Cllr Daniel Hamilton’s Council Blog

Surrey County Council’s telephone number is changing to 03456 009 009 with effect from December 1st.

Seven new direct dial 0300 numbers are being introduced at the sametime. These will still go through to staff in the contact centre but will allow callers to bypass the voice messages on 03456 009 009 and go straight through to the team they need.

- Libraries: 0300 200 1001
- Registration: 0300 200 1002
- Roads and transport: 0300 200 1003
- Schools: 0300 200 1004
- Adult social care: 0300 200 1005
- Children’s social care: 0300 200 1006
- Jobs: 0300 200 1007

Calls to an 03 number from any network will cost no more than those to 01 or 02 numbers. 03 numbers are also included in most call packages.

The old 08456 009 009 number won’t be switched off for up to five years so you will still be able to contact the existing ‘phone services without incurring additional expense.

Please do let me know if you have any problems with these new numbers and I will communicate your concerns directly to the County Council.

From January, there are to be some changes to the rates charged for car parking in the Borough.

- Up to 1 hour 20p (was 50p)
- 1-2 hours 50p (was £1.00)
- 2-3 hours £1.00 (was £1.50)
- 3-4 hours £1.50 (was £2.00)
- 4-5 hours £2.00 (was £2.50).

Cllr Patrick Roberts, chairman of the Economic Development Committee said: “Car Park Charges are an emotive subject but nevertheless are an important source of revenue for the Borough. It has been our policy to ensure our car parks make a reasonable positive contribution, are competitive with our neighbouring towns, and are available to support the community and our retailers.”

“In a period of rising inflation, we have decided to hold our current price levels for the majority of our car park users. There will be increases for all day users and season ticket holders but it has been our aim to peg prices below the equivalent alternatives in other town centres or neighbouring car parks.”

“Our village centre car parks have been under utilised since the introduction of charging and it is our objective to provide low cost short term parking.”

“In the current environment any increase in motoring costs will be unwelcome but we have endeavoured to develop a balanced and reasonable tariff across the Borough and keep increases to the minimum.”

I’ve had a couple of e-mails over the past couple of days from residents who are concerned about media reports regarding the huge financial losses some local councils have incurred as a result of the Icelandic banking crisis.

Runnymede’s Director of Finance Stuart Cawthorne has e-mailed councillors to confirm that Runnymede Borough Council has no deposits in Icelandic banks and is, as such, not affected by this crisis.

The same, however, cannot be said for all councils. Some councils are expecting huge losses:

Kent County Council – £50 million
Nottingham City Council – £42 million
Norfolk County Council – £32.5 million
Dorset County Council – £28.1 million
Hertfordshire – £28 million
Barnet Council- £27 million
Somerset County Council – £25 million
Northumberland County Council – £23 million
Surrey County Council – £20 million
Hillingdon Council – £20 million
Neath Port Talbot Council – £20 million
Westminster Council – £17 million
Brent – £15 million

Thank you very much to my friend Paul Bristow over at Hammersmith and Fulham for drawing my attention to the government’s Land Registry Database.

Alasdair Darling’s announcement that first-time buyers are to be exempt from stamp duty on properties valued at less than £175,000 for the next twelve months will, Paul says, benefit only two families per month in Hammersmith and Fulham.

The effect on first-time buyers in Surrey, another area with extremely high house prices, will be similarly small.

Here’s why:

The average price for a flat or maisonette in the county is just a shade under £200,000. For a terraced house, the average price rises to exactly £250,000. The average cost of all property in the county stands at around £320,000 – £145,000 above the exempt level.

The majority of those buying flats and maisonettes, the most likely type of properties to fall under the £175,000 level, are either single or couples. The average cost of a two-bedroom house in Englefield Green – ideal, say, for a young couple who have just had their first child – is £283,723.

I’ll end by quoting Paul: “[the Chancellor's announcement] is pure window dressing and it will have zero impact in our neighbourhood”.

Shadow Chancellor George Osborne has already announced that an incoming Conservative government will raise the stamp duty threshold to £250,000.

According to the front page of The Times yesterday “just 63,225 new cars” were sold last month, making for the “worst figures since 1966”. Manufacturers have warned that job losses and plant closures may lie ahead.

In Runnymede, we’re also feeling the pinch.

According to the ’Corporate and Business Services Financial Monitoring Statement’ presented to the Corporate Management committee on Thursday, the £127,000 we could have expected to have earned as a result of local land charges at this point in the financial year has, to date, only amounted to £77,000 in the period ending July 31st – a shortfall of £50,000.

Need more proof we’re in a recession?

There’s moments you really do feel proud to be a councillor and last night was certainly one of them.

At a meeting of the Corporate Management committee I was delighted to have the opportunity, as the Vice-Chairman of the committee, to move the recommendation approving the Council’s ‘Community Services Core Grant’ for the 2009 to 2014 period.

A package of funding totaling £264,200 was unanimously approved by the committee, with the following charities benefiting:

Age Concern Runnymede – £ 99,100
Citizens Advice Bureau – £78,700
Runnymede Association of Voluntary Services – £ 31,000
Runnymede Mental Health Association – £ 25,500
Runnymede Care Assistant Scheme – £ 12,600
Runnymede Rentstart – £8,600
Relate – £6,000
Runnymede Community Forum – £1,000
Surrey Community Action – £1,000
Surrey Community Development Unit – £700

The work of these charities in our local community cannot be underestimated. Without wanting to leave out any particular group, let me give you two examples these groups do in Runnymede.

The £12,600 in funding provided to the Runnymede Care Assistance Scheme, which enables carers to have a much needed break from caring for frail elderly relatives, people with Alzheimer’s and dementia, children with special needs and adults with learning disabilities, has facilitated a total of 10,652 hours of care in the community in the past year at a ‘cost’ to the Council taxpayer of around £1.20 per hour. Having seen the pressures upon my grandmother of caring for my great-grandmother in the years before she passed away, the importance of such life-lines is impossible to explain.

The Citizens’ Advice Bureau, who were granted £78,700 in funding, have helped residents solve more than 11,000 in the past year, providing advice on welfare benefits, relationship breakdown, employment, consumer rights and housing and legal advice. In total, the CAB has generated more than 30,000 hours of volunteer hours in the Borough over the past three years with residents being able to access in excess of £700,000 in welfare benefit applications, debt write offs, court action being avoided, charitable payments and a variety of other financial gains as a result of their work.

Whilst the Council is facing significant financial burdens in the years ahead, the committee voted for grants to be provided for a fixed five year period in order to guarantee charities in the Borough financial security in the years ahead.

I’m delighted that some of the representatives of the charities receiving grants from the Council were present in the public gallery to hear the generous words councillors had for the work they do in the community.

After a “blogging holiday” during the political graveyard that is August, I will now return to blogging on a regular basis. Welcome back…!

According to research presented at the annual conference of the Royal Geographical Society and the Institute of British Geographers, Runnymede is the 136th happiest place to live in the United Kingdom out of 273 areas and (jointly with Spelthorne), the happiest in Surrey.

The Survey put the following questions asking people to grade their answers to the following questions on the basis of “better than usual”, “same as usual”, “less than usual” and “much less than usual.

1. Been able to concentrate on whatever you are doing?
2. Lost much sleep over worry?
3. Felt that you are playing a useful part in things?
4. Felt capable of making decisions about things?
5. Felt constantly under strain?
6. Felt you could not overcome your difficulties?
7. Been able to enjoy your normal day-today activities?
8. Been able to face up to your problems?
9. Been feeling unhappy and depressed?
10. Been losing confidence in yourself?
11. Been thinking of yourself as a worthless person?
12. Been feeling reasonably happy all things considered?

The most cheerful places? Powys, Manchester, West Lothian, Cumbernauld, Kilsyth, Monklands and Macclesfield.

The least cheerful places? Edinburgh, Cynon Valley, Rhondda, Amber Valley, North East Derbyshire, Clydesdale, Cumnock, Doon Valley, Kyle, Carrick and Swansea.

Happiness is hugely subjective, so I’ll leave you to draw your own conclusions from the survey. It does appear, however, that the connection between wealth and happiness is, at best, a tenuous one with the top hundred ‘happiest places’ including both very wealthy and poorer areas.

A PDF of the full rankings can be download by clicking here.

Following on from the successful crime reduction figures published in March, I am proud to say that Runnymede has seen the greatest fall in crime rates for three years with 700 fewer people falling victim to crime than in 2004.

The greatest falls in crime in the local areas were recorded in relation to:

► Vehicle theft, theft from a vehicle and damage to a vehicle
► Domestic burglary
► Bicycle theft
► Criminal damage
► Wounding
► Personal robbery

This is a significant victory for the Safer Runnymede Partnership comprised of the Borough Council, Surrey Police, Surrey County Council, Surrey Fire and Rescue Service, Surrey Police, Surrey Police Authority, Runnymede Association of Voluntary Services, and the Surrey Primary Care Trust.

Police Inspector Roger Nield, Chairman of the Safer Runnymede Partnership said:

“Local people play an important part in helping the Partnership to achieve such encouraging figures in reducing crime and disorder in Runnymede. They take part in Neighbourhood Watch Schemes and use online reporting at www.saferrunnymede.co.uk and these help us respond with such effective results.

“Safer Runnymede uses the most extensive CCTV network in Surrey to help prevent crime. This level of coverage has been championed by The Partnership, located in the flagship Runnymede Civic Centre, along with Runnymede Borough Council, Surrey Police, and Surrey County Council.

“People will be soon able to use our new initiative, SMS texting, to report crimes or anti social behaviour as they go about the borough.

“Even though the reduction achieved by the Partnership is significant, we are not complacent: every crime and every victim is one too many. and we’ll continue to listen, learn and act to continue to keep Runnymede safe”.

Congratulations to our excellent crime reduction team here in Runnymede led by David Dodd for the excellent progress they are making in making our our communities even safer.

Given all the media coverage today regarding Council’s sales of the Electoral Register the Electoral Services Manager has e-mailed councillors providing some clarification as to Runnymede’s position on the issue.

Each year, Runnymede Borough Council expects to make £3000 from the sale of the register.

The bulk of Runnymede’s income comes from the major credit companies who are entitled to purchase the Full Register of Electors for reasons stipulated in the legislation e.g. fraud prevention, money laundering, credit checking etc. The sales to others for “any use” of the Edited Register, the register where residents can actually opt out and not appear, is negligible (last year £503) out of a total income of £2910 (17.2%).

I thought Runnymede residents may be interested in hearing some background information about a public exhibition Hanson Aggregates will be staging at the Literary Institute (51 High Street, Egham) on Thursday, July 17 from 2pm to 8:30pm regarding plans for sand and gravel extraction on land at Milton Park, Egham.

In July 2003, the County Council published a paper updating its Minerals Plan which first devised in January 1993 and placed the Milton Park as a Category 1 site meaning “that there was a presumption in favour of proposals for mineral working on the site”.

Following a Strategic Environmental Assessment of 107 Potential Mineral Working Zones (PMZ’s) for sand and gravel extraction across Surrey the following sites within Runnymede were identified by the County Council as “preferred sites” for mineral extraction in respect of obtaining concreting aggregate:

► Addlestone Quarry Extension, Addlestone
► Hamm Court Farm, Chertsey
► Milton Park Farm, Egham
► Whitehall Farm, Egham
► Land North of Thorpe, Thorpe

With regards to the Milton Park Farm site the Planning Committee resolved the following comments in June 2006:

“Milton Park Farm, Egham is a large site of some 64 ha.  The site was not put forward for release in the 1985 Minerals Plan due to highway concerns. Since that time traffic had increased considerably and the inability of the highway infrastructure to cope with additional heavy vehicle traffic might mean that release of this and the adjoining site at Whitehall Farm would be contrary to policy MD4.

“Traffic associated with any gravel extraction at the site would impact on residential properties and take traffic to the centre of Chertsey and again it was suggested that an area-wide traffic study needed to take into account the capacity of all the roads leading to the strategic highway network and the impact of traffic on residential amenity. Whilst there would be capacity for bunding and screening to reduce the impact on residential property, it should be clearly demonstrated how this could be satisfactorily achieved.

“The area was within a major aquifer and groundwater protection zone for public water supply at Chertsey. A hydrological assessment would be required to support any mineral workings and identify any potential for pollution. There was particular concern that if de-watering had to take place on a 24-hour basis, this would be an unacceptable source of noise pollution. A hydrological survey and detailed scheme of progressive restoration were required before any planning application could be granted.

“Furthermore this area was one of the few large areas of unspoilt landscape in north-west Surrey, and although it had potentially been available for mineral extraction since the 1993 Minerals Plan, there were a range of factors needed to be given detailed consideration based on up-to-date data. This would include impact on new residential development in the area including Nightingale Shott and Bosher Gardens and impact on Schools and Great Fosters Hotel, a Grade I listed building.

“The Whitehall Farm site adjoined the Milton Park Farm site and it had many of the same characteristics as Milton Park Farm, and therefore the previous comments would apply. Members raised concerns about the cumulative impact of traffic on the local road network and concluded that the land should not be worked simultaneously with Milton Park Farm. It was suggested that if these sites were released, preferred restoration should be detailed within the Plan”.

I look forward to critically scrutinising the proposals laid down by Hanson Aggregates on July 17th.