My Christmas Wishes

I am sorry for lack of posting recently. My last posting was not exactly pleasant and it took awhile to recover from the news therein; also, of course, things do become increasingly busier at this time of the year as we prepare for Christmas and family gatherings. As it is the season of goodwill, I will not dwell on unpleasant aspects of the past year, but look ahead and, in true fairy tale tradition, make three wishes.

My First Wish
Eric Pickles has made clear protection of the Green Belt must be paramount when councils are making local plans and that it is a legitimate constraint on development. As a result the MVDC has withdrawn its current plans for Housing and Travellers Sites. I agree with Justice Haddon-Cave that our councillors (or at least a majority) have merely paid lip service to the Green Belt. My wish is that they do more than that in 2015. Let us hope they show they really understand why the Green Belt is there: i.e. to keep land permanently open in order to prevent urban sprawl.

My Second Wish
Now that the Coast to Capital Local Enterprise Partnership has promoted "Transform Leatherhead", my wish is that this time there it will result in real, positive and beneficial change to our town centre. Let us hope that when the Masterplan Partner is appointed next February, s/he is a person of real vision and backbone. Let us hope also that the Reference Group is really independent and scrutinizes the Masterplan at all stages.

My Third Wish
This wish must be that not only does the Leatherhead Community Hospital remain open but that Leach Ward is re-instated with its fifteen beds restored and that the friendly and helpful environment which characterized this ward is restored. Let us hope also that whatever government emerges after next year's general election, it will make recruitment and retention of full time nurses a priority.

Merry Christmas to us all!

Cherkley Campaign Receives a Double Whammy

To those who have been supporting Cherkley Campaign Ltd (CCL), there are, I regret to say, two pieces of bad news.
Firstly, the Supreme Court has not allowed CCL's appeal to the Supreme Court as it deemed not to raise any arguable point of law which is of "public interest." I give below statements issued by the Chairman of CCL and by Andy smith, Director, CPRE Surrey:

STATEMENT FROM TIM HARROLD, CHAIRMAN, CHERKLEY CAMPAIGN Ltd:

Obviously we are extremely disappointed by the Supreme Court’s decision. The Supreme Court has said that the appeal is not of ‘general public importance’.  We had hoped to restore the original robust judgment of Mr Justice Haddon-Cave that Mole Valley Council’s grant of planning permission to Longshot was contrary to planning policy, and that it was irrational and unlawful.

Cherkley Campaign has at all times acted in accordance with best-quality legal advice; but the courts go their own way, and are free to disagree with one another.

We are very grateful to all our supporters. We continue to believe that the majority of the area’s residents are unhappy with this commercial development of a beautiful landscape, and we continue to think that the natural landscape was worth fighting for.

STATEMENT FROM ANDY SMITH, DIRECTOR, CPRE SURREY:

Having objected to the Cherkley development, we are dismayed by the Supreme Court’s decision not to allow Cherkley Campaign’s appeal, especially as the first legal judgment in the Cherkley case - that by Mr Justice Haddon-Cave in the Judicial Review last year - was so overwhelmingly against Mole Valley Council and Longshot, and was a systematic endorsement and justification of Cherkley Campaign and CPRE's arguments.

It is a tragedy that the environmental and planning process issues which this case raises will not be aired before the Supreme Court after the conflicting judgments in the courts below.  It is becoming clear to us that, due to the Government's 'planning reforms', the whole planning system has been subverted to advance a political agenda, which is to push economic growth at any cost and to give carte blanche to developers at the expense of the environment. The consequences of this latest judgment will be felt for many years to come and will greatly increase the risk to countryside and green spaces throughout England.

Secondly, although the judge in the Court of Appeal this morning appeared to be sympathetic to the argument that MVDC had acted illegally in relation to the environmental assessment of the planning of the golf course, he refused CCL's application on technical grounds. I give below the statement issued by CCL concerning the Landscape & Ecological Management Plan (LEMP):

CCL Press Release on LEMP case

The Court of Appeal heard this morning CCL’s application to challenge the legality of Mole Valley District Council’s decision that the planning permission conditions for Longshot’s golf course development to proceed had been satisfied.

Cherkley Campaign is disappointed by the CA's decision to refuse to allow this challenge to continue. Lord Justice Aikens appeared sympathetic to the arguability of CCL’s basic case that the Council had acted illegally in relation to environmental assessment of the planning of the golf course; but the application was refused on technical grounds.

This was a double blow for CCL, as the Supreme Court has recently refused permission for CCL to appeal the decision of the Court of Appeal (overturning the High Court’s robust judgment in CCL’s favour) in the challenge to the lawfulness of the grant of the planning permission itself.

At the Court of Appeal this morning, CCL had to break the news of the Supreme Court’s decision, which CCL had only found out about yesterday by chance, to the court as well as to a stunned MVDC and Longshot.

Kristina Kenworthy of CCL, who was in court said, 'We feel vindicated in having brought this further case because Lord Justice Aikens did appear to consider the merits of the case arguable. But we are disappointed that legal technicalities have apparently stopped the Courts from allowing a challenge to protect, in the public interest, forty acres of pristine chalk grassland in a designated Area of Great Landscape Value, part of which is also in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, to proceed.’

27.11.2014

It is very frustrating that arguable points of law cannot be resolved in the courts for technical reasons. I am sure those who have supported the Campaign feel as gutted as I do. If, as a last gesture of support, you would like to make a donation towards our costs via the MyDonate website click here. I know it would be very much appreciated by Surrey CPRE and the directors of Cherkley Campaign Ltd.

Thank you

Let's work together to better our town!

I see I am mentioned on page 4 of last Thursday's "Leatherhead Advertiser" (20th November) in connexion with the closure of Leach Ward. There is, I understand from Streetlife, a petition about the closure making the rounds including in the hospital itself near the League of Friends shop. It has been claimed that the petition is a waste of time; indeed, it is almost certainly too late to stop the temporary closure on the 1st of December. But do sign it if you can; it will, at least, show we do not want 'temporary' to become 'permanent.'

Indeed, some postings on Streetlife seem worried about the future of Leatherhead Community Hospital itself - and, in my opinion, not without reason. If you have not yet read the CSH page about the closure, do read it. Am I the only one to be concerned at reading "The decision means that people living within the three main Surrey Downs localities will still have access to a local community hospital: Molesey Community Hospital will continue to serve people living in the Elmbridge area, Dorking Community Hospital will continue to support those in Mole Valley, and NEECH will continue to serve Epsom’s local population"? Is the intention that we eventually have just one community hospital for Mole Valley and that it will be in Dorking?

Do sign the petition and show the powers-that-be that Leatherhead counts.

Do also use every opportunity being given to make your views known about the future of Leatherhead. There was a very good turn-out at the November meeting of the LRA where the main focus was on the address, with slides, by John Howarth, Chairman of the Leatherhead Area Partnership (LAP) and former Director of Action for Market Towns. This address provoked some lively discussion. Both a summary of this address and of the questions and suggestions that followed can be found by clicking here, where you will also find the time table for the "Plan L Project."

To find out more and/or make your ideas and suggestions known come to the joint meeting of the LAP and the Leatherhead & District Forum at Park House on Wednesday, 3rd December (I expect it will start at 5.45 pm - but I will post the time when I know it definitely) and/or the open meeting of the LRA on Monday, 8th December at 7.30 pm in the Letherhead Institute. That meeting will be a short business meeting followed by a Christmas social. At both meetings I am sure there will be a report back from the Launch Event (by invitation only) on Monday, 1st December.

Make your voice known and, for everyone's sake, let us all work together to improve Leatherhead. This town, in my opinion, has suffered too much in the past from the factionalism of competing groups, with the result that little or nothing gets done. Don't let's squander another opportunity. Let's work together!

Leatherhead Hospital Leach Ward to close by December 1st

I conducted the act of worship at Leach Ward this morning and talked with some of the patients afterwards. The patients are always very appreciative and I normally come home thankful that we have been of service to them.

But this morning I came home somewhat shocked and saddened. I heard from patients that the ward is to be closed by the end of this month; one of the nurses confirmed this. When I got home I looked on the Internet and found this article.

Staff and patients have been given precious little notice - presumably to minimize time for any opposition; but, understandably, they are worried. Not a nice Christmas present!

Whenever I have taken services there or taken communion to individual patients, I have always heard nothing but praise from patients at the way they are looked after in Leach Ward. I have always found a friendly atmosphere there and never ceased to be impressed at the dedication of the staff. This is something Leatherhead should truly be proud of.

I am aware that the Dorking & Leatherhead Advertiser article says health bosses deny the closure will be permanent; but as many of us know from experience, temporary closures have a nasty habit of becoming permanent in the end. In my opinion the short notice given to staff and patients in the run-up to Christmas is shabby. I hope the local residents' associations take up their cause and that readers will write to their councillors and MPs and anyone else they think can help.

Thank you.

What worth is the Green Belt?

While no one, as far as I know, opposed QEF's application to rebuild and upgrade its own facilities, the enabling development of 76 private homes in a Green Belt area is a matter of concern. It is possibly a sad reflection of the times that a worthwhile charity cannot raise sufficient money except by selling off land to a private developer.

In last Thursday's "Leatherhead Advertiser" (13th November), Andy Smith, Surrey Branch Director of CPRE (Campaign to Protect Rural England), wrote that CPRE is disappointed at MVDC's decision to allow this development and hopes that "other district councils in Surrey do not use this precedent to justify permission for building on green belt elsewhere." To which I say "Amen."

In her report read to the MVDC planning committee, Fran Smith, chair of the LRA, pointed out that

• The development would "effectively create a hole in the green belt which is against the local plan. It could even make the green belt between the 2 communities vulnerable to development in the future.
• "The large number of cars from 76 homes, nearly 2 miles from Leatherhead will add considerably to the congestion along Randalls Road.

This report was read out to a meeting of the LRA on Monday, 3rd November, (that is prior to the MVDC planning meeting). The meeting was well attended with over forty people present; at least four residents from the Randalls Road area expressed their concern at the current congestion on this major approach to Leatherhead at peak times each day and their opposition to any development that would further worsen an already bad situation. The report was put to the meeting for approval, rejection or amendment. It was overwhelmingly approved with no objection from anyone present.
(The full report is attached to the Minutes of 3rd November meeting.)

I return to Andy Smith's letter; he states that CPRE is "extremely concerned that many councillors seem to misunderstand the nature and purpose of the green belt - perhaps deliberately so." I share this concern. The fundamental aim of green belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open, and consequently the most important attribute of green belts is their openness. Andy Smith's judgment appears to be confirmed by the quote on page 6 of the "Leatherhead Advertiser" attributed to Cllr Rosemary Dickson: "This is not a beautiful, virgin field; it's scrubby and next to the motorway. Let us use it for a very good purpose ..."

That must sound alarm bells for the parts of the green belt adjacent to Junction 9. It is the openness that is important, not whether it is beautiful or scrubby. Proximity to the M25 should surely put a premium on retaining what openness is left!

But I recall that this is the same councillor that not so long ago also led opposition to the MVDC officers' recommendation regarding the development of a part of the green belt that had been designated an Area of Great Landscape Value and even of an adjacent part designated an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

So it would seem that too many councillors have misunderstood the nature and purpose of the green belt; it must be used for a very good purpose: if it's scrubby it, let it be used for housing; if it's beautiful, let it be used as a playground for the rich - and sucks to any local plan.

People are concerned, but just how concerned our politicians are?

I refer to two items in the recent edition of the Leatherhead Advertiser (30th October).

On page 10 there is a report of the 'Giant Litter Pick' on 25th October. There is an impressive array of black (and other colour) bags outside of the Institute in the High street and by Teazle Wood. Perhaps the most staggering picture is of the assorted items being piled up outside Leach grove Wood. The list of finds in that wood given in the article is both surprising and worrying. It is clear that these woods have been allowed to become a vast fly-tipping area. The NHS body that owns it does not seem concerned and yet attempts over the past years by residents to have "Village Green" status accorded to the woods has met with opposition. Let's get something sorted out and not let these woods become a free for all fly-tipping area again.

In one of the pictures on page 10, we saw Cllr Tim Hall. It was, indeed, encouraging to see our County Councillor taking part in the litter pick. Sadly, however, not one of our MVDC councillors turned up. I appreciate that some may have had other commitments or not be there for some good reason. But all five them? More support, please.

The other page I refer to is page 29 "Opinion.' Four of the six letters on that page are expressing concern about the Green Belt. There is clearly concern about this issue. Also, not unsurprisingly, the letters show a certain scepticism about Sir Paul's recent statements and of the Government's attitude over the issue. Indeed over the past four years of the Coalition Government we have seen contradictory signals coming from Eric Pickles and George Osborne. As one writer observes: "One cannot escape the conclusion that this useless Government does not know whether it is coming or going." We can expect all sorts of Green Belt promises between now and the General Election next year. But shall we be able to believe them all?

Our Green Party Parliamentary Candidate calls for us to rethink "how we develop the economy by not putting all our eggs in the overloaded basket of the South East." AMEN!

Which outcome has the better odds?

Last week I asked if the proposed £100m spending plan to revive the town centre would truly be a "New Dawn" for Leatherhead or more of the same "the councils know best" blunders of the past 30 years. I was, therefore, not surprised to read on page 9 of yesterday's Leatherhead Advertiser that the proposals have "met with hopeful sceptism." Of course, we must hope that there will be positive results this time, but the experience of planning blunder after blunder by our two councils over the past 30 years cannot but make us sceptical.

It is, therefore, no surprise that the three local people quoted in the article all show varying degrees of scepticism. Two specifically make the point that the problems facing the town are not new. Indeed, they are not. As one interviewee replied: "What we really need is revolution; no more tinkering." To which I give a resounding "AMEN!"

But in view of the track record of Surrey County Council and Mole Valley District Council regarding our town, its parking and traffic problems, the gyratory system, the persistent tinkering to the High Street, with usually poor results, and so on, can we trust them to mend their ways and deliver this time?

We are told that the Councils will be consulting us, the ordinary people. We are told that MVDC will be engaging a consultant to examine the problems and advice them. This time it will be different.

But will it? The majority of people in Leatherhead expressed opposition to the construction of a water feature at the west end of the High Street. But the council knew best and went ahead - though in the end we got the "waterless feature"! More recently when Longshot applied to MVDC for the construction of a golf-course with a luxury hotel and spa on the North Downs at Cherkley, two thirds of the hundreds of letters sent to the council opposed this. Were the ordinary people listened to? The clear recommendation of the council officers to reject planning permission, and robust opposition from CPRE Surrey, The National Trust, the Surrey Hills AONB Board, and the Surrey Botanical Society, amongst many others, were ignored by the majority of councillors. So why should we believe ordinary people will be listened to this time? Why should we believe the council will do more than pay lip service to any consultant?Why should we believe it will not be yet more of "the council knows best"?

I would love to be proved wrong. I would like to think that at the end of the 25 years there will have been a revolution and the town will be vibrant, flourishing and a place that people from around want to come to. If I'm spared another 25 years, I'll be a centenarian. I wonder for which outcome the bookies would give the better odds.

A New Dawn for the Town centre?

Last Wednesday, October 15th, a joint meeting of the Leatherhead & District Form and of Leatherhead Area Partnership (LAP) took place in Park House in Leatherhead. The main business was, as you may guess, the "Masterplan" for revitalizing Leatherhead's town centre.

It was decided that the two bodies would not attempt amalgamation at this moment but retain their separate identities while holding meetings in common. This, in my opinion, is a very sensible approach; I have felt for a long while that the merger of the Leatherhead Society with the Leatherhead Residents' Association was too precipitate - but I digress.

There was, as you may imagine, much discussion about the various problems the town faces and, indeed, has been facing for more than thirty years - ever since 1980 when Surrey County Council (SCC) pedestrianized the High Street and started its re-routing policies.

It is surely no co-incidence that the troubles this town has suffered, leading to its High Street being voted one of the worst in Britain in a BBC poll in 2002, did not begin until after the abolition of the old Leatherhead Urban District Council in 1974, and we became part of a two-tier local government set up with SCC and Mole Valley District Council (MVDC). Since then "planners" in both authorities have thought they knew best about Leatherhead with continuing disastrous results.

Part of the problem, of course, is that responsibilities are bizarrely shared between the two authorities. For example, SCC is responsible for on-street parking and MVDC for off-street parking. This has effectively prevented any attempt to achieve a coherent parking policy (something which I have called for in previous postings on the LRA Blog). In my opinion the sooner England follows Scotland and Wales in abolishing its two-tier authorities in favour of unitary authorities, the better.

Now, according to yesterday's Leatherhead Advertiser, "[c]ouncil officers estimate £100 million will eventually need to be spent... fore the masterplan to be fully realised." It is estimated that the new plan will not be completed for another 25 years; by that time I shall probably not be around to see its results. Meanwhile I see the results of 34 years of poor planning decisions.

I ask two questions:

• In forming the masterplan, will the councillors in both SCC and MVDC not only listen to the people of Leatherhead and district but actually take their concerns and wishes on board?
• When the masterplan is formed, will it really be implemented in full?

I ask those two questions because the experience of the past three decades does not make me optimistic, as you can see from this page on the recent history of Leatherhead archived on the old Leatherhead AHEAD website. It makes grim reading. Will this now truly be a "New Dawn for Leatherhead" as the Advertiser proclaims, or will it be more of the councils know best as in the past 30 years?

LAP and the Leatherhead & District Forum are acting together in talking to the two councils. The Forum has representatives from the residents' associations of Ashtead, Leatherhead, Fetcham and Bookham, from the Leatherhead & District Chamber of Commerce and from the Leatherhead Community Association inter alia. Its meetings are open to all. Get behind your relevant associations and/or groups and make sure your voice is heard!