Empty Rates Relief Slashed

The Government began the process of raising money out of misfortune and tenants' agony when it used a Ways and Means process to introduce its Empty Rates Bill on 10th May.

The stated purpose of the Bill is to influence the behaviour of property owners who allow their property to remain empty while they claim relief from property tax (which doesn't mean they actually get any money from the tax man, merely that they don't pay as much as they would while their property is empty!) and to attempt to free up more brownfield sites for development.

The Government expects to raise £900m from this measure every year - presumably this is more likely to be the purpose - and consider the money to be theirs anyway!

Unfortunately the stated aim is reasonably sensible but the 'sledgehammer-to-crack-a-nut' approach is far from sensible.

In Guildford town centre there is a building known as 'The Old Tile Warehouse' on Sydenham Road that has been unoccupied and locked up for at least sixteen years. This is the kind of building that should be targted by the Government.

In practice, however, the properties that will be affected are the small business premises that have become unviable to run and yet are locked in a planning process that precludes their redevelopment, or locked in a lease that prevents them being assigned to other occupiers.

Property tax (National Non-Domestic Rates) are absurdly high in the UK relative to continental Europe. Until now the only saving grace has been that the tax is on USE rather than EXISTENCE.

If you look at Godalming a few years ago, there were many empty shops and no real market for them. These would have been hard hit by this measure. On Guildford Business Park are many thousands of sqaure feet of offices that stand empty awaiting tenants. These buildings would also suffer from the measure.

Our pension funds will be affected by falling commercial property values and why? Because the Government will stop at nothing to interfere in the markets, to raise stealth taxes and to ensure that Europe thrives at our expense.

This is the shape Gordon Brown has brought to the Treasury - what hope UK Plc when he is finally in Number 10?

Election Results

I stood for the first time as an Independent candidate in the recent local elections and took a keen interest in the processes and the outcome.

Although I came seventh of eight candidates in the Onslow ward (in which three councillors were elected), I polled 456 votes, four fewer votes than the new mayor, Mike Nevins who was favoured by 66% of people who voted in the Pirbright Ward. By contrast, a shade over 20% of those people who voted in Onslow would have liked to see me win, of whom 54 voters, given three votes, opted to cast their vote only for me!

This struck me as an interesting anomaly, and (having a little time on my hands as I am not a councillor) I have, therefore, performed some analysis of the results in a light-hearted way but with some serious points.

In Onslow, in addition to me, there were three Conservatives, three LibDems and one Labour candidate. This mix created some interesting dynamics – for example, who would gain the two spare votes from either James Heaphy (Labour) or from me? – and led to some quite partisan campaigning on the part of the LibDems especially whose leaflet drops included the phrase: “a vote for the Labour or Independent Conservative candidates is a wasted vote”.

Whilst James Heaphy and I campaigned on very local issues – yes, I am very concerned about the hospital, the woeful state of the roads and matters of waste collection and recycling, but I also discussed the proposed Cathedral development, the need for a better road link to the town to replace/supplement the Farnham Road, sensible planning for cars and residences in the ongoing University expansion, etc – the two main parties seemed to be saying much the same thing as each other:

“Rubbish collected once a week,
Recycling on the rise;
Council tax kept very low,
The other party lies”

There were 6990 people eligible to vote in Onslow on May 3rd, of whom a significant number was made up from students and nurses. The block registration by the University of campus residents means that a whole polling district (F4 in electoral parlance) of 2,304 voters actually cast 154 votes (a shockingly poor turnout of 6.68% - perhaps because as students they do not pay Council Tax and many do not feel an affinity for the running of the town, however much they may enjoy living here).

There are approximately 706 other University court-resident students in the F2 and F3 polling districts but there is no clear data showing what proportion of these voters actually cast a vote; this was probably made more difficult for them by allocating them to polling stations in Onslow Village, away from their residences and places of study.

On May 3rd 2263 ballot papers were issued (a declared turnout of just 32.37% - not the lowest in the town – that fell to Friary & St Nicholas with a woeful 28.83%!). Adjusting out the F4 figures, the Onslow turnout was a more respectable 48.08%. If we are able to apply the same pro-rated turnout figures to the F2 and F3 student courts, the Onslow turnout would be yet more credible at 51.81%.

Why should the turnout figure be important? Well, put simply, the Royal Surrey County Hospital is in the Onslow ward and we would not wish to send the message to Patricia Hewitt MP that we do not care! We also need the Borough Council to take seriously the impact on local communities of University growth, Cathedral development and the redevelopment of the station on the basis that, in spite of the apparently low turnout, we do care.

Looking at the Borough-wide results – and I would like to congratulate the successful candidates – I note the following:

The newly-elected Councillors between them polled 62,147 votes, of which Conservatives polled 34,094 votes and LibDems 28,053. The percentage of the votes actually received when allocated among the 48 available seats suggests that the Conservatives should have 26 seats to the LibDems 22 seats – serendipitously mirroring the actual result – but did the right candidates win?

If success were based on a ranking of the percentage of vote received relative to the number of ballot papers issued (in other words those voters who actually cast their votes), this would have resulted in only one change:

The balance of the Council would have remained the same and former LibDem Councillors Johnson and Spier (45.53% and 45.34% respectively) would still not have retained their seats.
If, on the other hand, success were based on the percentage of the electorate in their respective wards (all those entitled to vote whether or not they did so) supporting the candidates, there would have been several changes:

The balance of the Council would have been 30 Conservatives to 18 Lib Dems.
On this basis I would have lost to some of the so-called “paper” candidates (those candidates fielded by the main parties to make up the numbers on the ballot papers), highlighting just how difficult it is to get past the party system as an independent candidate!

If, on the other hand, success were based on the total numbers of votes actually received by the candidates (this analysis is clearly flawed as a result of the different sizes of electorate in the various wards) we would have seen the following:

The balance of the Council would have been 25 Conservatives to 23 Lib Dems (probably reflecting the latter’s successes in the larger urban wards – the bottom five candidates who would have been excluded are from smaller, single-seat wards). On this basis, the Conservative Councillors between them would have polled 35,868 relative to the LibDem 31,090 (interestingly, still 26:22 in terms of pro-rated seats).

Adjusting the total-votes analysis above, therefore, by taking the number of votes polled and dividing by the number of seats available in the appropriate ward:

The balance of the Council on this basis would have been 30 Conservatives and 18 LibDems.
This analysis is frivolous and changes nothing. It does, however, highlight for me the relative difficulty in fighting a seat as an Independent candidate. Where there is only one seat available (say, in Pilgrims or Pirbright – an electorate of 1925 or 1954 respectively), the amount of canvassing, leafleting, etc (and, indeed, cost) required is substantially reduced relative to, say, seeking election by the electorate of 6990 or 6999 voting for three seats in Onslow or Stoughton respectively.

This imbalance means that in the larger wards the parties can spread the load across three candidates (an average of 2330 or so each in Onslow or Stoughton), whereas an independent candidate has to cover the whole ward – and without a party machine behind him or her. Small wonder I only managed to canvass about a third of the Onslow ward in the three months from my decision to stand alone. I actually feel very proud of my own personal result – yes, there is a long way to go, but haven’t I come a long way?

There are a few major changes I would request are made before next time:

1) No compulsory registration of University students (many of whom are eligible to vote at home as well) – I am all in favour of them being involved in the democratic process but they should be given an application form and make the decision themselves to enrol on the electoral roll;
2) Provide a listing of candidates to all voters along with the polling cards – postal voters get plenty of time to see the full array of candidates before voting; those who turn up on the day to vote do not;
3) I would welcome a pack to go out to voters from the Council wherein each candidate has a side of A4 to set out who he/she is, what they are standing for and why they deserve the voter’s support. This would have the additional benefit of reducing the need for pile upon pile of party-political waste paper during the campaign.
4) First-time voters should be given clearer instructions about what to expect when they cast their votes – I am sure from my doorstep discussions that many of our younger voters are put off by uncertainty (quite apart from any apathy they may feel towards politics in general!)
This has been a fascinating first-time experience and I have met some great people along the way – I will remember next time to ensure my preparation is longer and, if I can maintain the conversion rate I achieved this time from a third of voters I personally met on the doorstep (excluding students), I may even be successful!

In the meantime, therefore, I am very grateful for the support I received. I also congratulate the other two independent candidates, David Hall (593 votes – 29.00% of the vote in Tillingbourne) and Mandy Worrall (366 votes – 18.63% of the vote in Shalford). I sincerely hope they will try again and that there will be many more independent candidates next time around across the Borough.

Finally, as an aside, and given the analysis of proportional votes above, I overheard the following at the Count at Spectrum on Friday morning 4th May:

A prominent former LibDem councillor noted that a voter had marked his or her ballot sheet 1, 2 and 3 instead of merely placing a cross in the box. On pointing this out to the supervisor, she was heard to say: “There is a type of voting that uses this but I don’t remember what it’s called”. Well, Linda, I can tell you it is often used in forms of proportional representation, championed by your party!

Julian Lyon
Independent Candidate for Onslow Ward

Thanks to my supporters

I am very grateful to the 456 people who supported me on May 3rd.

The lead-in was very hectic and I wished I had been able to get around to all of the voters - 7,000 is quite a few to visit and there were simply not enough hours in the days running up to the poll. I also regretted circulating my details too early (it got lost among the pizza delivery leaflets!).

On the day I was disappointed that activists (not candidates) for both Lib Dem and Conservative teams were tearing down my posters and complaining about my attempts to ensure voters knew who I am.

I will keep raising my head above the parapet and intend to ensure the Lib Dem trio remain fully accountable to Onslow.

Conservatives Appalling Election Slogan

I am disgusted that the Conservatives should have decided to hijack the Hospital campaign for their own misguided political ends. To stand as "Conservatives: Stop the Hospital Cuts" is a complete travesty.

The campaign is NON-PARTY-POLITICAL and, whilst Anne Milton MP has been very much in the public eye campaigning to save the hospital, so has Sue Doughty (former Lib Dem MP).

I really hope the naivety of the Conservatives' spin-doctors (and they are the only doctors that the Conservatives can hope to control if they get into the Local Authority with a majority again) does not have serious repercussions on the real doctors and nurses in our fantastic hospital.

It all goes to show that Independent candidates can be free of all of the party political gamesmanship.

Why are the PCT determined to ruin the Royal Surrey?

I have attended recent board meetings at the Royal Surrey County Hospital and was shocked at the misrepresentations the PCT seems to be adopting in its attempt to bully the Royal Surrey into closing its Accident and Emergency facility.

The Department of Health has recently published a handful of documents that inform the process and that need responses:

1. Consultation called "Commissioning framework for health and well-being"

This is a document that has the hallmark of management consultants. They seem to have arrived at a utopian state where all treatment is available to the patient in the community 'at the point of need' - quite how all of this will be managed is difficult to envision but one particularly fatuous remark is:

"Local Authorities, by virtue of their elected leadership, tend to have strong links to local people and community needs." - what planet are they on; the strength of local authority delivery is in the competences of the officers and not the political motivations of the councillors!

We do not have the networks established and it is hopelessly and completely wrong - if not negligent - to be discussing closing parts or all of the hospitals on the presumption that this community-led strategy will catch everyone. The A and E departments are the safety net of last resort when this community plan goes horribly wrong. No A and E department should close.

2. Matrix clinical options workshop (March 2007) "West Surrey Community: Squaring the Triangle"

The 'Emerging Principles' include various that were NOT agreed by the RSCH clinicians - such as:

"a full A&E department in the future would need to be supported by a catchment population of between 450,000 and 500,000 people."

This takes no account of transient populations such as those travelling through the area on trains, buses, in cars or even passing through Heathrow and Gatwick!

The overriding assumption arising from the seminar was that the clinicians agreed there should be two rather than the current three A and E departments. They did not.

What seems to have happened is that partial answers to carefully couched questions provided an inaccurate overall impression of the advice from the clinicians.

IT IS ESSENTIAL EVERYONE GETS THEIR WEIGHT BEHIND THE RSCH AND THE ROYAL SURREY ACTION GROUP - see the weblink on this page.

Promoting Good Practice in Business Leases

On 28th March the new Code for Leasing Business Premises was launched by Yvette Cooper MP.

This Code has been the result of many hours of debate, discussion and, finally, consensus between bodies representing owners, occupiers, advisors and government.

The document is made up of three component parts:
1. Landlord Code (easy to read set of requirements for Landlords in granting leases)
2. Occupier Guide (easy to read guidelines to help occupiers obtain fairer deals)
3. Model Heads of Terms (aimed at making sure lease documentation reflects the negotiation).

It is crucial that this spreads out to every corner of the market and becomes part of every lease transaction - especially in small and medium sized businesses.

The Code can be downloaded in full from www.leasingbusinesspremises.co.uk and will be followed over the coming months by several additional documents aimed at helping the relationship between owner and occupier in all aspects of leases.

Watch this space!

Campaigning at Ratepayers' Cost

I received through the post a leaflet about recycling - this says what a good job the (Conservative) Council is doing and what a good job it will continue to do (assuming the electors vote them back in).

I have very little problem with the content of the document and support good housekeeping in waste management.

I do have a problem, however, when I am trying to contest a local seat as an independent candidate, with leaflets (funded by the residents) that coincide suspiciously with the launch of the election process for May 3rd!

Road repairs not a patch on what they should be

I have just witnessed a combination of poor workmanship and bad practice.

Outside my house there has been some patch repair to the road without first raking any loose material from the carriageway; tarmac was used to repair a concrete road. A quick look at the Highways Agency guidelines will clearly show this is poor practice.

Compounding this probelem (and somewhat worse) the workmen - presumably still being paid by the County Council (ie us, the ratepayers) - are going around knocking on doors to do private resurfacing work for residents' drives for cash.

I cannot yet say that this is fraudulent (although I assume the materials and labour are being paid for by us) but the contract should be administered in such a way as to make this kind of behaviour impossible.

Rethinking Green Taxation

I have just received a copy of a letter from the former LibDem MP for Guildford explaining her party's views on Green Taxes.

The problem with this approach (you can read more about it at www.greentaxswitch.com) is that, whilst the concept seems to be pressing the right buttons, the content is rather more problematic.

The Conservatives are also espousing a greener tax system but have not yet completed their review and - perhaps more fiscally responsibly - will not say what specific tax policies they will introduce until nearer to an election, when they will have a better idea of what the economic circumstances are.

My problem with politicians using environmental issues and taxation interchangeably is that they so often get it wrong.

Let's look at recycling where Government legislation means that Local Authorities are causing an increase in packaging by pushing low cost recycled paper at the market - why? because if they don't, Government will fine them... So, it's cheaper to pay to have the paper recycled. Can this be why we seem to find more and more packaging on our supermarket goods? Is this what was intended?

What about airline travel? Gordon Brown has imposed an additional tax per ticket bought. This may reduce the number of tickets bought but won't necessarily reduce the numbers of flights... So, planes take off with more empty seats than before and the environmental cost per passenger actually increases. Flights should be taxed not the individual passengers. This would encourage fewer flights but ensure the airlines worked harder to fill them.

Woking Borough Council has embraced Combined Heat and Power amongst its buildings to reduce its impact on the environment. Other local authorities, Guildford included, are a long way behind. There must also be scope for the Cathedral, University and Hospital to share some of the benefits of CHP. By way of example, the Royal Surrey County Hospital spent more than £1.75m on utilities in the first 8 months of the fiscal year.

Launching a green tax has plenty of negative sides. We have plenty of legacy industries which occupy premises that are older and less efficient than the ideal standards. Can our industries afford to just pour money into this issue whilst their competitors build new facilities in other countries? What is the environmental consequence of tearing down older facilities and building new? Is there a clear pay back in financial and/or environmental terms?

The idea of imposing a massive tax on new cars will slow down the rate at which we as a society change to more modern, less polluting cars. Car manufacturers are already a long way advanced down the road of cleaner, greener fuels (take the Saab Bio range, for example) but the process needs to be encouraged by a more effective use of the carrot and not through wiedling a big stick!

It is time to change behaviour, yes; it is not, however, the time to panic people into accepting political solutions to practical problems. Let's have an intelligent debate about the whole life-cycle cost (in both financial and environmental terms)of the various practices processes and products we love to hate.

Plastic bags (I hate seeing them littering the hedgerows, etc) are a by-product of the oil industry. What would happen to that particular by-product if there were a ban on polythene bags? There is probably a very easy answer to this but what I am saying is that we need to look at the whole picture.

On the other hand, what about hydrogen fuel for cars. Apart from the obvious problem of having no distribution network, the fuel burns and gives off only water as its by-product - no exhaust fumes, CO2 etc. But... what does it actually cost in environmental terms to produce the liquid hydrogen in the first place?

We are more ready to accept a tax soultion than ever before, but the solutions are not ready for us yet. Talking the talk is not enough. Walking this LibDem talk would probably be a disaster.

Let's have a rethink of the Station redevelopment

Last week Guildford Times reported the proposed addition of 40 car spaces and the extension of Platform One to accommodate twelve-carriage trains as part of a £200m redevelopment of Guildford’s Mainline Station.

I believe the provision of a small number of extra car spaces hardly amounts to a cohesive transport strategy.

The proposed redevelopment of Guildford Mainline Station should include a full (personal rather than freight) inter-modal transit point and Guildford should be pressing hard for the creation of fast rail link to Heathrow (connecting Heathrow and Gatwick via Guildford) and reinstatement of Thameslink services to Luton Airport.

We should also look to reorientate our public transport network so that most, if not all buses call at the station before reaching the terminus in the new Westfield development so that most people can get to and from the station easily without using their cars.

In addition to providing Guildford with a great boost for tourism and helping with the longer term sustainability of the University and Cathedral, this concept would help the various airports plan their Ground Transport Policy Papers in the context of their prospective growth under the SERA proposals. This approach would, however, necessitate a bold and aggressive change of thinking in terms of the transport infrastructure.

I believe that a holistic approach to transport and planning the built environment would also help solve many of the problems of capacity experienced on the One-Way system and I have put forward an outline proposal (which shows traffic/transport flows rather than specific routes) in the context of the station redevelopment that demonstrates how an inter-modal scheme might look.

This proposal also provides a possible solution to the problems of the Farnham Road bridge and the junction of Walnut Tree Close with the One-Way system.

Additional transport features could include a fixed link between the station and the Cathedral, University, Hospital, Research Park and park & ride sites, and a development of this kind would also provide the opportunity to create a gateway from the town centre and station to the University and Cathedral.

The Cathedral’s own ambitions for development to secure its financial future, and the University’s own expansion plans could be integrated into this exercise to create a high standard master plan for the ‘Cathedral and University Quarter’.

The lack of a unitary authority looking after Guildford’s wider interests prevents the current Borough Executive from tackling the wider issues of transport networks. It is also essential that it must be a unitary authority centred around Guildford (perhaps accounting for West Surrey) and not a county-wide authority.

By addressing a broad range of issues there should be additional value created for the airports, Network Rail and the appointed developers of the station, Redrow Regeneration. The improved accessibility of the town and its amenities should help to reduce congestion in the town centre and should help to encourage the use of public transport and the proposed new park & ride facilities at Manor Park.

(Further details as a plan are on my website www.julianlyon.com)

Royal Surrey needs better public accountability

I recently attended the monthly Royal Surrey Hospital Trust board meeting as an observer – the public is welcome to attend and details of the next meeting are on the Royal Surrey website. Although there were very few observers present, I’m pleased to say, the Surrey Ad was very much in evidence.

The meeting was in two parts. The first open to the public, the second (quite rightly if it is to discuss confidential issues relating to specific staffing matters) took place behind closed doors.

It was very reassuring to be given an excellent overview of the workings of the cancer department and to hear how highly its performance ranks relative to the Country’s other oncology centres.

There were, however, three major surprises for me:

1. The board did not seem to be required to actually decide anything (at least in the first part). The meeting seemed to be more of a report from the Executive Board;

2. At a time when the hospital is fighting for its very survival, the Chief Executive, Nick Moberley, missed (by quite some significant margin) his own target for introducing a balanced scorecard system which would show at a glance how well the hospital is performing against key targets – in the absence of a balanced scorecard, there was not even some dashboard of, say, top ten measures that could be used to demonstrate formally to the PCT, via the hospital board minutes, just how well managed and indispensable the RSCH is; and thirdly,

3. When there was any semblance of dissent among board members that might have hinted at criticism of the PCT (constructive or otherwise) it was very quickly suppressed by the Chief Executive (at one stage by passing a note which appeared to remind a dissenter of the presence of the Surrey Ad!).

I have attended many board meetings (as observer, presenter, participant or chairman) and I can only say that I expected more than just an AGM-style report. It may well be that the ‘meat’ of the meeting took place behind closed doors.

I am reminded of recent events at Guildford Borough Council whose leader, Councillor Hodges, has recently been called to account for taking important decisions behind the closed door of the Executive rather than in the open democratic debating chamber of the full council.

Just as I sincerely hope that the good work and reputation of the officers and many councillors of Guildford Borough Council (who have an ‘excellent’ rating from the Audit Commission), is not damaged by questions surrounding the accountability of its leader, I have to trust that Nick Moberley, at the helm of our excellent hospital at this important time, does not, through overzealous secrecy, harm the case for saving the RSCH.

Our public institutions are just that; PUBLIC. Those who take it upon themselves to lead them must remember their obligation to be accountable as well as responsible. We, for our part, must turn up to public meetings and show both our interest and our concern.

Accountability in Local Politics

'Hotel plans to be reconsidered’ Surrey Ad 26th January, tells a story of apparent arrogance and seems to show an alarming absence of business sense. I believe that Councillor Hodges should give a robust defence of his position to ensure he hasn’t, under his leadership, brought the Council into disrepute.

I am pleased that the Scrutiny Committee has been effective in its function of calling the Executive to account.

The Conservatives have shown themselves to be good custodians of the Council and, through keeping costs firmly under control and delivering excellent value for money (the independent Audit Commission’s assessment) they have kept council tax low. In general administration, therefore, the Conservatives seem to have a considerable edge over the Lib Dem opposition.

This latest proposed transaction, however, appears to show that Cllr Hodges has not learned the lessons the previous Lib Dem regime had to come to terms with when Mr Harper challenged their proposed deal with Miller Developments on the Civic Hall site (which had not been through all of the steps required for an open market transaction).

I have plenty of experience of selling substantial tranches of land and buildings in an environment where the disposal process has to be absolutely transparent and must demonstrate adequate exposure to the market so as to ensure best value.

In this case, I am not at all reassured by the reported assertion by a council solicitor ‘that the authority did not believe that any other building company would be able to develop the land in the same way’. What Council processes were adopted, and what agreement was reached by the Council as a whole to say that this was the only use of the site? Is there a formal development brief that has been issued to potentially interested parties? I don’t believe so.

Whilst I am unhappy about the handling of this particular issue, I urge all of the current Councillors (who will be up for re-election in May) to ensure this latest hiatus does not in any way delay delivery of the new Civic Hall.