‘I Resign From The GBC Executive With Immediate Effect’

Published on: 27 Aug, 2019
Updated on: 31 Aug, 2019

Cllr Susan Parker

Susan Parker’s resignation from the Executive might have been a surprise to many but tensions between her and her Executive colleagues, caused by disquiet over a range of issues, have been simmering for some time.

See also: GBC Executive Shock as GGG’s Susan Parker Resigns Over ‘Conduct’ Claim

This is the text of Cllr Parker’s resignation letter to Council Leader Caroline Reeves, in full.

Dear Caroline

I am writing to resign from the Executive with immediate effect.

I have been uncomfortable for some time with a number of the decisions made by the Executive as led by you. I feel that I can no longer be a part of this Executive.

Reasons for this decision include the following:

1. Failure to review the Local Plan

I was invited to be part of an Executive that would review the Local Plan on coming into office. Far from this being the case, no such review has started and there does not seem to be any such review being meditated. The Local Plan, as promoted by the previous Tory administration, is being implemented in full, and with all speed. This is a breach of the implied promises to the electorate by yourselves, by R4GV, and of course the direct and specific promises of GGG.   I cannot support an administration that is wedded wholly to the unsustainable, environmentally disastrous and unnecessary Local Plan.

2. Inadequate response to the Judicial reviews

The Judicial Review proceedings, initiated by members of the public, offered Guildford Borough Council an opportunity to rethink and review the Local Plan proceedings.  This could have been supported by the Executive (and preliminary discussions at Executive level considered this, and it was an initiative I strongly supported). Having taken the decision not to join the judicial reviews, the Executive could have decided not to oppose the judicial reviews in turn. Now, unfortunately, you have instead chosen to defend these vigorously.  Even the second QC (whose advice was solicited following a motion proposed by myself but who gave his advice when I was absent on holiday) apparently was not invited to consider whether it was possible to challenge the plan. This is not exactly the impartial reconsideration for which I believe the Council voted.

3. Failure to start a brownfield review

The same motion that determined the appointment of a second QC also determined that there should be a review of the brownfield capacity of the town. This is a major step in limiting the environmental damage for the plan. The plan, with sites reallocated to the urban area, and the scale of the strategic allocation being reduced to the required housing target, could be much more environmentally sustainable.  (It might, with goodwill,  involve only finding sites for some 500-700 homes on existing brownfield, saving all green field sites, including those beyond the green belt in Ash and Tongham. This would be an triumph for sustainability.) Instead, I learn that no brownfield review is taking place, despite a full Council motion to approve this.

4.  Inadequate response to Climate Change

I was offered the portfolio of the Environment and Rural Strategy in your Executive, which I accepted gladly. However, since taking up that portfolio, there have been repeated steps taken by you to limit the scope of the portfolio.  We have never had a discussion about the role or its responsibilities, despite the fact that I have asked for this repeatedly.  Most significantly, I would have expected that the Environment portfolio would have included responsibility for Climate Change.  No member of the Executive has responsibility for Climate Change – you have instead said that this goes across all portfolios, and the previous Climate Change working group has been watered down and re-incorporated within the Innovation group. (Note – this is where it was sited before the first motion to recognise a Climate Emergency, introduced under the last administration by the GGG councillor David Reeve). This to me is not taking the problem of Climate Change seriously. Climate change is a crisis facing the whole world. It cannot be resolved merely by minor technological steps, but requires a root and branch reconsideration of every aspect of council policy. Policy driven by innovation and economic growth cannot by themselves address the matter.

5. Inadequate response re Air Quality

Other areas where scope has been limited include a number of initiatives that I have proposed which have been restricted.  We know that there is an air quality crisis in our area; and we also know that the steps taken in Compton, and the proposed steps to be taken in Shalford, are unlikely to have significant impact. However, I have proposed some steps to reduce particulates by planting hedges at kerbsides and to start an active programme of tree-planting across the borough. I had initial discussions with members of the public, including Extinction Rebellion, who had proposed volunteers for tree-planting, and I had asked officers to identify suitable sites.  However, no sites were even postulated, and no action has been taken in this regard. This is a disappointment.

6. Indequate response re Plastic

Plastic is a major concern for all the borough, but I am afraid that the steps which GBC is taking and has taken (such as limiting the use of plastic beakers within GBC) are far too limited. We need to take much bolder and more confident action to reduce the use of single-use or packaging plastic across the borough including promoting this in retail entities. I have flagged other initiatives taken by other boroughs but had no response.. I had set up a meeting to discuss this further but again there is no will to take active changes.

7.  Limitation on the role of the Environment portfolio

In my absence on holiday, and without discussing it with me, you defined the role that I was offered in writing to the Overview and Scrutiny committee; the first that I was aware of this was to see your email addressed to other councillors (but then, since we have never met to discuss my role, it couldn’t have been discussed between us). I am afraid that I do not accept that “Green town through green growth” is an acceptable way forward. What does this mean – do you mean to suggest that if a solar panel is put on a house, an out-of-town development becomes a green initiative? I am afraid I do not accept this.

8. Failure to address environmental standards in housing design

At the initial meeting of Group leaders, roles and committees were agreed, and you agreed that there should be a committee to discuss the standards that would be implemented in the Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs) that should accompany the Local Plan. In the Climate Change working group that met for 3 sessions in the last administration, it was agreed that the climate standards for the new homes that Guildford will be building was of the utmost importance, and that these must be subject to the highest possible constraints in terms of environmental efficiency. Far from starting this process as a priority, this committee has never met, and when I reminded you of it,  you had forgotten and I needed to draw your attention to the minute of that early meeting when it had been agreed.  If we build homes which are to passive-house standards (not using energy to run) then this will help us to meet a zero-carbon target, particularly if we site such homes in more environmentally sustainable locations.  Failing to address this matter, and assuming that this can be left to the tender mercies of the planning department does not inspire confidence.

9. Planning committee meeting – August

You commented adversely on the letter that I wrote to the Guildford Dragon which criticised the chair of the Planning Committee and the position taken by officers at that committee, in relation to a number of anomalous decisions taken, including a repeat vote on a decision relating to Send where good planning grounds were provided by a councillor but disregarded.   I stand by that letter in its entirety. I consider that the role of elected members is to use their judgement, intelligence and sense to weigh alternatives. If councillors only follow the lead provided by officers, what are they for?  The planning committee has a responsibility and a duty to challenge the recommendations of officers.  I do not accept that no member of the Executive can be permitted to criticise the operations of the council; if the Council is run by officers who cannot be criticised or challenged, then what on earth is the point of elected members?  I will now take this opportunity to make a formal complaint about the planning committee which I consider did not follow due process.

10. Complaint about Enforcement – failure to enforce when industrial spoil is being spread over AONB pasture land

You are aware that I have made a formal complaint about officers in the planning and enforcement teams. I stand by my actions.  I consider that the public would be very concerned about industrial spoil being spread on AONB pasture, and I do consider that this a matter that Enforcement should have taken seriously. You informed me that I should not have made such a complaint, and that  this is a breach of GDPR guidelines. I am afraid that I cannot see that referring to Residents ABCD & E [sic] is a breach of GDPR. I also do not accept that members of the Executive should not be permitted to criticise officers. I am sure that the public would be most concerned to hear that the rubble from a garage and car maintenance workshop (involving oil and other contaminants) is being spread on pastureland.  Instead of taking this matter seriously, as I would have expected, both officers, the planning and enforcement teams, and you yourself, have chosen to attack me. You have alleged a GDPR breach; I dispute this.

11. Executive failure

I have no confidence in your Executive or its ability to make decisions.  There is no vision, and no coherent strategy within your administration.  The Liberal Democrats have 17 seats out of 48, merely, but have been acting as though you have an overall majority.  You have not accepted that there is a cross-party coalition and have behaved as though you have overall control. It will be recognised within the borough that your decisions and your leadership are propped up by the Tory party that the borough voted to reject. GGG councillors will vote according to their conscience on all matters henceforward and will not feel any need to support your administation.

Yours sincerely,

Susan Parker

Party leader, GGG

Borough councillor, Send

Share This Post