candlerush Close
Maybury

Taxpayers can’t subsidise everyone

EDITOR — I would like to respond to the letter from Mr Fudge, treasurer of Woking Gymnastics Club (News and Mail, January 3), regarding my previous letter on council spending.

It is a matter of record that more than £70,000, not £35,000, of Woking citizens’ money was requested by the club. Indeed the News & Mail quotes a similar figure in its news item.

Thus I was working from the published figures which my enquiries lead me to believe are correct.

The point is however, it is not the size of the sum requested which matters, it is that Woking tax payers are asked to subsidise a whole range of various activities in the borough, many of which are very worthy.

But there is a limit to just how much can be handed out and not all requests can be granted, otherwise our rates would hit the ceilings.

Mr Fudge did not mention how much cash the club has  actually built up to fund a move to new premises. It is, I believe, a substantial one and well done to the club for setting this aside.

As to the mention of a ‘commercial organisation’ owning the buildings, this refers not to the club itself but the property company which owns the premises. This company’s owners would have benefited from Woking rate payers paying to improve their asset yet the club is planning or at least hoping to move elsewhere.

Under the circumstances, is this a wise use of tax payers’ money given all the pressures to hold council tax rates down? The readers (tax payers) can judge for themselves.
Mr R C Whitehand
Golf Club Road
Woking

Policies need an urgent review

EDITOR — At its last meeting the council’s planning committee was faced with a number of challenging planning applications.

On the one hand, the old Danesfield Centre in Horsell has for the last five years been threatened with schemes for around 25 new flats. These have been consistently refused by successive committees as they represent significant over-development. The developer finally put forward a proposal for just five detached houses. This had the full support of the community and was approved by the committee.

But on the other hand, in Kingfield, a scheme to develop six bungalows’ gardens with 11 full-height houses, was refused only after some intense debate between councillors and council officials, even with almost 100 residents’ letters of objection.

If approved, this would have created an overbearing wall of bricks and mortar dominating all neighbouring properties.

It is clear to me that there is much consistency in what residents and councillors deem acceptable. However, Woking’s planning policies date from 1999 and there is now an urgent need to review these, properly taking into account residents’ views.

With the government wanting to put 300 new homes a year in Woking, developers will seek to push our policies to the limit to secure maximum returns. But we are the ones who live in Woking and our policies need to reflect this.
Stewart Brown
Conservative councillor and planning committee member,
Kingfield, Westfield and Barnsbury

Ditch that plastic

EDITOR — I would like to see Woking residents take up your reusable shopping bag challenge (News and Mail, January 17).

As an ex-Modbury Secondary School pupil, I applaud the achievement of Modbury businesses and residents alike. In addition to the News and Mail bags, we have the example of Sainsbury’s and the ones that Oxfam sells in its shop in Commercial Way.

With Woking’s green record it is about time residents followed the Republic of Ireland’s example and “ditch the throwaway bags”.

We know it is right, so let’s start now and set a further example to other Surrey towns at the same time as helping to clean up our town and the countryside.
Cllr Norman Johns

First printed in: Woking News and Mail