AT the full council meeting of Waverley Borough Council (WBC) on Tuesday, July 17 there was obviously some misunderstanding of why I proposed deferring a decision regarding proposed investment of £3.2 million in Farnham and Godalming Leisure Centres.

As a member and frequent user of Farnham Leisure Centre I appreciate the benefits to be gained from investment and fully support the proposals. I have incidentally yet to see any other Waverley councillor using Farnham Leisure Centre although on one occasion I have seen a Farnham town councillor using these excellent facilities.

On reading the recommendation which had been made by WBC’s executive committee one week earlier on July 10 I had a number of questions that I thought needed to be asked. It transpired that the deadline for asking questions at the full council was one hour 45 minutes BEFORE the meeting of the executive committee commenced which meant that no questions could be asked of this or indeed any other decision made by any meeting of the executive committee held seven days before meetings of full council as is generally the situation.

I attended the meeting of the executive committee on July 10 at which I had asked a question on why Borelli Walk was having to be used as a temporary access road during construction of the proposed bridge from the A31 to the East Street development site to which the leader Julia Potts had given an assurance that all options had been considered and that there was no other alternative to using Borelli Walk – an assurance over which I am still far from convinced but that I have had to reluctantly accept.

I was, therefore, aware of the decision that had been made regarding the leisure centres but it was not until I (and all other 47 councillors who are not members of the executive committee) received supporting papers for the meeting of full council which were dated Friday, July 13 that we were formally made aware of the decision (three days or one working day since weekends and the day of the meeting itself do not count before the full council meeting when four clear working days have to be given for questions to full council).

It has, however, been pointed out that the proposed recommendations had been published earlier than July 10 but final decisions are actually only made at the meeting of the executive committee itself after the deadline for questions to the full council has passed. This is not democracy in action and highlights the unacceptable dominance of just nine councillors on the executive committee all personally chosen by the leader none of whom are opposition members in making strategic decisions that affect everybody.

As for the decision regarding the leisure centres I withdrew my proposal to defer the decision when the Leader assured me that answers to the questions I had asked had been set by e-mail to me which I had not seen and  I accepted in good faith. On checking my e-mail on returning home sure enough there was an email timed at 4.20pm (two hours 40  minutes before the meeting of full council commenced) which again I have had to reluctantly accept.

I still question whether it is right to use capital funds released from the sale of East Street to Crest Nicholson to invest in improvements in leisure centres – surely such investments should be made from profits made which are currently paid to WBC by Places for People who operate the leisure centres as a management charge and profit share. It must be remembered that leisure centres are a commercial activity operating in a very competitive environment with several other leisure centres operating in the Farnham area and that using capital receipts from land sales could be considered as an anti competitive practice by a Conservative administration would condemn such practices in other local authorities under other political control. 

I certainly question whether it is right to use capital funds released from sale of land in Farnham to fund improvements to Godalming Leisure Centre – it seems that the jam of financial benefits from the East Street development are being thinly spread across all Waverley rather being ploughed entirely back into Farnham as one might have expected. In short Farnham’s assets are being stripped to benefit other areas of Waverley and perhaps those supporters of the East Street development should think very carefully about this when the Waverley elections are held next May.

At least one member of the executive committee has subsequently resorted to social media stating that the Farnham Residents and the lone Liberal Democrat councillor Paul Fellows are against investment in leisure centres. This is so far from the truth! As a user of Farnham Leisure Centre I fully appreciate and fully support much needed investment in the leisure centres but since leisure centres are a commercial activity operating in a competitive environment such investment should be from profits made and not from using capital receipts from land sales.

As for the decisions of the executive committee not being open to question I understand that his matter will now be referred to the council’s standards committee for consideration of an amendment to WBC’s Constitution. The fact that such a situation appears to have existed for so long only serves to demonstrate how acquiescent most existing Conservative councillors have been in failing the electorate in not questioning decisions made by an unrepresentative executive committee. One can only hope that changes will be made to ensure that all members of full council can have their say when decisions are made and that all power does not solely rest with a small executive committee that is personally chosen by the leader rather than the full council which is democratically elected.

*David Beaman, WBC and FTC councillor, Farnham Residents - Farnham Castle Ward