This Tuesday’s meeting of the Local Committee was held especially to approve the plan and Programme for Woking that Surrey County Council has to submit to Cycling England to get hold of the £1.8M awarded to Woking, as one of ten towns emerging successful from bidding for the title ‘Cycling Town’.

Money

We don’t just get handed the money - it has to be matched by an equal amount raised from other sources. Given the general state of Surrey’s roads, the huge sums of money needed to repair them, and the cuts we are actually seeing Surrey County Council making in planned spending on Woking, it would be unwise to rely on County Hall handing over that sort of sum of money simply because this is a good, ecologically sound idea.

Contributions to matched funding will come from ’section 106 and section 27B’ money paid by developers and negotiated when planning permission is given; plus money squeezed from Woking’s ‘local allocation’, used for local road schemes - improvements such a controlled pedestrian crossings.

The paper to the committee says the ‘programme will need to be reviewed on an annual basis and the Local Committee for Woking decide on the priority given to the elements of work included within the Woking Cycling Town against other Integrated Transport schemes which are funded using the Local Transport Plan devolved budget.’

I think this message from the Local Highways Manager roughly translates as: ’Look, there’s a great two-for-one offer here but you guys on the Local Committee are going to have to fight out between you what gets dropped while we grab it.’ With the unspoken extra thought: ‘Unless you can get your Dad (ie County Hall) to stump up some more.’

(If you see the Developers as rich uncles, they’re less rich than they used to be … )   

But for the moment Surrey, in partnership with Woking, is going forward with a ’we’ll make it happen’ approach, which I find I have to applaud - this really is going to be a great improvement, and a practical contribution to reducing traffic congestion and sparing the environment.

The six essentials    

• Improving existing routes
• Making the Basingstoke Canal path a great route through the Borough with good links off it, including ways to and through the town centre, with a way of riding from the Canal to the station through the centre of the town.
• A better North / South route that will join up with National Cycle routes at Chertsey and Guildford.
• More bike parking, especially at stations. 
• Encouragement for people to cycle more.
• Links with schools

The Fancy Bits

There’ll be better signing. The trails will be named after planets and their moons. (Other towns have been looked at to see how they do things, and themes are common.) Lighting is currently not on the plans, but is recognised as being highly desirable, at least for the heavier use parts of the canal path near the centre of Woking.

I asked whether we mightn’t have some sculpture, as I’ve seen on some trails? This hasn’t been thought of yet, but the bridges will all be clearly named, so that they can be used as landmarks.

What it means for Knaphill and Goldsworth West

Although strictly only the stretch of towpath from Hermitage Bridge to Brookwood is in Knaphill, this is a significant route, as I saw when I bicycled it at the end of the school day last Monday. A number of children from the Winston Churchill school walk down along the Hermitage Road, cross fast-moving traffic, and then walk along the muddy and difficult path to the north of the canal, through the Country Park. Some primary school children also go in the opposite direction, from Brookwood school back towards Knaphill.

This route, on the same side as the Brookwood Hospital Estate, is broader than the towpath on the South side, but anyone using the Canal as a through route would have to cross the canal to change sides at the Hermitage Bridge, which has a very narrow path.  So the current intention is to provide an extra footbridge over the canal, so that pedestrians can avoid the crossing on the Hermitage Bridge, and then use the North side up to the bridge at Brookwood Crossroads.

Unfortunately that will make the rather splendid wheelchair-friendly ramp down to the southern path (itself currently impassable to wheelchairs) redundant. But I think it’s probably the right decision, given the number of people who will be able to access the northern path relatively easily.

As I understand it, the surface should be as good as the currently existing stretch from Woking Town Centre to Kiln Bridge. (The next section, to Hermitage Bridge, isn’t quite finished but should also come up to that standard.)

A good, safe pedestrian and cycling  route into St. Johns  or indeed all the way to Woking, will be a real benefit, for all ages.  One of the big problems for young or less well off people on the Hospital Estate is how to get off it - buses are expensive, parents not always available to drive.  And the more people who use the path, the safer even nervous people should feel it is to use.

(Which is not to guarantee there will be no problems - for example, motor cycles are going to have to be deterred from using the track, for everybody’s sake.)

So eventually, if we can get this section properly sorted out for Knaphill (including the new Hermitage Bridge) plus improvements and even some extensions to existing bike routes through Knaphill, I think we’ll be doing quite well. 

The improved routes into and out of Woking and will be good for Goldsworth West too, and its likely the whole of Goldsworth park will be targetted quite early on for ‘personalised travel planning’. What this’ll be I don’t know; I trust it will be a benefit and not a nuisance.

The launch will be this coming Monday, 22nd September, from 10.00am to 4.00pm at The Lightbox. I hope it doesn’t rain, so that I can get there comfortably by bike!

I stood in for John Doran on the Transportation Committee again today, and got this update on finance for Surrey’s roads.

 The Transportation Committee recommended that local overspends on road schemes should be written off, and underspends carried forward. The Executive have decided against this.  This would be a great blow to Woking’s Local Transport Plan, except that the Executive have found another £5 million to spend on roads. David Munro, the Executive Member for Transport, described the suggestion of write-offs as a ‘nice try, but no chance’ because ‘all the bits and pieces [are] wrapped up in that £5M … [and] you will find that the allocation of that £5 million more than compensates for that overspend.’  

David Munro explained that £2.5 million would go into the highways Capital budget from underspends by the Council in areas other than transport, and another £2.5 million would be found for highways maintenance.

Meetings are being held with local Committee Chairmen and Vice Chairman to talk about how the money is allocated. They are ‘moving towards a formula’ in which the main factor will be the length of roads in the area, on which basis ’Guildford and Waverley will get more than Epsom and Ewell’, except that they will also recognise in the formula where there are more vehicles per kilometre.  ‘Epsom and Ewell [are] winners on that’.

Where this leaves Woking we don’t yet know, but it should be better off than before.

Mr. Munro revealed as one of his personal objectives that he wanted to ‘oversee and implement [a] ‘mid-course correction’ for highways 2008/09. ‘ 

We’re already well into that financial year. I hope in Woking our Highways Director’s foresight in putting money into design so that there are schemes ready to lift off the shelf the moment money becomes available will pay off.  Pedestrian crossings of  Westfield Road and Denton Way, and the re-shaping of the crossing point at Amstel Way and Lockfield Drive would be my personal candidates for restoration to this year’s work programme.

I certainly got the hint of a ’use it or lose it’ threat in the Executive members jocular remark that ‘here you’ve got all this money from a kind Executive - from a kind Council - jolly well make sure you spend it.’

A lot of different threads came together at the Local Committee on Monday - I’ll try to pull out some of those of particular interest to Knaphill and Goldsworth West, along with a few bits that affect everyone in Woking. I’ve missed out very local uncontroversial stuff about eg exactly where yellow lines are going, and picked out just a few phrases that struck me particularly forcefully on some of the other items.

EDF and the Knaphill Crossings

The story so far: By Monday the Broadway Crossing was open and the trees obscuring the beacon had been cut back, I understand thanks to one of Surrey’s Transport Officers literally taking the job into his own hands. The Redding Way crossing was not ready. The history of how the long delay had come about was obscure - various people at various times had attributed the problems to Surrey, Ringway, and EDF. We got three goes at the issue in this Local Committee meeting:

i) In the half hour of informal public question-and-answer a determined resident who I won’t name (unless he tells me he would prefer me to credit him) told Paul Fishwick, the Local Highways Manager, that the whole thing had been a ‘farce’, and asked for an explanation of how the delay had gone on so long. Paul acknowledged that the scheme had taken ‘considerably longer than anticipated’. He said that following monthly meetings looking at how Ringway (the Contractor) was doing he had ’alerted Ringway to where their failures were … Ringway could have placed the orders [with EDF] much, much sooner … the whole of the process was delayed way beyond what we wanted.’ There was further reassurance that EDF was now on the case, and the Redding Way crossing will be working ‘later this week or early next week’.  On costs, Paul explained that Surrey paid on a ‘cost plus’ basis, which meant he wouldn’t know how much the crossings had been until they were finished.

ii) My written question, submitted last week. In it I asked what the obstacles were to bringing the crossings into full use; about the placing of the beacons at the Broadway; and about keeping the greenery back from them.  This was the answer:

“a. Redding Way is awaiting a new electric power supply from EDF. EDF are the regional electricity board and they are the only company that is authorised to work on their apparatus. Broadway has now been completed and the crossing is in use.

 ”b. The obstruction to the beacon will be removed in the near future. The poles are set at the back of the footway to improve footway clearance and placed on an arm to improve the sight line.

“c. Once the trees have been cut back, there will be an annual maintenance system in place. “  Supplementary questions brought out that the land the trees stand on is privately-owned. Surrey is doing a land registry search to find out who it belongs to, since the owner can be required to maintain it, or be presented with the bill.

iii Later in the meeting, looking at what had remained in Woking’s very constrained Local Transport Plan road schemes, two of the items that have had to stay in place for this year are £3,000 each as ‘outstanding work from 2007/8′ for the Redding Way and Broadway crossings.

When I asked Paul Fishwick he said yes, this is for electrical work, and goes to EDF. It is not extra to the planned costs. It is a pity that this £6,000 did not get into last year’s budget, to be part of Woking’s written-off overspend.

But congratulations to Paul and his team on bringing forward a number of schemes that were ready to go, including Knaphill’s new crossings, to 2007 /8.  If they’d been left to compete with everything else on the very cut-back programme for this year, we’d almost certainly be looking at a long wait.

Community Safety Report

As John Doran (Liberal Democrat County Councillor for Horsell) pointed out, Surrey has to be one of the safest places on this planet to live, and this year’s figures reflect that. Unfortunately ‘The 2007 Community Survey found that just over one quarter of respondents stated that fear of crime affected their lifestyle in some way.’ Where there are problems, they are often fuelled by alcohol. There’s a survey at www.surreybigdrinkdebate.nhs.uk which will report back in the autumn. Some of the questions made me ponder a bit, for instance: ”Do you think that information on the number of calories contained in an alcoholic drink would influence the amount you drink?”

Annual report on the Fire and Rescue Service

“It’s twenty times more likely you’ll be cut out from a car than rescued from a fire … ”

 ”I would like to raise the fear of anybody behind the wheel of a motor vehicle.”

“Our challenge for fire remains the very hard to reach.” - eg people who often combine several risk factors such as smoking, drinking, being elderly, or mentally impaired.

 LTS Lite (This Year’s Local Transport Programme ) 

We  heard formally that the Local Transport Plan budget for road schemes in the Borough has been cut from the expected budget of £450,000, which was the basis for planning at last February’s meeting, to only £160,000.

£50,000  of that is needed to put right the almost new pedestrian crossing at the junction of White Rose Lane and Heathside Crescent, following petitions to the  Committee about the dangers to pedestrians last February, which were confirmed by a ’stage 4′ safety audit’.

This means some of the top schemes that otherwise would have had the go-ahead for this year will go on hold waiting for funding once the design stage is finished. This includes the crossing of Westfield Road by the Cricketers, which had reached the top of the list for priority last year. Derek McCrum, Liberal Democrat Borough Councillor for Kingsfield and Westfield, said: ‘I do not understand why you are putting parents lives and childrens lives at risk,’ when the revisions to the White Rose Lane crossing were the result of  ‘A cock-up on the part of Surrey County Council.’

It’s not just this crossing being knocked back. Unfortunately two other schemes in Goldsworth Park, which also involve pedestrian safety, won’t go ahead this year. Instead they’ll sit as completed designs until money can be found.

One of these is some remodelling of the kerbs at the roundabout with Amstel Way and Lockfield Drive, where I’ve been hoping for the last four years to make it safer for children from Goldsworth Park to cross and walk up to the Winston Churchill School.

The second is the Denton Way Pedestrian Crossing near Waitrose. This is a particularly sore spot for me, since some good news yesterday was that Surrey County Council have managed to get Waitrose’s agreement to transfer the £10,000 ‘planning gain’ money to this, instead of using it to take away the bus lay-by on Bampton Way, near Waitrose. (This was threatened some time ago and opposed by all your local Councillors on Goldsworth Park as a costly ‘dis-improvement’)  

I’m also unhappy that the Beechwood Road Speed Reduction design, fought for so determinedly by residents last year, has been put on hold, as has the preparatory work for a lot of other much-wanted work across the Borough.

But having seen where children and parents cross Westfield Road, and the speed of traffic there, I had to agree that if any scheme could get special treatment this year it had to be that one.

‘I would love to do the Westfield Road crossing,’ Paul Fishwick said, but then put it to us that we must chose between Westfield Road and the ‘remedial’ work at Heathside Crescent.

John Doran, who described himself as ‘almost as angry as Mr. McCrum’, recommended that the committee refuse to approve the programme of work for 2008/9, and ask the Executive at County Hall to look for additional funding for the remedial work from one of Surrey County Council’s ‘contingency funds’. The Committee turned this proposal down, instead deciding to ask the Executive for extra money for the priority Westfield Road crossing.

Member Allocations

- went through very fast, the arguing over whether proposals met the criteria having been thrashed out beforehand. I was happy to sponsor a contribution towards the ‘Jigsaw’ group for parents of young children on very low income, operating from the YPOD in Woking; and a new kitchen at the Surrey Care Trust’s Alternative Education Centre at Weyside in Goldsworth Park.

Farnborough Airport Pre-Consultation  

By the time we got to this, it was a long time past supper and no-one wanted to talk more than necessary. My motion, seconded by John Doran, was passed nem. con.. It read:

‘The Woking Local Committee considers that proposals for the increas of traffic at Farnborough Airport will be harmful for the people of Knaphill, Brookwood, Goldsworth Park and Horsell living under the flight path, and that the economic advantages do not outweigh the environmental disadvantages. It asks the Surrey County Council to reflect this opinion in its response to the current pre-consultation.’

Surrey was already likely to take this stance based on existing policy. Woking Local Committee’s view will add a bit more weight to their objection to any increase in traffic beyond what is presently allowed, so I feel this was well worth saying.

And then, since it was only two days past the longest day, I couldn’t resist returning by bicycle along the canal in the twilight, enjoying the new width and looking forward to an even better surface than the present rather skid-provoking chips when the upgrade is completed … 

Since my earlier web-posting on the unlit light and unfinished Controlled Crossings at Knaphill, which you can read in my earlier posting, I have felt rather like Alice in Wonderland, trying to understand this perverse situation.

A broad view, formed after discussion with SCC Officers, and put forward in my regular monthly column for GPCA News:

‘Big fleas have little fleas, Upon their backs to bite ‘em; And little fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum’

Trying to understand the delays and problems of road repairs and improvements under Surrey’s Highways Department reminds me of that rhyme. Surrey County Council doesn’t do the work on the ground itself, but contracts out to other companies. They sub-contract further. It’s all supposed to be more efficient. 

Consider, for example, the construction of the controlled crossing in the Broadway at Knaphill. This was approved in principle in November 2006. It was good news for Knaphill earlier this year that other schemes falling behind meant construction was advanced, with the idea of fitting it into the 2007/8 financial year. 

As I write, the crossing is largely complete but does not work. There is no electricity to run the lights.  Part of the pavement has to be blocked off to make sure pedestrians don’t step out trustingly onto a crossing that drivers rightly ignore. Only EDF can supply the electricity. I was told the delivery time was supposed to be within 6 weeks. I asked at Full Council in early May what Surrey could do about this failure, and was told Surrey’s powers were very limited. EDF is a monopoly, set up in the Mrs. Thatcher’s privatising spree during the 80s, and

You could ask, given the known problems with EDF, why Surrey didn’t wait until the electricity supply was on site before painting the lines on the road? This is where the fleas come in, metaphorically speaking.

 Meanwhile, something like three other companies were involved in trying to improve the drainage in the Broadway to make the path to the crossing more usable in wet weather.   This is just one of four schemes in Woking that have been held up severely by EDF. A while ago a much-needed controlled crossing was approved in principle for Denton Way , near Waitrose. When eventually the money is found to construct that crossing, there’s not much we can do except hope EDF will supply power to it.

Feedback from members of the public:

A member of the public who has been keeping me on my toes in pursuing this issue said that when he contacted EDF directly, they told him that they had now arranged a date for power to be supplied to Redding Way, but in the Broadway they were waiting for a specific piece of documentation ‘from the Council’. EDF had also maintained their blamelessness through the local press, suggesting that they had not been properly informed.

Another member of the public suggested that it would be worth checking whether there was a problem with Surrey’s payments to EDF. This did not seem implausible, since a question to Council last July showed that Surrey has had problems making  payments in the past, but I have no indication this is the case.

Someone else suggested to me that Surrey needed a much better grasp of  ‘process management’, as opposed to the ‘project management’ which it has handed over to contractors.

Most people are simply incredulous at the situation.

Further developments at the Transportation Select Committee today, Tuesday 3rd June

I am not a member of this committee, but was standing in for a colleague who was unable to be there.At their meeting on the 9^th of April the Committee had met representatives from EDF. Points I found interesting from the minutes included:

• Standards to work to have only recently been put in place by Ofgem, which has given them a year to get systems in place. At the end of the second year if the standards aren’t met fines can be imposed.
• EDF hopes to meet the standards by September.
• ‘Fixing the majority of faults in the north of Surrey is sub-contracted’ and ‘the representatives of EDF were not aware of any agreement between EDF and the sub-contractor on performance standards …’ 

 EDF said it would report  back to the Committee on a number of issues.

Item 10 on today’s agenda was a letter from their Operations Account Manager, from which I picked out the following points:

• EDF energy has a strategic partnership agreement with Murphy Limited who undertake un-metered connection activities on our behalf in the South East of England  … unable to provide details of the agreement … we are currently reviewing contract scope and performance measures in the light of recent customer feedback.’
• EDF offer regular ‘workshop’ and ‘forum’ meetings as ‘an opportunity for us to work together to improve things … Details of your officers and key contacts to ensure the correct communications process would be most welcome as we have struggled in the past to engage with the appropriate staff.’

I asked Jenny Isaac, the Head of Surrey Highways, what she thought this comment could mean, but she could make no suggestion – she said the first she heard of it was in this letter … 

This suggests to me: the root of our problem in Knaphill could be a failure of communication, and that the concept of ‘process management’ is a useful one in this context.

Having said that, I would like to add that in my opinion it would be unfair to blame Jenny for this situation. In her previous post, she was the force behind significant improvement in Surrey’s Contact Centre, and has already grasped the nettle of trying to bring order to a number of rather chaotic groups of problems in Highways.

It’s planned that further report on EDF will be back on the Transportation Committee agenda in the Autumn, probably in October. I hope by then we’ll have our crossings – and maybe, if I’m very lucky, a working replacement light in the Chobham road for one that has been out since I was a new Councillor, just over four years ago!

If you want to read the minutes and letter from EDF quoted here, you can find them with the Transportation Committee Papers for 3.6.08 on the Surrey County Council website. 

A Silver Lining for Woking?

Item six at the meeting today was a report on the ‘financial outturn’ last financial year, 2007/8. Money is delegated to local budgets to be spent on schemes like our Controlled Crossings. In 2006/7 Highways had a serious under-spend (not good, because it means we don’t get the benefit of the money available.) So last year, efforts were made to make sure money was used. In Woking this included bringing forward road schemes that were ready for construction and scheduled for 2008 / 9, where other projects had problems.

As a result, Woking was one of the four overspending areas this year, nicely balancing three under-spending areas. The Redding Way scheme was part of this overspend. The bad news is that Surrey paid upfront for the not yet complete work. The costs are part of that overspend.

The silver lining for Woking is the recommendation of the Committee to the Executive is that 2007/8 (and only that year) overspends should be written off. So if Surrey’s Executive goes with this, you could in a cup-half-full-not-half-empty way say that we’ve gained the crossings for Woking ‘free’. And its still possible that they may be completed in 2008/9, the year initially envisaged. 

(ps - sorry about the changes of font - I got rid of most of the erratic line breaks but the font change defeated me again … )

I don’t especially want to give UKIP ammunition, but EDF,  aka Electricite de France, is not giving Surrey, and in particular my corner of Surrey, Knaphill and Goldsworth West, the service that we should be able to expect. And it seems Surrey County Council cannot do anything about it. Privatisation, intended to increase competition and so reduce costs and improve services, has led to a monopoly situation in which control has been taken away from public services leaving them powerless - in this case literally! This is yet another of Mrs. Thatcher’s malign legacies.

To explain the situation further, here is the question I recently put at Full Council, with the answer given:

EXECUTIVE MEMBER FOR TRANSPORT

(12)     MRS DIANA SMITH (KNAPHILL) TO ASK:

 Light number 15 in Chobham Road, Knaphill, has not worked for at least four years, despite constant queries by myself and reassurances by Local Transport Officers. At the Woking Local Committee meeting in February Paul Fishwick, Local Highways Manager wrote in reply to my question on this subject: “This streetlight has somewhat of a potted history, in summary a new lamp column was installed after the original was found to have had power removed when the column had been vandalized. The original lamp column was in poor condition. EDF, the Regional Electricity Company were requested to connect an electric supply to the new lamp column from their low voltage mains. Unfortunately, EDF were initially unable to locate their mains cable, but found a cable that had been connected to the original lamp column, that was now deemed unsuitable by EDF.  EDF requested that the new lamp column needed to be relocated to the opposite side of the road where there was a suitable low voltage main. The County Council have relocated this column to the opposite side of the road, but are awaiting EDF to make the connection from their low voltage main.” The light remains unlit. Moreover I understand that the Toucan crossing of Redding Way in Knaphill has not been connected by EDF within the promised delivery time of six weeks, that this has put construction of the crossing on hold; also that four other facilities in the Borough of Woking face a similar delay. a) With regard to the Toucan crossing and other facilities, can the Executive Member confirm this is the case? b) What sanctions are available to Surrey County Council when delays by EDF prevent work being completed?  c) What action is the County proposing to take in response to this highly unsatisfactory situation? 

Reply:

 a) There are 4 schemes that have not been completed in Woking due to lack of electrical connections from EDF, these are at:-

• Brewery Road/Arthurs Bridge Road,
• A245 Sheerwater Road (Pedestrian Facilities)
• Redding Way J/W Tudor Way (Toucan Crossing)
• The Broadway, (Zebra crossing/beacons)

Ringway have placed the orders for these works with EDF and after much chasing were eventually given estimated dates for March, but nothing has happened since then.

 b) EDF is one of two Distribution Network Operators in Surrey and they cover the old Seeboard area  (the other DNO being Scottish and Southern Energy covering the Southern electricity board area) as a result of the Electricity Act 1989 which provided for the privatisation of the electricity supply industry in Great Britain.   The body set up to regulate these monopoly companies is Ofgem and they have set new performance standards in November 2007 that EDF have indicated that they intend to achieve.   Surrey County Council is a customer of the DNOs but has no flexibility to change DNO or seek alternative terms or conditions. c) In recognition of the poor performance of EDF, the Transportation Select Committee invited EDF to send a representative to their meeting of 9 April (Item 6).   The EDF representatives acknowledged that their performance had been poor and informed the Committee that Ofgem had set new performance standards that EDF were committed to achieve.   In the meantime officers are meeting with EDF to facilitate, as far as possible, improved performance. 

If performance does not improve significantly in the near future then we will need to consider at a Member and political level what this Council can do to spur EDF on.  As I have indicated, our legal powers are very limited, but we do have the option to publicise in a more aggressive way EDF’s shortcomings if the considerable efforts that the service is making to obtain a better service for our residents do not bear fruit in a very short time. 

I feel angry about this. Pedestrian crossings needed for children to get to school have been started but not finished, and there is a terrible sense of helplessness and muddle.

I’m not sure what the legal situation would be if I suggested sanctions that individual consumers might choose to bring to bear.  So I will play it safe and just say I really hope we get some better service soon. 

Tomorrow is the First of April. It seems that after all very little will change in Surrey in terms of bus pass conditions for the over-60s and disabled - unless they live in Surrey Heath. Nevertheless a lot of people will be needlessly anxious and confused. 

The trouble will be that passengers and the bus drivers are likely to be misinformed as a result of indecision, late changes, and the resulting impossibility of providing clear and correct information about the changes to bus passes.  Many have been told that concessionary fares won’t apply until 9.30. The situation for disabled people and their companions has been even more unclear.

If you’re new to this story, see my previous posts! 

Here in Woking, I’ve heard from some over-60s that they have now got the new bus passes, with a letter explaining the start time remains 9.00 am.

The latest information I have comes from an e-mail sent by David Munro, the Executive Member for Transport (Surrey’s equivalent of a Transport Minister) last Thursday, the 27th. In it he told Councillors that when we are asked by residents, we can tell them concessions start at 9.00 am (except in Surrey Heath) and are 24 hours for the disabled. I understand this also includes a companion for a disabled person.

I hope this is right, but I wouldn’t engrave it in stone just yet.

In my report on the 4th March Full Meeting of Surrey County Council I wrote about the answer to a written question on concessionary Bus Passes. This said four authorities  in  Surrey (Epsom and Ewell, Mole Valley, Elmbridge, and Woking) had at the last moment decided to go it alone on offering bus passes to the elderley and disabled. They would continue with the present start time of 9.00 am rather than the later 9.30 am that had been planned throughout Surrey.  I found this a considerable but pleasant surprise.

Back in Woking, Borough Councillors I spoke to knew nothing of the change. One of them told me it was impossible, the answer to the question in Council must have been misleading.

Yesterday I wrote my regular monthly column for the Goldsworth Park Community Association newsletter, and tried to check whether there was any obvious development I had missed by putting the terms ‘concessionary bus fare changes Surrey’ into Google. I was immediately led to a page on the Epsom and Ewell Borough Council’s website dated that very same day - Friday 21st March. This gave 9.00 am as the start time, referred their residents to a local number to apply for the pass, and gave an explanation in terms of proximity to Transport for London, which also has 9.00 am. 

I have tried to find an equivalent page for Woking, Elmbridge and Mole Valley, but failed.

April the first - April fool’s day - seems an extraordinarily appropriate time for the new arrangements to start.

 ps I have just discovered that Surrey issued a press release on the 20th saying: ‘The National Concessionary Bus Scheme will begin at the start of April and Surrey County Council is doing everything possible to make sure the start goes smoothly.Surrey administers the scheme across the county and is working with the 11 borough and districts across Surrey who will implement it, giving free bus travel to the over 60s and disabled people within certain times.Surrey had asked for a unified scheme across the county but, in the event, districts and borough authorities could not agree to this leaving six councils starting at 9am and five at 9.30am.’

The apparently naive written question can sometimes elicit surprising answers. My colleague Chris Slyfield asked a question to the Executive Member for Transport that he had been asked by elderly and disabled people in his area: ‘who had made the decision, and why, to alter the time on their Bus Passes from 9.00am to 9.30am’. Chris pointed out that this made it difficult for them to get to early morning medical appointments.

There was a clear reply from the Executive Member (Surrey’s equivalent of a Minister for Transport) explaining that this was a national change. From the first of April, funding for travel for the over sixties and disabled between 9.30 and 23.00 on weekdays and all of weekends and public holidays will come from Central Government. Anything beyond this will have to be paid for by the ‘Travel Concession Authorities’, which in Surrey are the Boroughs and Districts.

The last I had heard about this, none of the the Boroughs and Districts were going to put in the extra. 

So it was a bit of a surprise, even if I feel this is a move in the right direction, to be told that: “After a great deal of deliberation the Boroughs and Districts of Surrey failed to reach a consensus position on the scheme to be offered across the County. Seven Boroughs have elected to offer the National Concession, whilst the remaining four (Elmbridge, Epsom and Ewell, Mole Valley and Woking) have agreed to offer a start time of 09.00 for both 60+ and disabled pass holders.”

Surrey is stuck with co-ordinating this scheme, with no control over policy, administration or funding.  The conclusion of the Executive Member’s answer is, I think, something of an understatement: 

“This is likely to cause confusion for both service user and bus drivers, given that the majority of bus routes pass into at least two local authority areas.”

And it’s due to start in less than a month!

The response to the Government consultation proposals for the expansion of Heathrow Airport is determined by the Executive, but Liberal Democrats John Doran and Ian Beardsmore gave the issue an airing at the previous Full Council on the 22nd January. John and Ian’s motion to oppose any expansion was amended to add ‘unless and until comprehensive and credible investment whicih satisfactorily addresses the environmental and surface assess issues … ‘

Not exactly what we wanted, but better than embracing the whole concept of heavily increasing airtraffic into Heathrow.

The Executive ‘Response to the Government’ that has now been brought to Full Council for information but not for decision was also not as bad as it could have been.

While recognising the economic value of Heathrow, ‘Surrey County Council cannot support any further expansion of Heathrow Airport on the basis of the proposals set out by the Government in its consultation document.’

‘The Council notes with some regret that the proposals in the consultation paper are so gravely flawed that the irretrievably undermine the arguments for the economic benefits they could bring.’

The ‘Response’ emphasises the need to get in place ‘measures to mitigate the environmental shortcomings of any expansion. These would include a whole range of practical schemes such as AirTrack, involving a new stretch of rail from Staines to Heathrow, allowing direct trains on the lines from Reading, Guildford, and Waterloo.

In my view the climate change implications of increasing air traffic when we should be making an enormous reduction is a more important consideration than the increases to local congestion and so on. So I was heartened that even the Conservative Executive puts top of the list of why the proposals fail, that they are ‘based on … excluding aviation from the targets for reducing greenhouses gases and emissions’., They continue to say ‘the immedidate need is for investment to improve the quality of the Airport, not the quantity of the flights.’ 

Perhaps they were listening to us, at least a bit.

For most people ‘Local Politics’ equals ‘boring’.  For me, natural history programmes and football are nearly as tedious. But last night’s SCC Woking Local Committee meeting would have deserved careful elucidation by David Attenborough, while there were points I wanted to shout ‘Yeah! Goal!’  Before I get too carried away, I have to add the serious warning that much is liable to be undermined by underfunding.   A reminder in case you’re new to this game: Surrey’s Local Committee consists of the seven County Councillors for Woking matched by an equal number of Woking Borough Councillors. Its main remit is local transport, handled by the whole committee, but there are some just-Surrey bits for the County Councillors.

A lot happened last night, so I’m splitting this report into this introduction and three more postings, so that you can skip the bits you’re not interested in.

I won’t pretend to cover everything. Good stuff for Knaphill and Good stuff Goldsworth West are here in detail, and before them a piece on Transport for Woking.  

The rest: 

Councillor Philip Goldenberg got the committee to ask Surrey’s Executive not to reduce the level of funding for local transport, and to change the balance between maintenance and new road schemes so that it disadvantaged Woking less. The rest of the Committee went along with this, so long as we rubbished the Government at the same time.  

There was a paper by Trading Standards on their genuinely good work (I’ve written a column ‘in Praise of Trading Standards’ before now) which also stood as good PR for them, while arguing gently that new responsibilities olaced on them by central government meant they needed more money for additional staff.  

There was much else about Woking transport, and roads specifically, both discussed and mentioned in the reports to the Committee. But if you want full detail about other areas than Knaphill and Goldsworth West, tackle your own County Councillor or look at the Surrey web site.  (But don’t try asking Shamas Tabrez or Geoff Marlowe about new road schemes for Woking Central or The Byfleets they put forward for inclusion in the Local Transport Plan. None were submitted.)