Council Deputy ‘Should Have Been Made Aware’ of the True Origin of SCC ‘Letter of Support’

Published on: 25 Apr, 2019
Updated on: 26 Apr, 2019

Cllr Hodge’s letter in support of GBC’s Wisley garden village proposal

Guildford’s two leading councillors say Surrey County Council and Guildford Borough Council are both compliant with the Nolan principle of “openness and transparency” over the controversial SCC “letter of support” for the Wisley Garden Village bid, although the truth of the letter’s origin were revealed only as a result of a Freedom of Information request.

The letter, written by Savills, agents for the developer, but badged as an official SCC letter, was presented, ostensibly, from David Hodge, outgoing leader of SCC, to Paul Spooner, leader of GBC.

The statements were in answer to further questions from The Guildford Dragon NEWS after GBC leader Paul Spooner’s admission that the letter drafted by Savills, agents of the Wisley developers, and eventually signed by SCC leader David Hodge, was given to GBC deputy leader Matt Furniss by Tracey Coleman, head of planning at GBC, or one of the female planning officers (he referred to “she”), and that Cllr Furniss did not know Savills had drafted the entire letter, except for a single sentence believed to have been added by Cllr Hodge.

Cllr Spooner does say Cllr Furniss should have been made aware of the origin of the draft. Although he says a decision about whether  there is an enquiry rests with the managing director and monitoring officer, he feels no apology is due.  Cllr Furniss thinks an enquiry is unnecessary.

Here are the questions sent to Cllrs Spooner and Furniss, James Whiteman, GBC managing director and Ms Coleman, head of planning. Their new responses are printed in full.

Cllr Paul Spooner

Questions to Cllr Spooner

Did you know anything of David Hodge’s “letter of support” before it arrived from Cllr Hodge?

Yes, I was expecting a letter of support from SCC. Why wouldn’t they support government funding for a key borough in Surrey?

Can you confirm that you did not know Savills had been asked to assist in drafting it?

Yes, I can confirm.

Did you know that Matt Furniss would be taking it from GBC to David Hodge?

No, but I see no issue in officers asking Cllr Furniss to approach the SCC leader and if I had been asked I would have been happy to approach SCC with a request to support a bid for government funding.

Given what you said at the hustings on May 15, will there be any enquiry into the actions by GBC’s planning officers in the matter?

This is a matter for the MD and the monitoring officer but, as stated above, I have no issue with SCC being asked for support. I think that Cllr Furniss should have been made aware of the origin of the draft so the SCC leader could also have been informed, but I have no issue with the principle of asking partner organisations for support for funding.

Will you be issuing an apology?

No, I am not even sure what I am being asked to apologise for.

Do you think that GBC presenting a SCC-badged letter, ostensibly written by the leader of SCC but in fact written by Savills is compliant with the Nolan principles relating to openness and transparency?

The fact that this was disclosed in an open and transparent way shows that the councils at SCC and GBC are being fully transparent.

Cllr Matt Furniss

Questions to Cllr Matt Furniss

Can you confirm that you did not know Savills had been asked to assist in drafting the “letter of support” you took to David Hodge?

I did not “take” the letter anywhere. I was asked to send it to Cllr Hodge which I did so as can be seen by the emails released through Freedom of Information.

I know detailed information was asked from Savills as the site promotor in order to put together the bid for funding.

It is important to have as much information as possible to support a bid for additional funding, as this would mean a better planning application being put forward with local input, not just the developers.

The government support is made available to councils with successful bids included:

• Resource funding which would ensure that the council is able to resource the Planning Department to enable them to manage the scale and complexity of applications efficiently, ensuring approval and delivery can be achieved as quickly as possible.
• Capacity funding – initial capacity funding would support the council in planning and delivering wider strategic proposals across the borough linked to and including proposals within Wisley Airfield Garden Village. This includes potential assistance with major strategic infrastructure, as identified in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan, and wider sustainable transport initiatives such as sustainable transport corridors focusing on cycling infrastructure.
• Delivery advice and support from Homes England  – the support of Homes England to assist in enabling the delivery of new homes and infrastructure by attracting private sector investments and loans would enable both homes and infrastructure to be delivered at an accelerated rate. The delivery of which would benefit from Homes England advice and support.
• Cross-government brokerage

If so, who did you think had drafted it?

The officer team at GBC put together the bid application for [the] government grant process.

Do you think that GBC presenting a SCC-badged letter, ostensibly written by the leader of SCC, but in fact written by Savills, is compliant with the Nolan principles relating to openness and transparency?

Nothing was hidden and the letter was disclosed in an open and transparent way under Freedom of Information [which] shows both GBC and SCC are being fully transparent.

Do you think there should be an enquiry into the actions by GBC’s planning officers in the matter?

No, the professional officers are a credit to Guildford and have worked hard throughout the process to get the best for the local area and its residents.

The purpose of this bid is to support GBC in making sure the best possible scheme is put forward for a strategic site and with local input, rather than relying on a private developer for all information.

James Whiteman

Questions to James Whiteman, MD:

1. Do you think that GBC presenting a SCC-badged letter, ostensibly written by the leader of SCC, but in fact written by Savills, is compliant with the Nolan principles relating to openness and transparency?
2. Do you think that if, as claimed by Cllr Spooner, Cllr Furniss was given the letter by GBC planning officer’s officers without informing him of its provenance, it was professional negligence?
3. Will you be ordering an enquiry into the actions by GBC’s planning officers in the matter so the public can be satisfied exactly who did what, when and why?
4. Do you believe the level of collaboration between GBC’s planning department and WPIL is proper and is what the public should expect?

Mr Whiteman responded: “Council officers have acted appropriately and followed the correct and proper process. The council is required to work collaboratively with relevant stakeholders when submitting funding bids and we take any allegations about our propriety very seriously.”

Tracey Coleman

Questions to Tracey Coleman, head of planning:

1. Why was the letter drafted by Savills?
2. Was your department not capable of drafting the letter?
3. Why should such a letter be drafted by Savills or GBC?
4. Did you not inform Cllr Furniss who had drafted the letter? If not, why not?
5. Do you believe the level of collaboration between GBC’s planning department and WPIL is proper and is what the public should expect?
6. Do you think that GBC presenting a SCC-badged letter, ostensibly written by the leader of SCC, but in fact written by Savills, is compliant with the Nolan principles relating to openness and transparency?

A council spokesperson said regarding the questions for Tracey Coleman: “There is nothing to add to the last statement from 8 April, some of which you quoted in a past article.”

Share This Post