Fringe Box



Letter: GBC Projects Review is Welcome, I Hope it is Thorough

Published on: 25 Jun, 2020
Updated on: 25 Jun, 2020

From Sue Wyeth Price

member of Ash Green Residents’ Association

In response to: Objections and Tweets Cause GBC to Rethink Decisions on Some Planned Projects

I welcome the decision by the council leadership to defer the decision on the proposed cuts to the Hotspots Project. It is refreshing to see that councillors of all parties can recognise when they may not have considered all the options, and then commit to going back and reassess it.

I am still concerned that no timescale has been given for either the review or the essential improvement work, and that this could be just an indefinite deferment, perhaps cost-cutting in disguise?

I hope: the council publishes the timescales for the review very soon (the Hotspot project should have been almost completed by now;  the review includes representatives from all parties, including the ward councillors, together with both Surrey Highways and the LEP; the review provides answers to what is happening to the S106 contributions; why the project has been delayed for so long; and finally that it examines not just the immediate potential costs saving but also the additional costs which will be incurred in not doing it.

Share This Post

Responses to Letter: GBC Projects Review is Welcome, I Hope it is Thorough

  1. Stephen Ward Reply

    June 26, 2020 at 7:15 am

    It would be interesting to know whether the developers, who have effectively paid for these highway hotspot improvement projects, have any recourse so as to claim their money back.

    I suppose it is all down to the particular wording of the s106 legal agreements but this has to be a material consideration by councillors.

    • Sue Wyeth-Price Reply

      June 26, 2020 at 1:18 pm

      Sadly, they can and there is a cottage industry springing up within the legal profession to help them.

      Obviously, the specifics rely on what is in the s.106s (many of the ones I’ve read have a timeframe defined) otherwise its generally five years.

      Broadly speaking, they can claim the money back (with interest) if it hasn’t been spent, or allocated, within the time frame, on the project for which it was intended.

Leave a Comment

Please see our comments policy. All comments are moderated and may take time to appear.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *