Amidst the horrific events around the world, the last few weeks has seen the annual political party conferences. Now normally I take little or no notice of these but given it seems likely we will see a change of government (if not policies) at the next election - underpinned by two subsequent byelection results - I listened a little more to His Majesty's opposition.
It came as little surprise that they will be the government that builds the mythical 300,000 homes a year. Their plans seems to comprise of employing many more planners, ride roughshod over local concerns in the national interest, and make nimbyism " a badge of shame".
If it was only that easy.
This week I attended my villages residents association meeting, which had an excellent turnout given the horrible weather. Whilst it was very interesting to hear from the local, exceptionally fresh faced community policeman about local crime - cannabis is an issue - and the fantastic conservation work being carried out around our local river - one of the few chalk stream rivers in the world let alone the country - it was the discussions around the proposed traffic schemes in the village that saw the general bonhomie in the room change to an almost hostile atmosphere.
Great strides have been taken recently to regenerate the high street but traffic volumes, and speed, remain an obvious issue. Given we have six local schools locally, there is real concern over safety, as well as levels of air pollution.
Surrey County Council have published 3 proposed plans and there has been a consultation process. I dare say none of the three are ideal, but its clear change is needed. The village has a bypass - the clues in the name - but many see the high street as a convenient cut through.
This has pitted the local traders and residents who believe they will see a reduction in trade and those who believe they will see greater traffic volumes, against those residents who currently experience the brunt of current traffic levels.
We were informed that the local traders have devised a forth option - as yet unpublished - as they do not want to see passing trade reduced by either the pedestrianisation of the high street or drastically reduced volumes.
Whilst I sat and listened to the increasingly heated exchanges, it did strike me that it would be a brave government who would dismiss this level of democracy in the national good. I also mused that I wouldn't want to be a "nasty property developer" seeking approval for a scheme with those "locals" as my audience!
Now I have personally, on a small scale, had to content with local planners and neighbours, not completely in tune with my visions. Frustrating undoubtedly, time consuming and expensive definitely, but tarring such well meaning locals with the "badge of shame of nimbyism" is not the way forward.
I don't have the answers either.
Comments