Letter: Bernard Parke Was Right About This Loss-making White Elephant

Published on: 3 Mar, 2019
Updated on: 3 Mar, 2019

From John Robson

In response to: Council Is Providing Unintended ‘Free Parking’ For University And Hospital

So by failing to agree a wayleave across land associated with the Park & Ride, the university indirectly benefits from free parking for six years and counting? What a coincidence.

Why wasn’t this wayleave for a power cable agreed at the point of contract? The only parties involved would be SCC, GBC and the university. How much public money, how many man-hours have been wasted post-award on this contract?

£4 million+ wasted on a Park & Ride loss-making, white elephant. This money could have been used elsewhere on much worthier projects.

Six years to install an additional power cable on a site that already has power. Really?

A portion of this taxpayer-funded “free” car park should be allocated to the hard-pressed hospital staff at no cost. It’s bad enough that that hospital visitors are being fleeced for car parking, but why should NHS staff also pay for parking at their place of work?

And I wish to pay tribute to Bernard Parke who I met a few times. I was copied into correspondence for the last six years in which showed he lobbied tirelessly for closure of this issue on the basis that taxpayer money was being squandered by this woeful, incompetent council.

He never gave up, he refused to let them off the hook on this and many other issues.

Bernard was a selfless man, a true man of the people. He will be sadly missed.

Responses to Letter: Bernard Parke Was Right About This Loss-making White Elephant

A Calladine Reply

March 3, 2019 at 5:50 pm

It’s all very well critising scheme’s but people who do should come up with viable alternatives.
- Martin Elliott Reply
  
  March 4, 2019 at 12:14 pm
  
  A Calladine will have possibly read Cllr Witham’s several publications of his rants in every internet and social media covering local issues.
  
  Local residents rarely have sufficient information and expertise to develop alternative suggestions, let alone prove their viability. The council should have that capability and should demonstrate that alternatives have been considered, but by comparing benefits and drawbacks, the best solution has been selected.
  
  Cllr Witham’s continued “ranting” (his description) does not answer the basic question on that particular topic, ie charges at countryside carparks.
  
  To repeat my position, which he ignores in personal comments, I have not objected to charges. I have asked what alternative revenue generation was considered to cover SCC grants towards Surrey Wildlife Trust. Why is there no source given for parking data & assumptions in the “Business Case” and why that does not cover Newlands Corner?
- John Perkins Reply
  
  March 4, 2019 at 1:47 pm
  
  Anyone reading these or other pages will be aware that many people do offer viable alternatives, which are completely ignored. Two such examples are GVG and Bibhas Neogi, though there are many more.
  
  Those not willing to be criticised should make sure their own alternatives are sound.