Letter: LRAG Has Morphed from a Cross-community Group into a Pressure Group

Published on: 14 Nov, 2024
Updated on: 14 Nov, 2024

From George Potter

Lib Dem county (Guildford East) and borough (Burpham) councillor

I’m old enough to remember when the London Road Action Group, which Terry Newman chairs, was established to ensure a robust public consultation process and to ensure that questions about the scheme were answered properly.

Its original terms of reference, in fact, required it remain neutral and not take a stance either way as to whether or not the scheme should go ahead.

Unfortunately, over the past two years, it has morphed into a group of people determined to oppose the London Road scheme on any and every spurious grounds they can contrive, constantly moving the goalposts by finding a new objection the moment a previous one was put to bed.

This transformation was solidified when Mr Newman decided that, despite my having been a member of the committee from the beginning, and obtained £1,300 funding for it, I would no longer be included on committee email threads simply because I disagreed with the approach being taken under his leadership.

This decision prompted the Burpham Community Association’s representative (who happens to be of a very different political persuasion to me) to resign from the group in protest at their local county councillor being silently excluded.

So LRAG, which started as a cross-community forum to scrutinise the proposals, has instead transformed itself into a pressure group determined to oppose the scheme regardless of what the evidence might say (as their recent missives have indicated), and purports to speak on behalf of residents doing so, even after the community association which represents the majority of Burpham residents has withdrawn due to unhappiness with the direction being taken.

Extract from grant funding application

I don’t object to Mr Newman having an opinion, or to him making that opinion known and lobbying for it, and I don’t even object to him making political accusations against me for having the temerity to want an important decision to be scrutinised properly and thoroughly, but I do object to him presenting himself as a representative of the community rather than as what he actually is, namely a representative of a pressure group, with a particular point of view, which happily took taxpayers money to fund it’s “neutral” goals and then promptly purged anyone within its ranks who wanted to keep an open mind on the London Road scheme.

Everyone is free to have an opinion on this scheme, but the majority of Burpham residents (in the public consultation, 50 per cent were for it and only 30 per cent against) support the scheme, and the independent safety audit, which LRAG demanded, has given the scheme a clean bill of health, as has Active Travel England. It is a demonstrable fact that this scheme would be a major improvement in safety for pedestrians (never mind the benefit to cyclists).

Before such a scheme is thrown out completely, with no alternatives put forward, leaving us with a dangerous status quo, I want that decision to be scrutinised and considered thoroughly and properly.

And I am quite comfortable that in so doing I am standing up for the silent majority of Burpham residents instead of the noisy minority which Mr Newman and his rump LRAG colleagues have put so much effort into stirring up with active misinformation about what is actually being proposed in the revised scheme (which possibly led to, for instance, one public speaker at the Cabinet meeting talking endlessly about floating bus stops, even though proposals for floating bus stops were removed from the scheme as long ago as March 2023).

Responses to Letter: LRAG Has Morphed from a Cross-community Group into a Pressure Group

Mark Stamp Reply

November 15, 2024 at 11:16 am

What scope is there for clawing back the public funding if it has not been used for the intention that it was given?
John Perkins Reply

November 15, 2024 at 1:13 pm

George Potter claims that LRAG has become a pressure group and accuses it of opposing the scheme “on any and every spurious grounds they can contrive” while presenting his own position as “a demonstrable fact”. In doing so he shows only that opinions are polarised.

Talk of a silent majority and a noisy minority are unhelpful and certainly not indicative of the neutral stance required of a council representative.
- Andrew Calladine Reply
  
  November 15, 2024 at 6:07 pm
  
  LRAG was always a pressure group, the rhetoric always pointed in that direction. There should now be an investigation into the way these public funds were used.
  - Jim Allen Reply
    
    November 15, 2024 at 8:37 pm
    
    I would like to express my strong disagreement with the current situation. The LRAG was established to provide impartial information to the public. However, that both sides have attempted to influence Mr Newman’s neutrality, putting him under immense pressure.
    
    Furthermore, some members with expertise in technical matters, rather than political rhetoric, have expressed concerns about the suitability of the proposed location, primarily due to safety reasons. It is important to note that the aggression is misplaced and should not be directed toward LRAG.
    
    In August 2020, when the proposal was first brought to my attention, I voiced my safety concerns. My stance on this matter has remained consistent. We should all stop attacking each other.
    
    The development at Gosden Hill will significantly alter traffic patterns. Therefore, I urge everyone to remain calm and remember that the Christmas season is approaching. Peace and goodwill to all!
  - John Perkins Reply
    
    November 16, 2024 at 10:46 am
    
    The cost of any investigation would quickly exceed that of the funds used. To make it worthwhile perhaps its remit should be widened to include public funds spent by GBC councillors and investigators.
Roger Carnegie Reply

November 15, 2024 at 1:39 pm

Mr Newman has had stories based on his press releases regularly published in The Guildford Dragon NEWS and has been presenting misleading and wild claims for months.

If he has received £1,300 of public money to help run his campaign to stop the scheme then this is an utter disgrace.

Using public money to run this kind of campaign should be looked at and swift action taken.
James Masterman Reply

November 15, 2024 at 2:57 pm

Well said Cllr Potter. It is about time LRAG’s real intentions were exposed. LRAG do not speak for the majority in Burpham. A clear 20 percentage point lead of supporters over detractors in the independently led SCC public consultation says it all, despite LRAG’s negative and neurotic messaging. The decision taken by the SCC cabinet on October 29 defied logic, and it is right it should now be scrutinised.

Burpham still has the chance to secure £6 million worth of active travel infrastructure, allowing us an alternative, safe way to get into Guildford other than by car, in spite of LRAG’s efforts to deny us all this travel alternative.
Alan Judge Reply

November 15, 2024 at 4:05 pm

It doesn’t matter which side of the arguement you are on, this whole conversation shouldn’t even be happening until it is clear what is happening with Gosden Hill.

All these surveys and petitions have been carried out without any idea or, more importantly, experience of what impact Gosden Hill will have.

At this time all opinions are moot.
- Angela Richardson Reply
  
  November 16, 2024 at 6:25 pm
  
  In defence of Terry Newman, it was widely known that he understood the terms and conditions and his requirement to be neutral, which is why a breakaway group formed and undertook additional work to specifically and effectively oppose the scheme where no such requirement for neutrality was needed.
  
  Having met with parties both for and against the London Road scheme, I’m surprised at Cllr Potter. Terry Newman carried out his role impeccably.
  
  This is unnecessary and disappointing.
  
  Angela Richardson is the former Conservative MP for Guildford
  - George Potter Reply
    
    November 19, 2024 at 5:40 pm
    
    Clearly Ms Richardson has not read the most recent emails or statements by LRAG and Mr Newman, including his speech at the SCC Cabinet meeting, where he took a very clear stance that the scheme should not go ahead. By no possible definition is that “maintaining neutrality”.
    
    George Potter is a Lib Dem borough and county councillor.
    - John Perkins Reply
      
      November 20, 2024 at 8:23 am
      
      Cllr Potter seems to think that once LRAG have accepted funding they should not support a particular view.
      
      Surely the purpose of the funding was to enable them to reach a reasoned conclusion. Which they did.
Angela Richardson Reply

November 19, 2024 at 6:38 pm

Neutrality in terms of facilitating a group or organisation does not mean you are unable or not allowed to reach a conclusion once all information is received and debated.

Terry Newman was not predetermined but willing to serve his community.

We need more sensible people like Terry Newman to step forward and help in matters like these. It would be a shame if they were deterred by the unworthy student politics, personal grievance and ad hominen attacks, as demonstrated by Cllr Potter.

Angela Richardson is the former Conservative MP for Guildford