Letter: How Long to Recoup Money Spent on Salt Box Lane Parking Restrictions?

Published on: 14 Aug, 2018
Updated on: 14 Aug, 2018

From Bob McShee

a Conservative borough councillor for Worplesdon

Surrey Wildlife Trust (SWT) which manages Whitmoor Common on behalf of Surrey County Council (SCC) hope to raise money by introducing parking charges, so have introduced parking meters.

To prevent people parking on Salt Box Road SCC have had to paint double yellow lines along the road. I question whether the cost of the parking meters, new signage and the painting of the yellow lines was a wise investment by SWT and SCC. And I wonder how long it will take the trust and the county council to recoup the money spent.

Responses to Letter: How Long to Recoup Money Spent on Salt Box Lane Parking Restrictions?

Martin Elliott Reply

August 14, 2018 at 10:03 pm

The way announcements were made, it read more as if the county councillors decided to introduce parking fees to replace/reduce the grant from SCC that funds SWT.

They intend making the SWT wholely self-funding but as its budget is several £million, I wonder how?

The numbers involved, including aborted play structures at Newlands Corner, will be in the SCC papers, though only their cabinet has seen them.

Given those previous statements, it also seems strange that the councillors have announced consultation later on how the money should be spent. That seems to be a contradiction to the initial plan to help run SWT.
John Perkins Reply

August 15, 2018 at 9:38 am

It’s unlikely the cost will ever be recouped. The cost of operating the meters means they are unlikely to generate much return and the additional cost of securing them will swallow any profit.

Much simpler, cheaper and less obtrusive to make parking free to the user by subsidising it. But that’s no longer allowed.
John Oliver Reply

August 15, 2018 at 2:08 pm

The cost of wooden bollards needs to be added to this as well.

The budget for SWT was around £1 million a year to run SCC’s Surrey Countryside Estate (SWT has other/its own land and contracts outside this). This has been reduced in the last couple of years and SWT has to make the Countryside Estate self-financing by 2021. Hence the parking charges.

Many have expressed serious doubts about the viability of the parking charge schemes. However, for nearly three years, of which I am aware, when asked to reveal the business plan, SCC states that it is not yet complete. Sounds a bit like the painting of the Forth Bridge.

The sad thing is that SWT is forgetting its original values and is now becoming more of a business. All of the rangers were made redundant, but none of the commercial team. The directors’ wage bill leaped up ahead of inflation and it colluded with SCC to get play structures into Newlands Corner – an attempt that would have cleared areas of ancient woodland and habitat and replaced it with artificiality.

These are sad days.
Mike Gibson Reply

August 15, 2018 at 6:05 pm

Martin Elliot is quite correct that SCC has introduced parking fees to replace/reduce the funding from SCC to SWT. And there are other SCC-owned sites where charges have been introduced, notably Newlands Corner.

I would like to see the council publish the business case for all this. To date, SCC has incurred sunk costs which include the public consultation, legal opinion, council officer’s time, equipment, signage and roadside infrastructure – and now the ongoing cost of wardens to police the charging regime.

What has been the impact of charging on visitor numbers?
- Wayne Smith Reply
  
  August 16, 2018 at 11:54 am
  
  Impact of parking charges on visitor numbers? Purely anecdotal, but to me, the car park at Newlands Corner appears much less busy than it used to be.
  
  The machines will probably need replacing before they’ve even recovered those sunk costs, never mind funding SWT.