• In the small print of their tax plan, only £8 billion of the £20 billion of the gross tax rises are from green taxes.  The majority of the tax increases are from higher taxes placed on enterprise and income. This is hardly a ‘green switch’.

• Although the national basic rate would be reduced by 2 per cent, local councils would levy a local income tax of between 4 – 4½ pence in the pound to both the basic and higher rates of income tax , compounded by cutting back income tax relief on private pensions. Income taxes would rise not fall. Working families across Surrey would pay a lot more.

• The policy advocates a long-term move to a 1 per cent house price tax . A similar tax is being piloted in Ulster by the Government under direct rule, and was endorsed by a review for the Lib-Lab Executive in Scotland. Only Conservatives have opposed it. Such a tax would mean a yearly bill of £3,450 on an average Guildford property compared to an average council tax of £1,282.

The LibDem tax plan is a fig leaf – it looks small and green, but it can’t really cover their embarrassment – since it actually shifts the burden of tax onto people who have worked hard and saved. Using the political spin of ‘greenery’ to sell highly redistributive tax plans undermines the environmental cause, and contributes to increasing public scepticism over the merits of any green taxation.

Cllr Sheridan Westlake,
Borough councillor for Merrow

Their plans for a new local income tax of between 4% to 4.5% on both the basic and higher rates of taxation would hammer hard-working families across Guildford. As Guildford’s former Liberal Democrat MP may recall remarking after the general election, “local income tax was a real sticking point…young professionals such as two teachers living together struggling to pay the mortgage really didn’t like the policy.”

Other unwelcome measures in their tax plans include cutting tax relief on personal pensions, VAT on new homes, and moving (in the long-term) to an annual house price tax – as already being introduced in Northern Ireland by the Labour Government from April. Yes, we need measures to protect the environment and tackle climate change, and the balance of local government funding certainly needs reform. But hammering middle England – young and old – with tax hikes like these is not the answer.

Cllr Sheridan Westlake

Yet whatever happens with this latest planning appeal, the casino is dead in the water. In December, Conservative-run Guildford Borough, with cross-party support, became one of the first councils in the country to adopt a ‘no casino’ policy under the new Gambling Act – a move which I originally called for the Council to consider back in April 2005.

As a result, no casino licences will ever be granted – be it to Bridge Street, to the Carlton/Mandolay Hotel or to anyone else. Unlike the planning or drinks licensing process, this veto cannot be overturned by unelected inspectors or magistrates. Due process was followed in adopting the policy, and I am confident that any speculative judicial review would fail.

The mainstream of public opinion wants to preserve the character of Guildford as the market town of Surrey, rather than debasing itself as the ‘regional entertainment hub’ of the South East. If Mr Harper, his Trinity Party or any resident disagrees, the Borough is up for election in May. I, for one, will be happy to be held to account for the collective decision to keep Guildford casino-free.

Cllr Sheridan Westlake

Yet Whitehall is still moving ahead with John Prescott’s plans to regionalise the fire service, scrapping Surrey’s existing 999 fire control room in Reigate, and replacing it with just one centre in Fareham, Hampshire to cover the whole of the South East – a population of 8 million people.

A cross-party House of Commons Committee has recently savaged these proposals, warning that they will do little to improve efficiency, civil resilience or the quality of service. Just as we are seeing with the NHS in Surrey and across the country, the Government’s obsession with restructuring threatens to sabotage the delivery of frontline services.

The public have little confidence in John Prescott’s ongoing pet project of regional empire building. Our emergency services must remain accessible and accountable to local people.

Cllr Sheridan Westlake

We urge the Council’s Executive to retain the farm in public ownership and look seriously at its management by the Surrey Wildlife Trust. Their proposals for continued agricultural use, repair of land and buildings, and their vision for a biodiversity project on the farm are responsible, reliable and completely in keeping with the aspirations of many local people who have contacted us.

When we were elected in 2003, we collectively pledged to protect Guildford’s open spaces and countryside. In keeping with those pledges we call on the Council to deliver the future of the farm into a safe pair of hands.

Cllr Sarah Creedy
Borough councillor for Holy Trinity

Cllr David Wright
Borough councillor for Tillingbourne

Cllr Jennifer Jordan
Borough councillor for Merrow

Cllr Sheridan Westlake
Borough councillor for Merrow

The inadequacy of the Labour Government’s new licensing laws has been avidly illustrated by the granting of an alcohol/entertainment licence to Michel Harper’s controversial eight storey casino (Surrey Advertiser, 10 February).

Thanks to Surrey Police’s questionable decision not to object to the latest application, it was automatically granted and no elected representative was given the opportunity to scrutinise, amend or reject the licence. With the exception of residents in the immediate vicinity, no citizen in the Borough was allowed to even comment on the proposal.

Given Bridge Street has faced soaring levels of violent crime in recent years, I do not believe granting this licence for such a large venue is in the public interest. Just as the planning application was decided on appeal over the heads of councillors and local people, so now the casino has been given a licence by the back door. This was the first big test of the new Licensing Act – and it has singularly failed Guildford’s residents.

Cllr Sheridan Westlake

Council tax is the most unpopular tax in Britain. Lagging behind in the unpopularity stakes are stamp duty and inheritance tax. What do they have in common ? All are taxes on property that have soared by stealth since 1997, collectively having doubled their tax take from £16 billion to £34 billion.

The picture on council tax isn’t going to get prettier in a hurry. Pensioners are being jailed for refusing to pay their bills. The Local Government Association have predicted a shortfall in council finances, meaning another hike in bills next April. Despite its delay, the spectre of council tax revaluation and rebanding continues to haunt the Government.

It didn’t used to be this way. As the Government noted in its 1998 Local Government White Paper, ‘the council tax is working well as a local tax. It has been widely accepted and is generally very well understood’. But today, the typical Band D hit has exceeded the psychological level of £100 a month from one’s tax-home pay or pension. Unlike excise or income taxes, residents are billed directly, making it a very visible tax.

Yet the Government’s decision to pre-empt Lyons and delay (rather than cancel) the council tax revaluation will make the tortuous process even more painful. The original 1992 valuation simply placed properties into one of eight bands and the banding structure was known at the time of the valuation process. This time round, a decision on bands – including the politically explosive issue of rebanding – is unlikely to be decided by the time of the valuation assessments. As a result, the Valuation Office Agency has decided it needs to calculate a numerical valuation for every home - so it can then be banded later. The revaluation process will be more expensive, and far more pieces of information need to be gathered.

This helps explain the Agency’s decision to buy in the controversial American system of ‘Computer Assisted Mass Appraisal’. It will collate 17 different ‘dwelling house codes’ and 66 ‘value significance codes’ on homes – including the number of bedrooms, garage spaces, and presence of a greenhouse, conservatory, large patio or scenic view. These attributes in turn will influence the valuation, banding and final bill – or in other words, tax ‘a room with a view’. And to gather this information, unlike the previous valuation, invasive inspectors will need to enter many homes. Existing, rarely-used laws allow the Agency to fine households who refuse to let in inspectors. Reform of local government finance risks becoming a slow motion car crash.

Simply adopting an alternative system of local taxation is not necessarily a panacea – remember the poll tax, a response to a looming rates revaluation. Whereas the poll tax was controversial for having no direct connection with ability to pay, proposals like a local income tax swing to the other extreme, seeking to redistribute wealth irrespective of the provision of local services. Similarly, moving to a more ‘progressive’ council tax system via introducing higher bands or larger band multipliers would result in howls of anguish from middle England.

The council tax backlash reflects a sense of resentment against higher taxes without clear improvements in public services. But it also exposes a deeper confusion about who exactly is responsible for local tax-and-spend decisions. An ICM survey last year, on who people held liable for high council tax, found that a third blamed the Government, one in four accused their local councils, whilst one in five didn’t know. There is no clear ‘winner’ in this yearly blame game.

Reforms will only carry favour if they address not only the overall burden of taxation, but also make local services and councils more accountable to local people. Local residents face a bewildering and costly range of regional and central agencies that run their lives, and lack the ability to influence those agencies. The public want to know who’s running the show, so they can kick those out who tax too much and don’t deliver.

Cllr Sheridan Westlake

More may be to come. Surrey Ambulance Trust may be enveloped into one of 11 regional trusts. The abolition of district or county councils in Surrey is also on the Whitehall agenda, making space for the South East regional assembly to take ‘strategic’ decisions.

There’s a trend here. The Labour Government is taking decision-making away from local people, and passing it upwards to unelected and costly quangos.  Regionalisation is centralising – it allows Whitehall bureaucrats – in the form of the Government Office of the South East - to interfere even more and dictate local priorities to an arbitrary ‘region’ covering 8 million people.

If councils like Waverley, Guildford or Surrey don’t deliver, voters can ‘kick the rascals out’. The same cannot be said of John Prescott’s regional empires, which have no mandate, no accountability and no legitimacy.

Cllr Sheridan Westlake

Correspondence about Seera, the South East England Regional Assembly (September 5, etc), would seem to query whether the public identifies with John Prescott’s “regions” as a legitimate tier of government. Helpfully, the assembly last year commissioned a survey by MORI on this issue — naturally, at taxpayers’ expense.

Seera was recognised by 29 per cent of respondents, compared with 81 per cent who were aware of Ken Livingstone’s Greater London Authority and 34 per cent who had heard of the South East Environmental Group. The last does not actually exist — it was a “dummy” inserted by MORI to test the accuracy of people’s stated knowledge.

To those who support England’s parishes, boroughs and counties, it is reassuring that more people appreciate the work of an imaginary organisation than of their unwanted and unaccountable regional assembly.

Cllr Sheridan Westlake

Any casino needs three substantive consents – planning permission, a premises licence to sell alcohol and allow entertainment, and a gambling licence. There have been three planning applications, and one was granted on appeal by the Bristol-based Planning Inspectorate.

The premises licence has been obtained, but there are ongoing appeals to the Crown Courts on the opening times and capacity. The number of gambling licences allowed across the country is limited, and the South East Regional Assembly and a government agency will decide where they go in our region.

There is a trend here: unelected inspectors, judges and quangocrats taking decisions, deaf to local opinion. Yet at a recent Borough Licensing Committee, it was agreed on a motion proposed by myself and Cllr Sarah Creedy, that the council should consider introducing a blanket ban on any new casino in Guildford. Councils have this power under the Gambling Act 2005, and any decision cannot be over-ruled – provided due process is followed.

A resolution either way is likely in the latter half of next year after consultation and a fair hearing for all involved. Local people will then be able to call their councillors to account for that decision in the 2007 local elections. Democracy may yet have its day.

Cllr Sheridan Westlake