Conservative Councillor - Waverley Borough Council
Frensham Tilford & Dockenfield Ward
Links
Tilford Parish Council
Mike Causey's Blog
(Waverley Councillor)
Hoptoad Enterprises Ltd
I was elected to represent Frensham Tilford & Dockenfield Ward on 3 May 2007, having been selected to run in May 2006. You can read a copy of the manifesto on which I and other Conservatives at Waverley were elected here. The Ward returns two members; the other elected member is Len Bate, currently serving as Mayor of Waverley. He has a blog on the Waverley website which you can access here.
I consider myself extremely lucky to represent Frensham, Tilford & Dockenfield. The area is a highly desirable place to live, consisting of four distinct settlements, Frensham, Tilford, Dockenfield & Churt. Each has its own individual characters and needs, and you will find links to the relevant parish council webpages on the links bar. In addition, the area also encompasses much prime agricultural land and many rural businesses. Overall, much of the ward area is also designated as greenbelt, an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and an area of Great Landscape Value. To my mind the ward has it all - it is beautifully rural with many possibilities for enjoying the outdoors on the doorstep, but we are also close to the urban centers of Farnham and Haslemere, with their excellent rail links, no shortages of good places to eat and good shopping. We have good road links to the rest of the country from the A3, A31 and A325; in short, a rural idyll with practical modern amenities close by.
There are 57 elected members on Waverley Borough Council - following the 2007 elections, 51 of whom are Conservative. The Conservative Party forms the administration with an executive of 10 members led by Richard Gates.
News
Frensham & Dockenfield Conservatives are holding the annual branch dinner in Farnham Castle on 27
Contact Me
01252 797491(home) 07958 583185 (mobile)
nerissawarneroneill@yahoo.com
nerissa.warner-oneill@waverley.gov.uk
November 2008, Daniel Hannan MEP will be speaking. Please contact David Brook on 01252 793108 for further information.
October 08
The East Street Application was decided on 1 October 2008 at the Joint Planning Committee. 33 Members voted in favour, 1 against and 2 abstained. I was one of the two abstentions. I thought I would take the opportunity to explain why I felt it best to abstain.
I firmly believe that the scheme is a great improvement on previous applications and the 'Farnhamisation' is most welcome. However, I have a number of concerns with regard to the scheme.
Firstly I do not believe that the 'Farnhamisation' has gone far enough in terms of design. There is still too much of the modern in the interpretation (although I do like the proposed treatment of Brightwells House). I feel that the bulk and massing of the scheme are inappropriate, there is too much, too big in too small a space. Of real concern to me is the 'green wall' proposal. This would work wonderfully in the right context but Farnham is not that context. Dogflud way may be unattractive but the wall will be a focal entry point to Farnham and is not the right welcome message for an historic market town.
Transport implications really worry me, much has been made of how many new people will access the scheme through public transport. Farnham is not London and public transport is too infrequent to be a realistic alternative to the private car. I am not certain that people will want to use the parking provision at Riverside to access the development, particularly if they will be returning to their cars after dark. I also consider that there has been a tendency to view the potential traffic impact of the scheme through rose tinted glasses - Farnham is gridlocked and I do not believe the scheme will mitigate the full extent of its impact.
I think it is a great shame that no children's play area has been included - this would be of benefit to both children resident in the new scheme and children of shoppers and diners. Having close ties to Europe I have very fond memories of childhood shopping trips being punctuated by the chance to let off steam in a town centre playground. I do not think it is tenable or appropriate to ask young children to cross busy roads to play.
The site undoubtedly needs regeneration but I do not consider this to be the correct or appropriate solution and there is a strong probability that we will,. in time, regret it as much as we now regret the Woolmead.
So with all this in mind why did I abstain rather than vote against. The material planning considerations on which I had concerns were design, transport and children's play. I will not go into all the relevant policies. However, design is subjective, officers recommended that the design was suitable, many of my Councillor colleagues agreed and, on balance, I believe a planning inspector would also agree. While I have real worries about transport these are not shared by the statutory consultee and therefore I have no real peg on which to hang those concerns in planning terms. Finally with regard to the play area we were advised that the exception to policy was appropriate for various reasons, while regrettable I did not think the lack of a play area of sufficient weight to sway a decision on the matter. With these points in mind I felt it was appropriate to abstain, I did not feel I could vote against but equally could not in all conscience vote in favour.
September 08
I am now back from hospital
with the new baby and I am back at work, however, it may take me some
time to come to the 'phone if you call at the moment, I will return any
messages left as soon as possible.
My commitments over the coming weeks include:
The Audit Committee on 23 September. There are two planning meetings coming up, the Western Area Committee meets on 24 September at which some applications from within the ward will be debated. The East Street planning application is due to be heard by the Joint Planning Committee on 1 October.