‘Veil of Secrecy’ Claim Over Wisley Proposals Denied by Planning Councillor

Published on: 7 Sep, 2015
Updated on: 9 Sep, 2015

Accusations that Guildford planners are drawing a “veil of secrecy” over their negotiations with the company hoping to develop green belt land at the former Wisley airfield have been denied by Guildford Borough Council’s (GBC) lead councillor for planning.

The accusation from Tony Edwards, a committee member of the Wisley Action Group (WAG), follows a letter of July 29 from council leader Stephen Mansbridge to the the group confirming that GBC was “having regular progress meetings” with Wisley Property Investments (WPI) which would “enable the local planning authority to monitor the position closely”.

The letter to the Wisley Action Group that led to an accusation of secrecy.

The letter from Stephen Mansbridge was in response to a letter from WAG which listed other agencies and groups who had objected to the Wisley development proposals including: Thames Water, Surrey County Council Highways Department, Highways England, Surrey Wildlife Trust, the RSPB, and Elmbridge Borough Council.

The WAG campaigners asked for confirmation that the meetings with the developers would be minuted but they were told that the council would only take minutes “where this is necessary” and that it would depend on the nature and purpose of the meeting.

GBC’s principal planning officer, Paul Sherman, also advised in an email to WAG of August 11, that “we may seek to agree ‘action points’ rather than taking formal minutes” and later complained that he was not aware that his email would be quoted in the media.

Tony Edwards.

WAG committee member Tony Edwards, a professional PR consultant, replied to the council officer: “It would seem logical that each and every meeting will take place within the framework of a specific agenda so that full and accurate minutes will be essential to your stated pursuit of openness and transparency.”

A formal Freedom of Information (FOI) request was made by WAG for copies of the minutes of the planned “regular progress meetings” to which Cllr Mansbridge originally referred.

Mr Edwards continued: “So far, a veil of secrecy seems to have been drawn over the on-going negotiations between Wisley Property Investments and Guildford planners.

“Our FOI request of July 31st was acknowledge shortly after so that we are now beyond the normal 20 working days for an official response.

“Cllr Mansbridge has made it clear that he will be having regular meetings about the Wisley ‘new town’ proposal with Wisley Property Investments to address the many objections to the plan. But it is equally clear that, at the moment, they will only be minuted when GBC thinks fit.”

“We believe that all meetings related to a planning application of this size and importance should be minuted as a matter of public interest and to ensure the clarity and transparency about which Guildford regularly boasts.”

Cllr Paul Spooner.

But the lead councillor for planning, Cllr Paul Spooner (Con, Ash South & Tongham), claimed that there was no “veil of secrecy”.

He said: “I am disappointed by the latest Anthony Edwards Publicity PR release on behalf of Wisley Action Group. I do not accept that GBC are drawing a ‘veil of secrecy’ on the application and I am confident that officers are primarily meeting the applicant on an infrequent basis to receive updates in relation to normal planning matters such as their progress with statutory consultees and so on.

“I am also confident that notes are taken of formal meetings between officers and the applicant. There is nothing unusual in this process.

“As far as I am aware Cllr Mansbridge as leader has not met the applicant in relation to this application since I became the lead member for planning in May. I can also confirm that neither have I.

“As this is an active planning application I do not wish to make any further comment on Mr Edwards misplaced PR.”

Mike Murray on behalf of Wisley Property Investments later stated: “Wisley Airfield contains the largest brownfield site in Guildford’s green belt and constitutes a significant contribution to Guildford’s urgent housing need, including up to 800 new affordable homes.

“As you might expect from an application of this scale and importance, and as is typical both before and after a planning application, we have been in ongoing dialogue with the Guildford Borough Council to discuss technical details of the plans to ensure we bring forward the best possible development for the Guildford area.

“In a recent survey [of a sample from across Guildford Borough] undertaken by the independent polling agency, Marketing Means, 46% of respondents were supportive of the proposals for Wisley Airfield and only 30% were opposed, whilst [another survey] showed 65% of under-35s support development at Wisley Airfield. ”

Responses to ‘Veil of Secrecy’ Claim Over Wisley Proposals Denied by Planning Councillor

Adrian Atkinson Reply

September 8, 2015 at 9:01 am

With regards to minute and note taking, I would have thought it not only prudent to do so but would also be in the council’s interest to banish all doubt in what is a very controversial application for a number of reasons.

WPI has already has said an agreement was reached with The Highways Agency (HA) with regards to traffic flow adjustments. However, it was clear from HA objection letter of 30th March that no agreement had been made.

Perhaps people are dancing around wording here. If “notes” are being taken, does that mean that, as the FOI talked about “minutes”, those “notes” are not going to be made available?
- Barnaby Lawrence Reply
  
  September 9, 2015 at 11:40 am
  
  I am extraordinarily surprised the the planning department is having any meeting at all with the developers.
  
  I wanted to put in a planning application for the addition of one bedroom to my house, but when I tried to meet with the planners to discuss what I wanted to achieve, and whether it was possible within the constraints that the council would have imposed. They told me that they did not meet with individual applicants and that the way it was done was to submit an application which would be judged on the merits of what was contained in the application itself.
  - Adrian Atkinson Reply
    
    September 9, 2015 at 5:42 pm
    
    I think that is the very reason people are so keen on understanding what has been said by and to who.
  - Paul Spooner Reply
    
    September 10, 2015 at 4:07 pm
    
    Pre-application advice is always available, but is not free. Officers do also try to assist applicants once they have submitted an application within reason, but the use of a planning consultant is recommended.
Ben Paton Reply

September 8, 2015 at 10:18 am

Mr Mansbridge’s spokesman seems good at stating that black is white.

For example, he refused to accept the established fact that GBC has not until recently built any social houses for twenty years. Combined with selling off council houses this has contributed to the shortage of social housing in the borough.

When I pointed this out in a letter to The Guildford Dragon NEWS
https://guildford-dragon.com/2015/05/01/letter-building-on-the-green-belt-requires-exceptional-circumstances/#comments,
Mr Spooner wrote: “Despite engaging with Guildford Greenbelt Group (GGG) following their erroneous claims in their election literature (and in Mr Paton’s letter) they continue to make the untrue statement that Guildford Borough Council (GBC) has not invested in social housing (council houses) for the past 20 years.”

Although I have pointed out (in The Dragon) that this fact is stated in the council’s financial report and accounts and clearly stated by former Cllr Creedy in a video interview, Mr Spooner has not had the courtesy to retract or correct his comments or give an apology.

Is it not important to get the facts right?

Why hasn’t the council published the facts about housing need i.e. the GL Hearn housing model, for example?
Paul Spooner Reply

September 8, 2015 at 3:34 pm

In response to Mr Paton, it is important to get the facts right and I have already exhausted this discussion. Media coverage showing council homes confirms that GBC has indeed invested in new homes within the last 20 years. No retraction or apology by me is therefore necessary or appropriate.
Ben Paton Reply

September 8, 2015 at 10:21 pm

Presumably Mr Spooner is referring to media coverage such as this news report in the Dragon:
https://guildford-dragon.com/2014/11/28/first-new-council-homes-for-20-years-are-completed/

It appears to be accepted by all parties that their was, until recently, a 20 year gap when no social housing was built by GBC. However it would not be accurate to say that there has been none built in the last 20 years, i.e. 20 years to date, as a small number have been built within the last two years. Ed
Jules Cranwell Reply

September 9, 2015 at 8:04 pm

Nothing this discredited council has recently uttered convinces me they have learned any lessons.

They listen to the inhabitants, then just ignore them. When will they ever learn?
Adrian Atkinson Reply

September 9, 2015 at 9:47 pm

Mr Cranwell describes quite correctly the difference between the council hearing but not listening.
Janette Panton Reply

September 10, 2015 at 8:14 am

There is a veil of secrecy in many aspects of this proposed development. We don’t know who the investors are, or how they have obtained their money.

GBC appears to be happy these investors do not wish to disclose their identity, despite this possibility.

The very least GBC should be doing is ensuring that all of their own dealings in relation to this planning application are fully transparent, which includes minuting all meetings.

As Mr Cranwell says – when will they ever learn?