Letter: Many Residents Appreciate LRAG

Published on: 16 Nov, 2024
Updated on: 16 Nov, 2024

London Road, Burpham (image Google)

From Fiona Davidson

R4GV county councillor for Guildford South East

It is very disappointing that Cllr George Potter [Lib Dem, Burpham and Guildford East] has resorted to personal attacks, which are entirely unwarranted. And it is inappropriate behaviour from a county and borough councillor who is supposed to represent residents, not abuse them. He is clearly very angry that many residents oppose the London Road Active Travel scheme, as is evidenced once again in the recent survey on the Burpham and Merrow Community Group Facebook page.

For those who haven’t seen it, by Friday the poll had attracted 777 votes: 71 per cent against, 19 per cent for, 8 per cent not sure, and 2 per cent no opinion. By the way, the SCC survey didn’t require respondents to provide their address and was open to anyone anywhere in the country, whether they even knew where Guildford was or not. The survey platform even helpfully invited people who had contributed to previous surveys on cycling to participate.

I note that Cllr Potter has also provided what he calls “taxpayers’ money” to fund online collaboration tools for G-BUG, which is a cycling pressure group, so I’m not sure I understand why he has taken such exception to funding LRAG online collaboration tools. He chose to contribute, and he chose the amount he contributed.

LRAG has consistently provided detailed information to describe, explain, analyse, and critique the plans and proposals. Its agenda was to inform. This is the role that Surrey County Council should have undertaken – but didn’t. LRAG has explained why it has latterly become opposed to the scheme, but it continues to provide information which residents wouldn’t otherwise have, and very many residents appreciate being informed.

It is public knowledge that I am against the scheme. I believe there is a significant risk that the road layout proposed would have the unintended consequence of reducing safety.

In the real world how safe is a 4.9 inch clearance between an HGV’s mirrors and a cyclist or pedestrian on a footway or cycleway? In the real world are cyclists really likely to dismount to pass pedestrians on the shared path? 45% of the route is shared by cyclists and pedestrians, some sections are very narrow.

In the era of electric bikes and scooters pedestrians will be deterred, especially the disabled (who often have few travel options), the elderly and those pushing prams.

This section of London Road is currently one of the safer arterial routes in Surrey. The actual official accident statistics for the past five years (held by the Sussex Safer Roads Partnership) show that there were 17 minor accidents (five involving a cyclist and a car), and one serious accident that did not involve either a cycle or a car.

I would absolutely support changes that could accommodate pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles separately and safety, but the A3100 is narrow in places, and this is the significant constraint in creating a route that will work for all road users. No accidents are acceptable, and I truly believe this scheme risks increasing the number of accidents.

Councillors often hold strong views, but we have a responsibility to engage in public discourse with civility, otherwise we will deter people from getting involved, and engaging in the community.

Responses to Letter: Many Residents Appreciate LRAG

Ben Paton Reply

November 16, 2024 at 10:31 am

Cllr Potter purports to represent his “street” – which is the Burpham Ward which has elected him.

However, when considering the effects of changes on a strategic A road, other constituencies and interest groups are also relevant. Road users are entitled to have an opinion.

Instead of balancing the respective needs and “rights” of residents and road tax payers, Cllr Potter appears to put himself entirely in one camp.

Worse, he has gone back to his habitual ad hominem style remarks. People are entitled to disagree with him. Road users who pay road tax are, in fact, entitled to exist. By disagreeing they should not become targets of personal attacks.

Two wheels good and four wheels bad is a simplistic slogan reminiscent of Orwell’s Animal Farm.
George Potter Reply

November 16, 2024 at 6:02 pm

It is very disappointing that Cllr Fiona Davidson doesn’t appear to understand what a personal attack is.

Mr Newman, who I respect as an individual member of the public, is entitled to his opinion, which is why I have held my tongue for over a year on this topic. However, when he decided to write a letter to the Dragon making personal attacks on myself (https://guildford-dragon.com/letter-the-public-have-a-right-to-expect-better/) and making accusations as to my motives, I felt it was appropriate to respond by pointing out that, contrary to how it positions itself, LRAG, under Mr Newman’s leadership has shifted into a pressure group actively opposing the London Road scheme, instead of the neutral body which it first set itself up as.

People deserve to know what the agenda of an organisation, and its spokesman, are when they are getting plenty of media coverage and purporting to speak on behalf of residents.

Nothing in what I have said was a personal attack, and everything I have said was factual. I am aware that factual accuracy is something Cllr Davidson has struggled with in the past, so I can understand why she may find this objectionable, but to label a simple statement of facts as a “personal attack” demeans the quality of public debate.

LRAG is entitled to do as they wish, but I personally consider it to be unethical to take money for one purpose, and on the basis of having a particular set of stated goals as an organisation, only to then promptly go in a completely different direction and drive out anyone who disagrees with you. Cllr Davidson may be fine with that, but that says more about her sense of ethics than it does about mine.

In terms of the merits of the London Road scheme itself, it is a shame to see that, as always, Cllr Davidson is playing fast and loose with the facts. Yes, the SCC consultation (designed in conjunction with the independent Consultation Institute), didn’t require people to provide their addresses, but it did ask for their postcodes, and the breakdown of roughly 50% support for the scheme and 30% opposition remained the case regardless of whether you were looking at all consultation respondents or just those who gave postcodes within the impacted area. Cllr Davidson knows this full well, because she was at the same meeting as I was where we were told the results.

And I would have more respect for Cllr Davidson’s views on this topic were it not for the fact that she herself shamelessly promoted the outcome of an “alternative survey” organised by opponents of the scheme, filled with leading questions which the survey organisers had been advised by a polling expert were biased and designed to produce a particular outcome, the fact that she has consistently opposed this scheme and found fault with every proposal put forwards without once suggesting what she would prefer to see instead, and that she has consistently been actively rude and dismissive of residents in her division who want to see the safety improvements for pedestrians and cyclists that the proposed scheme would bring.

Or, to put it much more succintly, Cllr Davidson seems to be one of these people whose accusations against others would be a far more fitting description of her own conduct and attitude than anything else.

However, happily, both Cllr Davidson and myself will be up for re-election in May next year, which will allow residents to give their verdict on whether they feel well served or not by their local county councillors. Doubtless the results will be interesting.

George Potter is a Lib Dem borough and county councillor.
- John Perkins Reply
  
  November 18, 2024 at 12:56 pm
  
  I am struggling to find any “personal attack” in the letter referenced by Cllr Potter.
  - Jeremy Holt Reply
    
    November 19, 2024 at 11:58 am
    
    I agree with John Perkins.
    
    The words “if the cap fits” seem applicable here