End of Year Review

Hugh Meares, the Mayor of Runnymede and Borough Councillor for Englefield Green West has written an ‘End of Year Review’, reflecting upon the Borough’s high and low points over the past twelve months.

I thought, with 2007 drawing rapidly to a close, that I would share a few of Hugh’s observations with you.

“The most striking and saddest moment of the year with the outbreak of Foot and Mouth in Runnymede was that no one was quite sure what strange link of wind, water or passage chose to connect us with the original outbreak at Pirbright. Some 2,250 cattle were culled in Runnymede and the total cost of the two outbreaks has been estimated at up to £600m to the British economy”

“We all know that this year has been one of intense combat in Iraq and Afghanistan and I think that we are all disturbed by the fact that former Chiefs of Staff have felt it necessary to state publicly that they feel that our armed forces are getting insufficient support. In Runnymede we support our troops and are proud of their combat record. Territorial soldiers from 886 (Berkshire Yeomanry) Signal Troop, in Chertsey have been deployed in active combat zones in Afghanistan, and in Baghdad”

“Runnymede is very fortunate to be a debt free authority with reserves of £7m. In Runnymede, the Council Tax this year for a Band D property has been £1,301, with £120 going to the Borough and the rest mostly paying for county-wide services. This was the lowest district council tax in Surrey. Against this, we spend £160 per head on services – one of the highest in Surrey – because we commit to such discretionary services as day centres, Dial-A-Ride and community safety”

“To balance our books we really need to raise our part of the tax by about £50, which would place us close to the Surrey average. We can’t do this, partly because we are capped [and as a result] the Council has had to embark on a sharp program of savings. You will be pleased to recall, however, that 18 months ago Runnymede agreed to continue providing grant funding to community and voluntary organisations for five years at the same level”

“[We have] redevelopment plans for the Council Land at the centre of Egham, to be a 30,000 sq ft supermarket and a hotel plus more parking, which significantly revitalise the town centre”

“There was one other rather strange happening in the year and that was that Runnymede was officially announced equal top in a survey of national drinking. Relatively few people of enduring distinction have lived in the Borough and our two most famous past residents are Charles James Fox and Abraham Cowley. I don’t want to excuse him – it was after all the age of reason and enlightenment – but Charles Fox was a legendary drinker, while his great rival, William Pitt was documented as drinking three bottles of port a day during his premiership! Our other great resident was the great restoration poet, Abraham Cowley, who lived in Chertsey near the top of Guildford Street. He died one night going home with his friends, when he was so drunk that he fell into a ditch; they were too drunk to pull him out; and, unfortunately, he was dead when they found him in the morning. His finest poem – and I suspect some of you may have already anticipated this – is a short poem entitled “Drinking””

On a personal note, I have hugely enjoyed the privilege of being one of Englefield Green’s three councillors for the past eight months and look forward to the year ahead.

All the best to you and your family for 2008!

Recycle your Christmas Tree!

With the Council’s kerbside domestic waste service unable to collect Christmas Trees, Runnymede has teamed up with the Wyevale Garden Centre in Addlestone in order to provide a Christmas Tree recycling service for local residents. 

From 2nd January, residents are encouraged to take their trees to the Garden Centre at Cockford Bridge, New Haw Road, Addlestone, KT15 2BU where they will be stockpiled for collection by the Borough Council’s Refuse and Compostable Garden Waste for collection each Friday until all trees have been collected.

The Garden Centre’s opening hours are: 9.00am to 6.00pm Monday to Saturday and 10.30am to 4.30pm on Sunday.  If you would like more information, please ‘phone 01932 853 886.

With the Council currently recycling 25.11% of local waste, far above our annual target of 20%, this is yet another example of Runnymede Borough Council delivering for local residents.

Englemad – appeal deadline draws near

Roger Harben, one of the ‘leaders’ of the campaign to prevent the overturning of a decision by the Council’s Planning Committee to reject permission for Premier Properties to construct an ill thought-through development on the site of Englemede on Tite Hill, has sent out the following message reminding opponents of the scheme of the rapidly-approaching deadline for lodging ones objections with the Planning Inspector. 

If you would like any advice in constructing your letter, the ‘points to make’ attachment Roger speaks of in his note can be viewed by clicking here.  Alternatively, please feel free to ‘phone me on 07810 785924.

Dear Englemad! Supporters,

RE:   APPEAL

Many thanks to all of you who have written in to the Planning Inspectorate.

I have been contacted by a couple of people who have just recently returned to the UK from abroad and who wanted to know if it is still worth writing despite it being later than the 17th December.

The answer is most definitely YES.

So, if there are any others of you in the same position, please be reassured that your triplicated letters will certainly count so long as they are posted first class by next Friday 28th. If they are posted later than that they may still be counted but there is no guarantee.

I reproduce as attachments the original fly and crib sheets for your ease of reference.

With many thanks and

Warm Seasonal Greetings to you all,

Roger Harben

.

.

Runnymede Design Awards

Nominations are open for the 2007 Runnymede Design Awards, a scheme designed to award high levels of design in urban and rural areas across the Borough, are now open.

The categories are as follows:

 Best sustainable development scheme
 Best large housing development
 Best small housing development
 Best Town Centre development
 Best commerical development scheme

If you would like to nominate a scheme in any of these categories – or find out further information as the criteria upon which the awards will be judged – please click here to download the nomination form.

The closing date for all submissions is 22nd December.

The nominations for all categories will be debated at the Planning Committee in February with the awards ceremony taking place on April 17th.

For more information, please contact Katy McGrath at the Borough Council on katy.mcgrath@runnymede.gov.uk or on 01932 425275.

Tetrapak Recycling in Runnymede

With Christmas nearly upon us – and with that, the increased waste load from Christmas lunches and dinners – I thought I would draw your attention to the little-known presence of Tetrapak recycling schemes around the Borough. 

At present, the scheme is funded by Tetrapak, who employ an outside contractor to empty the banks. 

There are five sites in the Borough currently with these banks:

 Tesco in Addlestone
 Sainsbury’s in The Causeway, Egham
 Bourne Car Park in Virginia Water
 Murray Road Car Park in Ottershaw
 Heriot Road Car Park in Chertsey

Whilst there are presently no Tetrapak recycling facilities in Englefield Green, I have contacted Council officers to request that they explore, with Tetrapak, the possibility of expanding the scheme to include the village.  Watch this space!

Snouts in troughs?

I would like to take this opportunity to disassociate myself entirely from the report of the Councillor’s Commission published by the Department for Communities and Local Government published earlier this week.

The recommendations of the Commission, chaired by one Dame Jane Roberts, the former Commissar of the Socialist Republic Labour Leader of Camden Borough Council, can only charitably be described as a disgrace.  A friend of mine, a Councillor on Hammersmith and Fulham Borough Council attended the launch of the report described his shock at the “vigorous clapping” from the “audience of Councillors and local government interest groups from across Britain as more and more ’snouts in the trough’ measures were rolled out”.

Here are just a few of humdingers contained in the Commission’s report:

 A “national framework of guiding principles for members’ allowances schemes should be developed”.  In reality, this means increasing Councillors allowances to in excess of £10,000 a year, in line with the salaries councillors receive on Labour-dominated authorities in the north of England.  For the record, Runnymede Borough Councillors receive a basic yearly allowance of £2,080 compared to colleagues in Spelthorne (£3,833), Woking (£6,855), and Surrey Heath (£4,368).

 All councillors should be included in the local government pension scheme.

 Hilariously, councillors should all receiver training in how to use “social networking” websites such as Facebook and MySpace.

 In a move to “increase the diversity of councillors”, Councils would be encouraged to adopt the Single Transferable Vote electoral system for local elections.

 Councillors would be limited to a maximum of five terms meaning that, in Runnymede, hard-working, knowledgable and respected Councillors like John Edwards and Chris Norman would be forced out of office. 

 “Elected mayors, leaders and executive portfolio-holders who lose office through the action of the electorate” should receive some form a ‘redundancy’ payment.  So much for democracy!

 Council meetings should be made as “as welcoming and inclusive as possible”.  I have no idea what this means.

 Councils should engage with organizations such “as Operation Black Vote and the Fawcett Society to develop training and outreach programmes” in order to encourage people to stand for their local council.

When I stood for Council, I did so to work on a voluntary basis to make the community better.  I didn’t do it to earn an additional salary, as some councillors on Labour-dominated authorities appear to want to through their bloated basic allowances of up to £15,000 a year.  I didn’t do it to earn myself generous pensions options.  Additionally, I don’t need – or want – the Council to provide me with training in as to how to update my Facebook account. 

Thankfully, my view is shared by every other member of Runnymede Borough Council – without exception.

A copy of the full report can be downloaded in PDF at http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/localgovernment/pdf/583990.  

Englemede – “lines to take”

Please find, below, a list of relevant arguments you may wish to pick and choose from when drafting your letter of objection to Premier Properties’ appeal against the refusal of planning permission on the site of Englemede on Tite Hill.  For more background on this particular application, please click here. 

In supporting Runnymede Borough Council’s decision to reject planning permission:

 The height, scale, bulk and dominant position of the proposed apartment buildings along the road frontage:    3-storey block(s) over 10 m high, in a forward position, of greater overall width than the present building.

 Either one large apartment block (07/0240) or two identical apartment blocks, albeit reversed (07/0811) are totally out of keeping with surrounding houses of individual character.

 Three (07/0240) or even two (07/0811) detached 2-storey houses in the backland have high roofs, and a multitude of windows closely overlooking the properties on Middle Hill to the rear, ruining their privacy.

 The limited separation between the frontage apartment block(s) and backland houses represents a cramped development with little amenity space when car parking areas are included.

 Far from being a sensitively designed redevelopment, these proposals would seriously detract from the character and amenity of the surrounding neighbourhood of high quality, mature houses.

 Inadequate screen of 4.5 m trees proposed in front of >10 m high buildings.

 If planning permission were to be given on appeal it would set a precedent that would allow future overdevelopment of Tite Hill, Middle Hill and the surrounding area.

In opposing Premier Properties’ appeal to have their planning consent refusal overturned:

 Premier Properties are wrong to claim (Grounds of Appeal 07/0240, para 1.8) that there are “purpose-built schemes comprising of houses and flats” in the immediate neighbourhood.

 Premier Properties are wrong to claim (Grounds for Appeal 07/0811, para 1.9) “This application was made in light of a previous refusal for the appeal site (planning application reference RU.07/0240)” because the second site plan (PREM 16048 11, dated February 2007) had been prepared at least a month before the first application was submitted.

 Premier Properties are wrong to claim (Grounds for Appeal 07/0811, para 1.12) that “the width and bulk of the proposed two apartment buildings on the frontage relate well to surrounding and opposite buildings” when their width and bulk are so much greater than the existing building.

 Premier Properties are wrong to claim (Grounds for Appeal 07/0811, para 1.15) that “the houses to the rear are central in the development site and have been kept to two-storeys in height so as to remove potential impact on houses to the rear” because it is clear on the site plans that they are well to the rear of the site and have high roofs and chimneys, and a multitude of windows overlooking the rear of houses in Middle Hill.

 Premier Properties are wrong to include (Grounds for Appeal 07/0811, para 2.1) the “Replacement Elmbridge Local Plan (2000)” as this relates to another area entirely.  [Personally speaking, I think this error shows the lack of respect they have for the views of local residents - they can't even get the name of the Borough right!]

 Premier Properties are wrong to claim (RU.07/0811) that Egham Station is a short journey from Englemede. It is well over one mile away. To walk there direct, or to walk and catch a bus, takes half an hour.

The future of Airtrack

At the Full Council meeting on Thursday evening, the Borough Council will be debating a resolution tabled by Cllr Geoff Woodger regarding the future of the much talked-about Airtrack project, a scheme to link Heathrow Airport to the existing South West Trains network.

Under proposals for the new service, three services, operating every thirty minutes would run: from London Waterloo via Richmond, Guildford via Woking and Reading via Bracknell. 

The motion reads as follows:

(1) That Standing Order 15.6 be suspended for this meeting to the extent necessary to allow the motion set out below to be determined without reference to Committee;

(2) That the Council reaffirms its support for Airtrack and the benefits it will bring:-

to residents of Runnymede through reducing road traffic;

to airport employees traveling to and from work;

and to air travelers accessing Heathrow.

The Council also urges the Minister for Transport to consider improvements to the road infrastructure in respect of level crossings in Addlestone, Egham and Staines, which will close to road traffic more often as a result of the increased number of trains and rail usage.

At present, the public transport links between Englefield Green and Heathrow Airport are dreadful.  The bus service to the airport takes more than an hour and the “rail-air bus service”, which involves taking a train to Egham to Feltham and then catching a bus that takes an additional forty minutes to get to Terminal 1, is a joke. 

Whilst the £350-400 million price tag may sound hugely expensive, it represents excellent value for the benefit it would deliver to the local economy.  Only 4km of new railway tracks will need to be laid in order for the scheme to become fully operational. 

According to data gathered by the Civil Aviation Authority, more than thirteen million people would use the service per year, with 22% of existing air passengers and 50% of the Heathrow’s staff in its immediate catchment area.   With Englefield Green so close to Junction 13 of the M25, we’ve all experienced the hassle of sitting in traffic jams at all times of the day or night, simply because of the amount of cars attempting to access Heathrow.  This scheme would go some way to alleviating this problem. 

Heathrow Aiport LTD is hoping to finalise its proposals for Airtrack and lodge an application to the Secretary of State for Transport for a Transport and Works Act Order (TWA) by the end of 2008, leading to a public inquiry into the scheme in 2009.  If appropriate funding can be secured, the scheme could be operational by 2013/14. 

Runnymede’s proximity to Heathrow Airport is one of the Borough’s main selling-points for residents and investors.  The Airtrack scheme can only be of benefit to the future of the Borough.  

I will, with great enthusiasm, be voting in favour of the motion. 

For more information about Airtrack, please e-mail Ian Reeve, the Chairman of the Airtrack Forum at ian.reeve@surreycc.gov.uk or ‘phone 020 8541 9375.

The planning enforcement process

One of the functions of the Review Board – the Council’s scrutiny committee – on which I sit, is to conduct a bi-monthly review of the progress officers are making with regard to taking enforcement action against those who have been found to be in violation of planning laws.

Whilst the vast majority of those who are found to have broken the rules are all too happy to admit their mistakes and take appropriate action to rectify their errors, there is a small minority who are adept at navigating the minefield of planning law for years and years. 

I was shocked to learn that under the present system, if a man or woman were found to be in violation of enforcement regulations and were able to string out the appeals process out for several years, or twelve years in the case of one enforcement notice we discussed this evening (a fairly easy thing to do given the potential appeals one is able to take to the High Court, European Court…), by transferring the property to a partner or friend, they would ensure any such action would fall, the enforcement action starting again from scratch under the new owner.  Six months down the line, there would be nothing to stop the friend or partner transferring the property back into the hands of the previous owner, again causing the enforcement procedure to fall. 

Whilst I am still unsure as to the best way to fix this broken system, it is clear to me that we can no longer tolerate a situation that allows people to effectively stick two fingers up at the planning process.  Perhaps, for example, central government could explore a change in the law to outlaw the transfer of ownership of any property currently in violation of an enforcement notice until such a time that the property is in compliance with their local Council’s regulations?

Please do let me know if you have any thoughts.