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.
Wednesday 21 February 2007
Thursday 15 February 2007
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
