To answer the following questions from members of the public, received in accordance with Procedure Rule 10:-
i. from Mr H Alexander of Hambledon
“In relation to the fraud that occurred in April 2014, 19 senior Conservative councillors knew of the fraud. Knowledge of the fraud was deliberately kept from all junior Conservative councillors, all Ukip councillors and all Independent councillors. The fraud was not reported in the 2013/14 Annual Financial Statements as a post balance sheet event and nor was it disclosed in the 2014/15 Annual Financial Statements, the year in which it occurred.
The Waverley Members’ Code of Conduct (“the Code”) requires that its members behave with Openness, Accountability and Integrity. This behaviour is also required of those in public life under Section 28 of the Localism Act 2011 (“the Act”). There is prima facie evidence that these requirements of the Code and the Act have been breached by the 19 senior Conservative councillors as follows:
1. Openness – by concealing the fraud from other councillors and all residents, and not disclosing it in the Annual Financials Statements, the 19 Conservative councillors have clearly breached this aspect of the Code and the Act; 2. Accountability – by concealing the fraud, the 19 Conservative councillors have prevented themselves from being held to account for their actions; 3. Integrity – the 19 Conservative councillors have shown a lack of integrity by concealing the fraud from opposition councillors. This lack of integrity is particularly serious given there was a Borough election in May 2015 and, by concealing the fraud, the Conservatives enhanced their electoral prospects.
In view of the fact that: 1. there is prima facie evidence that Councillors have broken both the Code of Conduct and the Localism Act 2011, and 2. The breach of the Code and the Act was extensive, with 19 Conservative councillors implicated, and 3. the breach of the Code and the Act has been sustained for a long period of time (more than 20 months), will the Council be ordering a full, independent and transparent investigation into the 19 councillors conduct?”
ii. from Mr David Beaman of Farnham
“The NPPF is quite clear in requiring all new residential developments to be sustainable including the provision of adequate transport facilities. Badshot Lea, where significant residential development is proposed, is currently served by an hourly Monday to Saturday daytime bus service that operates between Aldershot and Farnham then onto Godalming and Guildford. Under proposals issued by Surrey County Council that are currently open for consultation the section of route between Aldershot and Badshot Lea will be withdrawn completely whilst the number of journeys operated between Badshot Lea and Farnham is likely to be reduced from 10 to 6 or 7 journeys per day with the possibility of no service being provided at all on Saturdays. This reduction in bus service will inevitably affect the sustainability of any further residential development in Badshot Lea and would WBC confirm that when considering planning applications for any new residential development its transport sustainability will take account of any known future changes in bus service".
iii. from Charles Orange on behalf of Alfold, Busbridge, Chiddingfold, Dunsfold, Hambledon, Hascombe, Shalford and Wonersh Parish Councils
“Our question relates to our concerns on the viability of the consultation process in progress on Planning Application WA/2015/2395 submitted by Dunsfold Park on 4th December 2015, currently expiring on 5th February 2016.
We refer you to the following: In summer 2015 the Council published a Special Edition of “Making Waves” seeking opinions from the wider community on the specific question of their preferences for the location of housing in the borough with 4 x Scenario Areas proposed by the applicant, to assist the Council in the preparation of their Spatial Strategy. Only some 3% of the population responded, with an inevitable emphasis from those in the borough who feel threatened by development in their own neighbourhood of a preference for Scenario 4. We still await the publication of essential reports for meaningful consultations to take place, i.e.
· WBC’s proposed Spatial Strategy – due in April
· Mott McDonald’s report on their current transport assessment
· SCC Infrastructure Plans and Proposals, with current financial implications for recent comprehensive budget cuts
Given that inadequate pre-application consultations, on any aspect of this multi-faceted application have taken place (orchestrated by WBC in accordance with their Statement of Community Involvement) between Dunsfold Park and all, or any, of the statutory consultees, or involving the wider community; and that the Council has acknowledged that it cannot meet the formal deadline for submission of this application to a Joint Planning Committee, our question is:-
“How do you propose to proceed now to ensure that following receipt of the reports above, meaningful consultations can take place across all aspects of this application, with all level of consultees – as in your Statement of Community Involvement, and in a negotiated time frame acceptable to all parties, and as you rightly refer are necessary to avoid HMG penalties?”
[NB. Questions from members of the public express personal views of the questioners and Waverley does not endorse any statements in any way and they do not reflect the views of Waverley Borough Council].
Minutes:
Three questions were received from members of the public in accordance with Procedure Rule 10. With regard to the first question from Mr H Alexander of Hambledon, at the commencement of this agenda item, the Mayor informed the questioner that he would not be invited to read out his question. He explained that it was not possible to deal with the question because the case referred to was being progressed by the Police and the Council’s legal advice was that no comment could be made at that time because it may prejudice any future proceedings.
The Mayor moved on to receive the following two questions:
i. from Mr David Beaman of Farnham
“The NPPF is quite clear in requiring all new residential developments to be sustainable including the provision of adequate transport facilities. Badshot Lea, where significant residential development is proposed, is currently served by an hourly Monday to Saturday daytime bus service that operates between Aldershot and Farnham then onto Godalming and Guildford. Under proposals issued by Surrey County Council that are currently open for consultation the section of route between Aldershot and Badshot Lea will be withdrawn completely whilst the number of journeys operated between Badshot Lea and Farnham is likely to be reduced from 10 to 6 or 7 journeys per day with the possibility of no service being provided at all on Saturdays. This reduction in bus service will inevitably affect the sustainability of any further residential development in Badshot Lea and would WBC confirm that when considering planning applications for any new residential development its transport sustainability will take account of any known future changes in bus service".
Cllr Brian Adams, Portfolio Holder for Planning, replied as follows:-
“Planning applications for significant housing schemes are accompanied by a Transport Assessment. We rely on the expert advice of Officers at Surrey County Council to consider these - they typically cover a range of issues including impact on the highway network, the availability of public transport, walking and cycling routes. The assessment will also assess the opportunities that development may offer in terms of improvement to transport infrastructure. The planning assessment will also take into account the wider social and economic benefits that new housing can bring such as meeting unmet local housing need.
Where changes to bus services are planned then that would be a matter for the Officers at the County Council to consider in their response as one of many factors affecting the sustainability of a development. This might include the positive impact new development will have on the viability of an existing bus service by increasing demand generated from additional residents.
Also, thanks to Waverley’s generous grants, Hoppa operates a Dial-a-ride scheme which offers free membership and everyone can take advantage of this for specific trips.”
ii. from Charles Orange on behalf of Alfold, Busbridge, Chiddingfold, Dunsfold, Hambledon, Hascombe, Shalford and Wonersh Parish Councils
“Our question relates to our concerns on the viability of the consultation process in progress on Planning Application WA/2015/2395 submitted by Dunsfold Park on 4th December 2015, currently expiring on 5th February 2016.
We refer you to the following: In summer 2015 the Council published a Special Edition of “Making Waves” seeking opinions from the wider community on the specific question of their preferences for the location of housing in the borough with 4 x Scenario Areas proposed by the applicant, to assist the Council in the preparation of their Spatial Strategy. Only some 3% of the population responded, with an inevitable emphasis from those in the borough who feel threatened by development in their own neighbourhood of a preference for Scenario 4. We still await the publication of essential reports for meaningful consultations to take place, i.e.
· WBC’s proposed Spatial Strategy – due in April
· Mott McDonald’s report on their current transport assessment
· SCC Infrastructure Plans and Proposals, with current financial implications for recent comprehensive budget cuts
Given that inadequate pre-application consultations, on any aspect of this multi-faceted application have taken place (orchestrated by WBC in accordance with their Statement of Community Involvement) between Dunsfold Park and all, or any, of the statutory consultees, or involving the wider community; and that the Council has acknowledged that it cannot meet the formal deadline for submission of this application to a Joint Planning Committee, our question is:-
“How do you propose to proceed now to ensure that following receipt of the reports above, meaningful consultations can take place across all aspects of this application, with all level of consultees – as in your Statement of Community Involvement, and in a negotiated time frame acceptable to all parties, and as you rightly refer are necessary to avoid HMG penalties?”
Cllr Adams, Portfolio Holder for Planning, gave the following reply:-
“The Council has consulted extensively on the planning application for 1800 houses and related infrastructure at Dunsfold Park.
Any impacts of the development and the means to mitigate them will be assessed in the normal way. This will include assessment by the Council’s professional officers of the submitted application and taking advice as necessary from statutory consultees such as the County Council and where necessary additional expert advice. You make reference to three reports:
Firstly the emerging spatial strategy in the Local Plan. The weight to be attached to this will be dependant on the stage it has reached when the application is decided. Secondly – the Mott MacDonald report – which will be published prior to a decision being made on the application. This report’s main purpose is to inform progress on the Local Plan rather than individual planning applications. The developer has submitted a transport assessment of the scheme which is currently being considered by the County Council and which will inform the outcome of the planning application.
Thirdly - the Surrey Infrastructure Study is a high level document produced by the County Council of limited relevance to this planning application. Any infrastructure impacts of the proposed new settlement are clearly very important and will be assessed in the normal way taking into account the views of the relevant infrastructure providers
You make reference to lack of pre application discussions – I’m afraid this is incorrect as the developer did receive advice from Officers prior to the submission of the planning application and also discussions with councillors in that area. I am confident that the Council has at its disposal access to the appropriate advice to ensure that its assessment of the planning application is undertaken in a timely manner, together with a detailed and thorough assessment of the relevant planning considerations. If third parties have yet to submit their comments on the planning application, I would encourage them to do so as soon as possible so that they can be properly considered by the Council.”