17/4/2008

Woking

Letters from April 17 2008

Nothing trivial about our concern

EDITOR — I write in response to the letter from Michael Bowser, Community Desperately Needs This Development (News and Mail, April 10).

Alongside many other local residents, I attended the gathering outside St John’s Memorial Hall on April 1 to protest against Woking Borough Council’s proposal to dig up a substantial part of St John’s Lye in order to build a large community hall, as well as double the size of the existing car park.

I am sure Mr Bowser is fully aware that the residents who oppose these plans are fully supportive of a new community hall; one that is built on the current site, at the ‘ heart ‘ of the village community.

Planning consent has already been granted and substantial funds are available for this project. It is this development that the village of St Johns really needs and not the part-destruction of the beautiful open space that is St John’s Lye.

I do feel that Mr Bowsers choice of ‘ NIMBY’ to describe the local residents and to call the objections ‘ trivial’ were rather unfortunate, considering the importance of protecting this open space.

There is a website that I invite Mr Bowser to look at, where many local residents have expressed their views. www.savestjohnslye.co.uk
Richard Tweddle
Lye View Cottages
St John’s Lye

EDITOR — I am writing in reply to Mr M Bowser’s letter re the plans for the memorial hall and car park to be built on St John’s Lye.

He calls some residents of St John’s members of a “small vociferous group”, “making trivial objections” and “paid-up members of the NIMBY Association”.

The truth is we are a group of local people making very reasonable objections to a massive development proposal on common land, in a conservation area.

He presumes to speak on behalf of residents of the neighbouring properties, saying: “The relocation (of the hall) will also be of benefit to immediate neighbours.” Perhaps he would like to name these neighbours. He does not speak on my behalf.

I have lived at St John’s Lye for more than 70 years and I, too, have been involved in the memorial hall. I am not against cricket (with a replacement pavilion) or football (yes, on the football pitch).

I am, however, against a 48 space car park that is not needed and a huge stand-alone building on land that should be untouchable.

Mr Bowser also states: “The considerable support of Woking Borough Council should be applauded”. These are the very people who should be protecting this important piece of common land against any development. No applause from me, Mr Bowser.

St John’s Lye is not a sports centre, it is not a park, but is a unique open space in the borough of Woking. For the council officers (who should be the guardians of this common land) to even propose such a scheme is, in my opinion, incredible.
Mrs S Fox
St John’s Lye
Woking

Roads spending cuts: It’s all true

EDITOR — I refer to your article (News and Mail, April 10) about Surrey’s scandalous treatment of Woking’s roads.
David Munro, the Tory executive member for transport, said: “Cllr Doran’s allegations are quite simply untrue. His allegation is false and I’d challenge him to produce his figures.”

I have said that the amount of money spent on Surrey’s roads this year is the lowest in five years and that Woking is being penalised under the new prioritisation scheme. Mr Munro keeps trumpeting “extra money” being spent on roads.

One of the great things about the internet is that the residents of Woking can see at the click of a mouse how much respect Mr Munro has for the truth.

If your readers would like to access the Surrey website they can quickly find the minutes for the council meeting of January 22 when I asked Mr Munro to detail the amount of money spent on Surrey’s roads since 2004. Mr Munro’s answer (I stress his answer) details the following spending: 04/5, £61.3 million; 05/6, £64m; 06/7, £66.5m; 07/8, £58.6m.

Again residents can quickly access the highways paper at the last executive meeting (April 8), presented by the same Mr Munro, where the paper states, and I quote: “The total budget for Surrey Highways in 2008/9 is therefore just under £55m.” That’s more than £10m less than two years ago.

I think even the most mathematically challenged can work out that under £55m is the lowest spend on roads in five years.

In the same paper there are lists of road resurfacing schemes that are going to take place over the next two years: 55 in Mole Valley, 38 in Guildford, nine in Woking. Woking has got a raw deal!

Mr Munro has effectively accused me of lying in your article last week. I have written to him demanding an apology.
Unfortunately, we are seeing that with both Woking borough elections and at Surrey County Council, the only thing the Conservatives are economical with is the truth.

In their current literature the Tories are saying that Surrey Lib Dems voted against the “extra money” (sic) that is being spent on roads. This is untrue on so many levels.
1.There is no “extra money”
2. There has been no vote on the highways budget. It was decided by the Tory executive.
3. The Lib Dems voted against the Tory budget because we wanted a lower council tax and more money spent on roads. This is possible as the Tories are stashing millions into reserves to raid next year when the county council elections take place.
John Doran
Lib Dem county councillor
Horsell

Price of being ‘flexible’

EDITOR — The new “pay-on-foot” (or “pay-on-exit”) parking system was heralded by Woking Borough Council as being a more flexible system.

I quote: “Users will be unable to overstay their time and risk getting a penalty charge, as they will pay whatever is due at the end of their stay,” (Woking Borough Council website: Pay-on-foot technology goes live in Brewery Road Car Park; 30 January 2008).

The charging system might be flexible in that respect, but it is no more flexible in regard to charging for time actually spent parked than the old pay-and-display system. Park for one hour plus just two or three minutes and the charge will be for the full two hours.

The new technology that has been installed, having the ability to give change, should, I would have thought, be more than capable of being able to cope with smaller periods than the full hour. So why can’t drivers benefit by being charged in increments of, say, 10 or 15 minutes?
Nigel Searle
St John’s Rd
Woking

Congratulations on village clean-up

EDITOR — I would like to say how encouraging it was to see many of the residents of Knaphill who joined in the recent Knaphill Kleen-Up session.

This event was achieved following an idea between myself and Eileen Martin of the Knaphill Residents’ Association.

Mrs Martin went on to organise and bring it all together, enabling a very successful and, what is hoped will be a regular event. It was especially encouraging to see the young volunteers who joined us.

Hopefully, the message we are trying to communicate is that everyone can make a difference to the village and, in this case, to make Knaphill a clean and tidy area to live.

I was unable to join in the refreshments that followed of hot cross buns donated by Stefan, the village baker, and pizzas from Milanos, all kindly laid on by the ladies of The King’s Coffee House.
Cllr Melanie Whitehand
Golf Club Road
Woking

First printed in: Woking News and Mail

Related Articles Borough loses out in roads budget Letters from April 10 2008