‘IT’S MORALLY QUESTIONABLE’
Politicians from outside borough lobby Wokingham councillors over 2,500 homes plan for green belt ..
CONSERVATIVE councillors from other parts of the country have been sparking anger by asking borough councillors for their thoughts on a 2,500 home development in the green belt.
The Community Communications Partnership (CCP) is canvassing views for Berkeley Homes over a proposed scheme in Ruscombe, which would include a railway station, primary school, health centre, and relief road.
The company works on behalf of developers to champion building projects, and draws on the team’s knowledge as politicians.
Colin Dingwall and Paul Seeby, who are CCP associate directors and also Conservative councillors, have been ringing round here.
Outside of the Community Communications Partnership (CCP), Mr Dingwall is a Conservative councillor in West Oxfordshire District Council. He is also Chairman of Crawley Parish Council in West Oxfordshire.
Mr Seeby is also a Conservative councillor in Broxbourne Borough Council, and its deputy mayor.
The two have called all Wokingham Liberal Democrat, and many Conservative councillors to seek their views on development on either side of the London Paddington railway line in Ruscombe.
Neither of the two Labour councillors have been contacted, Wokingham.Today has been told.
The calls have been on behalf CCP client, the Berkeley Group, which says it is beginning to consult on outline proposals for east of Twyford.
The site was previously considered in a borough council master plan in 2018.
Cllr Stephen Conway, Liberal
Democrat councillor for Twyford, said he questions the ethics of the CCP.
“I think it’s morally questionable whether a councillor should act as a paid agent for development, even in another area,” Cllr Conway said.
“They’re making money from their councillor knowledge, and selling their services.
“It does not reflect well on what councillors should be doing.”
He said the planning process should not operate this way.
“It’s so morally wrong,” the councillor continued. “I would never dream of offering my services to developers for a fee.
“It is a practice I deplore. It’s very underhand – completely wrong.”
Cllr Conway said that because Mr Dingwall and Mr Seeby were not approaching councillors in their own boroughs, they were unlikely to be breaching a code of conduct.
He said: “In legal terms, there’s nothing wrong. On moral terms, I think it is wrong and cannot see that as acceptable.”
Cllr Conway said that he would not speak to the company about any plans for Twyford.
“The Liberal Democrat group has taken a very clear line,” he explained. “We will not be drawn into a game of identifying or recommending sites.”
Cllr Conway said that if one councillor’s ward is under pressure for development, it may be natural for them to suggest an alternative location.
He called this divide-andconquer tactics, and is concerned it could weaken the borough and lead to more development.
Council leader John Halsall was also angry about the group’s tactics.
“I will be formally objecting, as some Tory members are acting in a way which puts it into disrepute.
“It’s entirely wrong, a district councillor should not behave in this way. He is either a councillor or a promoter.”
Cllr Halsall said that he had spoken to his counterpart on the Wokingham Lib Dems, and empathised with Cllr Conway. “He is right to be furious about being approached by a serving district councillor,” he said.
“I find it completely immoral that a Tory councillor should be using the fact that he’s a Tory councillor to promote development.
“We are not engaging with this group in any way.”
Cllr Halsall said that “pretty much every developer is knocking on Wokingham’s door,” and that as a rule he didn’t speak to any promoters or developers; instead he has told his party to direct all enquiries to council officers to avoid any accusations that the process has been corrupt.
Council officers, he said, are best placed to learn what promoters want, with appropriate details brought to the planning committee if any schemes are put forward. Strict legal protocols are in place for these meetings.
Cllr Rachel Burgess, Labour group leader on Wokingham Borough Council, said she was not surprised to find that Conservative councillors
are lobbying on behalf of developers.
“Property developers donate hundreds of thousands to the Conservative Party every year, donating almost £900,000 in the first quarter of 2021 alone, and £11 million in Boris Johnson’s first year as prime minister,” she said.
“Developers are investing in the Conservative party and they want a return on their investment.
“The upcoming Conservative planning reforms will make matters worse for communities like Wokingham, removing the right to object to inappropriate development — the reforms are a developers’ charter and show that the Conservatives put developers before residents.”
Cllr Clive Jones, deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats, said he thought it was interesting that people outside of the borough want to develop in Wokingham.
He called the suggestion of a parkway rail station for Ruscombe and Twyford “pie-in-the-sky thinking” and questioned where the funding would originate from for a project of that scale.
CCP managing director Henry Lamprecht said: “The Localism Act 2011 requires local people to decide what happens in their area and where development, both housing and employment, and infrastructure gets built.
“The CCP facilitates and encourages these conversations and discussions and we would like to thank Wokingham.Today for helping us raise the profile of this further, stimulating debate.”
Mr Lamprecht added: “Colin and Paul are both in councils where their Local Plans are adopted and delivering that growth.”
At the moment, the borough council is working through a draft local plan update, identifying key sites for development in future years.
Earlier this year, it became clear that the plan for a garden village in
Grazeley was out of the question.
The borough council had previously hoped to build 15,000 homes there as a way to meet the annual housing targets for Wokingham over many years.
But this was called off due to the expansion of AWE Burghfield’s exclusion zone, which was contested in the courts.
It means the draft local plan update has been delayed.
Alongside Grazeley, two other sites were suggested in 2018: land at Barkham Square, and in Ruscombe on land between Twyford and Hare Hatch, on either side of the A3032 – the area where Berkeley is exploring.
However, nothing has been formally decided or put forward formally for potential development at this stage, and the Local Plan Update will be made available for draft consultation later this year. At this stage, residents will be able to offer their views on it.
Cllr Halsall said that demand from promoters and developers was because “Wokingham borough is an extremely desirable development territory.”
“The only way we can defend ourselves from these attacks is to have a local plan that has gone through its hoops, and that’s what we’re determined to deliver,” he said.
“I agree with people who say Wokingham has too much development, but I don’t agree with anybody who says we should have no development, because there is a general need for housing, particularly for first-time buyers and downsizers.”
And he added that Wokingham Borough Council’s 2018 report on the three potential developments can be seen from its local plan update section of its website, with a downloadable PDF available.