Lib Dems Tackle Lack of Openness at GBC in Wake of Revelations

Published on: 8 Nov, 2018
Updated on: 8 Nov, 2018

Cllrs Caroline Reeves, Colin Cross and Paul Spooner are at the centre of the row following the late notice decision to make a bid for a government grant to help plan a garden community at the former Wisley Airfield.

Lib Dem councillors are now challenging the council’s Conservative Executive about the perceived culture of secrecy on how decisions are made.

Their questions come in the wake of The Guildford Dragon’s published opinion about a lack of council transparency and questions raised about the communication of the decision to make a bid for government money to prepare a plan for a “Garden Village” at the former Wisley Airfield site.

Although questions from The Dragon to the Council Leader Paul Spooner (Con, South Ash & Tongham) have revealed that a decision was made back in August, when he gave the go-ahead, it seems no non-Executive councillor was informed or consulted, not even the local ward member for Lovelace (Ripley, Wisley & Ockham), Cllr Colin Cross who resigned as a Lib Dem over the issue.

The council leader also appeared to point a finger at his council officers telling The Dragon we would have to ask them why the decision was not communicated. A statement later issued by the council failed to address the question.

The chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, Cllr Reeves (Lib Dem, Friary & St Nicolas) was also left out of the loop. She was first informed of the bid on October 29, when it was added as a late item on the agenda for the Executive just over 24-hours before their meeting.

The bid had a closing date of November 9, leaving no time for a “call-in” of the decision for scrutiny, so Cllr Reeves felt pressurised to formally agree she would not “call it in” for consideration.

Cllr Reeves said: “The council is being challenged regarding the increasing lack of openness and transparency from this Conservative administration. The relationship of the Executive with residents and with back-bench councillors of all parties is deteriorating rapidly, with more items being kept as confidential or only published at the very last minute.

“Residents and councillors are denied the opportunity to properly scrutinise and challenge the decisions they make. It is particularly noticeable that ward councillors of any political party are rarely alerted to decisions being made. This is a long-standing complaint about the decision-making process which needs to be resolved.”

Cllr Reeves added that her agreement that the bid decision could not be called-in was “on balance”, based on the knowledge that delaying submission of the bid to arrange an O&S committee meeting to evaluate the matter would overrun the bid deadline.

She also understood that this was not a planning application and the bid may fail. If the bid did succeed, it would mean more funding would be available to achieve a better design and improved local infrastructure in the event of a successful planning application.

Cllr Reeves has now submitted questions for the Council’s Corporate Governance and Standards committee about the process which created the need for a last-minute decision regarding call-in on the “Garden Village” bid, seeking clear answers about the timing and who knew what and when they knew it.

In a Lib Dem press release, specific questions were posed for the Conservative leadership:

1: When did the Executive and council officers know the matter would go to the Executive for decision? Why wasn’t it on the Forward Plan, which “sets out details of the various decisions that the Executive and full council are likely to take over the next 12 months in so far as they are known at the time of publication”.

2: All key decisions [those likely to result in expenditure or savings of £200,000 or have a significant impact on two or more wards] are required to be publicised in the Forward Plan at least 28 days before the relevant Executive decision. Again, why was this requirement not met? Is it not a key decision?

3: Section 32 of the Garden Communities Prospectus states: ‘We expect the submission of a proposal to have been preceded by a period of engagement with the Department [MHCLG] and Homes England, and encourage initial contact to be made as early as possible.’ When did the council first contact the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government about a Bid?

Cllr Reeves added: “It was quite wrong for me to be put in this position of having to make a last-minute, quick decision on the call-in process. It suggests a lack of respect from the Executive for both the Overview & Scrutiny committee and for the opinions of back-bench councillors.

“Liberal Democrat councillors are demanding clear answers about why this happened, with facts published by the council so that there is no need for leaks to social media to raise concerns.”

Responses to Lib Dems Tackle Lack of Openness at GBC in Wake of Revelations

Jules Cranwell Reply

November 8, 2018 at 1:38 pm

This is due to a staggering level of arrogance on the part of the leadership.

They feel they have grabbed executive powers, and can act with impunity, ignoring the public, councillors, and all committees.

I predict that the toothless Corporate Governance and Standards committee will do nothing.

Guildford is being run along the lines of Putin’s Russia.

Dongying has brought us so much benefit, maybe it’s time we twinned with Novograd?
Keith Parkins Reply

November 9, 2018 at 7:30 pm

Councillors tend to forget, they are there to serve the public and to scrutinise what is put before them, all of which should be done in an open and transparent manner.

They are not there as too many seem to think to ego trip and get their snouts in the trough.

We have a failing of local government across the country.

Equally a failing of local press, which simply regurgitates press releases without question and calls it news.

Guildford Dragon is a rare exception to the norm.

We have seen major failings and no one held accountable:

– shipping containers in a car park called a “Village”

– work over schedule in Tunsgate

– an elderly couple unnecessarily locked in at Tunsgate

– the disaster of Tunsgate Quarter.

We have to completely rethink local government.

We need to look to Barcelona and Madrid where local people have taken control of their Town Halls, opened all meetings to public participation.
- George Potter Reply
  
  November 12, 2018 at 11:15 am
  
  I wonder if Keith Parkins is aware that, of the four issues he’s listed, only The Village is the responsibility of the borough council.
  
  The Tunsgate refurbishment and “disaster” (as he puts it) were all the venture of a private company that owns the site. And when it comes to the couple who found themselves locked in on Tunsgate street, that’s obviously an awful incident but also tends to be par for the course in the first few weeks following the part-time pedestrianisation of a street.
  
  That’s not to say that there aren’t flaws in local government (because there are many), but if he is going to criticise it helps to blame the correct people. There are plenty of things to blame GBC for without blaming it for things it has no control over.