More RA internal conflict

It's now the turn of Ewell Village RA to express its disapproval of the way RA councillors are running our Borough.

The Winter edition of their newsletter criticises RA councillors for removing the first hour of free parking at Bourne Hall. It states they "got it very wrong and just do not understand the essential role this car park plays in Ewell Village affairs".

They promise to "harass" these councillors so as to regain the free hour.

So yet another RA learns that the RA group of councillors are less in tune with the needs of local residents than they previously banked on.

Other upset and jilted RAs are evidenced here and here.

Grit bins

Surrey County Council have produced a useful guide to their approach to grit bins after the recent snow.

The web page can be found here.

I have been informed that the recent snow means that a refill of bins will be carried out. If you feel a grit close to you has been missed or that a location near you would be well served by a bin and that we should make a request for one then please get in touch with me.

Lord Halifax rejected once again

The historic riding school at the Durdans

In early 2009 Lord Halifax, owner of the Durdans stables, failed in an attempt to get planning permission to convert the site from its historic equestrian use to a mixed residential and commercial use. We were told at the time of that application that the need to change use was because the site was no longer fit for equestrian purposes. His lordship produced thick, glossy and no doubt very expensive reports from "professional experts" backing up this contention which was bitterly contested by opponents of that application who included myself.

It was therefore ironic that rather soon after the application was rejected that the remarketing of the site produced a Mr. Buckman who has taken on a 125 lease for equestrian purposes namely race horse training and livery.

Yesterday evening two separate applications relating to the site came before the borough's planning committee. For the first time in my council career I was sitting as a member of that committee. The first application was from Mr. Buckman seeking permission for various changes that would allow him to operate a modern equestrian business on this historic site. This application was agreed with some enthusiasm as for the first time in a long time we can see the prospect of a successful equestrian use being made of the site.

The second application came from Lord Halifax. His lordship had excluded part of the site from the lease agreement with Mr. Buckman and last night proposed to demolish stables on it and build houses. I spoke and voted against this application. The Borough has planning policies protecting equestrian land and there seemed no good reason why that protection shouldn't apply in this case. In fact the only reason advanced for this application seemed to be to allow Lord Halifax to make more money than he otherwise would. Not a valid planning reason. This land is within the Chalk Lane conservation area and a change of use would clearly change the ambience of the area. Indeed the council in a planning document back in January this year described similar developments in the past as "regrettable". Moreover the proposed housing was unattractively close to neighbouring properties.

This land can still be used for equestrian purposes. The papers for last night's meeting suggest that there is increased demand partly due to the Olympics. Perhaps it would be best for Lord Halifax to put aside any thoughts of future residential development and concentrate on what is possible.

Pothole progress

There has been a noticeable improvement in the repair of potholes since May of this year. In particular it was fantastic to see Woodcote Green Road in my ward completely resurfaced.

Further good news arrives from the county council. As of the end of April next year the council's road maintenance contract will transfer from Ringway and Carillion to May Gurney. This involves a commendable £60 million investment over six years and importantly a stark improvement in service. May Gurney are committed under the contract to the repair of 30,000 potholes within 24 hours of their being reported. The current contractors achieve the repair of 19,000 potholes within a seven day deadline. Therefore we should hope to see yet another significant improvement.

Baby it's cold outside

Well it's been an interesting and difficult week in Epsom. Surrey was one of the worst hit places in the country when it came to snow and Epsom was one of the worst hit places in Surrey.

Reports of 5-9 hour journeys to cover relatively short commutes home have been common. The inconvenience and frustration caused has been huge. The burden on our emergency services and local authorities has been massive and their staff have performed commendably.

There is no doubt that the whole country needs to sharpen up its act in relation to extreme winter weather, but the improvements in response this year are to be applauded.

Surrey County Council managed to regularly salt a network of 4,000 miles of priority roads. In Epsom this involved not only those roads designated priority 1, but also those at priority 2. Some difficulty was encountered with grit trucks or snow ploughs struggling to get past abandoned vehicles and heavy traffic, but the routes were covered.

One problem was the sheer amount of snow that fell which meant that roads that had been gritted simply got completely covered giving people the impression that they had never been gritted in the first place.

Another difficulty arose when local sections of motorway were closed by the Highways Agency and Surrey Police because of multiple incidents. This, of course, then put intolerable pressure on smaller roads.

Epsom & Ewell Borough Council had to cancel many services, but kept residents informed of disruption caused and will no doubt be working hard to catch up with services such as waste collection over the coming week.

If anyone in Woodcote and Langley Vale has any particular concerns about the way the snow was dealt with in their area then please let me know.

Newsflash - success at 2 Pine Hill

News arrives that the owner of 2 Pine Hill on the Woodcote Estate, Mr. Neville True, has been convicted at Redhill Magistrates' Court of breaching a planning enforcement order in relation to the property.

Mr. True has made himself a nuisance to neighbours at a number of addresses around Epsom. In Pine Hill he has regularly parked over 12 vehicles on and around his property creating an eye sore and affecting his neighbours' enjoyment of their own homes. After complaints from local residents and pressure from myself the council finally agreed to issue an enforcement order to limit the number of vehicles Mr. True is allowed to keep on his land. The figure the council came to was a maximum of seven. This in my view is still much too high. Mr. True is clearly storing and trading in cars from a residential property and there is no evidence to suggest that he needs up to seven cars on the land for residential purposes. I will continue to press the council to reduce this number. Further action is required as to the parking of cars on land to the side of the property that does not appear to be covered by the original notice.

Mr. True had a pop at me in the Epsom Guardian when I dared suggest that he simply get on and tidy up his land. He denied he has committed any criminal offence and has suggested that the council is bullying him. He got a mate to write in (without disclosing their connection) to accuse me of attacking the principle of an Englishman's home being his castle.

Well Mr. True's protestations don't come to much now that he has entered a guilty plea. Just to be clear, as a Conservative, I am a great fan of property rights. This does though include the rights of others to enjoy their properties and not to have to suffer at the hands of inconsiderate and selfish people like Mr. True.

Mr. True's lack of neighbourliness has cost him dearly. He now has a criminal conviction. He is to pay a £2,000 fine and £600 costs. One has to hope that he has learnt his lesson. If he hasn't I fear he may find this all a rather costly business because if he persists with his actions I will ensure that we will go back to court as many times as is necessary for him to learn the error of his ways.

Leave us free to tweet!

Senior RA councillors have made complaints to the Chief Executive about councillors tweeting from council meetings. It seems that these fuddy duddies find such activity "disruptive". Twitter is a useful social networking and micro-blogging tool that a number of opposition councillors, including myself, use.

As one of the councillors who tweets from meetings I cannot see anything objectionable about it. I use twitter to alert my followers to what is happening on the council. Given, unlike other authorities such as Surrey, Epsom & Ewell don't webcast their meetings I imagine this is useful to local residents who can't make it to meetings themselves. Why would we won't to deprive local residents of this sort of information? Unless the RAs don't want what takes place in meetings advertised which is understandable given some of their awful policy decisions recently.

In any event the Chief Executive seems much more up to date and open than certain crusty RA councillors and has even suggested that a council officer could tweet from council meetings. Hurrah for her! Three cheers for all of those who seek to defend the right to tweet.

And if you want to follow me on twitter just go to the side bar on this page and follow the link.

Last chance for public loos

An extraordinary meeting of the council has been called for this evening in a last ditch attempt to reopen our borough's public toilets.

I am proposing the motion and am hoping that a number of RA members have realised what a terrible mistake it was to close these three facilities across the borough.

It disturbs me that there is still waste and inefficiency present within the council's budget and yet instead of tackling this the RAs chose to cut important services to the public. Unfortunately first indications are that the leadership of the RA group of councillors is going to oppose my motion. Cllr Robert Leach has misleadingly suggested that one of the sites is no longer owned by the council. What he doesn't make clear is that the council had not owned it for a number of years, council officers having neglected to renew the lease, but that the legal owners have absolutely no problem with the site being leased at a peppercorn rent for the purpose of being run as a public toilet.

Cllr Jean Smith has sought to dismiss the strength of public feeling on this issue. She has suggested on local radio that that the 130 people who attended the public demonstration at the Stoneleigh public toilets (pictured above) were in fact not local but instead "bussed in" by local political parties. This has been described as a "pack of lies" by the local RA ward chairman. It's unfortunate that instead of dealing with the merits of the argument for public conveniences within the borough these councillors seek to mislead so as to protect their position.

Tonight's vote will be very close and I very much hope that, just as they did with their opposition to granting our local regiment the freedom of the borough, that RA will admit their mistake and do a u-turn. It is important that tonight they represent the interests of their residents and not the interests of the RA group of councillors.

RA magazines: fact or fiction

Residents' Association magazines have always had a relaxed attitude to the truth. Recently we've seen various RA ward chairmen valiantly try to defend the actions of their out of touch group of RA councillors. They desperately seek to persuade their residents that the budget cuts aimed at the most vulnerable in our borough are the only option even when RA councillors refuse to make the council leaner and more efficient in the numerous ways open to it that wouldn't hit the vulnerable.

In a way this is to be expected. RA chairmen are but political activists for the registered political party that is the Residents' Associations of Epsom & Ewell.

The honourable exception has been Bill Slaughter who has led Stoneleigh and Auriol Residents' Association (SARA) in a brave campaign against the RA councillors' decision to close the borough's public toilets. On this issue they have put their residents' interests before that of the political party they support. It is clear that RA councillors have lost the confidence of their supporters in Stoneleigh and Auriol.

It is therefore unfortunate that SARA's own magazine cannot escape inaccurate reporting of what is happening on the council. The culprit in this instance is the leader of the RA councillors, Robert Leach. Cllr Leach tries terribly hard to persuade his residents of the merit of his unpopular approach to the budget. As an example of the wonderful savings he and his colleagues are making he tells us that the Mayor's chauffeur "leaves in August". True, the Mayor's chauffeur has retired, but why doesn't Cllr Leach tells his residents that he has simply employed a new chauffeur at taxpayer's expense! Does he not think this is a relevant piece of information or is he simply practicing to deceive.

Cllr Leach writes about all the great staff savings he has made (a nonsense contention in and of itself), but doesn't tell his residents that his group sought to create a brand new climate change officer at significant expense until I questioned how this fitted in with the council's plans for staff savings.

Cllr Leach suggests that RA councillors accepted a small reduction in their allowances. What he doesn't mention is that he and his colleagues increased their allowances by 14% after the last elections in 2007 and the reduction he mentions was one councillors had no choice about accepting as it came about because of a decrease in inflation (and was only 0.4% if I remember correctly).

Perhaps this is all just another example of how desperate a position RA councillors are in. Clearly out of touch with their residents they now resort to blatantly disingenuous comments to justify their position. This cannot continue and one suspects that for Cllr Leach, if the RAs have any sense, it won't be allowed to for much longer.

Bogus calls warning

Epsom & Ewell Borough Council is warning local residents of bogus callers pretending to be council employees. The ruse is to ask for bank details in order to repay a council tax overpayment.

The council does not make calls of this sort. Never hand over your bank details in such circumstances. If you receive such a call then contact the police on 0845 125 2222.

Not a good year for the roses

I have previously posted about the dire state of the rose beds in Rosebery Park. I raised the problem with council officers and this is part of the response I received:

There are two separate types of bed - flower beds and rose beds.

Flower Beds: When the two main flower beds on the Dorking Road were
planted there was a period of about a week or so before it was completed
and so it might have appeared that we had left gaps. This coincided
with the driest part of the summer and watering the plants was a real
challenge. After completing the planting around 200 plants were stolen
from these beds and we had to replace them. They are due to be
replanted in October.

Rose beds: The rose beds are in a poor state. A project was approved in
2009 to remove the rose beds and replace them with a sensory garden and
undertake other improvements in the park using S106 monies. In the
meantime a bedding working group was set up to undertake an evaluation
of the bedding in general and it did not seem sensible to start any new
work whilst reviewing the existing provision.

This review has now been completed and plans for the replacement of the
roses are being re-thought and will be submitted to Leisure Committee in
November. It does not seem sensible to create new features which will
require significant revenue expenses to maintain to a good standard.

Unfortunately once roses fail it is not possible to just replant to gap
up the beds. Considerable work has to be done and in the current
financial climate it is thought more appropriate to remove these very
old, unsightly beds and to grass them over.

I will ask Operational Services to tend to any weeding that needs to be
done to improve the visual appearance in the interim.

I'm glad that work will be done to weed the beds and lets hope the council gets on and comes up with a sensible and attractive alternative soon.

RA civil war continues

The massive internal divisions within the Epsom & Ewell's Residents' Association movement have been highlighted once again as a senior Residents' Association official has come out and publicly criticised the RA group of councillors.

Mark Walter, Chairman of College Ward Residents' Association (CWRA), has written to the 2,500 households in College ward stating:

"CWRA strongly objected to the blue badge charging scheme but the decision was taken mainly by Ewell RA councillors who do not understand the logistical problems of Epsom residents - had we some RA Councillors in the Epsom wards the result might have been different."

Mr Walter presents a rather selective version of events. There are three Residents' Association councillors from Epsom. Cllr Neil Dallen (Town) voted in favour of charging the disabled for their parking. Cllr Mike Richardson (Woodcote) also voted in favour. Cllr Teresa Cass (Woodcote) didn't bother to turn up to the meeting. The vote was 16-14 in favour of charges. The vote was won for the RAs by Epsom RA councillors. So Mr Walters saying the result "might" have been different with more Epsom RA councillors is, of course, right. The majority in favour of charges would have been even greater!

So Epsom's RA councillors all voted for the scheme that CWRA so bitterly opposes. Mr Walter should face reality - if he wants to reverse the Blue Badge charges he needs to campaign against the RA councillors who brought them in and work to get them kicked out at May's elections.

Perhaps of greater interest than Mr Walters' tortured logic is that he is willing to openly criticise the RA group of councillors. He is in good company in doing so as Bill Slaughter, Chairman of Stoneleigh and Auriol Residents Association, has stated in public:

"the Residents' Association group has hit hardest at the most disadvantaged in our society - the disabled, the elderly and the very young."

How can local residents be expected to vote for RA councillors when their own party activists no longer support them?

Taking on inconsiderate neighbours

This week's Epsom Guardian covers my work on behalf of residents of the Woodcote Estate in tackling the anti-social storage and parking of vehicles at 2 Pine Hill. Over the last week I have delivered a letter to residents in the affected area. Already I have had a steady flow of responses. Local residents agree with me that the owner of this property is playing the system. He is using his property for both the storage and sale of vehicles and this simply is not acceptable in a residential area like the Woodcote Estate.

The council needs to take a firm line. Not only does the current court order need to be enforced but we also need to reduce the number of vehicles he is allowed to keep under the current order as many of them are clearly being kept for illegitimate purposes.

Openness and transparency

The new government has been encouraging local councils to publish all expenditure over £500 so that it can be scrutinised by the public. This was first done by a number of Conservative councils and is rightly thought to be a jolly good idea.

I therefore submitted a simple motion to the council requiring such financial disclosure from Epsom & Ewell Borough Council. It's supremely cheering to learn from the report written by officers in response to my motion that the good sense of this move is conceded and this material will be made available to the public in an accessible format at some point in October.

That being the case how about publishing the number and job descriptions of council employees earning above £50,000 in an easily accessible place? Why not include councillors' allowances which are not easily found on the Borough's web site? Openness and transparency are good things. It's time that the council welcomed them with open arms.

Not so blooming marvellous

On Tuesday evening, in the rain, I took a quick walk around Rosebery Park after a complaint from a local resident about the state of the flower beds near Dorking Road. All seven flower beds in that area are a mess. They consist of dead roses, large weeds and significant gaps. The local resident is a regular user of the park and has not ever seen them in such a state.

The council recently took the decision to discontinue certain flower beds across the Borough as a cost saving exercise. I don't understand these to be amongst their number and in any event any former flower beds would need to be turfed over or otherwise tidied up rather than simply left to the weeds. I fear that these beds have simply been neglected by the council longer than they should have been.

I have raised the issue with the council's Head of Operations and I will update this post with his response once I receive it.

Mass RA resignations

Yesterday's Epsom Guardian carried a letter from Mr & Mrs Beeken, residents of Auriol ward. It reads as follows:

I have today informed Councillor Leach that my wife and myself no longer wish to
be members of the Residents' Association due to his efforts against the
disabled. This is not about money but more the treatment of people who are in a
far worse position than us. In next year's elections we will both be voting for
one of the main party candidates and we urge others to do the same. My wife
Marian and I have lived at this address for more than 30 years.

So even the RAs own members don't agree with their current path under the leadership of Councillor Robert Leach. It seems that Mr & Mrs Beeken are not alone. An examination of the statement of accounts submitted to the Electoral Commission by Stoneleigh & Auriol RA shows that between 2008-2009 that particular RA lost over 400 members. A massive drop.

At that last election the RAs secured, for the first time ever, less than 50% of the vote. It seems their decline continues.

RA internal warfare continues

It seems that the domestic strife the RA movement is currently suffering is set to continue, with much dirty linen being aired in public. Bill Slaughter has to be commended from standing up to RA councillors when other local RA chairmen keep quiet and therefore implicitly give their support to what RA councillors are doing.

The letter below was sent by Bill to the Epsom Guardian. If RA councillors won't listen to the pleas of their own activists what chance do local residents have of having a listening council?

RA hypocrisy at County Hall

Campaiging for the Surrey County Council elections last year was a difficult experience. The campaign coincided with the fallout from the expenses scandal and many people were quite understandably angry and disillusioned with our political system.

In our part of Epsom the RA candidate sought to take advantage of the situation by pointing out that the Conservative Group at County Hall employed a political assistant and that RA councillors disapproved of public money being used in such a way and would never do such a thing themselves.

Political assistants are widely employed across local government providing research and administrative support to councillors. With 54 out of 80 seats there's no surprise that Surrey Conservatives make use of one. However news arrives that the RA group, consisting of only ten councillors, is to have its own political assistant. So much for principled campaigning from the RAs. Will County Councillor Chris Frost be resigning from the group in disgust at this inappropriate use of public money? Thought not.

Our only truly independent councillor

For decades the Residents' Association group of councillors have told local residents that they are a grouping of independents. They are, of course, no such thing. The RAs are a local political party and whip their councillors into following the party line. The party line has proved terribly unpopular recently with budget cuts that have hit the most vulnerable rather than targetting excess, waste and inefficiency.

Christine Howells was elected in 2005 as a Residents' Association councillor. Until earlier this year she sat as a member of their group. When the RAs pushed through plans to abolish free parking for blue badge holders she resigned from the group and became an independent.

At last week's council meeting she proved what a true independent she is. In a moving speech Christine attacked the RA group's policies. Expressing real sadness at the direction they had chosen to take she pointed out that there were many areas of waste and subsidy that should be targetted before introducing cuts that hit the vulnerable. Christine stated that RA councillors had failed to listen to residents and that her former colleagues should not be acting as if they were proud of themselves, they should be ashamed.

It just so happened that I was called to speak after Christine. I commended her for her brave and intelligent comments. I have no doubt that it is a difficult and unpleasant experience having to leave one's political group. Christine has shown that it can be done with true intergrity and dignity. Whatever the RAs may say she is the council's only true independent and I look forward to her future contributions in the council chamber.

National coverage of RA councillors?

Simon Heffer wrote in the Telegraph last Monday:

Despite it being led by a monomaniacal sociopath with
all the charm of a septic tank and the communication skills of a stoat, and despite having engaged in the worst acts of economic mismanagement in 80 years...

Many Telegraph readers in Epsom & Ewell will have assumed that Mr. Heffer was referring to our own Residents' Association council and its leader, Cllr. Robert Leach. Further reading however revealed that the author's focus was Gordon Brown and the Labour Party.

Come to think of it, the similarities are startling.

RAs abolish free parking for the disabled

Free parking for blue badge holders was abolished by Residents' Association councillors at last week's full council meeting. RA councillors had previously backed this move as part of a package of cuts hitting the most vulnerable in the borough at the council's last budget. Last week saw the RA group force through the Traffic Order required to impose fees by a vote of 16 to 14.

I described the cuts as a "fundamentally pernicious decision" during the debate and Conservative councillors voted against them. I also decided to tackle directly the erroneous and sometimes outrageous arguments being put forward by RA councillors.

Cllr Jean Smith stated that there is no correlation between disability and poverty. A statement so blatantly unsupported by evidence one had to wonder what the real motivation was of her making it.

Cllr Pamela Bradley said the move was necessary in the current financial climate, but then failed to explain why the council was making cuts that hit the vulnerable whilst not making cuts to councillors allowances or abolishing the council's propaganda magazine or the Mayor's chauffeur driven car.

Robert Leach, leader of the RA group of councillors, saved the best until last. He claimed that the consultation the council conducted (which took place after the decision had been made to impose charges) showed that over half of blue badge holders supported charging. This was deliberately misleading. I pointed out in debate that the question "do you support the introduction of fees?" Instead, without being asked, over 40% of those replying stated they were opposed to charging in principle. This blatant dishonesty was later described by Geoff Jelly, a local disabled rights campaigner, as "disgusting and low".

I will examine various aspects of this decision in future posts. One thing is certain. The RA group has lost touch with the residents of our Borough. Whilst squandering money elsewhere they have taken money from the most vulnerable. Have no doubt that they will be back for more by the time of the next council budget in February.

676 safe under Conservatives

I have written to every household in Langley Vale to cofirm that the 676 bus service is safe under the Conservatives at Surrey County Council. What a stark contrast to our Residents' Association Borough council that continues to slash services for the most vulnerable in our community. The letter is copied below:


We are pleased to confirm that the 676 bus service from Walton on the Hill to Therfield School will continue to run for the benefit of Langley Vale residents.

The County Council is obliged to review all spending given current financial pressures. A review of bus services has been conducted so as to ensure that we as taxpayers are receiving value for money. That review has sensibly cancelled bus routes that were serving schools outside of the county of Surrey and services that were significantly underused.

Therefore the 676 service was never under threat as it is both heavily used and runs within the county. When we heard that villagers were concerned that the 676 might be at risk we immediately spoke with our Conservative colleagues at Surrey County Council and received the assurance that the 676 would keep on running and it was always intended that it would keep on running. Moreover, after the arguments we made, the 676 is being deemed an “essential” service by the County Council which we hope means its future is safeguarded well into the future.

We understand that Residents’ Association councillors have suggested the 676 was under threat when a simple phone call to the relevant County Councillor would have confirmed this wasn’t the case. We know that sometimes local politics is tough, but we hope from now on that local politicians will not suggest that a service which isn’t under threat is under threat just so that they can pretend they have saved it. We very much appreciate that residents of Langley Vale face different needs to those who live in the rest of the Borough. We’re therefore pleased to have played our part in confirming the future of this important service for the local community.

Yours sincerely


Councillor Sean Sullivan Tina Mountain

RA councillors beware!

Many Auriol residents want to have to opportunity to kick out unpopular RA councillor Robert Leach - but will he even get on the ballot to allow them to do so?

How to save £45,000 of taxpayers' money - call in a Conservative

Last Tuesday evening brought the delights of the council's Strategy & Resources committee. One item on the agenda proposed that the council employ a part-time climate change officer over two years at a cost of £45,000.

This would have been an entirely new position and I was somewhat surprised. These are tough financial times - Residents' Association councillors have forced through deeply unpopular cuts like closing public toilets and abolishing free parking for Blue Badge holders. Moreover the RAs have had to freeze council staff pay. So, however important the issue of climate change may be, why would we want to be creating new positions at this particular point in time?

RA councillors had not bothered to check where this money had come from and with what conditions. I discovered that it came from a grant which was not ring fenced. It therefore could be used to fund work the council already does thereby saving the taxpayer £45,000 instead of saying us absolutely nothing.

When I pointed this out the RA Chairman of the committee, Eber Kington, quickly realised the error of his ways, but miserably couldn't persuade his own group to make such an obvious saving. It really is amazing that with tough decisions to be made the RAs aren't bothering to check whether every vacancy needs to be filled and whether any proposed new role is necessary. More than that though when us Conservatives show them the light they struggle to find their way to the right decision. Not very inspiring behaviour from the ruling group on the council, simply adding to the terrible repututation they have in relation to the Borough's finances.

Toilet trouble for RA councillors

On Saturday afternoon I was pleased to join over 100 local residents in a demonstration against the decision of Residents' Association councillors to close the public toilets in Stoneleigh. Ironically the campaign is being led by the Stoneleigh and Auriol Residents' Association (SARA).

One has to wonder how the residents of Epsom & Ewell are meant to place any confidence in their RA councillors when the largest residents' association in the borough is openly contemptuous of and angry with their representatives?

You only have to look at the SARA web site to see the extent of the betrayal felt by once loyal RA activists. The secretary of SARA, Mike Sampson, has described Robert Leach, RA councillor for Auriol and Chairman of the RA group of councillors, as being "inaccurate and misleading" in relation to comments made about the toilets.

Bill Slaughter, Chairman of SARA, has come out in the local press and stated "the RA councillors who control Epsom & Ewell Borough Council are refusing to listen to and act in accordance with the wishes of residents." One hell of a statement from the most influential RA chairman in the Borough. If I was Robert Leach I wouldn't be betting on being able to run as an RA candidate in the 2011 local elections.

Let's remember that the closure of all three public conveniences in the Borough (the other two are on the Upper High Street in Epsom and in Ewell Village) was part of sweeping budget cuts pushed through by RA councillors this year. These included the closure of Cox Lane day centre for the elderly and, quite dsigracefully, scrapping free parking for Blue Badge holders. In the budget debate I put forward how money could be saved without attacking services for the most vulnerable in our community, but us Conservatives were voted down.

It must be galling for residents of Stoneleigh and Auriol that they lose their public toilet (which only cost £7,000 per year), but the RA Mayor of the Borough still gets driven around in a chauffeur driven car, RA councillors have refused to reduce their allowances which they increased by 14% after the last election and the council continues to produce a glossy propaganda magazine for every household a number of times a year. What, they must be asking themselves, is the point of electing an RA council?

SARA appear to have made a financial offer to the RA group of councillors to assist in keeping the loos open. It was stated on Saturday that this was rejected and one councillor described it as a bribe! It makes me wonder whether the RA group has lost all sense. They state they are here to represent the best interests of their residents through the Residents' Association movement, yet when their own local residents' association points out where they have gone wrong they stick two fingers up at them.

If Stoneleigh & Auriol RA councillors will not stand up for their own residents then us Conservative councillors will have to instead. I can promise the residents of Stoneleigh & Auriol that we will fight to reopen their loos.

Congratulations Chris Grayling MP

The general election in Epsom & Ewell saw Chris Grayling returned for a third term as our Member of Parliament. Chris polled 30,868 votes which was an increase of 3,722 on his 2005 tally. He gained a spectacular 56.2% of the total vote, an increase of 1.8% on the last election. In doing so Chris secured the best result for the Conservatives in the constituency since 1992.

It's no suprise that after nine years as our hard working member of parliament that Chris gained such a thumping endorsement from his constituents. I wish him all the best in his new role as Minister of State within the Department of Work and Pensions.