Both Alan, the LOSRA Chairman, and his predecessor were guest columnists for the Surrey Herald. Both, in their turn, ceased writing for this particular journal because of the random and nonsensical way in which the sub-editor wielded his red pen. From now on Alan will be publishing his thoughts on the Website and you are invited to join him by reading his first Soap Box:

The Times this morning (19 December) carried an editorial piece extolling the virtues of building on Green Belt. All the usual tired arguments are wheeled out: the planning regime is too sluggish, the number of households is increasing exponentially, people are living longer. In addition there is the latest specious nonsense (which had its recent origins in the Department for Communities and Local Government) that Green Belt is inherently ugly and would look better if it were covered in bricks.

The problem, as the Times would have it, is that a failure to build enough houses has led to the unaffordable price of housing. In fact, the opposite is true. The unaffordable price of housing has led to a shortage of houses. This might sound like a dispute over which came first – chicken or egg? But it isn’t, and here’s why.

The un-affordability problem is sourced in central government policy. Successive Chancellors of all parties, and Bank of England Governors over several preceding decades, have allowed a situation to develop where the role of housing as a class of financial asset has been allowed to completely overwhelm the role of housing as a means of stopping the rain falling on our collective heads.

As a result, house prices have been bid up to a level which is acceptable when considered purely as a financial asset, measured against other financial assets such as stocks and bonds, by those who see housing as just another method of investing their money. But that has generated prices which are out of reach for people who just want a home, either to buy or to rent.

This is the crucial housing problem. House prices have risen too far, and first time buyers cannot afford to buy. Couples thinking of starting a family cannot find an even slightly bigger residence. And does The Times (or the DCLG, for that matter) really – honestly - think that building more and more houses will result in any of them becoming more affordable?

We could concrete over all the ‘ugly’ Green Belt in the south east of England; in Spelthorne we could fill in all the reservoirs and fill them with tower blocks; we could moor vast terraced –housing boats in the river, suspend condominiums from barrage balloons; and the price of housing would be affected not one tiny jot.

This is a problem sourced in central government. It cannot be solved by building locally. And to argue otherwise is to dabble in the finances of Toy Town, or what is known in the trade as Noddynomics.

Over the last few weeks LOSRA has had two meetings with representatives of Spelthorne Council. At both these meetings, it was made very clear that the Council strongly disagrees with the leading article in the LOSRA Autumn newsletter on the subject of the development of Green Belt land at Kempton Park. We are grateful that the Council has responded to the concerns of LOSRA and residents of Lower Sunbury as expressed in that LOSRA newsletter.

The following email has been received from the Chief Executive's Office:

"We welcome this opportunity to make our position on Kempton Park completely clear. As you would expect the Council has regular discussions about future business plans with all the major operations within the borough, including Kempton, but it has not seen or discussed building plans for any development on this site. Should plans be submitted at some future date there would be a statutory requirement for the developer to undertake full and detailed pre-application discussions with the local community. We would expect this to be done at a very early formative stage. The subsequent application would be publicised giving the community a further opportunity to comment. Officers would consider the scheme in the light of all relevant policies, including Green Belt, and considered for a decision at a meeting of the Planning Committee.

"We always encourage development on Brownfield sites but unfortunately cannot stop consideration of other options, including Green Belt. Were the Government to review Green Belt Policies, then we would consider how any changes applied to Spelthorne.

"Spelthorne Council and LOSRA will not agree on everything – and perhaps that is as it should be – but we firmly believe that the closer relationship of recent years has brought real benefit to the local community and is founded on the acknowledgement that both parties play different roles (and will sometimes have different ideas) but both want the best for Lower Sunbury."

Surrey County Council's application for changes to the conditions attached to the Eco Park planning permission is to be heard by Spelthorne Planning Committee on Wednesday 18th December. (see article of 19th November).

It will be remembered that Spelthorne Council strongly opposed this original proposal when it considered the application on 26th January 2011, and confirmed their objection on 29th June 2011; but despite this and numerous objections from residents, permission for the Eco Park was nevertheless granted by Surrey County Council to itself on 15th March 2012. Section 73 Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which is the subject of this statutory consultation, provides a procedure for 'minor material' alterations to the original plan to be considered and approved; and provides a formal mechanism for so doing without the need to reconsider the application in its entirety.

It's important to note that the Local Planning Authority cannot re-consider the whole permission or re-open a debate on the matter. As a consultee, Spelthorne Council is constrained in the same way and can only reach a view on the amendments. It is nevertheless our view, and the Council's Planning Officers', that a number of amendments being proposed go beyond the definition of 'minor material' alterations and we are very pleased to see that at the time of going to print no fewer than 335 letters/emails of objection have been received by Spelthorne Council.

The final decision on the proposed changes to the Fire Service in Spelthorne is due to be taken by the Surrey County Council Cabinet on 4 February 2013.

In advance of this decision, Surrey County Council asked to buy from Spelthorne Borough Council a piece of Green Belt land on which to build the new single Fire Station included in the proposals. 

The request was due to be discussed by the Spelthorne Cabinet on 17 December (click here to read the Agenda item). This item has, however, now been removed from the Agenda.

The 'Rotten Boroughs' section of Today's edition of Private Eye puts the spotlight on Surrey County Council's obstinate refusal to back down over the installation of an incinerator at the Charlton Lane Community Recycling Centre; this, despite huge opposition both from local residents and Spelthorne Borough Council.

Private Eye has a circulation of around 0.25 million with a readership of perhaps double that, including members of the media, members of Parliament and, of course, the Surrey electorate. To view the article, click here

Quite apart from the now proven health-damaging implications associated with incinerators which are situated near centres of population, a key concern of this Association is, and has always been, the safety both of visitors to the proposed 'Eco Park', its employees and residents living in the vicinity. A LOSRA Committee member who has been very active in pursuing this particular concern has again written to the Health and Safety Executive and his letter may be viewed by clicking here

Many apologies to those of you who were delayed in the Staines Road West traffic on Saturday. The march, supported by LOSRA (see article of 23rd November), was a further demonstration of the opposition to the proposed cuts to our fire services. Already, through the consultation process, eleven Borough-wide residents' associations, three packed consultation meetings and every local councillor has come out against the cuts. At a political level, the Leader, and the Council as a whole, have voted against the cuts. It now remains to be seen whether Surrey County Council take note of the strength of opposition and consign this ill-conceived proposal to the waste bin.

This Association is mature enough to understand that cuts to services are a necessary fact of life especially in these straitened times but we hold to the view that the risks associated with these proposals (see article of 13th September) outweigh any possible advantage to the County's balance sheet.