| Total Posts | 30 (29 available) |
| Average Posts | 0.02 Per Day |
| Space Used | 25.9561Kb (0.03Mb) |
| Average Characters | 916.52 Per Post |
|
Newer Posts |
 |
| 1. | Ownership of Grayshott Car Parks | April 13th 2006, 11:30 GMT |
|
|
At the Annual Parish Assembly there was discussion about the ownership of Grayshott's car parks. I was asked to put something on the messageboard about this. At present the public car parks in Grayshott are owned and maintained by the District Council. Maintenance costs are paid for out of EHDC's share of the Council Tax.
The usual reasons advanced in favour are that the Parish Council, being more local, is a better organisation to run them. At the Assembly it was claimed that whilst I and EHDC had committed not to impose any parking charges on these car parks, who could say what might happen many years into the future and so it would be better to keep control with the Parish Council. All the time they were in Parish Council hands the car parks could never be sold for housing or commercial development. On the other hand, Council Tax will rise sharply if the Parish Council take them on. There is no doubt about this. This is because the cost of running Grayshott's car parks is currently spread across all Council taxpayers in East Hampshire. If EHDC was relieved of the cost of running Grayshott's car parks it would save 9p per year on everyone's Council Tax bill. If the Parish Council took them on, the Grayshott Parish Council bit of Council Tax would rise by at least £4.50, (approx.) because the full cost of running these car parks would fall on the residents of Grayshott. In addition, costs rise and fall each year so GPC would have to set money aside to create a fund to cover the years when costs are higher than average. Today, with the car parks owned by EHDC, if a major piece of work has to be done, say replacing all of the car park lighting, this cost is handled by EHDC without any Council Tax implication because in the context of its £46 million expenditure, the costs would be tiny. To GPC the costs of a project like that would be massive. It could take ten years or more to build a fund large enough to deal with such a cost and then it would empty the fund totally. If the project had to be implemented when the fund was inadequate there could be a truly enormous hike in Council Tax by the Parish Council for the year in question. My view is that despite the offer from EHDC to GPC, I do not concur with the EHDC position. If I was GPC I wouldn't touch the car parks with a bargepole!! The Parish Council simply don't have the financial resources to cope, as described above. There is no intention, however vague, to impose charges for these car parks. We had a debate at my instigation a couple of years ago and the answer is NO. This comes from me as your District Councillor and also from me as the Cabinet member responsible for the Council's finances. EHDC is a wealthy council which is why it imposes such small rates of Council Tax increase each year, 2.5%. It was said at the Assembly that all this could change in 10 or 15 years time. But then anything could change including the attitude of the Parish Council. In fact, there's far more chance of GPC getting into financial difficulty over the costs of the car parks and having to look at Tax hikes vs, charging than EHDC. All car park maintenance costs right across the District add up to less than 0.7% of total EHDC expenditure!! It is management common sense to locate big bills with the risk of huge unpredictability in the hands of organisations which have the resources to cope. GPC does not. There are far too many laws and policies written to prevent building on car parks for that to be taken seriously as a risk. Suggest you completely ignore that one, even if John Prescott became Prime Minister! OK, over to you!!! Ferris |
|
| See Post in Context in grayshott messageboard | ||
| . |
|
| 2. | Re: The New Toilets Proposal | April 13th 2006, 10:55 GMT |
|
|
Dear Stuart,
It was extensively discused at the Annual Parish Assembly last week and there was a display of design suggestions. There has been considerable exchange of opinions and more work needs to be done. 70 members of the public attended the meeting. The item was posted in public on the agenda. It's also been on my web page a few times. I am sure that revised designs will benefit from a similar consultation but in all probability it will, again, be in the nature of a public meeting. There will also be a planning application submitted in the usual way and, of course, with the usual consultation procedures as applied to any planning application. I don't think you attended the Annual Prish Assembly. I should say that public meetings and exhibitions are the usual method for consultation on these matters, (e.g. A3). Door to door consultation is too expensive and time consuming for the District Council, although the members of the Parish Council sometimes use their personal time and effort to put out notices. |
|
| See Post in Context in grayshott messageboard | ||
| . |
|
| 1. | Should We Preserve Our Trees? | March 22nd 2006, 17:05 GMT |
|
|
I'm very interested to hear views on this subject. It refers to trees in your garden as well as those on public property. The District Council has the power to issue a Tree Preservation Order, (TPO), which will protect a designated tree from any interference except necessary pruning. Breach of a TPO is punishable by a heavy fine.
The debate seems to revolve around these two positions. Those against preserving the trees in the village argue that you should be able to do what you like in your own garden. It is said that trees can interfere with TV reception, especially satellite dishes. Even if cut down, new trees grow again, so the effect is only temporary, not permanent. Nobody wants "tree police" coming round to fine you if you chop down a protected tree. On the other hand it is argued that trees define the village landscape and without them, the village would look a completely different place. Some areas such as Kingswood Firs are argued to be dependent on trees to maintain the attractiveness of the area. Numerous trees in Grayshott are felled each year and if this goes on unchecked it could be very bad for the village. My view is that whilst I'm not a "tree hugger", I do feel that there are certain trees that do as much to define Grayshott as our buildings. I think that these trees should be protected. I agree, however, that trees not visible from the street can hardly contribute to the general Grayshott street scene and so I would not protect those. Cllr. Ferris Cowper EHDC Councillor for Grayshott |
|
| See Post in Context in grayshott messageboard | ||
| . |
|
| 5. | Re: Tesco Lorry Parking | March 22nd 2006, 14:23 GMT |
|
|
Dear Millie,
I'd be interested if you know of any alternative ideas that are feasible. I spent over a year researching possibilities with the County Council, the Police and Tesco themselves. This was the only practical idea. There is no law to stop Tesco lorries blocking Headley Road or blocking people in their cars in the layby whilst in the course of making a delivery. We had some serious situations caused by crass parking by some Tesco drivers including blocking in a pregnant mother and another mum with a distressed toddler. Something had to be done. Tesco refuse to reverse their longer lorries into the loading bay behind the store. There is some Health and Safety logic to their position, but my own background in retail logistics suggests to me that they were being unduly fussy, especially when the same lorries were regularly making equally difficult turns into the Waggoners Estate. I think they were being obdurate in this connection, but they were within their legal rights. Aside from this possibility, the only way to get these trucks off the road was to designate an off peak loading bay. It has also had the effect of bringing most of their deliveries to an off peak hour of the day. Almost everyone I have spoken to believes there has been a huge improvement in the problem of obstruction since this bay was designated. Given, they could have continued blocking the road and blocking in cars as they were, this seems to be an improvement to me. I fully accept it is not perfect, but a perfect solution simply does not exist. If you know of one, tell me and I promise to follow it up. Ferris |
|
| See Post in Context in grayshott messageboard | ||
| . |
|
| 5. | Re: Grayshott commuting question? | March 22nd 2006, 14:06 GMT |
|
|
Dear Mr. Cowell,
"Erstwhile" means previous or formerly. I'm sorry to have to tell you that I am still the District Councillor for Grayshott! People who love Grayshott know where I stand on these matters. I founded STOAT to stop Grayshott being used in this way - that's the whole of Grayshott including Crossways Road. Of course you live in Nutcombe Lane, Hindhead and you are on one of these rat runs that I referred to. I'm sorry for you. The STOAT campaign I led may yet solve your problem if the Hazel Grove junction is not built. However, as you know, not everyone on your side of the A3 was willing to oppose the Hazel Grove junction. Come and live in Hampshire's best village, Mr. Cowell. If you do so before May 2007 you van even vote against me. Ferris. |
|
| See Post in Context in grayshott messageboard | ||
| . |
|
| 2. | Re: Grayshott commuting question? | March 15th 2006, 17:01 GMT |
|
|
Hi,
We love our village, incuding its name! Grayshott. If you love village life and you want to join in with a vibrant community you will love it here. It's perfectly possible to commute to Haslemere Station in the morning at the time you suggest but there will be delays getting up the A3 to the lights. Better to go south and take a rat run. Parking is difficult over there unless you have a season ticket for the station car park. At 7am you should get a public car park space in the car park near the Crown and Cushion pub. There is another one in Tanners Lane. These parks fill as you get nearer to 9am. Allow 20-25 mins for the journey plus parking time. However this does get noticeably longer each year, especially when the Highways Agency alters the traffic light phasing. Getting back in the evening is hopeless unless you take one of numerous rat runs available. If you do, the journey time is about the same as in the morning, maybe a few minutes longer but also much less predictable. A lot of people drive from here to there so you may be able to car share. If you believe the Government, the Hindhead congestion will be eased in three to five years with a tunnel. Cllr. Ferris Cowper |
|
| See Post in Context in grayshott messageboard | ||
| . |
|
| 3. | Re: Tesco Lorry Parking | March 15th 2006, 16:53 GMT |
|
|
Hi,
It's rather difficult to deal with this comment on the messageboard. I'm happy to chat on the 'phone or in person to explain the immensely complex issues here. My 'phone number is 609858. It would be useful if you looked through my newsletters over the past year or so in which I have been carefully laying out the problems and solutions, step by step. Ferris |
|
| See Post in Context in grayshott messageboard | ||
| . |
|
| 3. | Re: pedestrian barrier | March 15th 2006, 16:46 GMT |
|
|
Hi Chris,
Yes, highways matters are for the County Council and this barrier is a highway matter. I only heard about it on the day it was erected. I'm not sure how the barrier fits with the Village Design Statement. I do understand the need for it and the thinking that led to its installation has been explained to me by the Parish Council. I think the real challenge for the County Council is to come up with highways solutions that are effective, of course, but also look good. The Alsace region of France offers so many ideas, but you can also get them in places like Winchester and even London. We need to find a way of injecting this design awareness into these rather utilitarian structures. I'm going to ask our County Councillor, Sam James, to log on to this and offer an answer himself. Sam will also be attending the Parish Assembly on April 7th. and you can ask him and the Parish Council more questions about this on that evening. Ferris |
|
| See Post in Context in grayshott messageboard | ||
| . |
|
| 6. | Re: The Sportsfield | March 2nd 2006, 11:51 GMT |
|
|
Hi,
No problem - it's part of my job. The officer has visited the site and there are no planning violations. The "extension" is a Wendy House and although it is very large its size falls within "permitted development rights", (PD rights). Up to a point English Law recognises that your home is your castle and you can do quite a lot without planning permission. This is referred to as your PD rights. The list of rights is very long so it's always worth asking and on this occasion the Wendy House falls within them. No listed shrubs or trees have been removed. I did learn one thing through this. When the Council specifies a visibility splay for a driveway so that occupants can see safely down the road as they drive out, it is legal for the occupants to plant shrubs that then obstruct the splay. So, in future I will be ensuring that planning conditions stipulate not just the splay but also that the splay must remain unobstructed! Case closed I think! Ferris. |
|
| See Post in Context in grayshott messageboard | ||
| . |
|
| 4. | Re: The Sportsfield | February 24th 2006, 18:09 GMT |
|
|
OK, I've done my digging. Firstly, I think there is a possibility that there may have been some violations and I have asked a Council Officer to investigate and provide a professional and legal opinion.
Secondly, I cannot trace any planning conditions attaching to the hedge. The hedge is on Parish Council land and is not within the curtilage of the property in question. If you feel it has been pruned too much I suggest you contact Chris Jones who is the Parish Councillor in charge of Recreation and Amenities and his email address is chrisjones234@hotmail.com Best wishes, Ferris. |
|
| See Post in Context in grayshott messageboard | ||
| . |
|
Newer Posts |