E-petitions - closed and rejected
This page contains a list of petitions received by us which have either been closed or rejected.
If you would like to see the rejected petitions received by us after 2018, please go to rejected ePetitions page. To view the completed ePetitions received by us after 2018, please go to the active and completed ePetitions page.
For closed and rejected ePetitions before this period, please see the table below.
Closed petitions | |||
---|---|---|---|
Title of petition | Submitted by | Deadline to sign by | Signatures |
Wanborough FieldsWe the undersigned petition Guildford Borough Council to grant an Article 4 Direction on some 250 acres of agricultural Green Belt land in Wanborough, that is additionally designated as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty/Area of Great Landscape Value, stretching from the Hog's Back down to Westwood Lane and along towards Christmas Pie. We further request that Land Charges include a statement by the Planning Department when searches come in on the land, advising prospective purchasers of the Article 4 Direction and the reasons for it, emphasising the strict planning policies in place. This unique, traditional and protected landscape is under severe threat. The fields have been parcelled up into small plots for sale as investments for buyers willing to speculate on future planning approval, or as grazing paddocks for ponies and horses. Without Article 4 controls, the current panorama from the Hog's Back will no longer be one of beautiful, rolling, open fields, but instead an ugly scene of mismatched fencing, hard-standing, stabling, vehicles and neglected agricultural land gone to seed and weeds. | Mary Adkins (Wanborough Residents)
| 20 February 2018 | 475 |
Response The decision to make an Article 4 Direction in respect of this matter, as requested in the e-petition, was taken by the Leader of the Council, and Lead Councillor for Planning and Regeneration, Councillor Paul Spooner on 7 February 2018, details of which can be viewed on our website: https://democracy.guildford.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=824 | |||
Stop the proposed unrealistic and unjustified fare decrease | Nikki Simmonds | 22 October 2016 | 213 |
Response The Council adopted a taxi fare calculator in 2013. This is used to calculate fares based on the cost of running a taxi and takes into account relevant elements in this. We consulted with all the trade between asking for information on running costs prior to using the calculator to set new fares. We asked 262 drivers and operators and received 6 responses. Using this information we amended the calculator to take account of additional relevant costs and remove the cost of a radio circuit as only a few drivers opt to use this. The proposed fares were calculated using the amended calculator and we then consulted upon these. The response to the petition by Councillor Graham Ellwood, Lead Councillor for Licensing and Community Safety is detailed below: Running costs consulted on with all members of the taxi trade in April/May 2016. AA costs provide motor vehicle running costs and additional costs relevant to the taxi industry are included. Insurance allowance £1101. This is why the calculator uses running costs based on a mid/upper range vehicle. The tyres' allowance is £510 pa. Fuel has decreased since fares were set in 2013, but takes the previous 12 month average, plus 5p. Guildford fares currently 14th (out of 365) highest in UK. Only Epsom higher in Surrey. Average for South is £6.20 over two miles at T1. Proposed figure is £6.24 The calculator provides a transparent basis for setting fares and has been the subject of considerable consultation with the trade. We consulted with all drivers regarding running costs in April/May 2016. Cost of living reviewed and increased in line with latest figures for Guildford. Fuel has decreased since fares were set in 2013, but takes the previous 12 month average, plus 5p. Being self-employed, can have the benefit of working flexibly and can claim taxi relief on business expenditure. | |||
Remove from the Taxi and Private Hire Licensing Policy the requirement to attach a vinyl sign with the Guildford Borough Council G logo, the words 'pre-book only private hire' and the vehicle number to the front passenger and driver doors of private hire vehicles | Saeed Azmat | 11 September 2016 | 94 |
Response From: Councillor Graham Ellwood, Lead Councillor for Licensing and Community Safety - 30 September 2016 As you are aware, you recently started a petition to remove the requirement for Private Hire Vehicles to display door signage with the words "pre book only, private hire" from the Council's Licensing Policy. Your petition received 94 signatures and under the Council's Petition Scheme, as the Lead Councillor for Licensing and Community Safety it falls to me to respond to you. The Council adopted a new Policy covering Taxi and Private Hire licensing in December 2015. The Policy was adopted following nearly two years of public consultation, which included consultation with the licensed trade through meetings, focus groups and newsletters. The Policy requires all Private Hire Vehicles to display a door sign with the above wording, Council's logo and the licence number of the vehicle. This sign will help members of the public to distinguish between a taxi which is available for immediate hire and a private hire vehicle which can only be pre-booked; and will help to reduce incidents of private hire vehicles "touting" for customers which is a concern from a number of members of the licensed trade. We have taken the decision that signage should be vinyl and permanently applied to the vehicle. Once a vehicle is licensed as a taxi or private hire vehicle, it remains a licensed vehicle at all times and must comply with all its licence conditions, even if it is not "on duty". Should we have taken the decision to permit removable magnetic signage, then Licensing Officers would be likely to have to spend considerable time ensuring that vehicles displayed their signage, which we simply do not have the resources to do and would only serve to increase licence fees. For the reasons outlined above I will not be recommending any changes to the Council's Licensing Policy as a result of your petition. Whilst I appreciate that the outcome from your petition is not what you would have hoped for, we are always pleased to engage with the licensed trade and would invite you to attend the Council's next Taxi Advisory Group meeting at 7pm on the 12 October. | |||
Introduce residents' parking permits and parking restrictions in the area around Shalford railway station | Nicholas Karp | 17 August 2016 | 12 |
Response From: Kevin McKee, Parking Services Manager - 30 September 2016: Thank you for the e-petition and I note that it attracted 12 signatories.
| |||
Delay making any decisions or submitting any related planning applications until the recommendations proposed by Highways England can be taken into account | Robert Clark | 23 September 2015 | 878 |
Response This Petition was referred to full Council for debate on 14 October 2015. The following response was approved with 33 councillors voting in favour, 6 councillors voting against with 1 abstention: "The Council would like to thank the organisers of the petition for raising awareness of the Clay Lane Link Road proposals and this petition will form part of the consultation responses in the pre-application consultation that is currently ongoing. (4) Risk of accidents | |||
Provide proper signage in and around the Shalford Village Pond | Mrs Jayshree Punatar | 5 August 2015 | 112 |
Response From: Councillor Richard Billington, Lead Councillor for Rural Economy, Countryside, Parks and Leisure, 14 October 2015 "We have discussed the issues of inappropriate behaviour at Shalford Village Pond. I have outlined below the steps we will take to improve the situation: | |||
Reduce the proposals for additional housing on Green Belt land in the Draft Local Plan for the villages of Send and Send Marsh/Burnt Common | Mr Howard Turner | 1 August 2014 | 471 e-signatories. Plus a paper petition with 358 valid signatures. |
Response This Petition was referred to full Council for debate on 7 October 2014. The following response was approved: 1. The Council recognises the depth of feeling local residents in and around Send have expressed about the draft Local Plan but does not accept that Send and Send Marsh have been targeted for a disproportionate expansion. 2. The NPPF requires the starting point for the determination of our draft local plan housing target to be set out in a Strategic Market Housing Assessment (SHMA). The analysis of data within the SHMA, such as population and employment statistics provides us with a better understanding of our housing needs in the borough. We use this information plus evidence from other documents to set the housing target. We are required to demonstrate that we can not only deliver sites and therefore new homes through the plan period, but significantly in the first five years following adoption of the Local Plan. We will also be required to demonstrate that our strategy is deliverable and that if a large site or sites do not become available, we have alternative sites earmarked. 3. There are issues that are matters of conflicting and competing views amongst the local and wider community. The Council has a duty to take all such considerations properly into account, and balance the differing needs and views of people and businesses that make representations in finalising a Local Plan ready for examination for soundness. Representations and development constraints are taken into account and may result in some sites not being taken forward into the submission draft Local Plan. 4. Inevitably, this may mean some people will believe their views and needs have been given a lower priority than they would wish. However, the views expressed by those who have signed this petition will be taken into consideration as part of the recent consultation on the draft Local Plan. 5. Issues of traffic congestion have not been ignored and are the subject of further research, which will continue to feed into the Local Plan process. An Infrastructure Delivery Plan that will look to outline the infrastructure necessary to support the level of development prescribed by the Local Plan will accompany the Submission Draft Local Plan. It should also be noted that the Local Plan must be forward looking and whilst acknowledging the existence of current problems deals with the future of the borough. The Council will continue to work in partnership with agencies such as Surrey County Council (as the Highways Authority) and the Highways Agency to deal with issues around highways and transport infrastructure in order to address traffic congestion. | |||
Cancel plans for a permanent traveller pitch in place of Send | David Burnett | 12 June 2014 | 265 e-signatories. Plus a paper petition with 178 valid signatures. |
Response This Petition was referred to full Council for debate on 8 July 2014. The following response was approved: | |||
Reject their current aggressive pro-development pro-building strategy. The current strategy would mean building more housing than we need (and also more commercial buildings than we need) because of an incorrect perception that economic growth can only come from building. This strategy is unsustainable and must be rejected | Mr Nick Norton | 3 June 2014 | 734 |
Response This Petition was referred to full Council for debate on 8 July 2014. The following response was approved: 2. The NPPF requires the starting point for the determination of our draft local plan housing target to be set out in a Strategic Market Housing Assessment (SHMA). The analysis of data within the SHMA, such as population and employment statistics provides us with a better understanding of our housing needs in the borough. We use this information plus evidence from other documents to set the housing target. There are a number of constraints that are imposed on us when determining our housing target. For example, we are required to demonstrate that we can, not only deliver sites and therefore new homes through the plan period, but significantly in the 1 to 5 year period. We will also be required to demonstrate that our strategy is deliverable and that if a large site or sites do not become available we have a plan B or indeed a plan C. This has meant that we have suggested the allocation of sites that if all were developed would exceed the target - which after all is not a maximum. 4. The NPPF followed in March 2012. The main thrust of which is to achieve sustainable development. The NPPF is clear - development means growth - not just housing but economic. It is entirely appropriate that the local plan positively addresses this matter and continues to create jobs and support the growth in businesses. In order to inform the draft local plan we produced an Employment Land Assessment, which sets out how many new jobs we will require through the plan period. 5. The Council is fully aware that there are constraints on development within the borough such as the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and other environmental designations. These will be taken into account when reaching the final figure for the Borough's housing requirement, in the light also of the responses received to the current consultation on the draft Local Plan. 7. These issues are matters of conflicting and competing views amongst the local and wider community. The Council has a duty to take all such considerations properly into account, and balance the differing needs and views of people and businesses who make representations in finalising a Local Plan ready for examination for soundness. | |||
Prepare a new SHMA and reject the consultant's draft report as inadequate | Mrs Susan Parker | 19 February 2014 | 1200 |
Response This Petition was referred to full Council for debate on 26 February 2014. The following response was approved following a recorded vote with 36 councillors voting in favour, two councillors voting against with no abstentions: 1. The Council thanks the signatories to the e-petition about the draft SHMA Report, and the organiser who has submitted it, and recognises that it justifies a full debate under the Council's petition scheme. 3. The Council's consultants are a well-known professional firm, engaged in work of this nature regularly throughout England, and established as a business for over 90 years. The draft SHMA Report has analysed data about the likely need from reputable and reliable sources. 4. The Council has held stakeholder engagement exercises for elected members (16 January), all the Surrey Councils, developers, planning agents, housing associations and the Home Builders Federation (27 January), and Residents' Associations (3 February). A Senior Planning Inspector for the UK, Keith Holland, was amongst those took part on 16 January, and has had an opportunity of feeding back any concerns to G L Hearn. | |||
Save the Hogs Back | Karen Stevens | 29 November 2013 | 783 |
Response This Petition was referred to full Council for debate on 13 January 2014. The following response was approved: 5. The Council will present its proposals in the Draft Local Plan upon which further consultation will then take place. | |||
Keep West Horsley in the Green Belt | Julian Cranwell | 29 November 2013 | 627 |
Response This Petition was referred to full Council for debate on 13 January 2014. The following response was approved: 1. The Council welcomes the Petition to 'Keep West Horsley in the Green Belt', and thanks the petitioners for their time in collecting, collating and presenting it. We note and understand the genuine concern and strength of feeling of residents and communities in respect of the protection of the village within the Green Belt. | |||
Protect the Borough's designated Green Belt and remove inappropriate large scale housing development from the Local Plan Consultation | Helen M Jefferies | 10 December 2013 | 1151 |
Response This Petition was referred to full Council for debate on 12 December 2013. The following response was approved: 1. The Council welcomes the e-petition and thanks the petitioners for their time in collecting, collating and presenting the e-petition. We note and understand the genuine concern and strength of feeling of residents and communities in respect of the protection of the Green Belt and AONB. 2. The Council would reassure the petitioners that we have not, as yet, made any decisions on our future housing numbers, development strategy or strategic sites. 6. The Council will ensure that once the Local Plan has been approved as sound and adopted, it will heed Government policies, which state that inappropriate development is by definition harmful to the Green Belt, and should only be approved in very special circumstances. | |||
Fix the building problems at Wodehouse Place | Dale Askew | 25 January 2014 | 58 |
Response From:Councillor Sarah Creedy (Lead Councillor for Housing and Social Welfare) - 6 March 2014 | |||
Bring back GuilFest | Tony Scott | 26 September 2013 | 957 |
Response This Petition was referred to full Council for debate on 10 October 2013. The following response was approved: The Council thanks Mr Scott for his e-petition and notes the level of support for the return of GuilFest to Guildford. The Council will provide all necessary assistance to any applicant who wishes to book any of its parks and open spaces to run a major event and will determine applications for such events in accordance with powers delegated to the Head of Parks and Leisure Services, in consultation with the relevant Lead Councillor, and subject to appropriate terms and conditions relating to the following: | |||
Recognise the wishes of Effingham residents of maintaining the Green Belt between Effingham and Bookham when Guildford Borough Council is consulted on the Mole Valley Green Belt review | Jane Buckingham | 12 January 2014 | 243 e-signatories. Plus a paper petition with 325 valid signatures. |
Response This Petition was referred to full Council for debate on 26 February 2014. Following a recorded vote, with 37 councillors voting in favour, one councillor voting against with no abstentions, the following response was approved: 1. The Council thanks the signatories to the petition from Effingham residents, and the organisers who have brought this matter to their attention. We recognise the deeply held concerns and strength of feeling about protection of the Green Belt between Effingham and Bookham. | |||
Write to the Home Office expressing support for proposed moves to extend marriage to same-sex couples | Chris Ward | 28 May 2012 | 547 |
Response This Petition was referred to full Council for debate on 5 July 2012. The following response was approved: Whilst the Council recognises the strength of feeling expressed on this subject, it does not consider it appropriate to express a corporate view as a local authority because the issues of same-sex marriage and civil partnerships are a matter of personal conscience for each individual and the Council has no powers or responsibilities relating to the registration of marriages and civil partnerships. |
Rejected Petitions | ||
---|---|---|
Title of petition | Submitted by | Reason for rejection |
Stop the 15% increase to council tax | Rachael Steele | It was outside the remit or powers of the council Additional information about this rejection: I refer to your request to start an e-petition on the Borough Council's website in connection with the proposal by Surrey County Council to increase its element of the Council Tax by 15%. If the County Council does decide to follow this course of action at its budget meeting on 7 February 2017, the increase can only be implemented if the majority of voters agree at a referendum of all local government voters in Surrey. That referendum would take place on 4 May 2017 and would be combined with the County Council elections. This Council's adopted petition scheme provides that petitions will only be accepted if they relate to the functions, powers or duties of the Borough Council. In this case, a proposed increase in Council Tax by another authority is clearly outside the functions, powers or duties of the Borough Council. Furthermore, the petition scheme does not apply in respect of a matter where there is an existing recourse to a review. In this case, such a "review" exists in the form of the county-wide referendum. John Armstrong Democratic Services Manager |
The banning of Fireworks for sale through retail premises | Mr P Tugwell | It was outside the remit or powers of the council Additional information about this rejection: I refer to your request to set up an e-petition on the Council's website, which asks the Council to ban the retail sale of fireworks. I regret that Guildford Borough Council has no statutory powers to introduce such a ban. Indeed, I understand that no local authority in England has such a power. Surrey County Council is responsible for licensing premises for the sale and storage of fireworks. More details can be found on their website (please click on the link below) https://www.surreycc.gov.uk/business-and-consumers/business-information/licences-permits-and-consents/applying-for-a-licence-or-registration-for-fireworks In the circumstances therefore, we are rejecting your request. John Armstrong Democratic Services Manager |
Investigate the suitability of Councillor Christian Holliday in continuing to hold a position of power after he called upon his Twitter followers to support his call for restrictions in freedom of speech. | Clare Bewick | It was an issue for which an e-petition is not the appropriate channel Additional information about this rejection: I have now had the opportunity of discussing this further with the Council's Deputy Monitoring Officer, who is of the view that not only would it be inappropriate for the Council to host your e-petition as explained in my earlier email to you, we would also reject your e-petition on the basis that the subject matter of your e-petition is, in effect, a complaint about the alleged misconduct of Cllr Holliday and the correct recourse for dealing with this is via a separate ethical standards complaint to ensure due process is followed. In the circumstances therefore, your e-petition will not be published on the Council's website for the purpose of gathering e-signatures. The text of this email will appear on the Council's website as the reason for the rejection of your e-petition and you will also receive a similar email generated by our e-petitions software. John Armstrong Democratic Services Manager |
Call for the resignation of Councillor Christian Holliday | Mr Tristan O'Dwyer |
Additional information about this rejection: I have now had the opportunity of discussing this further with the Deputy Monitoring Officer, who is of the view that not only would it be inappropriate for the Council to host your e-petition as explained in my earlier email to you, we would also reject your e-petition on the basis that the subject matter of your e-petition is, in effect, a complaint about the alleged misconduct of Cllr Holliday and the correct recourse for dealing with this is via a separate ethical standards complaint to ensure due process is followed. In any event, your e-petition appears to be inviting the Council to take action in relation to which it has no statutory power, that is, calling for the resignation of a councillor. In the circumstances therefore, your e-petition will not be published on the Council's website. John Armstrong Democratic Services Manager |
Opposing Guildford Council's Private Hire Door Stickers in Pantone 321 | Saeed Azmat |
Additional information about this rejection: Thank you for your request to set up an e-petition using the Council's e-petition facility. Whilst it is clear that you are opposed to the part of the Council's taxi and private hire licensing policy that requires a vinyl sign to be attached to the front passenger and driver doors, the petition (in order to be valid) must state the action the petitioners wish the Council to take. May I therefore suggest the following wording: "We the undersigned petition Guildford Borough Council to remove from the Taxi and Private Hire Licensing Policy the requirement to attach a vinyl sign with the Guildford Borough Council G logo, the words 'pre-book only private hire' and the vehicle number to the front passenger and driver doors of private hire vehicles." If you are happy with this wording, please resubmit your e-petition request. John Armstrong Democratic Services Manager |
Respond as a Council to the Home Office consultation on Equal Marriage in support of extending marriage to same-sex couples | Mr Chris Ward | It contained wording that needed to be amended, or is impossible to understand Additional information about this rejection: As already discussed in exchange of emails, you have asked that the e-petition is open for one month, until 11 June 2012. However, as you know, the deadline for receipt of responses to the Home Office consultation on Equal Marriage is only three days later - 14 June 2012. It is therefore unreasonable to expect whoever is charged with the responsibility of responding formally to the petition under our petition scheme, which could be the relevant head of service/lead councillor/ Executive/ full Council (depending on the number of e-signatures received) to submit a response to the consultation in time for that deadline. We cannot therefore accept the e-petition. John Armstrong Democratic Services Manager |
Not to move the present bus station at the Friary to a new site | Mrs P I Howard | It was similar to and/or overlaps with an existing petition or petitions Additional information about this rejection: The Council's petition scheme specifically excludes any petition on the same or similar topic as one that the Council has received and dealt with in the previous six months. A paper petition containing over 2,600 signatures was formally presented to the Mayor at the Council meeting on 9 February 2012. The petition stated as follows: "BUS STATION - DON'T MOVE IT - IMPROVE IT We, the undersigned, believe Bedford Road is the wrong place for our bus station. 1 It is too far from the town centre 2 The less mobile will find it too far to walk 3 It will cause severe pedestrian congestion at Onslow Street 4 It will make more traffic congestion on Onslow Street 5 It is too small so some existing bus services won't go there 6 It offers poor access for travellers to and from the top of town We call upon the Council, instead, to provide a renovated and improved bus station in the middle of the town's shopping area." In accordance with the Council's petition scheme, councillors debated the petition and resolved: To ask the Executive to consider the petition at a future meeting when it also receives a further report from the Head of Economic Development on the design of any proposed new bus station before a planning application can be submitted.
|
Put a Zebra Crossing Outside of Our School | Miss Emilie Veale | It was outside the remit or powers of the council Additional information about this rejection: Please note that Guildford Borough Council has no powers to establish pedestrian crossings. That responsibility rests with Surrey County Council. Please copy and paste the following link to the County Council's e-petition facility to your web browser: http://petitions.surreycc.gov.uk/ and then enter your petition details. Thank you. John Armstrong Democratic Services Manager |