To respond to any questions received from Members of the Council in accordance with Procedure Rule 11.2.
The following questions have been received from Members in accordance with Procedure Rule 11.2:
1. Question from Cllr Mary Foryszewski:
With the current fiscal situation, can the Leader confirm, following the Chief Executives report that Surrey CC are applying to be a single unitary authority, that no officer time or money will be wasted on a boundary review within the Borough at this time.
2. Question from Cllr Robert Knowles:
Can the Leader inform council whether officers or the administration were consulted on the unilateral decision by Surrey County Council to ask the Secretary of State for authority to put the case to become Europe’s largest single unitary authority?
3. Question from Cllr Kevin Deanus:
Dunsfold Park is situated within the Ward of Alfold, whom I am proud to represent. The planning permission granted to build 1800 homes, and ultimately, 2600 homes, is the most significant approval in Waverley’s history, both in terms of size, but the disruption to local residents over many years.
On the 8th June, 2019, some 13 months ago, I emailed the Leader, Councillor Ward, and copied all Councillors, about my concern how the executive planned to oversee the development at Dunsfold Park.
On the 16th July 2019, when raised at Full Council, the leader stated, “Regular meetings will continue, and we are in the late stages of the process of establishing a Dunsfold Park Garden Village Board”.
On the 18th September 2019, at Full Council, the Leader presented the new Corporate Strategy. He will recall that I spoke on the matter with both dismay and astonishment. I read from the Corporate Strategy, “We shall develop a more open, inclusive approach to communications and decision making”, and “we will be an open, democratic and participative Governance, valuing the worth of all residents”.
I reminded Councillor Ward that he had failed on all of these Corporate Priorities as I was still waiting for the decency of a discussion about how the Dunsfold Park Governance would work.
On the 8th October 2019, a Dunsfold Governance Structure was finally presented at Council. I had not been consulted, and my extensive knowledge of the site and surrounding area was clearly not valued, or simply ignored. I pointed out the glaring and obvious omissions. The structure had failed to include the ward member (and members from surrounding wards), the Parish Council, who represent the community at ground level, and members of the public. I reminded Councillor Ward of the Corporate Strategy and how it had failed at every hurdle.
Members of the Executive looked extremely embarrassed, and the leader did offer a form of apology, stating it would be sorted.
An informal discussion took place after the meeting, and later I followed this with a further email requesting a resolution. Councillor Ward did respond and promised to send some dates to arrange a meeting. Some 9 months later I am still waiting for this to happen. I also spoken to a member of the Executive, who I will not name, who was embarrassed and apologised.
To summarise my questions are:
1. Since the 16th July 2019 to the current date, can the Leader detail the formal meetings with Dunsfold Park senior management he has held regarding the development, and provide me with copies of these minutes.
2. Can the leader detail meetings held within the formal Governance Structure, approved by full Council on the 8th October 2019 to the current date, with copies of the minutes and dates, and additionally, those from the Dunsfold Park Village Board meetings identified and raised by the Leader at Council on the 16th July 2019.
3. Having highlighted the blatant omissions regarding participative governance, local engagement and valuing residents, does the Leader believe this is a good example of his Corporate Plan aspirations.
4. As we are now 13 months on, will the Leader confirm he actually will discuss the issue with me and produce an amended Governance structure that includes Alfold Parish Council and Local residents at the appropriate level.
5. Would the leader agree that the community have been dealt with in an unprofessional manner or will he say he is proud of this reoccurring reluctance to engage. After 13 months the issue of local Governance has not been progressed, promises of meetings have been ignored, and the Governance structure from the 8th October 2019 still remains unchanged.
4. Question from Cllr Richard Seaborne:
Following recent announcements by Surrey County Council, does the administration agree that in the event that Waverley council is abolished, alternative solutions must recognise that different parts of Surrey have distinctly different characteristics and needs, and that all options for a replacement unitary authority, or authorities OR a combined authority must be fully considered, including options cross border from Surrey, with areas which may have more in common with our area.
Minutes:
The following questions had been received from Members in accordance with Procedure Rule 11.2:
28.1 Question from Cllr Mary Foryszewski:
“With the current fiscal situation, can the Leader confirm, following the Chief Executives report that Surrey CC are applying to be a single unitary authority, that no officer time or money will be wasted on a boundary review within the Borough at this time.”
Response from the Leader, Cllr John Ward:
“As you are aware, Waverley has been notified by the Boundary Commission that it intends to do a boundary review of our borough starting next year with a view to completing this before the 2023 local elections. Waverley did not request a review but unfortunately these are at the whim of the Local Boundary Commission for England, which is the government department responsible for determining the timing of boundary reviews and for conducting them. The Commission has statutory authority to conduct its work and councils must cooperate. The costs of the commission's work are met by public funds nationally and Waverley Borough Council will not be charged by the Commission. However, Waverley would have to respond to requests by the commission for information, for example for population data, expected planning delivery and matters of local connection; also, to publicise the Commission's work and respond to its first draft. Clearly, if Waverley Borough Council were not to exist after 2023 a boundary review would have been futile.
“Waverley officers have updated the Commission on Surrey County Council's bid for a single Surrey unitary council and we await the Commission's response.
“I must add that I totally agree with the sentiment of the question and can assure you that any unavoidable expenditure will be kept to an absolute minimum.”
28.2 Question from Cllr Robert Knowles:
“Can the Leader inform Council whether officers or the administration were consulted on the unilateral decision by Surrey County Council to ask the Secretary of State for authority to put the case to become Europe’s largest single unitary authority?”
Response from the Leader, Cllr John Ward:
“I’m tempted to say no, and just leave it there but this question does deserve a proper answer. In summary, on 28th June, Waverley Borough Council found out about rumours of a unitary bid by Surrey County Council from the local government press and then sought to engage with Surrey County Council. On 3rd July, Surrey County Council presented to District and Borough Chief Executives some ideas on a unitarisation bid in the context of the forthcoming Government White Paper. A preference for a single unitary within Surrey County Council was mentioned, but not agreed by districts and boroughs, and discussion among the council Leaders was urged. The Surrey Leader’s speech at his Council meeting on 7th July did not mention bidding for a single unitary, although rumours in the press continued. Surrey County Council then published on 13th July its letter to the Secretary of State in favour of a single unitary, without further considering district and borough councils.
“At a meeting of Surrey Leaders on Friday 17th July, all of us expressed our opposition to such a scheme and our dismay and disappointment that such a matter had been raised with the government without any consultation whatsoever with the Leaders of the 11 boroughs and districts that make up the county.
“I was particularly disillusioned to read in the papers prepared for the Surrey Cabinet scheduled for Tuesday 21st July, ie yesterday, the statement that preliminary related discussions have been held with the following district and borough council Leaders and Chief Executives when at the time no such discussions had been held with me or any other borough or district Leader. This, combined with a quote attributed to the Surrey Leader, that he is having conversations with stakeholders, in which regrettably Waverley did not feature, causes one to be very concerned about what the county is telling local MPs in order to get their support.”
28.3 Question from Cllr Kevin Deanus:
“Dunsfold Park is situated within the Ward of Alfold, whom I am proud to represent. The planning permission granted to build 1800 homes, and ultimately, 2600 homes, is the most significant approval in Waverley’s history, both in terms of size, but the disruption to local residents over many years.
“On the 8th June, 2019, some 13 months ago, I emailed the Leader, Councillor Ward, and copied all Councillors, about my concern how the executive planned to oversee the development at Dunsfold Park.
2On the 16th July 2019, when raised at Full Council, the leader stated, “Regular meetings will continue, and we are in the late stages of the process of establishing a Dunsfold Park Garden Village Board”.
“On the 18th September 2019, at Full Council, the Leader presented the new Corporate Strategy. He will recall that I spoke on the matter with both dismay and astonishment. I read from the Corporate Strategy, “We shall develop a more open, inclusive approach to communications and decision making”, and “we will be an open, democratic and participative Governance, valuing the worth of all residents”.
“I reminded Councillor Ward that he had failed on all of these Corporate Priorities as I was still waiting for the decency of a discussion about how the Dunsfold Park Governance would work.
“On the 8th October 2019, a Dunsfold Governance Structure was finally presented at Council. I had not been consulted, and my extensive knowledge of the site and surrounding area was clearly not valued, or simply ignored. I pointed out the glaring and obvious omissions. The structure had failed to include the ward member (and members from surrounding wards), the Parish Council, who represent the community at ground level, and members of the public. I reminded Councillor Ward of the Corporate Strategy and how it had failed at every hurdle.
“Members of the Executive looked extremely embarrassed, and the leader did offer a form of apology, stating it would be sorted.
“An informal discussion took place after the meeting, and later I followed this with a further email requesting a resolution. Councillor Ward did respond and promised to send some dates to arrange a meeting. Some 9 months later I am still waiting for this to happen. I also spoken to a member of the Executive, who I will not name, who was embarrassed and apologised.
“To summarise my questions are:
1. Since the 16th July 2019 to the current date, can the Leader detail the formal meetings with Dunsfold Park senior management he has held regarding the development, and provide me with copies of these minutes.
2. Can the leader detail meetings held within the formal Governance Structure, approved by full Council on the 8th October 2019 to the current date, with copies of the minutes and dates, and additionally, those from the Dunsfold Park Village Board meetings identified and raised by the Leader at Council on the 16th July 2019.
3. Having highlighted the blatant omissions regarding participative governance, local engagement and valuing residents, does the Leader believe this is a good example of his Corporate Plan aspirations.
4. As we are now 13 months on, will the Leader confirm he actually will discuss the issue with me and produce an amended Governance structure that includes Alfold Parish Council and Local residents at the appropriate level.
5. Would the leader agree that the community have been dealt with in an unprofessional manner or will he say he is proud of this reoccurring reluctance to engage. After 13 months the issue of local Governance has not been progressed, promises of meetings have been ignored, and the Governance structure from the 8th October 2019 still remains unchanged.”
Response from the Leader, Cllr John Ward:
“Councillor Deanus, your five questions preceded by an emotive 400 word somewhat intemperate preamble ten times as long as any of the questions
certainly strains the limit of the procedural rules. However, I shall endeavour to answer them as politely as possible.
“Question one, whilst there's been no formal meetings with the Dunsfold Park senior management, various informal meetings have taken place to move things forward, including
- Executive Briefings on 1st October 2019, 31 March 2020, and 30th June 2020;
- Monthly progress meetings between DAL and the officers
- Bi-monthly meetings between Homes England and officers, with DAL attending every other meeting
- Design South East - Design Review Panel workshops in August 2019, which local councils attended
- Portfolio Holder and Planning Project Team Leader update meetings in March, June (twice) and July (twice)
- TCPA training webinar on Garden Village Principles on 14th July open to all councillors, officers, SCC officers and councillors, MPs, Alfold, Cranleigh and Dunsfold Parish Councils, and DAL
“Question two, whilst there has not been a requirement for the governance structure to be implemented since its adoption and the Dunsfold Park Liaison Group has not met since March 2019 as there have been no relevant items to form an agenda, both local councillors for Alfold and Dunsfold wards have been included on the proposed Advisory Board and that is not proposed to change. Clearly, when the Portfolio
“Clearly, when the Portfolio Holder for Dunsfold Park was appointed, it was critical that she be brought up to speed on the project in the first instance and then review the proposed governance structure. This, as she has already informed you, she has done.
“We have also had to adopt our temporary Governance arrangements re online meetings and also our new planning committee structure which is referred to in the Dunsfold Governance Structure. All this was agreed in the Council Meeting on 9 June and as planned after my announcement this evening the revised Governance structure will be circulated to all Waverley Councillors tomorrow. It is expected that these meetings will be convened in the near future, now that lockdown is easing to support the progress of the new settlement. Representatives from Alfold, Cranleigh and Dunsfold Parish Councils will also be invited to sit on the Advisory Board.
“Also, as you will be aware the new road application was granted permission in October 2019 and was followed by a non-material amendment application (also granted) to align the original outline application against the new road applications.
“Local Councillors for Alfold and Dunsfold participated in and contributed to the Design Review Panel meetings last August and it is expected that they will continue to be involved in future panel meetings.
“A Dunsfold Park Team has been set up comprising a Principal Planning Officer and Planning Technician, paid for through a planning performance agreement and intended to ensure that the project is delivered in a timely manner.
“Training by the TCPA was offered to all Councillors on 14 July, this focused on Garden Village Principles, was well attended and officers received very positive feedback. Further training from Design South East (with a design focus), is currently being arranged and future events related to climate change mitigation and stewardship will also be offered in the autumn.
“Officers continue to work closely with DAL to bring forward an exceptional new settlement and public consultation will take place at the relevant opportunities.
“Question three, the Leader does not accept your premises.
“Question four, I am delighted to confirm that representatives from Alfold, Cranleigh and Dunsfold Parish Councils, alongside Councillor representatives from Alfold and Dunsfold wards will be invited to sit on the Advisory Panel.
“There is a commitment to undertake a four week public consultation on the masterplan and associated documents that will be submitted to discharge the relevant condition of the original outline planning application. Officers will also work with DAL to extend the reach of this public consultation. Additionally various Councillor briefings will take place both prior to the submission of the documents (all Councillors) and after submission (Advisory Board members). This goes well beyond any normal expectations to deal with the discharge of a condition and recognises the strategic importance and value of getting this framework for future reserved matters applications right.
“DAL undertook their own public consultation on the evolving masterplan in October/November 2019. In the same vain, the local Parish Councils are welcome to hold their own public consultation events on the new settlement if they consider this appropriate.
“The amended governance structure includes representation from each of the Parish councils within the advisory board. It is not appropriate to include residents on this board, but they will have the opportunity to comment through public consultations at various stages through the process.
“Question five, the Leader would not agree.
“Let me finish by saying that I hope you find some of these answers good news, but there is also some bad news. I noticed that you are concerned, in fact from your language mighty miffed, that you have not been consulted and your extensive knowledge of the site and surrounding area were clearly not valued. It may come of something of a distinct blow to your ego but they are not the only person in surrey with extensive knowledge of the site and the surrounding area. Thank you for your question.”
28.4 Question from Cllr Richard Seaborne:
“Following recent announcements by Surrey County Council, does the administration agree that in the event that Waverley council is abolished, alternative solutions must recognise that different parts of Surrey have distinctly different characteristics and needs, and that all options for a replacement unitary authority, or authorities OR a combined authority must be fully considered, including options cross border from Surrey, with areas which may have more in common with our area?”
Response from the Leader, Cllr John Ward:
“Again, yes.
I could leave it there but like the previous question there are a few things that are worthy of comment. I think my answer to the earlier questions outlines the Administration'sdeep concern that abolition of the borough has beenmooted without any local consultation. I and my Executive agree with all thepoints raised in your questionand believe that this situation issufficiently important and urgent thatthere should be a full and proper debateat this Council. I therefore thank both the Leader of the Principal Opposition, the Mayor, and the Officers who have worked very co-operatively to enable this matter to appear on the agenda later this evening where there will be an opportunity for all of us to air these views. I can also inform you that a jointletter from all11 borough and district councilswill probably tomorrow be submitted tothe Minister Robert Jenrick, asking him to consider other ideas from the Surrey letter. Sadly, it appears Surrey Cabinet yesterdayagreed to proceed on their own.”