Council restructure is great opportunity

It seems that the days of both Waverley Borough and Surrey County Councils are numbered with the Government's proposals to reorganise local government replacing the present two tier county and borough/district with structure being replaced by unitary authorities.

While I personally support the creation of unitary authorities that should end the confusion that currently exists over which authority is responsible for the provision of various public services, there are a number of issues over which the proposed reorganisation raises more questions than answers.

If unitary authorities are to be created their boundaries should reflect economic relationships especially if one of the main objectives is to stimulate economic growth.

This is an ideal opportunity to start with a clean sheet of paper and create a unitary authority for the Blackwater Valley including Farnham, Aldershot and Farnborough as well as Alton and the new town development at Bordon.

This would also provide the opportunity to provide town and parish councils with greater powers including certain planning powers for determining minor planning applications, such as property extensions, leaving the unitary authority to concentrate its attention on strategic planning decisions especially given the Government's very ambitious housing targets.

With the proposed unitary authorities being created with populations of around 500,000 it is essential that for as much decision making as possible for many local matters is undertaken by town and parish councils which have local knowledge and information to make informed decisions. There is also the question of how many elected councillors will represent Farnham's interests in any new unitary authority since it seems likely that the number of councillors will be reduced from 16 to just six or nine.

The creation of a unitary authority is a wonderful opportunity to get things right and should not be wasted. I fear, however, that the Government might take the easy way and just split Surrey into two: east and west. If this happens it seems highly likely that Farnham would be in a West Surrey unitary authority that also includes Woking. Following a series of high risk lending decisions mainly to invest in property Woking has accumulated debts of nearly £2 billion which is more than the value of all the assets that they own.

Unless the Government is prepared to write off this debt then Farnham or indeed any other residents of a unitary authority that includes Woking should not be expected to become financially responsible for the consequences of the poor investments, which accountants Grant Thornton have described as being "potentially unlawful" that have been made by Woking councillors.

David Beaman

Highfield Close

Farnham

Waverley has long been ignored

Your contributor to Peeps in the Past (December 26) provides an interesting chronology on the history of local government reform. Having myself worked in government on the changes introduced some 50 years ago the clock does indeed appear to have turned full circle with this government's recent proposals to establish unitary authorities.

In the White Paper on English Devolution the present Government is now proposing that for most areas new unitary councils with a population of 500,000 or more, will be created but with decisions taken on a case-by-case basis. Taking Surrey as an example, this could then mean dividing the county into two parts, east and west, with the Waverley area subsumed within the latter and controlled by a larger authority located say in major towns such as Guildford or Woking. On the face of it, such a scenario may not sit well with Waverley residents in terms of losing more local control and accountability especially for planning policy itself the subject of another government announcement last month.

Yet the White Paper is also strong on communities being able to shape the future of their local areas which could result in a re-emergence of local opinion in favour of our being merged into a neighbouring unitary council of either West Sussex or Hampshire. After all, Waverley has often felt neglected or ignored by the existing Surrey County Council formerly situated in Kingston-upon-Thames and now tucked away in Reigate and may further benefit from reduced council taxes and perhaps better maintained roads etc. Fanciful thinking? Perhaps, but given the fact that Haslemere and Farnham now sit with the Hampshire area of Bordon in a new parliamentary constituency it's not such an outlandish thought.

Douglas Thow

Hazel Grove

Hindhead

Stop abandoned signs eyesore

Mike Wallace’s letter (December 19) is spot on. I agree with his views on the abandoning of road works signs. It is very much littering and indeed fly-tipping by the local authority and their contractors.

I also commend Andrew Bulmer for his diligent, unpaid voluntary and time-consuming work to identify and collate the data on these signs, which are just left by the roadsides and at junctions by these lazy, inept, money wasting contractors. Taxpayers’ money of course. These signs and barriers are an eyesore too and show our country in a bad light. Doesn’t Hampshire County Council care about these things?

What a pity that Hampshire County Council is prepared to waste our money like this. Between them and their contractors, this is, in anyone’s language, a dereliction of duty. It is treating the taxpaying citizens with contempt. Abandoned roadworks signs spoil out beautiful countryside. They show that the county council and their contractors neither know the price nor the value of anything. And all this when councils across the country are crying poverty.

And all it takes is for management from the top down is to give the order to contractors that they must clear up after their work has finished and if they don’t then they will not get other contracts and indeed they will be charged for the removal of these signs and barriers. Don’t anyone tell me that it is more complicated than that.

Glenn McLernon

Petersfield