Please support our petition to the Prime Minister:
We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to revise the planning regulations so that County Councils are required to improve their current consultation processes with the community and that they submit planning applications to an externally regulated body.
Click here
Surrey County Council elections took place on Thursday 4 June.
See the new list of councillors on the Surrey Advertiser website
I have designed this website so that you can let your elected councillor know of the issues that are important to you and which you would like them to take action on.
Use our poll to let us know what you think of Surrey County Council:
Why have I set up this blog?
I was considering standing as a candidate for Surrey County Council as, like many people in Surrey, I just don’t feel SCC fully informs our community and involves us in their decisions. I’m sure many of you feel the same.
I want to give Surrey residents an opportunity to get their issues out in the open.
I am planning on sending SCC a monthly summary of issues raised on this blog, so please let us know of any issues (or praise) you would like passed on to them.
Rules of engagement
Please use this blog to let everyone know what your issues are.
Please keep your comments polite.
Councillors are also welcome to publish their responses here!
Please keep your comments focussed on answering your electors’ questions and don’t give us a party broadcast!
I reserve the right to remove any blogs which do not comply with the above.
I am beginning to realise why Surrey County Council has such a bad reputation. I have recently had to get involved with a planning application concerning the Witley Recycling Centre, and I am appalled that Surrey can demonstrate such a blatant disregard for its own policy guidelines, and national guidelines, when it wants to approve its own proposals, yet be so rigorous in adhering to these guidelines when the applications of residents are to be considered.
In respect of the Witley site for a massive expansion of the recycling plant, Surrey has blatantly disregarded directives concerning the Surrey Waste Plan, the Green Belt, Flood Risk criteria, tranquil designations, the Safe Routes to School policy, the Design Manual for Streets and several other policies, all designed to protect the public and the environment from damaging developments.
There has been a blanket “rubber-stamping” of this disastrous and ill-fated plan by our Waverley and Surrey Conservative councillors and, most amazing of all, it seems that Surrey is allowed to approve its own planning proposals and ignore its own critera and guidelines.
Whatever happened to democracy?
By: Carolyn Eley on May 12, 2009
at 11:09 pm
Totally in agreement with Carolyn, especially as I have a child who walks daily to Rodborough School.
In addition, another indicator of Surrey’s lack of any sort of real consideration for its inhabitants, when the new A3 bypassed the village and all the speed limits were dropped to 40mph, by their own admission they omitted to do the same on Old Elstead Road (they forgot!). I have been pleading with councillors for the last 10 years to address this – we now have a no through road which is not speed-restricted, where children cycle and play on the green, walkers access the common etc. Further, the lights at the top by the Esso garage STILL have no pedestrian option.
So much for Safe Routes to School – or anywhere else for that matter.
And another thing … but no, the list would be endless.
By: Amanda Clegg on May 16, 2009
at 4:46 pm
Surrey Waste Management has submitted a planning application for lighting at Witley dump, without consulting or informing neighbours. I have submitted the following objection.
Surrey County Couoncil approved WA08/2128 on condition (no29) that the applicant submitted a scheme which included the height of the posts, intensity of the light, spread of light including spillage, and measures to minimise the impact of lighting. Not all of this information is provided in the application.
I would request that the planning authority:
1. Require that the applicant states the purpose of this lighting
2. Restricts the use of this lighting within a specified time range
3. Consider whether the number of lamps (34) in the plan is appropriate
4. Request that a revised application should be submitted that clearly shows the position of neighbouring properties, and informs all of these properties of its plans and gives them the opportunity to comment. The plan documents refer to specific properties. Have these properties been involved with this plan and if not been informed of the application?
On its website SWM makes comment that “SWM has consulted heavily with local residents”
None of us have been consulted on this lighting plan or indeed been informed that it has been submitted.
Your own application page states that no neighbours have been informed.
I would urge that this plan is not approved until SWM has communicated directly with all local residents, and resolved any issues they may have with the application.
By: Jack Lee on May 29, 2009
at 3:17 pm
Hi
I am a reporter with the Surrey Advertiser. I am hoping to interview council leader-elect Andrew Povey soon. If anyone has any questions they would like me to put to him, please drop me a line.
Cheers
Sam Blackledge
sam.blackledge@surreyad.co.uk
By: samblackledge on June 17, 2009
at 10:16 am