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.