SCC link still not working

I wrote to the Parking team at Surrey County Council explaining the link for the parking in the public notice is incorrect.

They wrote this afternoon and sent this link: https://www.surreycc.gov.uk/roads-and-transport/parking/parking-news-and-updates/parking-news-and-updates-in-waverley

I wrote back saying: “As the advertisement gives this address http://www.surreycc.gov.uk/parking/Waverley for the information, might it be an idea to link the one you have sent me below to the address which you say is the correct link in your Public Notice?  Hope it helps to point this out.”

The parking team replied: “Should be ok now. http://www.surreycc.gov.uk/parking/waverley”

It’s not!

1 comment for “SCC link still not working

  1. Victorialeake
    20/10/2012 at 15:39

    Subject: RE: Notes from 21 June meeting
    Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 18:59:13 +0000

    Dear Richard Bolton

    Thank you for your clarifications.

    As you know, Lower Street and Shepherds Hill (LS&SH) residents have been asking for their views and ideas to be heard on parking for a long time. When David Hodge announced the end of the previous failed process that a new open process would begin in the summer, hopes were high that we would at last be able to formally contribute to the SCC-led parking debate in Haslemere.

    It was with dismay that we discovered that SCC had had a private meeting to discuss the next steps on parking with a number of individuals on 21 June, some of whom are not elected and/or not directly affected by parking issues (because they either have ample off-road parking themselves or do not live in the centre of Haslemere). LS&SH residents were not represented by any of those who attended, and yet we learned that SCC had apparently taken a decision at this “informal” meeting to introduce ROPs for selected roads with off-road parking. Such ROPs would not only cause displacement – since ROPs work by displacing cars (if no displacement occurred after ROPs were introduced, they would not have changed anything for residents in those roads) – that would severely impact on LS&SH residents parking but it would also create a precedent for all roads with off-road parking, thereby permanently affecting all future parking arrangements.

    Paragraph 9 of David North’s notes of the meeting on 21 June that you sent me suggests that it was believed to be satisfactory to propose/introduce ROPs that – as I set out above – would significantly harm the position of LS&SH residents as a first step, and only after that to begin a statutory consultation. I would be very grateful if you could explain how that is not a rigged process, designed to advantage some residents and disadvantage others before a proper consultation and debate?

    I do not expect everyone to necessarily agree with my views on parking in Haslemere, though I think I have good arguments to make and hope to persuade others; and I think others in LS&SH have some excellent ideas for how to improve parking for themselves and the town as a whole. But I do expect everyone to have a level playing field when it comes to expressing views on local issues that critically affect them. What SCC has done in producing its latest proposals is to combine its own prejudices with views of selected people with whom it has been discussing ROPs. I understand – though I cannot prove it – that some individuals in the selected roads have been ‘promised’ ROPs. Such individuals, being offered their bespoke parking spaces are hardly likely to say no to it.

    You imply below that LS&DH residents have now been “consulted”. While it was good at last to be asked to contribute, it was at a late stage in the process, after the key proposals were formed. SCC should clearly put to the Local Committee in September that there was no consultation with LS&SH prior to the proposals being put forward at the exhibition, and that SCC had no intention initially to consult with us. I form that view on, amongst other things, the following:

    · John Furey’s assertion that LS&SH would only be considered in a “Phase 2” (which does not actually exist at present)

    · John Furey’s repeated and aggressive assertions that it had been agreed with all of Haslemere at the (what we now know to be an “informal” and unminuted) meeting on 21 June that these ROPs would proceed before anything further was done (we now know from our exchanges below this assertion to be unsupported by evidence, and that to discover whether or not it is true, I am told to ask the other participants of the meeting)

    · The SCC website that we were asked to contribute our views to had no place for us to do so. I have taken screen shots of the SCC web page, which (a) asks only those residents living in the selected roads to contribute their views (LS&SH are not invited anywhere to contribute) and (b) the only link, to the survey for the selected roads, asks what kind of parking they would like, not how it would affect them.

    In summary, the Local Committee meeting in September needs to be told that the proposals put before them are based on a deeply flawed and biased process, where affected residents were prevented from contributing to the proposals. Indeed, it is hard to see what you could do, in time for the September Local Committee meeting, to undo the bias that has been embedded in the current proposals. For example, why has SCC not consulted residents on broader “Controlled Parking Zones”, as are operational in Guildford and Farnham, and which were proposed in both the 2003 and 2008 Haslemere Healthcheck reports (sponsored by HTC and WBC), and by the Haslemere Society in the conclusions of their January 2012 report? As such, I think SCC needs to abandon the current ROP proposals, and start again with a proper consultation with all residents, taking on the many good ideas and views they have. That is what David Hodge promised.

    In addition, I would like you to know that the process that SCC has undertaken has caused much distress and anxiety amongst LS&SH residents. LS&SH residents were promised an open process and given assurances by SCC, but were then badly let down: we were told that we only might get considered, at some unspecified time in the future, in a non-existent phase, after short-term decisions were taken following consultation with others (but not us), that would permanently and adversely affect us. The process has taken its toll on some residents.

    The last thing that I and others in LS&SH wish for is a conflict with other Haslemere residents, in the roads selected for ROPs or elsewhere. Indeed I am aware that residents in a number of non-ROP roads near the town centre, such as Fieldway, have voiced their frustration at having been treated by SCC in a shoddy way too. The divisive process followed is not the fault of the roads selected for ROPs. But I am aware that the approach taken has already caused some ill-feeling. And I am sure you are aware of the letter to The Herald by a Lower Street resident who had his car repeatedly vandalised when he parked it in Sandrock.

    I look forward to hearing your views.

    With best regards

    Jeremy.

Comments are closed.