Paul Johnston

I like a joke as much as the next person, even when it's at my expense. But I do wish your reporters would get their facts right. 

The Surrey Comet have published a little story about my apparent responsibility for  putting the word 'Tolworth' on some roads in Surbiton Hill, notably Herne Road. It is just not true.  

During 2001-2 the Environment Overview Panel, chaired by Cllr. Patricia Bamford (Lib Dem) discussed Street Nameplate specifications four times, on 25th July, 9th October, 10th January and 12th March. In the interim most of the neighbourhood committees also discussed the matter, though I cannot find that Tolworth (in which Herne Road then was) ever did so.  

The final recommendation to Cabinet (of which I was the member for Environment and Regeneration NOT Highways) was made on 12th March 2002 and was due to go to Cabinet on 26th March.   That Cabinet meeting never took place as, in the meantime, the Lib Dems combined with Labour and the so-called 'Independent' group to throw the minority Conservative administration out of office, putting the administration of the Borough into the hands of the Chief Executive and the Group Leaders.  

The report from the Environment Overview Panel eventually reached the newly styled Executive at its first meeting on 28th May 2002, where the specifications and area designations were approved by this entirely Liberal Democrat body, having been introduced by the former EOP chair, Cllr. Patricia Bamford.  

So the joke, I'm afraid, is on the Surrey Comet for its slack research.   I am not holding my breath waiting for an apology.

What I am doing is to repeat my opposition to the placing of outdated neighbourhood names on streets to which they do not apply and I hold by the view that this 4-year old decision should have been referred back to the existing  Neighbourhoods as a matter of common sense  

Last night we had a training workshop on ethical behaviour. It was quite well attended and it was good that the lay members of the Standards Committee were there as well, though, considering that the Code of Conduct covers all who hold office under the Council, it would have been good to see more advisory members of Panels there.

The most entertaining part revolved around the question ethical standards and when thay apply and of 'personal' and 'prejudicial' interest.

It seems it was OK for Mayor Livingstone to indulge in anti-semitic remarks ('Hate Crime'?) when walking home tired and emotional after a function, because he wasn't acting in an official capacity at the time. Presumably the immigration 'judge' who employed an illegal immigrant as a cleaner (and was consoled by her other attributes) will be able to plead the same defence if anyone questions his fitness for his office.

The other fascinating discussion ranged around interest, especially in planning. One must enter a meeting with an open mind. If a firm you work for or have dealings with, or an organisation you belong to, has a planning application in you should declare a personal and prejudicial interest and leave the room. Fair enough. But what if a rival firm or organisation has an application in, the granting of which would/could give them a competitive advantage over yours, surely you would have a prejudicial interest in refusing the application. Apparently not.

We are told that the government is, lke Fagin in 'Oliver' 'reviewing the situation'. So it should and soon, because, although the intention behind the original legislation was undoubtedly good, ther would appear to be some anomalies created by their failure to think it through properly in the first place.

Now where have I heard that before?

Vandalism, other forms of anti-social behaviour and years of structural neglect are taking their toll of some of our larger housing estates.

From Old Malden I hear tales of windows falling out and boarded up in Sheephouse Way. From Norbiton similar problems are reported on the Cambridge Estate, where Nick Kilby is currently getting alongside residents to see how the Conservative Group can maybe help.

In Surbiton Hill we got broken windows in communal areas, where glass sheets could have fallen and decapitated someone, replaced with boarding and the glass removed only when I took pictures of the worst examples and exposed them in the Surrey Comet.

What is needed is, at least as a start, a major injection of cash to bring the properties into line with the standards identified in the Condition Survey of all of 6 years ago. To bring this about we needed to transfer the stock to a local Housing Association set up for the purpose - a large-scale stock transfer. That would have stopped £5million of rent-payers' money leaving the Housing Revenue Account this year alone to subsidise social housing elsewhere. All but 2 councillors voted in favour of this. The Federation of Residents' Associations backed it. But the residents themselves were persuaded by a campaign led by part of the Labour Party and funded, it seems, by the trade union Unison, that this would be 'privatisation' and that residents would have their standard of living better protected by staying with the Council. They therefore voted 2:1 against the transfer, which would have provided all the funds needed - and then some.

What a sad piece of self-interested deception this was. And how sad for those taken in by it that they have now to live with the consequences.

Concern about buses is not limited to the bus gate on the A3. A hot issue that emerged from last week's Neighbourhood Committee is over the resiting of one on the north side of Thornhill Road. At present the stop is outside the front gates of about 4 houses and it is frequently impossible for the bus to reach the pavement becaause of parked cars.

The proposal is to move it to the junction of Thornhill and Douglas Roads, where it will be adjacent to the side wall of 180 Douglas Road. This wall and about 7 ft. of pavement will be the only thing separating 4 throbbing diesel engines per hour, 7 days a week, from the lounge of no. 180. Needless to say the owners of 180 are not thrilled by this prospect.

Nick Kilby and I visited on Monday and have suggested moving the actual stop up to 15-30 ft. to the east (5-10m.), placing it alongside the garden wall rather than the house. It seems the officers of RBK and those of TfL have got together to consider this compromise proposal. I hope they will adopt it. This way no-one really gets hurt and tempers, which were rather frayed at the meeting, will calm down again.

 Remember this picture from March? The saga still rolls on. On Thursday we had Mr. Edser from TfL to see parts of a video shot by local residents showing flagrant abuses to which the reopening by TfL (Transport for London) had given rise. I was a little late and arrived amid a veritable shouting match between Mr. E and locals, who had turned out in force.

The long and the short of it seems to be that the people who live there see this arrangement as intrusive and dangerous. There have been well documented instances in the past whereby vehicles have left the A3 at this point or near it and been involved in damage to people and property. This opening (for that is what it is; there is no actual gate) looks to them like a standing invitation to vehicles to do so. And they've got video evidence that it actually does work that way.

Mr. Edser wants to keep his buses using the short stretch of A3 between the gate and Tolworth Roundabout. They could actually reach the same spot by using several streets, maybe allowing more passengers to board than at present. The whole Committee hope that he will see the sense of this and acknowledge the view of all the elected representatives of the local people, both Conservative and Lib Dem, that this 'Gate ' should be closed permanently. We are not holding our breath.

Another small issue from the same meeting. The word 'Tolworth' has appeared on new street name signs in Herne Road and Shrewsbury Close, greatly to the chagrin of local residents. Surbiton Neighbourhood Committee knew nothing about this. Apparently the former Tolworth Committee decided within a few months of its dissolution that it wanted the word 'Tolworth' put on new signs as old ones were replaced. The said Committee ceased to exist in May 2002. Only one of its members was re-elected that year, and he lost his seat this year. We're getting a report on the matter in November.