Agenda item

There were four questions received from the public.  The questions and responses are attached as Appendix 2.

There were four questions received from the public.  The questions and responses are attached as Appendix 2.

Q1. Sally Blake asked when she would receive an answer to her question.  

Q2. Sally Blake stated that she believed that no allowance had been made for the increase to adult social care and health costs if free parking for Surrey residents to have regular exercise in the Countryside Estate was taken away. This was despite considerable evidence that it would increase these costs. The increase could dwarf the income from parking charges and it was even more important with the financial issues faced by the council. She asked if Cabinet would be approving the pay and conserve proposal before these costs had been valued, independently confirmed and taken into account?  The Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport would send a written response.

Q3. Mr John Oliver stated that, legally, the car parks are part of common land. This meant that a charge for parking was a charge for access to the common. Given that, for many, the only way to get to the commons is by car, charges would effectively prevent access to the common for those who cannot afford it. He asked the Chairman what could be done to improve the presentation of the law by policy makers to Cabinet Members and to the public?  The Chairman would ensure a written response to this question.

Q4. Mr John Oliver stated that the Planning Inspectorate has just advised the Save Newlands Corner Campaign Group that, although the psychological effect of the introduction of parking charge equipment and charges was not specifically mentioned in law, the Inspector could have regard to ‘any other matter’ when considering an application and said it has done so in the past.  The council’s own consultation showed that there would be a psychological and cost barrier to 57% of users, either preventing them using the common at all or as often as usual. This was a huge significant effect which prevented and impeded the public from accessing the commons.  He asked if the proposals should now be placed before the Planning Inspectorate for a decision, given the very significant effect that they would have to access and that the public should be given the opportunity to make representations about the proposals and if not, why not?  The Chairman would ensure a written response to this question.

Mr Keith Witham, Member for Worplesdon, was granted time to make a statement on Item 11 (Car Parking Charging on the Countryside Estate), which was to be deferred until January, as he would not be available to attend the Cabinet meeting in January.  He made the following points:

·         Common land was not free and maintenance costs were huge,

·         He supported the work of the Surrey Wildlife Trust,

·         Parking charges would lead to displacement parking and he urged Cabinet to consider ways to combat this at the same time as agreeing any charges.  He supported the request of Worplesdon Parish Council for consideration to be given to double yellow lines being installed around the two sites affected by parking charges, at the same time as the charges take effect to deal with displacement parking.

·         Despite 75% of those that responded to the consultation were against the introduction of charging they had not made any suggestions where costs were to come from if not charging.