Agenda item

To respond to questions from members of the public, received in accordance with Part 4.9 (Public Speaking Procedure Rules).

The deadline for receipt of questions is 5pm on Tuesday 6 December 2022.

(i)              Question received from Mrs Anne Gray:

“Would the Mayor please accept the Petition signed by some 4,000 users of Crown Court car park, organised by the Save Crown Court Action Group”

(see file attached)

The Save Crown  Court Action Group 

Co-ordinators are:

Mrs Anne Gray,

3, Netherwood Court

Filmer Grove

Godalming. GU7 3AF. 

Mr Daniel Husseini,

40, Elizabeth Court,

Elizabeth Road,

Godalming, GU7

60.1    The following questions were received from members of the public in accordance with Procedure Rule 10:

i)     The first question had been received from Mrs Anne Gray of Godalming.

As Mrs Gray could not be present at the council meeting, Mr Daniel Husseini had been nominated to read the following question on her behalf:

“Would the Mayor please accept the Petition signed by 4,044 users of Crown Court car park, organised by the Save Crown Court Action Group (see file attached). The Save Crown Court Action Group Co-ordinators are: Mrs Anne Gray, 3, Netherwood Court Filmer Grove Godalming. GU7 3AF and Mr Daniel Husseini, 40, Elizabeth Court, Elizabeth Road, Godalming, GU7. The Petition reads as follows:

“Save Crown court Car park. We, the undersigned, oppose the building of houses on the main Godalming car park at Crown Court, and/or the construction of a multi-storey car park at the Waverley HQ site at The Burys. We call on the Waverley Borough Council to:

1) Oppose plans to close or partly close Crown Court car park
2) Stop plans to build houses on Crown Court car park
3) Reject proposals to build a multi-storey car park at the WBC site or at Crown Court

“Crown Court car park is Godalming’s largest car park, is used by a large number of residents and visitors and is often full. It is easy to use and conveniently situated at the heart of the town, close to shops and retail businesses in the High Street and Church Street, the Parish Church, the Bandstand, children’s play facilities, events at the Wilfred Noyce centre and Moss Lane School. A Multi Storey car park at the WBC site on the edge of the Conservation Area overlooking the Lammas lands is inappropriate for Godalming and much less easy and convenient to use”

Response from the Mayor:

“Thank you for your question. Your petition will be reviewed in accordance with the Council’s Petition Scheme, as set out in Annexe 1 of Part 4.9 of the Council’s Constitution and a member of the Democratic Services team will be in touch with you to advise you of the next steps.”

In response to a request from Councillor Peter Martin and with the agreement of the Leader, the Mayor agreed to take Agenda Item 16.1 (Motion on the Central Godalming Regeneration Project) before item 8 (Housing Revenue Account Business Plan - Strategic Review), as members of the public in the Public Gallery had attended to hear this debate. 

Cllr Hyman raised a Point of Order, and asked the Mayor to clarify the arrangements under the Petition Scheme regarding the number of signatures a petition needed to be accepted by the Council, the Executive or the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

ii)    The following question had been submitted by Mrs Clare Weightman from Godalming:

“Does the Mayor know whether the sensitive personal data gathered for this petition was in accordance with the Data Protection Act (2018); and, in accepting this petition, can it be guaranteed that the aforementioned sensitive personal data of residents will not be used in future for party political purposes?

Does the Mayor accept that the petition's questions and statements as presented to the public were inaccurate and misleading? For example, the reference to 'plans', when in fact they are options and cannot be construed as plans at this stage of the public engagement process. Moreover, the third statement implies that a multi-storey car park is being planned for Crown Court, when this has not been proposed.”

Response from the Mayor:

“Thank you for this question. As you are aware I have just been handed this petition so I am not in a position to give any assurances over the method of collection of signatures. Whilst I believe that councillors will not use the data from the petition for party political purposes I obviously cannot give any guarantee about how the originators of the petition will behave. Having just received this petition, my officers have not had the time to study it so I am unable to comment on the accuracy of the statements made within it.”

iii)           The following question has been received by Mr Stuart Mantle regarding Ocean’s 11 Fish and Chips, 133 Upper Hale Road, Farnham:

“Residents & neighbours continue to be seriously affected by the change of use of this establishment from restaurant to fast food take away first making contact with planning & environmental services in May 2019.

There are numerous planning breaches at this establishment, many of which have seriously impacted the day to day lives of those near it since opening. Environmental are again presenting breach of odour abatement notice offences to the court.

In May 2022 - an enforcement notice (EN/2002/12) was witness served to both freeholder & lessee at the time, instructing cease & desist of the take away operation. Removal for the extract flue by Nov 21st 2022.This has not been complied with. A change of lessee has resulted in an extension of the date of the enforcement of the cease and desist order. It should be noted the freeholder has not changed nor have staff operating the premises daily since the notice was served.

Specific questions:
1) Why does enforcement take so long with such clear issues and why has this failed to be enforced by planning?
2) Why does the impact on the lives of local residents matter so little with this issue in favour of the business?
3) What can be done going forward to bring this establishment into compliance more quickly?”

At the request of the Leader, Cllr Andy MacLeod, Portfolio Holder for Enforcement, Operations and Brightwells responded, as follows:

“Officers from Planning Enforcement and Environmental Protection have spent considerable time and resource investigating complaints and taking action because we are concerned about the impacts on neighbours.  The process has been hampered due to the former leaseholder’s refusal to engage with the Council in relation to the problems described.  The actions to date have included the service of an odour nuisance abatement notice and subsequent successful prosecution for non-compliance with this, and the service of a Planning Enforcement Notice which required the takeaway use to cease and the flue and ventilation system to be removed by 21 November 2022. 

In early November, the lease to the premises changed hands.  Officers have established a meaningful dialogue with the new leaseholders who are eager to resolve all outstanding matters.  It is acknowledged that considerable time has passed since the initial complaints were received but due process must be followed and if people are not cooperative, it can take considerable time to achieve desired outcomes.  We do understand that it is frustrating for complainants and we share these frustrations.  It would be inappropriate to comment on any future potential enforcement action in a public forum, but a resolution to this long running matter remains a priority for both Planning Enforcement and Environmental Protection.”