Agenda item

The Vice-Chairman, Councillor James Walsh, took the Chair for the item. 

The Vice-Chairman explained the background to the item and asked members of the Committee to focus on the issues relevant to the investigation, rather than wider issues relating to the Local Plan and the merits of specific sites. 

After brief remarks from the Council’s Monitoring Officer and Mr Heath [a consultant with the law firm VWV and author of the report submitted to the Committee], the Vice-Chairman invited the Lead Councillor for Economy to address the meeting.

The Lead Councillor for Economy suggested that the investigation and report into issues relating to the development of the former Wisley airfield, including the bid to Government submitted jointly by the Council and private sector partners, had taken nineteen months to reach the Committee.  He suggested that the investigation and its report would not allay concerns about the Council held by residents of Ockham and Wisley.  The Lead Councillor for Economy suggested that, in contrast to the conclusion of the report, further action was required by the Council in relation to the issues raised.

The Lead Councillor for Economy suggested that the Council had overstated its own role in the production of the Wisley Garden Village Bid document and sought to downplay the part played by the site owners in the bid.  He indicated that the document was biased and contained statements unlikely to have been authored by any council.  He advocated that in future the Council should be open, transparent, and precise about who prepares its documents.  In addition, he suggested that the then Leader of the Council had misled Council in December 2018 about the primary authorship of the bid document.  In conclusion, the Lead Councillor for Economy voiced concerns about the public’s perception of bias or influence if members of the Executive met developers and were also members of the Planning Committee.

Mr Heath advised the Committee that his investigation had noted the Council could have been more transparent in making available the information it held, the need for involvement of ward councillors, and the need for the Council’s Forward Plan to work effectively. 

A member of the Committee suggested that the investigation had not addressed key concerns; namely, why the lack of transparency about the role of the developer in preparing both the bid document and a supporting letter, and why the bid was so late that the overview and scrutiny call-in process was not feasible.  In response, Mr Heath referred to an issue raised within his report about the failure of the Forward Plan to give warning that the decision on the Garden Village bid would be made and his recommendation concerning the Committee ensuring better use of the Forward Plan.  In addition, Mr Heath indicated that Council officers had maintained that they had controlled the final content of the bid document. 

A member of the Committee referred to the damage to the Council’s reputation from the episode.  She suggested that Executive members should have known who was responsible for producing the bid document and that officers involved would have known the timescale to facilitate scrutiny or a possible call-in.  The member of the Committee indicated the need to minute meetings between the Council and private sector partners.

Another member of the Committee suggested the actions of the Council in relation to the garden village bid appeared corrupted by the interests of the owner of the former Wisley airfield site.  He questioned the lack of investigation of the supporting letter submitted by the LEP (Local Enterprise Partnership) and whether or not the Council had paid partners for their involvement in the bid preparation.  In response, Mr Heath confirmed that the issue of payments for the bid preparation was reviewed by a previous investigation and was outside the terms of reference of his report.

The Vice-Chairman invited the Chairman of the Committee to respond to the discussion.  The Chairman welcomed the investigation and report, and suggested its findings aligned with those of a previous report into the garden village bid.  He indicated that the preparation of a garden village bid for the former Wisley airfield site was rushed at its deadline due to a failure to manage the project.  He suggested ward members should have been more involved in the bid, indicated the importance of using the Forward Plan, and upheld the principle of seeking information from other stakeholders and the value in Lead Councillors speaking to developers alongside officers. 

The meeting was advised that the Council’s Corporate Governance task group was looking at transparency issues and would be an appropriate forum to review issues identified by the Committee.

RESOLVED: That the Council’s Corporate Governance task group be requested to review the following matters: 

(I)         the Council’s Constitution regarding the definition and processes for 'Key Decisions' so that any bids, tenders or other activities that may lead to key decisions in future are included in the Forward Plan or communicated to relevant Ward Councillors in a sufficiently timely manner for transparency;

(II)         how we can ensure that any meetings involving lead members, officers and the private sector are minuted and available in the public domain; and 

(III)       how we can ensure that any failings in transparency or procedure are communicated to the public by the Council as soon as identified.